I tend to agree with this. The current ‘civilization’ paradigm is not sustainable in any way we can come up with. The maths is just not there. Nature has the most efficient way to convert the energy we receive from the sun to something useful (life).
Anything that we try to do better is doomed to failure. It is not even to our advantage to try to beat nature. Just let it go and it will sustain itself and us with it.
If we observe nature and just take our share of food by using some clever ways to get it, we work a lot less than trying to produce some tons of the same plants (say cabbage) from a square mile. If we let nature go, it might not produce a few tons of cabbages, but will produce a variety of plants and animals that will lead to a real sustainable cycle only because of the variety it will provide.
Look at fishermen today that are able to provide food for many people using those special nets. They do work a lot and hard, when they are fishing but they are not fishing all the time. When they do fish, they provide food for a lot more people than themselves and their family.
>>> “In fact, our civilization’s sustainability is zero. Aside from the pollution, poisoning and intoxication that we leave around us, our mostly western civilization has used natural resources at the rate of 3 to 4 times in excess of what Mother Earth so generally provides us with. We, the west, had passed the threshold of One in the mid-sixties. In Africa and most of Asia, the rate of depletion is still way below the factor of One, on average somewhere between 0.4 and 0.6. “
www.sott.net/article/442305-The-insanity-of-elite-defined-sustainability