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
• October 2000
• February 2000

recent

• With Nature's Permission
• Sister's Wedding
• Weddings
• Is This a "Learning" Blog?
• Classmates
• Chaordic Learning Communities
• Learning online
• Reindeer
• Backed-up
• First Snow

Today was the first day of a week of lectures by Manfred Max-Neef, a Chilean economist, winner of alternate Nobel Prize, former Chilean Presidential candidate, and all kinds of other impressive stuff.

For me, his lecture was very timely, touching on what I have just been writing these last few days. We spent a long time trying to get at just what we mean when we say "sustainability", and what should be sustained.

Although it was a lot of food for thought, I am not sure that I fully agree with all of his conclusions just yet. While I am sure he simplified his ideas in order to fit them into a few hours, and I am aware that I am simplifying them even further, the gist of what he was saying seemed to be:

What we want to sustain is "life" because it is such a miracle that it could even happen.

I guess I can agree with this to some extent, but if that is the case, then I really see no need to even study ecological sustainability. Even after we kill ourselves off (along with many other species), there will still be life in some form, in the form of ants and cockroaches, and other things that are stronger than us. Besides, I guess I am not expecting that the human race would die of completely, but those humans left living would be living in miserable surroundings. If what we are fighting to sustain is simply "life" then there is really no need to fight.

Some doubts similar to this were raised, and in answer, he basically seemed to say that without us humans here, the universe has no meaning, because there are no living creatures besides us that can attempt to understand it. I would have to disagree in that even things we don't understand, nor have any inkling of there existence have a very real meaning and purpose. Take the o-zone layer... simply because we did not know of it's existence, and therefore could not contemplate it, until recently does not mean that it was meaningless.

The talk turned then to happiness, though I am not sure exactly how it is connected with the idea that the goal of sustainability should be to sustain life. To me, it fits in with what I have been writing these past few days. My goal is not to sustain human existence, but rather to sustain a system that can allow people to be happy, be they myself, my family, or my children. Of course, part of my happiness is dependent on the people around me (i.e. the people of the world) also being happy, so therefore, I am trying to create and sustain a system that is integral to happiness and contentment of people. It can be taken further of course, because I love my birds, to say that I can also not be happy to watch the atrocities we perpetrate against animals.

So where does ecological sustainability fit into this? The way it seems to be shaping up for is:

1. We have to take care of the natural systems of the earth (i.e. don't break them) because they provide the resources we need to lead a happy and fulfilled life.
2. We have to take care of those people around us (to the extent that simply having a healthy ecosystem does not allow them to take care of themselves) because when we see or are aware of unneeded suffering, it detracts from our own happiness.
3. We (at least I) have to take care of other living creatures because the willful destruction and torture of them detracts from my ability to be happy.

This still does not lead me to believe that the goal should be indefinite sustainability of the human race, but on the other hand, I see no way around it. If we continue on the path we are on now, at some point, more and more people will feel the pinch that billions of people are already feeling today. Working toward the happiness of myself, includes the happiness of other people, and it includes the non-destruction of the ecosystem, which in turn would theoretically lead to a sustainable ecosystem.

There followed much more talk of happiness. One of the most interesting things was about how our society actually devalues happiness, and places much more merit on suffering. Why do we have much more respect for someone who has suffered a lot, than we do for someone who has led a relatively happy life? Why are there no paintings of a smiling baby Jesus? Or smiling saints? Or a smiling virgin Mary? Why is seriousness and suffering so highly valued?

Why is it that I feel somehow flaky to write about how I want to be happy, and I want other people to be happy? Why do I feel that I must back that up with some logical, scientific, realistic goal? Why is it that during the recent campaign period, I never heard the word "happiness" once, but I heard "economic growth" more times that it would make me happy to recall? What is it that we have against happiness?

So, I'll just say it, flake or not, I want to be HAPPY. I want other people to be HAPPY. I think HAPPINESS is a good thing. I am not ashamed of the times when I feel HAPPY. HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY. My goal is to make people HAPPY.

Undoubtedly, I have just alienated a few of my more "realistic" readers who view happiness as a goal to be childish and unrealistic. For those of you who feel like that... does it help to restore my image, to make you happy, if I say that you feeling that way makes me unhappy?

By the way, some of the happy people in the photos for today are from the wedding I attended in France back in October. You can see part 1, and part 2, part 3 is yet to come. The rest of the happy people are my happy classmates.

Kev,
I'm HAPPY that you've included my funny face in your 'HAPPY classmates' photos! And, you should know, that your blog (which I find very interesting, almost entertaining really - not to diminish the validity and relevance of your thoughts by suggesting that they're entertaining like a comedy routine or something) makes me very HAPPY. So, in some small way, perhaps, you're achieving your goal of making people HAPPY (which, I might add, I find to be a truly meritous endeavour, but then again I suppose I fit into your new-agey-hippie-communist classmate category??). Another thing that makes me HAPPY are your photos. Not only because you've managed to capture the beauty of this place and the unique personalities of our classmates, but also because I can send the URL to my family and friends back home and satisfy their 'basic needs' for photos of my life here in Sweden, thereby making them HAPPY. So thanks. Here's to HAPPINESS! A.

Thanks amy. It probably goes without saying that I am HAPPY that you are HAPPY. It seems to be a reenforcing loop.

Hey Kevin,

So I just want to tell you that I'm HAPPY too
to see the wedding picture on the web cite.
By the way what is the french word for "sustainability" ? I couldn't find.

I'm not sure if, as a guest, I'm meant to respond to someone else's comment, but in case Jerome checks back in - the french translation for 'sustainable development' is 'developpement durable'...I'm not sure if that applies for sustainability as well, as 'durable' isn't really the best translation in my mind (implies tough and lasting, rather than sustainable??). Could it be 'soutenable'? -Amy

So in french I understand 'developpement durable'
but for 'sustainability' I didn't find the good
word. 'Soutenable' is not the good one I think...

galleries