Putting environmentalism in a relevant context . . . if not for people, then why? 
If, as William McDonough (1) says, “Design is the first signal of human intention”, have we designed our businesses to provide the intended environmental outcomes we seek for future generations? And how will the outcome affect not only basic issues of birth/life/death, but also social governance, conflict, democracy, and prosperity?
Although the cartoon highlights food, it could just as easily address any of the seemingly insurmountable challenges associated with population growth.
Whether one subscribes to either side of the Global Warming debate, worries about the earth’s carrying capacity (2), or simply wants to hide under a turnip leaf, the future will be more populous than the present (3).
A more populous future is a future to be celebrated. Globally, the annual population growth is approximately 78,000,000. However, within that calculation are 6,000,000 children under the age of 5 who never make it to their 5th birthday.
Goal 4 of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (5) seeks a 2/3 reduction of under-5 child mortality by 2015. (We conservatives too often switch channels when the UN comes on, but you’ll want to sit tight for a few minutes.)
How’s Goal 4 progressing? Be encouraged, and enjoy:
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/reducing-child-mortality-a-moral-and-environmental-imperative/
What’s this have to do with building materials?
Answering such important questions is one of the many challenges we face as we try to pinpoint our role within so broad a universe as “sustainability”. Recruiting and encouraging others to join in is highly dependent upon our ability to gather our reasons into a context and relevance in order to answer the questions, “What can I do, where do I start, and how do I know it’ll help?”.
____________________________
(2) Wikipedia.org, Carrying Capacity
(3) Wikipedia.org, World Population
(4) Wikipedia.org, Child Mortality Rate
(5) Wikipedia.org, Millennium Development Goals
