Submitted by carl on Wed, 2006-07-26 17:22.
Daily Dialogue Blog Entries
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:"
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.
Defining Sustainability. He then proceeded to propose the following plain-English definition of sustainability:
"Sustainability is a process of balancing the needs of a population with the capacity of an environment to support it."
This proposal stirred a flurry of comments. Dick Fischbeck wrote:
I like that you're trying to distill the definition. There might be a problem using of the word balancing. Isn't it a matter of using earth's resources to sustain the needs of humans? It isn't so much a balancing but an increase in performance of existing capacity. In other words, its a one-way street.
If so, then the definition could read:
Sustainability is increasing the performance of resources to meet people's needs.
Dick's proposal didn't work for Michael Ben-Eli:
I am afraid that Dick's proposed version will not do. It is a linear proposition. Leaving the idea of "balance" out, removes any sense of constraint. The later is of course essential. In a sense by saying, for example, that current structure of the world economy is not sustainable, we are saying that the wrong "constraints" are employed to guide the way that it works.
MissKitten preferred Aherwitz's definition, too:
"Sustainability is a process of balancing the needs of a population with the capacity of an environment to support it."
MEANING:
It might be a good idea to start needing less in order to get into the balance with the environment. (meaning avoid the excess of both over-use or pollution of the environment).
DEF 2:
"Sustainability is increasing the performance of resources to meet people's needs."
MEANING:
Never mind if the population grows, never mind if the needs grow (and third world wanting the same life standard as the USA). All we need is to increase the performance of resources. Ad infinitum.
It's difficult to find anything in common in these 2 definitions.... my vote is for the first one, since this "ad infinitum" makes the second one quite unprobable...[\quote]
For Michael Ben-Eli, it all comes down to balance:
I would like to suggest the the concept of "Balance" is absolutely critical to a useful definition of sustainability, if that definition at all relates to "population" and the supporting capacity of an environment. BALANCE is the whole point!
Recurrent Themes. The attempt to define sustainability in plain English opened a door into a familiar theme--what is realistically achievable. Dick Fischbeck subscribes to the theory that there is potentially great abundance for all. Responding to MissKitten's comment, he wrote:
Yes, everyone [can] win... No one needs to have a harder life than they do now. Ad infinitum and forever. Ten billion billionaires. The resources are here to do that.
FERAL objected:
Hey Dick, please back up these utopian visions. Ten billion billionaires will not/can not happen.
The theme of groundedness, or if you will effectiveness, emerged in another thread as well. Robert Searle wrote:
Real sustainable change at a rapid pace within a high growth economy would require a huge amount of capital, and planning. Transfinancial Economics offers a very powerful approach to all this.
Tim filed the "effectiveness objection:"
Anything to change the accounting has to be applicable and not spiritual-applicability means that is workable and it is ready to be used-example the cash machines in the wall in all cities around the world."
Another familiar theme involved the nature of corporations--a force for good, or evil, or somewhere in between? Dick Fischbeck sees global corporations as making a positive contribution:
Megacorps (not the banks) with R & D facilities are making helpful discoveries. That's what they do if they want to stay in business ... Industrial production of the most advanced technologies is our greatest livingry potential. I don't see a way around that.
FERAL sees things differently:
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.
A bloggerial aside here: wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to dialogue about sustainability without getting bogged down in debates that ultimately fall back to philosophical (or maybe the word is ideological) first principles? I'm not suggesting any given ideologies are right or wrong. I'm stating the obvious, that their invocation produces impasses. Is their a process or processes that enable people to bypass these traps? And a follow-up question: might it be possible to script a set of sustainability principles that is genuinely ideology-neutral, i.e. that is valid whether or not, for instance, "mega-corps" are good, bad, or indifferent? A nice thought, no? And here, maybe, is an even nicer one: maybe Michael's Principles do precisely that?
Food for Thought. Michael Ben-Eli has offered some interesting reflections. In response to dsevans93's observation that "smaller organizations are preferable for many reasons," Michael wrote:
I think that ultimately, perhaps, it is not size but internal variety which matters. You can have huge systems functioning through multiple individual interactions and diverse channels (brains, rainforests) and what seems to matter, at any given context, is that its components do not become too monolithic ( of low variety).
About the distribution of wealth, he had this to say:
I think that the ultimate distribution of wealth (in any sytem, or society)is important. It is impotratn for the long term, since concentrated accumulations in fewer and fewer hands would tend to reduce the variety of the sytem as a whole, in the sense (as is manifest in current world economy) that relatively smaller number of players gain increasingly more power to influence events.
About the scope of design science and the relationship between sustainability and the driving motivation behind human activity:
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.
And finally, responding to Dick Fischbeck, Michael wrote:
I like very much your suggestion to regard "principles" as concept that are essential as (a) guide to action. Action guiding statement would then range from "inviolables" (such as the laws of gravity) to "wishables" (things we would like to encourage --justice, gender equality, and so forth).
Quotable Quotes. Some great quotes have emerged from this dialogue. Here are some of my recent favorites:
Action is design followed by artifact. If there is no artifact, there is no action.
The beginning of faith is the end of thinking.
And let's not forget Bucky, courtesy of Dick Fischbeck:
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.