Student: I’d like to return to the principles of
sustainability if I may.
Professor: Certainly – what’s on your mind?
S: Why is impermanence the first principle?
P: It’s the first principle because it underlies
every aspect of our experience in this plane of existence. Everything changes and change “things,”
change creates new things. Nothing stays
the same – the dynamic Process continually unfolds.
S: I understand.
But if everything is constantly changing, then what is the point of
trying to sustain everything? Doesn’t
sustenance mean to hold up and endure?
It seems contradictory to me.
P: Sustainable doesn’t mean static. After all we’re talking about living systems
and if living systems stagnate they die.
The trick seems to be to design systems that recognize this dynamic and
are resilient to the changes occurring around us. One way to be resilient is to be adaptable
and able to change as the world around you continues to develop as well.
S: And love?
Why is that Number 2?
P: Actually the order isn’t important. What is important is the collective attitude
and behavior that’s informed by all six principles together. But, now that you ask, I suppose that as we
discussed in Process, following the
coalescence of planetary bodies and the much later origin of life on Earth –
the awakening of sentience and the epitome of conscious thought, in my humble
opinion, would be that of universal love and all the positive connotations that
flow from it: compassion, admiration,
respect, reverence, awe… It could be
argued that Love should be number one because if all actions were guided by
love for our fellow sojourners on this cosmic voyage it seems to me that
everything else would take care of itself.
But impermanence is a cosmic force while love reflects our attitude
towards one another, so I think the order makes sense.
S: Why do you think it is that love is so easily
overlooked and requires such constant reinforcement?
P: You might ask yourself – is it easier to be
loving or hateful? Think of your state
of mind as you drive down the highway.
Do you tend to be forgiving and generous to your fellow travelers or
spiteful and vindictive? Are you helpful
and courteous or oblivious and ignorant?
Do you empathize or criticize?
I’d suggest that it’s much easier to be impatient and hurtful than it is
to be tolerant and helpful. Many times,
the loving action requires that you step outside yourself and make a commitment
to think of someone other than your self – to be selfless. So we have to be reminded that loving thy
brother is a virtue.
S: Alright – next. “Needs strengthen, wants weaken.” You suggest that to seek after anything more
than what is needed is selfish and leads to conflict. That’s contrary to our whole economy – if
people didn’t consume based on wants and desires as enticed by the blitzkrieg
of advertising we’re exposed to every day - even to the extent that it
infiltrates the television programming wedged between the ads – then production
of goods would grind to a halt.
P: First let me comment on you observation that
this principle is contrary to our economic system. Precisely.
Who is claiming that our system is sustainable? A duration of 250 or 260 years, counting from
the early Industrial Revolution, is hardly sustainable. Plenty of indicators suggest that we are far
from it.
Second is
your comment about production of goods grinding to a halt. For some things, yes – for needed things,
no. I’m still talking about “the making
of things” but I’m referring to the mass consumption of resources and energy
for the manufacture of things that are inspired by a sensitivity to what is needed more than by what people can be
compelled to want.
Not that
individuals should forego the impulse to create and invent and make new things.
S: Can you give an example?
P: Sure, take that laptop computer or tablet –
is that a need or a want?
S: It’s most certainly a need. I need it to get information, to communicate,
to record ideas and information, for entertainment, and for income.
P: Right, here is a device that is needed today
as an integral part of this person’s life yet 20 years ago, we all got along
just fine without them. Granted, society
has changed and some things are just not as easy to do today without a
computer, although some people manage.
The truth is, Western society is enamored of technology – this is
nothing new. We celebrate the unveiling
of the latest cars and consumer electronics with great fanfare.
But is the
cost of these devices worth the benefits we obtain? Is it worth the environmental, social, and
economic impacts on both small and large scales? Can we even discern what those impacts
are? If we don’t know what the
consequences of our actions are, is it ok to do it anyway? The Earth is a large and dynamic system, one
capable of absorbing massive disruptions to its equilibrium - whether by
volcanoes, meteor strikes, oil spills, or carbon dioxide emissions, but there
are limits to any system’s rejuvenating capacities and we have been seeing negative
impacts from the beginning of this train wreck.
S: That sounds pretty ominous Professor – you’ll
usually more optimistic.
P: It is ominous and I guess I’m pessimistic
because of our short-term perspective to decision making. When we start making decisions with a sensitivity
and concern for several generations after us, I’ll have more hope – assuming we
make it that far.
No comments:
Post a Comment