carl's blog

Tuesday, August 1st

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:51:19 -0400

I'm off tomorrow on a long-planned retreat, and by the time I return, this conversation will have ended. So this is farewell, I guess.

I'll divide my final comments into two sections. First I'll summarize key recent posts, then offer my own thoughts about the dialogue process.

In these closing days, the posts most directly relevant to the Sustainability Principles were on the theme of education. Michael Ben-Eli wrote:

Quote:

I have posted an enthusiastic response re the importance of education and about the possibility of introducing a statement about it in the text.

On second thought I realized that that requirement (for education) is actually covered by the first P&O Implication in the Economic Domain which states:

Saturday July 29th

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:19:23 -0400

A new and important theme has emerged: education. Joshua launched it by quoting Bucky:

Quote:

“It is implicit that the fact of imminent feasibility of high standard sustainability of all human life now recognized by less than 1% of humanity must gain a 99 fold amplification which involves a 99-fold educational reorientation to synchronize human capabilities with the inexorable and irreversible frontiering of evolution. This Educational regeneration is now the highest priority function of intellect in Universe.” (It Came to Pass Not to Stay, 1976)

So if RBF is on target with the above statement and I think it's safer to assume that he is, then it seems that in one or more of the domains, the policy and operational implications should address priority educational objectives.

Wednesday, July 26th

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:22:45 -0400

There's been a lot of activity since I last checked in. That's for two reasons: activity's been up, and it's been a while since I filed.

Language and Sustainability. Aherwitz, a relatively recent entry into the conversation, argues that sustainability is more ubiquitous than generally supposed. (This is a concept I have believed in for some time, as it happens, my favorite being the need for the "sustainable ego.")

Aherwitz writes, in arguing for what he calls the "demystification of the language:"

Quote:

I must say that one of the most important things about the definition of sustainability is the way in which it is expressed. Therfore I have applied this general principle: Language requires sustainability also. To wit: language sustainability is a process of balancing the need to communicate with the capacity of a language to express it with economy and clarity.

Friday, July 21st

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:37:19 -0400

It's been pretty quiet the past few days. There's been only one persistent thread, and it's about a point that's more broadly philosophical than it is directly related to Michael's Sustainability Principles. The discussion flows from an observation by Dick Fischbeck:

Quote:

Bucky talked about the Science-Technology-Economics-Politics Sequence ... He meant: Discover universal principle, invent practical application(s), commercialize it, force society to adapt." This is how I see sustainability coming about. I think it has been happening this way all along and will continue to occur this way.

Wednesday, July 19th

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:55:56 -0400

We're in the middle of it now. Multiple threads, no clear conclusions, intriguing asides ...

The Principles. In an broad-ranging post, CurtisWhite frames Michael's Sustainability Principles as a "system structure"--as one among many system structures, in fact--and offers the following opinion.

Quote:

I think the Economic Domain is where the action is for sustainable development ... The number one agenda I see is inventing a new accounting system that allows all of us to see what is GOING ON and not just the buckets of dollars passing among us. And the second agenda item would be how to get the financial manipulators out of determining where energy and resources should flow.

Monday July 17th

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:09:48 -0400

The dialogue is continuing along multiple lines. Herewith, today's (rather lengthy) summary ...

The Role of the Principles. What is the function of Michael's Sustainability Principles? Are they necessary or even useful? And what are appropriate boundaries? These important questions are popping up in the dialogue.

For Michael Ben-Eli, the author of the Principles, the Principles are about common understandings. For instance, in response to MissKitten's comment that "(I) have no idea how does one put a price on a forest, a human life, algaes, a desert, a rat, a river," Michael comments:

Friday, July 14th

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:17:45 -0400

It's funny how dialogues work: forums (and threads) are sometimes not quite the same as the truly dominant themes. That's what I'm finding here. Alongside formal forum topics such as "Overall Response to the Material Domain Principle" and "Approach as a Whole," other themes are surfacing as axial points of the discussion. Here's today's list of such themes:

Consciousness-raising. Janos Abel notes that there are "powerful influences in positions of influence who ... are prepared to resist any serious change in [the] status quo. With 'serpent-like wisdom' we have to discern the false legitimacy on which their power rests ..." This follows on Portlandio's earlier critique of LAWCAP (lawyer-capitalism) as a "reality tunnel" that embraces scarcity, to our disadvantage.

Thursday, July 13th

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:56:48 -0400

The conversation is heating up. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the meaning of entropy, the interjection of some favored personal theories and perspectives, and the occasional high-level provocation (just my cup of tea, as it happens, but hey, we all have our therapy issues!).

Michael's Material Domain Principle is not hitting the spot for some people. Lyled calls it "(1) unambitious; (2) inconsistent with human aspirations; and (3) ... contrary to humanity's positioning as the "navigator" (per bucky) within the universe." Misskitten says entropy "is a completely natural process and is happening all the time. i don't think we should fight against it."

The Discussion Begins

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:45:52 -0400

It's Day Two of this dialogue (Day One, depending on how you're counting), and responses so far are falling into three categories.

First, there is the matter of effectiveness. How does one take a definition of sustainability and give it a forceful presence in the world? Steve Brant recommends a strongly collaborative approach, citing recent initiatives such as Yahoo Answers and Google Answers.

Second, there are issues related to scope and languaging. For gfriend, the language of the Material Domain principle is neither "clear" nor "sufficient."

Welcome!

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:00:41 -0400

David Crockett, a sustainability advocate and a Tennessean in the direct lineage of that Davey Crockett, used to say that whenever people set out on a project together, the first thing they need to know is where "Montana" is--"Montana" being their shared destination.

For years, "sustainability" (or "sustainable development") has been our destination, but these are fuzzy and often misleading terms. The fact is, there's been a lot of embedded confusion about where our Montana is. To make matters worse, what definitions have gained currency have been partial ... incomplete. The non-material dimension has been largely overlooked, even by definitions that were otherwise compelling and robust.