obligatory

• home
• mfop2

archives

• January 2005
• 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

• Uncle Kevin?
• Separate from nature?
• An exercize in empathy
• Off The Road Again
• Application
• Truckin'
• Ecological Illiteracy
• Ski Dreams
• Christmas

One of the concepts which has tended to form the basis of our studies this year is a set of principles for sustainability. There are four which our curriculum has intorduced. While I agree with them for the most part, there is one which I have been uncomfortable about since the first time I heard it. I finally realize why...

First, the principles. Basically, in order to sustain the systems capacity to keep us and millions of other species alive, we know that the following princples are true:

1. We can not systematically increase concentrations of substances from within the earths crust into the biosphere (were things live). This includes carbon, mercury, etc... Now, people will say that carbon exists naturally in the biosphere, and yes, that is true (thankfully) but the key is the systematic increase at a rate faster than the biosphere can process it. It is quite apparent that we are doing that now with fossil fuels and other junk. It can't keep being increased or we, along with millions of other species, will obviously all die or continue getting really sick.

2. We can not systematically increase concentrations of man-made substances not naturally found in the biosphere. This includes synthetic chemical compounds such as DDT, PCB, endocrine disruptors, synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, etc... This too is quite obvious and we know the results of introducing these compounds faster than the earth can break them down (many of them wont break down for millions of years). Again, people will say that many dangerous chemical compounds already exist naturally. Again, the point is, if they exist naturally, they exist in quantities which nature is able to handle.

3. We can not cause systematic degradation to nature itself. This means we can't systematically cut down all the natural forests, or wipe out the marshlands or coral reefs, or anyplace else that promotes the bio-diversity we know keeps us alive.

These I agree with. These all have a scientific basis.

Then there is the fourth.

4. We can not systematically undermine human's ability to meet their needs.

Sounds great. I agree with the idea in terms of social policy. It is a great principle to live our lives by, even if it is not scientific. But still, when it is lumped together with the other three, it just bugs me. It doesn't fit. I have tried to rationalize it's place among the "Sustainability Principles", but no matter how close I get, no matter how much my teachers and textbook tell me it fits... it just doesn't.

Today, I realized why.

Basically, I see now that the first three take a whole systems view of the earth as an ecosystem. Everything, living and not living, is a part of that system and is in some way connected. Make a change on one place, and it will have totally unexpected effects on another part of the system. This is what we know is true, and these are scientifically based principles.

By introducing the last principle however, it seems to me that we are once again falling prey to the same old fallacy in which we place humans outside of the system. While this is definitely not saying that humans can do whatever they want without regard for nature, isn't making a special principle for humans somehow imply that humans are not included in principle number 3? We were taught that these principles gain some of their importance because they are non-overlapping... implying that humans are not a part of nature.

Why not make another principle then that says we can not systematically undermine the ability of trees to meet their needs. This is true, and I don't know any scientists that would argue with that statement. This is not saying that trees are sentient beings like people, nor am I making any judgment about trees being more important than people, or vice-versa. I am not calling for "tree-rights". What I am saying is that undermining the ability of trees to meet their needs is just as detrimental to our survival as undermining the ability of people to meet their needs. Perhaps it is even more detrimental.

So why is it in these "non-overlapping" scientific principles, that humans, which are definitely a part of nature (principle 3) have our very own principle? What am I missing here? I'm sure others have thought of this before, so what expelenation do they give?

Certainly there are political pressures to take into consideration, and The Natural Step, the organization that is behind this program, may have bowed to those political pressures in order to advance their ideas. But if that is the case, why not just come clean when they teach it and say "Yeah, although this fourth principle is valid on it's own, and very important to sustain our society, it doesn't really fit with the other, but we put it in there because it makes the whole thing easier to swallow." I could buy that... except that I don't buy the fact that our current society should or can be sustained... at least not without some major changes... one of which being that we stop viewing ourselves separate from nature.

The belief that humans are separate and above nature I think comes from the age old indoctrination (mainly from the Christian half of the industrialised world) that we are made in the image of god, and that we are somehow elevated above the dumb beasts of the earth, that we should go forth and multiply, using the beasts, land and air as our own. (or something like that).... mix an industrial revolution, with deeply religious society and you get arrogance, pollution and a mindset that is hard to change...

(i feel tired now.... ;-)>

But seriously, we do need to do something radical, we have what, 50 - 100 years of current civilisation if we continue at this rate of enviromental abuse.

I can definitely see how one would get that impression about Christian teaching, and I know that some branches may teach that more than others, but I also know that I never heard anything quite so explicit in stating that idea in my church or 18 years of Lutheran schooling.

I'm not denying that it is implied, but to blame it all on Christianity though seems a little too easy. "People are separate from nature" is an unspoken assumption shared by most of the world now, Christian's atheists, Buddhists, Muslims... you name it. And to say that the idea was first introduced by Christian missionaries doesn't make sense. Why would non-Christians cling so tightly to that one teaching and reject all the rest?

The fact is, it is a globally held assumption that does not discriminate based on religion (with perhaps a very few rare and dying exceptions).

I think it's important to note again that I am not telling anyone what to believe about people and God's view of people and their status inside nature. I am simply pointing out that whatever your religious beliefs or lack thereof, from a scientific, systems perspective (where we are talking about nature as the ecosystem), people are a part of nature.

galleries