Sustainability Principles Online Dialogue

Dear Curtis,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thoughts provoking commets. It appears you suggest a different way for a primary classifiction as a starting point, a classification that is based on a hierarchical "partitioning" of earth as a system with four key componenets: atmosphere; hydrosphere; geosphere; and biosphere. Adopting such a classification as a starting point immediately brings forth the kind of issues you raise with respect to the relationship of the economic to the material domain and so forth.

With your comment you have forced me to think about the reason I chose the domains as I did. Let me try and clarify: In choosing the five dimensioned, I did not start from an attempt to have a general classification of the Earth System, a classification which would obviously have merit on a number of fronts. Rather, I tried to limit the perspective at the outset, to the specific issue of sustainability. The starting point has been, therefore, the definition of sustainability (as offered in the document).

The point of departure, accordingly, has been the general idea of an interaction between a population and the "carrying capacity" of its environment. This concept would hold to any population and any carrying capacity: amebas in a petri dish, algea in a lake, or humans on the planet.

The next step was to focus on the "human based" perspective where the concept of sustainability recieves the particular meaning that is of significance to us in relation to the question how best to reorder human affairs on earth.

In this context, the interaction of humans with "the rest" of the system seems to encompass a number of interelated dimensions, some"physical" the other not (altough these too may have physical impacts.

The first type involve primarily the flow of energy and matter (which actually preceeds the idea of an organized economy) and, I think an important distinction, the interaction with other forms of life -- species and ecosystems. Both are aspects of the Physical fabric of which we are a part. Hence the recognition of two of the five key domains: the Material Domain and the domain of Life.

In the case of humans, the underlying interaction (population / carrying capacity) is influenced by other (non physical) dimentions as well. These relate to aspects which are entirely human constructs, some value related, some conceptual and some organizational. How these are manifest inluence greatly the nature of the underlying interaction itself. Here I chose to cluster things in relation to the three other domains: the the Economic Domain, which encompass the meta-framework used for measuring "costs and benefits" of actions in the world; The Social Domain, which covers the way societies and communities structure and govern themselves; and, the Spiritual Domain which relates to the fundamental values which constitute an attitudinal starting point -- the basis for a view of the world.

There may be more than one way to skin a cat. Here, I tried for an approach which is comprehensive, consistent and derived from a cleare definition of the concept of sustainability itself.

df wrote:
"Doesn't global sustainability come down to new inventions and artifacts?"

hk wrote
"I don't think so, unfortunately. There is a lot of inertia in how people relate to the world and how they build their beliefs. Our very lifestyles make it impossible to clearly think and act accordingly about global issues. While companies can provide ultra-low-prices by realizing economies of scale and cutting on labor costs, we can't really have a competitive sustainable sector."

Hi hk

Bucky calls this inertial-lag gestation. I agree with you, time is required for change to occur. That goes without saying. But I don't see that that reflects on the power of artifacts to change the way we do things.

I'm not familiar with competitive-sustainable-sector idea. Again, I don't see what this has to do with whether artifact are all it takes to be sustainable or not. If your saying the competitive sector is harming us, then we'd have to replace them with something better.

I asked Joe Moore about the Global Report 2000 which Bucky had something to do with. Here is his reply:

jm wrote:
"All I know is this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_2000_Report_to_the_President

Amazon has several versions.

Bucky talked about the Science-Technology-Economics-Politics Sequence.

The only reference I have is in the _Synergetics Dictionary, Volume 3_, pages 572-3 (if you have access to the SDs).

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. Maybe I'm not seeing something...

Hmmm - seems to me that this system has gotten bass-akwards (maybe always was?) - the sequence currently is economics-politics-science-technology. I don't see science getting done for free anywhere... and you can't force society to adapt, which is where economics comes in.

I don't think we can research & develop our way to sustainability... I think we have to look at societal changes that accept reality....

Feral

I don't know where to begin. You might be arguing against quintessential Bucky methodology. Let me know if that's the case so I'll know better how to respond. We could take a look together at some Bucky book as a starting point if that would help.

Sure, I'm open to reading more about Bucky's methodology - I admit I'm not familiar with the work where this sequence is laid out - I'm not sure if a disagree with it or not. From the brief synopsis that you laid out, I would tend to think I do disagree with it, but hey - I'm here to learn....

Hi Feral

This quote from _Grunch of Giants_ is a powerful example of putting design to work.

My point is, that since the battle at Crecy, and even since Bucky was alive, the sequence has become more and more shuffled, so that economics drives politics drives science. How do we move society back toward a system in which this is corrected? I mean, look at the headlines today - Bush vetoed the funding for stem-cell research for totally political reasons (under the guise of social/moral/spiritual).... what would Bucky offer as a solution to reastablishing a society that begins with sustainability at it's core, rather than cash?

Do we need to move ahead technically, or back?

I don't agree that the sequence of change has changed. It's no different than the 12th century that I can see.

Generalized principles and their applications rule, not Bush, not the bank, and not the pope.

Trans-national corps follow the technology, of that I'm sure. Technology is their life.

The thing about synergy is that we can't see what the next discover is going to be. We are talking about behaviors of whole systems unpredicted by the behaviors of the component systems.

Just because we don't know what the discoveries are going to be doesn't mean that we can't see that they are coming all the time. I am sure there will be discoveries as long as we're around.

"I am sure there will be discoveries as long as we're around."

Please name one (technical) discovery that brought us closer to the nature.

Nature is different ideas to different people. Do you mean nature as in primeval?

One can also see nature as nothing but technology. Nature self-assembles. We are part of nature.

Anyone can find a distant and secluded place and live without industrial tools but it's not easy. I'm not sure what you're advocating.

Miss Kitten - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are advocating some sot of luddite vision - I think you are asking a fair question, and I think that Dick's response is the sort of techophile semantics that tend to get us into trouble. No offense Dick - I use this same argument often with my friends in the "Re-Wilding" movement - I don't think that humans can impose "wildness" and "technology" is humankinds survival tool - therefor it is part of nature.

Bucky's contemporary, Alfred Korzybski called humans "time-binders" as opposed to plants ("energy-binders" ) and other animals ("space-binders") because we survive by storing and communicating info across time. Semantic concepts like "wildness", "technology" and "nature" have no relevance outside of the human realm. So if we are talking about nature as the primeval, there is no technology, and you can't get there from here. Dick basically dodged the question of if there is a technology that brings humans closer to nature - I think it's a legit question - can we invent our way back to the garden?

Dick wrote "Generalized principles and their applications rule, not Bush, not the bank, and not the pope.

Trans-national corps follow the technology, of that I'm sure. Technology is their life."

Dick - I appreciate your optimism, but I'm afraid it's awfully naive. Generalized principles don't feed anyone, stop any children from stepping on land mines, or keep the government from tapping your phone and holding you indefinitely in a prison camp.

As far as trans-nats following tech - that's a straight-up fantasy. Let's look at agriculture. Every innovation since the civil war has been initiated solely for corporate profit. The mechanization of farming, the green revolution, bio-tech crops, they all came about in order to remove farmers (the last "rugged-individualists") from the land and put them into the industrial economy. Show me any university research facility and I will show you science that is 99.9% funded by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. This wonderful tool we are communicating with was invented for the military, and the large info-tech corporations are lobbying in DC as we speak (write/read) to limit the use of the internet by non-paying types so that they may control the bandwidth. And it will probably happen.

I appreciate all you have laid out here, Dick, and perhaps this discussion is not an appropriate place for my comments. I love Bucky, have been inspired by him since I was a kid, but he stopped thinking 23 years ago. A lot has happened since then. When he was alive (and since), his/our inability to bring his concepts to fruition has stemmed from an intellectual naivety about the inherent power (or lack thereof) of technology.

I agree.

There is no magic to Bucky's "reform the environment, not the man" design science approach. The crux is to solve a real problem with a design whose value will be self-evident, eventually. It's not about marketing or advocacy.

Nonetheless, I think a powerful lever or argument in talking to corporations or governments is discussion about the accounting system, how we keep score. An emerging ground for optimism in recent years has been the traction that arguments about accounting -- about globalization, about UN and World Bank models for assessment of development, about revisions to corporate accounting standards -- have been getting. We may be seeing the slow emergence of non-financial criteria in the models.

The importance of the fifth principle in this dialog is that historically it has provided the most potent arguments for measuring success in terns other than money. For folks like, the source is the New Testament, but there are many other, older traditions in the same stream.

The importance of the second and fourth principles is the threshold we crossed 50 years ago when humankind obtained the ability to destroy the biosphere. As Steward Brand wrote in the first Whole Earth Catalog, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."

PS: Thank you for "I love Bucky, have been inspired by him since I was a kid, but he stopped thinking 23 years ago." That choice of words really hit me hard.

I can't answer a question that I don't understand. That's not a dodge. I asked for clarification.

For example, does a telescope or a microscope bring us closer to nature? It all depends on what closer-to-nature means.

About Bucky's present inability to think, he said language and books make it possible for the dead to speak to the living. I see Bucky's work is more important than ever. How can we travel back to a garden which, as far as I know, never existed. We have to work with what we have and from where we are.

Feral wrote-"Generalized principles don't feed anyone, stop any children from stepping on land mines, or keep the government from tapping your phone and holding you indefinitely in a prison camp."

It's the application of generalized principles that will reverse these and other problems. This is known as a cold revolution, aka-CADS. What's the alternative?

Another thing I wonder about is where are the trans nats going to get their customers if they destoy everyone in the process of exploitation? They must have thought about this. A business that can't make a profit will cease to exist. Why would they intentionally eliminate their market place? This doesn't make any sense.

Our posts are getting narrower and narrower, and yet are discussion is getting broader and broader! Help!

Dick, Bucky’s work CAN still speak to us today, but it is not dogma – we need to think for ourselves. Just ‘cause his work still speaks to our situation today doesn’t mean it is set in stone. The generalized principles have to be adapted to today’s reality.

I’ll let Miss Kitten address her concept of bringing us “closer to nature”…but I’ll point out that world population is increasing, not decreasing, and despite the negative effects that corporate control have on our environment, our health, our society and freedom, their customer base is growing by leaps and bounds.

My question remains, can you show me how CEOs, politicians, mullahs and popes are following technology toward a brighter future? I still don't see it....

Feral,

If I may, I think that your question:

"My question remains, can you show me how CEOs, politicians, mullahs and popes are following technology toward a brighter future? I still don't see it...."

is not so much about technology per se, or principles, or whether we are getting "closer" or "further away" from nature, but rather about intention and motivation. What motivation drive our (or our corporations') actions.

One interpretation of current conditions in the world is that actions important sectors in society are driven by misguided motivation (greed, narrow gain). Hence the critical importance, incidently, of the fifthe principle related to the spiritual domain.

Feral wrote:
"My question remains, can you show me how CEOs, politicians, mullahs and popes are following technology toward a brighter future? I still don't see it...."

I said I thought the world's major corporations are looking for and finding ways to do more with less, not the other guys you mentioned. Certainly organized religion and government are not helping to make the world work.

Megacorps (not the banks) with R & D facilities are making helpful discoveries. That's what they do if they want to stay in business. Individuals can discover better options for us, too. Small companies and contractors are always innovating as well.

Industrial production of the most advanced technologies is our greatest livingry potential. I don't see a way around that.

It doesn't matter who is making these discoveries and innovations. The main thing is someone has to do it. What is the alternative?

As far as following dogma and not thinking for myself goes, you're entitled to your own opinion. I just think Bucky was right about most of his analysis of operating Earth successfully.

Again, what do you suggest we do? I've talked to kids that protest globalization and some have said to me we should shut down all the factories! That's not me. There's no need for anyone to be overwhelmed. Just be creative as we fix our problems.

Dick, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see the "megacorps" leading the way to social change through tech innovation. I see auto makers doing all they could to avoid developing more efficient engines - I saw GM, the company that single-handedly dismantled americas commuter rail system, scrap their promising electric vehicle program. Now they are crowing about their new "green" flex-fuel vehicles, designed to run on ethanol from round-up ready corn, developed by Monsanto not to benefit farmers (they have experienced record low prices and are prosecuted heavily by Monsanto if they save seed from their own crops), but to increase profits for themselves and ADM, who is now buying up the failing ethanol plants in the midwest which were built on promises of big profits to the farmers who invested in them.

Look, I'm not some rock-throwing anarchist kid suggesting we close down factories and go back to an agrarian lifestyle. I suggest that we need to break the cycle of money between corps and government by disassembling the system of tax-payer subsidies to corps (look at the boondoggle that is the 2005 energy bill if you want to know what I mean - there would be no nuclear power industry without huge government subsidies - no nuke has ever turned a dime of true profit) disallow corporate ownership of water supplies, electric utilities and farmland, enforce anti-trust laws...

I like what is going on in Brazil - the government have turned their back on microsoft in favor of a linux based system, and they told Merck straight-up that they would not honor their patents if they didn't stop gouging people on the price of their AIDs drugs. They are telling corporations that in order to have the honor of serving their community, they must first show societal responsibility.

Circling back to Michael original statement, I think we need to make corporations pay the true costs, in order for them to understand that closed loop resource management is actually more "profitable"...

I wanted to suggest some ideas which might help reconcile, or perhaps integrate, some of your seemingly opposing comments:

Dick wrote:

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.

I do agree that the idea and the sequence is ultimately correct but Feral is right about injecting a measure of skepticism. I think the point is that Bucky assumed employing such a sequence on behalf of the betterment of all humans. The problem is, that at least temporarily, technology and its underlying generalized principles can be highjacked in order to serve the exlusive interest of a powerful few.

Another way to say this is to acknowledge that there are some real obstacles (even if from a long term evolutionary perspective these would turn out to have been surmounted) to the smooth unfolding of the sequence that Dick suggests. Primary among these (obstacles) is, for example, the current economic accounting system which consistenly drives actions in a distorted way (from the view point of sustainability).

There are other key "reality" shaping forces at work. These include our view of the world (the world as something to just exploit or to carefully nourish?); the whole system of taxation, regulation and incentives; the legal system; the governance system; and so forth.

This would suggest that these "soft" aspects need to be seen as subjects to "design Science" as any piece of technology and the driving motivation must be compasion and seeking enduring advantage for all.

Okay. To clarify where I'm coming from, I'll leave this thread with Bucky's words from _Grunch_.

"It could well be that the total-world-involved, supranational giant corporations' computer operations might, to their corporate directors' astonishment and to popular surprise, lead the Grunch into profitable discard of all that is not true, as for instance that anybody owns anything."

"As world society divests itself of that which experimental evidence demonstrates to be untrue and embracingly enters into its computer the mathematical formulae of all that can be experimentally proven to be true, all the socially, selfishly malignant characteristics of the giant may vanish and theomni-pro-social-advantage-producing capabilities may prevail and flourish."

First you have to make the music. Good music, hopefully. Let us know how things turned out...

Hi Bob

I don't see how the metaphysical underlies the physical. Maybe you can give an example of what you mean. Generalized principles always originate in special cases, right?

BTW, is spider math growing? I hope so. It's good to hear from you, too.

Dick

Which comes first is, of course, a question thath haunted philosophy since ancient times. The point is, ultimately the two are entirely "intertwined" in that physical reality manifest an undrlying "principle" and a principle is ultimately often expressed in a "phisical" reality, or better, experience.

It is perhaps the ultimate case of co-creation, where what exists is an expression of essential constraint (aka principle)which itself emerges as result of interacting events.

Hi Michael

I don't see any mention of design science in your sustainability principles. Design science is an important part of the creation of wealth(forward days) which leads to a global success.

I don't see the which-comes-first debate you mention above. Physical survival must come first to me. I do understand that ultimately and eventually everything IS intertwined yet satisfaction of basic needs begins the intertwining.

I guess we can have partial global success but no one wants this to be sustained.

Are there any generalized principles outside of science? I thought the two concepts were always together.

Richard

If the questions is what should we do now, then I'm not convinced we need to design our way out of our problem. While new artifacts may ameliorate our condition, I think sustainability will only emerge from changes in second and fourth domain, perhaps under the influence of the fifth domain.

I thought that Bucky thought that, at some point in his lifetime, in the sixties or seventies, science and technology had already discovered and produced everything we need to make 100% of humanity successful. The problem is getting the right ideas and tools into widespread use.

I think the critical issues are how to do this.

So the which comes first argument should be focused not on how does it work, not on what is the relationship between the domains, but on how shall we do it.

Dick,

I did not use the term design science because I felt that the special sense in which the term was used by Bucky would have meaning only to a limited group of people familiar with his work.

I would wholeheartedly support the notion that superior design should be based on sound scientific principles.

The question of whether there are generalized principles outside of science depends, I think, on how you define the term. Some would argue that, by definition, generalized principles are scientific statement. Some, mystics for example, would claim that there are principles which operate outside the domain within which scientific statements can be validated.

On the which-comes-first debate I was refering to ideas that go back to the Greeks and even earlier, that there are pure concepts, (platonic ideals) which suprceed actual manifestations in the world. Various ancient traditions express a variety of ideas all related to that distinction.