Submitted by carl on Mon, 2006-07-17 11:09.
Daily Dialogue Blog Entries
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:
As a first step, recognizing that all these have an inherent value (is paramount) ... Actual pricing can come later ...
Principles are about the broad strokes, in other words, not the details.
Feasibility. And then there is the question whether sustainability can be attained--and the related question of how we are to keep our hopes up during these dark and dismal times.
The cold war ended 15 years ago! ... Let's remember how far we've come. I think it will help.
Reason to hope, in other words. Similarly, Michael Ben-Eli, responding to portlandio's resistance of the "economists' "dismal science" meme, which pretends the 2nd law means ever worsening conditions aboard Spaceship Earth," observes:
Recognizing the second law as an important constraint is not meant to imply the necessity of worsening systems.
Getting Operational. There continues to be a strong perceived need to take effective action. But cautionary notes are being sounded about the need not to be precipitous.
Talk alone won't get us very far unless it's followed by action. So I ask: How do you make sure that our actions are not just well intended forms of ants in the pants?
The hard work of establishing principles and then rigorously using them to screen actions and decisions and to evaluate outcomes seems the only prudent way to proceed in this touch and go relay race to achieve sustainability as a state.
He also writes:
There is a time to think and a time to act. How much time should be invested in thinking prior to action is a key question.
Specific suggestions are also emerging.
Perhaps instituting measures like the gross progress indicator (www.rprogress.org/) might be an important step in evolving our economic system toward the day when everyone has achieved at least a bare maximum level of income.
Joshua's suggestion that the P & OI for the Economic Domain include "something like this: Where appropriate and feasible, strive for decentralized redundant/diverse/network systems" brought forth a familiar question:
Your suggestion is a good one ... How do we operationalize it?
She then framed the need for decentralized, networked systems in the context of a clash between top-down, hierarchical systems and networked systems working, so to speak, the wrong side of the fence--corporate statism versus al Qaeda, essentially.
How do we begin to address issues such as threats to the system in a decentralized redundant/diverse/networked world? These threats stem from both terrorist acts (from below) and fom conflicts with the existing global power structures (from above).
Michael Ben-Eli offered the following response:
The more redundant the infrastructure, the more effective re possible (and unpredictable) threats ... That's precisely why stability in complex systems is obtained by virtue of their very complexity.
Parsing the Principles. A fair amount of conversational energy has been expended on that ancient question, Which comes first, the spiritual or material domain?
Domains II through V all depend on the material domain, it seems ... Maybe I'm a bit naive but Domain I must be the place to start if we want to pass the final exam.
Michael Ben-Eli responds:
Which comes first is, of course, a question that's haunted philosophy since ancient times.
For me this comes under the heading of: The Question That Cannot Be Resolved. It is the ur-question: we've been killing each other for millennia over it, and we'll probably keep doing so for millennia going forward, if we last that long.
Meanwhile the entropy thread has slowed down. Michael Ben-Eli writes:
Am fascinated and thankful for the reaction to the first principle, particularly in regard to the use of the term entropy and more specifically to the idea of 'containing' entropy.
He concludes by (if I read him correctly) holding firm (and offering what may turn out to be the final word on the subject--we shall see):
The first principle recognizes that entropy is inevitable and some loss will be a part to any sequence of transactions. But it also suggests that in participating in sich transactions, were flows of energy and materials are formed and reformed to some advantage, we could thrive to ensure that we act as creators of order by applying conscious dicipline and limiting unecessary waste (in all its forms). Hence "contain entropy."
The Department of Provocations. As ever, a few posters are stepping forward and challenging core assumptions.
FERAL questions Michael's use of "big D Democracy" in the P&OI of the Social Principle. He wants to make sure we don't equate "true democracy" with a democratic model "that has become synonymous with global capitalism/corporate statism."
Michael Ben-Eli clarifies:
I used the term "democracy" as a code word for an open system ("open society" in the sense of Popper) where decisions are made in processes that are transparent, inclusive, participatory, and plural. That democracy itself, its structure and processes can be improved upon, goes without saying.
FERAL challenged this response:
I respectfully submit that the very structure of democracy needs to be focused on in order that sustainability goals can be furthered. No meaningful progress can be made in the current world political climate. I guess it's sort of a chicken/egg deal ...
Finally, Steven A. Moore suggests there is a problem with a priori definitions:
I am concerned by the effort to define sustainability as a universal concept distinct from particular actions in particular places at particular times. My concern is based neither upon a "localist" view of the world nor ethical relativism, but on the notion that we learn by doing. If we can accept this premise it suggests that we can most effectively work toward a goal with only a loose, and ever-changing, definition of it. In other words, action is more important than parsing language.
In a sense, this is a reprise of the old "centralized versus decentralized" question. ironically, it positions this debate as being on the "centralized" side of the equation, right there alongside corporate statism!
Joshua responded by making a case for high-level framing of our "destination."
I am concerned about the well intended jump to action not being guided by a rigorous set of principles and implementation disciplines. Such unguided action seems too hit or miss at a time when our aim has to be much more on target if humanity is going thread the eye of the sustainability needle. … If we can get an operationally effective definition approximately correct along with a comprehensive set of guiding principles (test and refine as need be through guided action); if we can also define a rigorous process of systemic problem analysis and implementation then perhaps we might actually get closer to solving our problems at the correct and needed level of complexity … There is no substitute for trial and error ( aka action). But could we tip the scales in favor of success by rigorously articulating what should be guiding our actions?
Plainly, Joshua believes that the answer to this is "yes."