I think green is a compromise between zero effect ie: do oneself in and have no kids and the complete and horrible opposite extreme. It's all very tricky finding your own place in between the two. Can be disheartening at times, but I think I'm right in thinking that 99.99% of the green building forum members have, at least, got their hearts in the right place. It's a start.

I was thinking this the other day. As this is the Green Building site then then really it should be about low impact materials and techniques.

Good stuff, Tom

Tom; I doubt you will convince the masses of your philosophical approach to human existance, especially if they have to go without their trinkets. Personally, I'm not quite sure what you are advocating. You say we are Nature, which one would assume to mean we need to live in balance with the rest. Yet how does that square with us gobbling up resources, or exterminating other species, in our race to self-fulfillment, simply because "Nature", "the Planet", will mend itself? The ebb and flow of that very process would probably be too long and too late for us, as a species, and recycling will not solve all demand . You seem to suggest that our planet has chosen us humans over all other life forms, a notion many would reject. That somehow our "superior? " intellect is "liked" by the planet. I'll remember that when I see the next pictures of another million acres of prime forest turned over to monoculture or worse, and all the sunbathing plants are no more.

Thinking about the solar thing, my favourite topic (except today as working on the climate effected natural disaster stuff, very topical) if we know how much energy we need to survive and we know how much solar energy is hitting the ground and we can accurately calculate the efficiencies (plants are pretty poor but ST is pretty good) then it should be possible to calculate how many square metres each individual will need during a lifespan. This would not exclude mining and using earth resources, just that if you used a tonne of concrete, oil or iron, you would need more square metres, unless that tonne of concrete was used and designed to last many decades (think hydro electric dams).
Along side that many populations rise and fall in numbers, it is a well understood, observed, modelled and tested phenomena, part of the misunderstanding is that we can calculate this and know what the outcome is, our intellect makes us better off than bacteria (but we are both capable of killing the host) because we can do something about it. There will come a point in the future where our concept of being 'human' will change and we will act differently, I suspect that, that point is when we hit a peak population and see too much suffering (think how charities operate to disasters/human and animal suffering).
Is it all doom and gloom, I don't think so, is it unequal, yes it is. Does an individual who builds a 'green' house make a difference, yes as they are testing the technologies that we will carry forward into the future. Are we hampered by governmental/social/financial/ethical/commercial restraints and conventions, yes we are, but are they a bad things in themselves, probably not as one has to balance the safety of individuals against the common long term good. Think what Alfred Nobel achieved by killing his brother, he made a mistake and rather than give up he carried on in a different direction offering rewards to people that had done good work (well initially good work as some have a down side).
In sustainable economics there are systems that attempt to put a price or value on nature and resources. One of the fundamentals of this is substitution and capital swapping, which leads back to what is a 'green' building. If we can design and build something that has a neutral impact overall then there is not a problem, how we calculate that neutral impact is because what is important to one person is irrelevant to another, but a society will slowly drift towards the most acceptable lowest common denominator. In this instance that is a good thing, not like television content, which is a bad thing.

Except in my 30 years experience ( since age 20) mankind ( & especially womankind) ONLY want nature on their terms, once a dwelling is built they start "improving" ie banish rats and weeks & use plenty of chemicals in the garden etc etc, etc etc.
and yes unless we are going to live like some of the forest dwelling tribes man is a pollution on the face of the planet, simply & absolutly.
I feel we did our bit by only having two children, its a small start,
............. but hey we build a right cub of a house,(heated with our own biomass mind) and enjoy driving cars.
I have also allowed 30 acres to revert to nature as opposed to farming it, & it was reasonably productive grassland before.
BUT we dont do foreign holidays ie NO flying.
( but I would intend/hope to in our retirment, BUT stay for at least a month at each flights end)
compromise compromise

Posted By: orangemannotGreen building is kinda like Military intelligence
An oxymoron I tink

Then it's nearly the end of the human story as far as you're concerned, because to you the future is an extrapolation of the past. History shows that the future has never been that, ever. That's why the finest and the most evil plans always work out significantly different to expectation, sooner or later.

Posted By: SteamyTeathe misunderstanding is that we can calculate this and know what the outcome is

The only way to influence the future is to envisage it.

Posted By: SteamyTeaDoes an individual who builds a 'green' house make a difference, yes as they are testing the technologies that we will carry forward into the future

"Thoughts Become Things".