Submitted by carl on Wed, 2006-07-19 17:55.
Daily Dialogue Blog Entries
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.
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.
hellekin identifies what for him are the strongest points in the Principles:
The most important points I see:
--the systemic approach that goes against the current fragmentation of knowledge and action (see Transdisciplinarity)
--the recognition of biases in the economic system and the need to change the premisses of the accounting and pricing systems
--the importance of cooperation and the obsolescence of war
--the spiritual recognition of a continuum in the universe
--the systemic approach that goes against the current fragmentation of knowledge and action (see Transdisciplinarity)
--the recognition of biases in the economic system and the need to change the premisses of the accounting and pricing systems
--the importance of cooperation and the obsolescence of war
--the spiritual recognition of a continuum in the universe
jrose expresses concern about the language used:
The term "entropy" is going to problematic for many people who don't really understand the concept. If we also introduce "syntropy," it's only going to turn off more people.
He proposes a more plain-English approach.
Assuming that we want some certain standard of living for all of humanity, we're gonna have to make use of our material resources. How should we use them? Maybe we want to try to phrase the principle more accessibly, perhaps by updating an old standby:
"Reduce energy and material use where possible; reuse existing objects when practical; and recycle natural resources with as little waste as is necessary for humanity to live well without ruining the planet."
Since the second law requires SOME waste, how much waste is necessary for this global standard of living? To me, that's what the principle is about. Do the best we can with the physical world we've got for as many humans as possible for as long as possible.
Of course, what language to use depends on the nature of the audience. Are the Principles being written for the lay person? For sustainability geeks? For Ph.D. scientists? Joshua seconds jrose's comments, but in a way that suggests he would rather see broad statements of principle than more granular recommendations:
I very much appreciate your persuasive effort to express these principles using user friendly language. This is a very important task that must be accomplished if this kind of work is to be extended and widely adopted.
I wonder if it makes sense to 1st focus on getting the underlying scientific basis clear and accurate with the understanding that a critical step is to and translate all overly academic and arcane phrases into broadly understandable terms.
Back to Bucky. Why am I not surprised that regular references are made to Bucky's extraordinary and prescient wisdom? Dick Fischbeck writes:
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.
This observation inspired FERAL to respond:
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 ...
Dick Fischbeck offered more Bucky-wisdom when he wrote:
Joshua and [Michael] have both just expressed the view that we are here in this discussion mostly to discover what principle are the best action guides if we want to have a well functioning SSEarth. At least, that's what I'm hearing.
It is very dificult to find generalized principles. There aren't very many of them. I think Bucky employed a few principles (besides the obvious mathematical principles) throughout his work.
A few them stand out in my mind- work for the most people for the largest benifit, don't try to change people-change the environment instead, and make obsolete harmful practices by inventing new ones to replace the old ones. Are these the kind of principles you have in mind?
The Nature of Sustainability. Here's an old chestnut for you: the core nature of sustainability. Is it a process toward an end, or is at an end state? Can we ever achieve sustainability and if not, are we, well, screwed? Dick Fischbeck offers an interesting take this question when he writes:
For some reason that I'm sure someone could explain, utopia has become synonymous with naivete. Utopia means no place. I instead like to say eutopia which means good place. I hope there are others here who think literally that the Earth can be made to work for everyone and at ever greater degrees of freedom for its crew. I do.
Utopia ... I mean, eutopia! ... is achievable, in other words.
The Entropy Debate. The nature of entropy--and whether to use the term at all, given the non-lay nature of the term--keeps rearing its head. lyled proceeds from an examination of whether or not the earth is truly entropic to the following suggestion:
For consideration I would propose that we focus on making the earth a more efficient absorber of the energy that is given to us.
You will note that having as a principle the improvement in the capacity of the earth to absorb energy, has, as a by product, the making of more "stuff". The beauty of this principle then is that humanity can proceed to live at increasingly higher standards of material living with much less impact, and likely an overall beneficial impact, on the diversity and livability of the planet.
Strategies/Tactics. People continue to offer suggestions about how to implement the Principles. dsevans observes:
Smaller organizations are preferable for many reasons. For instance, they make the relationships between the people involved in the organization more responsive and more responsible. Many small organizations providing the same service allow greater choice for the consumer of the organization's services, there by making the market mechanism more efficient, by increasing competition.
CurtisWhite offers what he himself suggests may be an unrealistic objective for sustainability:
I'm not sure that the 3rd principle statement "Ensure that the essential diversity of all forms of live in the Biosphere is maintained" is quite adequate. We need to ensure that the Biosphere is maintained. And I believe that the only practical way of doing that is to strongly limit any human interaction with substantial portions of that biosphere so that it can continue to evolve / whatever mostly free of our interaction.
Is that even possible at this stage? Can humans (through their social and governmental super-systems) agree to keep their hands "off" of even 20% of the planet?
Democracy. Referring to the thread about the nature of democracy and the extent to which it's a sham in the US, jochen refers readers to http://smartocracy.org:
"Smartocracy is an experiment in "augmented democracy", a meritocratic social network for collective decision-making. Each participant gets 10 votes to give away, and gets to exercise those votes given to them."
Process. misskitten wonders aloud:
... it strikes me as peculiar that there are such a few women participating in this forum ...
Dick Fischbeck responds:
Umm ... because the women are smarter? Seriously. I think it is true.
Hmm ... is that a sexist comment, I wonder? When a man praises women as superior, does that make him guilty in the eyes of the politically correct crowd? This is an irrelevant aside--I acknowledge that--and as far as I'm concerned, one could unpack Dick's comment and find some deep truths ... but our sexual politics these days are such that I cannot help but wonder.
Speaking of asides, all of this talk about the "lay person" has me wondering: Was the recently deceased president of Enron a lay person?
Oh, never mind.