obligatory

• home
• mfop2

archives

• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• December 2003
• November 2003
• October 2003
• September 2003
• August 2003
• July 2003
• June 2003
• May 2003
• April 2003
• March 2003
• February 2003
• January 2003
• December 2002
• November 2002
• October 2002
• September 2002
• August 2002
• July 2002
• June 2002
• May 2002
• April 2002
• February 2000

recent

• Backed-up
• First Snow
• Bus Window
• Farm & Ski
• Color
• Body of Evidence
• Bridge
• More Stupidity
• Leading vs. Convincing
• Economy is to serve people

Yesterday I wrote how I felt that the Natural Step, which I am studying now, was a little too soft-core for me. I should make clear that I am a flip-flopper. Today, as I think about it, I realize that what I said is not entirely fair. For one thing, the actual framework that The Natural Step puts forth can not be touched. That is clearly "right". No scientist has ever stepped forward to dispute this and retained any credibility in the scientific community. What's more, it's pretty darn hard-core. It pretty much shows us that we must rethink and re-invent our entire way of life. I am in total agreement. The basic framework goes something like this:

A sustainable world (which is subject to the same physical restraints as ours is), is not subject to

1. Systematic increases of stuff from inside the earth, into the biosphere. (For example, taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere at a rate which is higher than nature can put it back in.)
2. Systematic accumulation of stuff that is not found in nature, or can not readily be assimilated in nature. (For example, something like DDT)
3. Systematic degradation of physical aspects of nature faster than it can be renewed. (For example, cutting down forests faster than they can be re-grown... including the entire degree of bio-diversity which was present in the original forest)
4. There is a fourth one about social conditions, and although I agree with it in principle, I still have not figured out how to fit it into this scientific framework, so I am going to leave it out.

I also realize that in order to get a company to adopt this framework, they can't just go in and say "Hey, you are breaking the conditions. In fact, society does not even need your product. You must stop!". In order to change the company, it is surely more efficient to introduce the concept in a way that is least threatening to them, and allow them, and hope that they come to the realization on their own that their very existence is compromising the existence of my grandchildren.

Leaving out much of the obvious negatives is fine, and it's a good action plan. But I guess what I have a problem with is that they actually speak of sustainability without sacrifice, and I see no reason to even throw that in there. It is not a scientifically proven idea. In fact, given the out-of-control population growth, I see a huge contradiction with the "no sacrifice" idea, and the scientific framework they promote.

I feel that to say that we can do it without sacrifice is giving the green light to go on with business as usual, and hope that technology somehow fixes everything. I have a good imagination, but no matter how hard I try, I can't imagine a scenario where there is such a technology that allows, through simple dematerialization and substitution, billions of people to live lifestyles such as we have now. It must also include a radical reduction of crap that we choose to buy, regardless of how eco-friendly it is if consumed in small qunatities. Even SUVs are sustainable... unless there are billions of people driving them, or other gasoline powered vehicles around the world.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Firstly, let me say I admire your initiative to engage in this vital dialogue and thank you for the opportunity to respond! I'm glad to see that you have done somewhat of an "about face" on the TNS framework since I did feel that your criticisms were unfair. It is a bit much to expect this framework on its own to single-handedly represent some kind of "silver bullet" that will change the world. Ultimately it is people, not any framework, that need to take a good hard look at themselves!

I understand that the central role of this framework is simply to provide a set of scientifically-ratified, guiding principles to manage ever-increasing complexity ie that we can use to measure our visions and actions against to mitigate economic, social and ecological disaster "upstream" before these become manifest and affect our ability to meet our needs (and those of your grandchildren). There is significant hope in this approach as it enables us to get our heads around the issues (local or global) by asking the simple q's it poses. Hence whilst it does not directly target over-consumption or explicitly attempt to tackle sacrifice, it does provide the basic success parameter in SC4 that in a way says "all of this is for nothing if people everywhere cannot meet their own needs". It starts with the clear and simple understanding that today (in an unsustainable world) most people don't have their basic needs met (food, clean water, shelter etc) and this is paramount before we can expect a global, sustainable picture to emerge - not many folks in Darfour right now are musing about their SUVs and the impact this is having!

I'm not sure but perhaps the notion of "sacrifice" is implicit if we focus on addressing the basic needs of others - empathy is key.

I may be missing the whole point but: Don't forget the "Natural Step" idea will never be proven. One might question the idea of sacrifice to save the world if the natural evolution of the world is not taken into consideration. Is the natural evolution considered? I would propose that the natural evolution is a force so much larger than mans that no matter how much we sacrifice we will not be able to budge the path of the earth 1 % in any direction. Sacrifice may make it a nicer place for those on the earth who now have nothing (which in itself makes it worth while) but I would question weather it will alter the direction or the timing of the end.

I may be missing the whole point but: Don't forget the "Natural Step" idea will never be proven.

I think that you are missing the point, but that is because I misrepresented it. The "Natural Step" idea is not like a religion, although at times it feels like it, but that is due more to the enthusiasm of the people around me. In fact, the only idea that is the Natural Step is the extremely valid scientific view that we live in a complex system which will be broken if too much junk which has been captures inside the earth gets into our biosphere, chemicals accumulate in the biosphere at a rate faster than nature can break them down, or the parts of the system that make it run are degraded faster than they can be naturally regenerated.

I am not sure if you agree or disagree with this, but for me, aside from being logical, science has only produced evidence that this is the case, and nothing to disagree with it. For example, CO2 (whcih has been trapped under the earth as oil and coal, etc... is not being realeased into the atmosphere faster than the plants on earth can re-capture it. Even the Bush administrations scientists now agree that this is a problem, and they were the last hold-outs. The same goes for mercury. I don't know if you hear much about it in the US, but it is causing huge problems in Japan, where people (especially pregnent women) eat a lot of fish, which are extremely high in mercury now.

... if the natural evolution of the world is not taken into consideration. Is the natural evolution considered?

It is considered, but not considered seriously by scientists. The reason is that whatever your views on evolution, and the age of the earth (aged earth at creation, etc...), Changes in the past have taken much longer. Evolution would have to span millions of years. In order to adapt to the current rate of change in the earth, evolution would have to happen in a matter of a generation or two. It is estimated that within the past 50 years, we have used more of the earths resources than all people of all generations since the beginning of the earth. One reason that this is especially scary, is that the earth population has doubled in the last hundred years, and will double again. When Grandma was born there were less people on the entire earth than now live in China alone. There are now around 6 billion people, and we are already feeling the effects (at least we did in Tokyo). By the time my children grow to be my age, there will be almost double that. Imagine what kind of impact that will have on the earth, and on the social pressures. This is what rules out evolution as a saviour.

I would propose that the natural evolution is a force so much larger than mans that no matter how much we sacrifice we will not be able to budge the path of the earth 1 % in any direction.

If by that you mean that it is natural evolution that we will further overpopulate the earth and any changes which are predicted are inevitable, I tend to agree. I am kind of alone here in my pesimistic outlook for our chances of success. That really sucks, because I would have liked to have a kid, but I can't really justify it given the bleak outlook for his/her future. As for personal sacrifice, I guess for me it is more a matter of that I see this now, and I would at least like to try, I wouldn't be any happier if I just decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", so I am stuck.

Sacrifice may make it a nicer place for those on the earth who now have nothing (which in itself makes it worth while) but I would question weather it will alter the direction or the timing of the end.

This is actually something I have been thinking *a lot* about lately. It seems like a waste to try to work toward solving the problem, and I now that I know I can't bring myself to be a willing part of the problem, so perhaps I should change all my energys to improving the lives of the living while we still can, instead of trying to make a better world for the kids I really don't think I should have.

Sounds pretty depressing, huh?

galleries