Climate Change, Sustainability, and Community

I’ve been thinking about behavioral change in response to environmental issues for a long time now.  Forty years ago I wrote a freshman college paper entitled, The Need for an Attitudinal Change wherein I characterized consumerism as a disease that society needed to cure for humanity to survive.  Seven years later for my MS thesis, I evaluated the potential for economic incentives to alter patterns of electricity consumption and the resulting power plant air pollution levels.  Soon after that I embarked on a career as an environmental consultant with the naive expectation that we’d clean up the environment while society got its house in order and quit making such a mess.  In the 1990s as editor of the Slippery Rock University newsletter founded by my father, The Alternator, I explored the concept of sustainability and, among other things, advocated for consumers to use their purchasing clout to help redirect social priorities toward sustainable systems.  Several years ago, I devised a “Philosophy of Sustainability” that was posted here (http://hermitorhero.blogspot.com/2012/02/a-philosophy-of-sustainability.html) wherein I identified six behaviors I feel are key to society achieving sustainable lifestyles: harmony with natural processes, reverence and respect for all things, moderation, cooperation, conservation, and taking responsibility.

I feel like my personal choices and actions have been consistent with the principles I’ve espoused for all these years, but that they have not been as impactful as I wish they’d been.  Intellectually, I embrace my Philosophy of Sustainability, but I’m not satisfied that my actions speak as loudly as my words.  My wife and I have taken many steps over the years to lessen our environmental footprint but as it becomes more and more apparent that society’s consumption of fossil fuels and production of plastic junk is far from abating, I’m asking myself how I can do more.

In the fall of 2017 I attended Al Gore’s Climate Reality training with the hope of stimulating not only myself, but other people as well.  While I’m on track to complete the requisite number of leadership activities I committed to perform this year and those actions may have inspired some others to take action, I’m looking to do more.

With that challenge in mind, I helped to create a Green Team at my office of 350 environmental engineers and scientists this year.  With the interest of a core group, the support of office management, and the guidance of an excellent Playbook produced for the Sustainable Pittsburgh Challenge (https://www.spchallenge.org/) we are working through a variety of self-selected goals such as reducing our use of plastic and Styrofoam, more effective paper recycling, and establishing baselines of energy use and transportation choices with accompanying improvement targets.

These are all good things and it’s rewarding to be working with young folks who are enthusiastic about sustainability.  But, at the same time I’m reminded of articles I published in The Alternator decades ago that listed simple things that people can do at home to be more sustainable.  Item 2 from a list published in Volume 8, No. 4 (Summer 1994) was “buy in bulk and take your own shopping bag.”  While some people recognized that single-use plastic bags were unsustainable way back then, it took thirteen years for San Francisco to become the first jurisdiction in California to ban their use.  Then, nine years later in 2016, California became the first state to prohibit stores from providing them to customers.  So, while individually we often know what is better, societally it can take a long time to move the needle on a large scale.  And that’s just one example.  So, as I start my 60^th year I’ve been asking myself why it is that I haven’t made more substantial changes in behavior, even if my attitude has been in a sustainable frame of mind for 40 years. 

It’s definitely not a matter of “out of sight, out of mind.”  Media coverage brings wild fires, melting ice caps, and plastic waste into our homes nightly.  I don’t have to live in a coastal area like Miami where routine high tides now flood city streets or in northern California where hotter weather has led to longer fire seasons, to know we have problems.  And even though western Pennsylvania has been largely unscathed by climate change so far, the prevalence of flash flooding has noticeably increased and the deep winter snows of my youth are long gone.

It’s also not a matter of thinking my individual actions (positive or negative) don’t matter.  I realize that the problems are the consequence of many individual decisions and that the solutions will similarly require the collective effort of many individual actions.

And, it’s not that I don’t know what to do (or what not to do)?  The things we can do lessen our environmental impacts have been known about since environmental awareness started. There have been numerous guides published over the last few decades with tips on “how to save the planet.”  But making these choices part of one’s daily lifestyles does take effort and when society makes it easier to do the wrong thing than the right thing (like using plastic straws instead of paper), it takes a conscious effort to avoid being part of the problem.  When we can make sustainability easy, more people will make those choices.  And, when society decides as a whole, like the California’s proposition on one-use bags, the decision about how to do the right thing is made for us.

Fundamentally, I think it’s a matter of insufficient incentives and disincentives.  Besides ethical and moral reasons to do the right thing environmentally, the value proposition isn’t always obvious.  Economists like Susan Meeker-Lowry (Economics as If the Earth Really Mattered, New Society Publishers, 1988); Robert Costanza (Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, 1991); and Hazel Henderson (Building a Win-Win World, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995) have helped us understand the value of protecting the environment, not just the costs.  Fundamentally, if the value proposition is between survival and incurring higher costs, then clearly it’s worth the higher cost to be sustainable.  Fortunately for now, the urgency of survival hasn’t been clear.  At the same time, it often takes a crisis for society to take significant corrective actions.

Recognizing that problems exist and that there are solutions in hand, what prevents me from implementing more positive change in my day-to-day actions?  Bad habits can be hard to change.  It’s human nature to get into patterns that are comfortable and familiar even if they’re self-destructive.  But we can break those patterns by connecting with others who share our convictions.  Working together, we can achieve a critical mass of like-minded voters who can influence the political process.  We can be influenced to make positive changes in behavior by peer pressure.

My family got me a Fitbit^® watch for my birthday.  They’ve all been using the devices for some time and have encouraged me to join the “community.”  I’ve resisted since I haven’t needed a community to help me make good choices about my exercise routines and I thought it’d be intrusive.  But now we’re all linked and I can see their daily activity levels and they can see mine.  I guess the idea is that the peer pressure helps encourage us all to do more and stay fit.  I can see some value in that.

Similarly, I can see value in being part of a Sustainability community.  That’s why the Green Team at work was formed and why Sustainable Pittsburgh developed their challenge as a fun way for businesses to work together toward common and mutually beneficial goals.  Through a points system, we’re rewarded for performing individual tasks that have been defined in the Playbook.  While the actual benefits aren’t quantified, the significance of each activity is ranked so that participants can gauge the relative value of each action.

This type of cooperative effort is exactly the type of process I’ve been looking for to feel motivated, energized, and integrated with others to make more meaningful changes in my individual, family, workplace, and community.  Maybe the next step is to develop a “Sustain-Bit” to help us all monitor and track the individual actions we take every day and how those actions really impact or benefit the environment.

Earth Day 2018

I’ve always thought of myself as an optimist. I generally “look on the bright side of life” and I seek silver linings after hardship and loss. Whether through the love of family and friends, the wisdom of ancient sages, or the solace of Nature, I find reasons to be hopeful.

Those close to me might argue that I’m more of a “neutralist.” They might point to my objective and analytical “Mr. Spock” nature around which I’ve built a science and engineering-based career. Or, they may point to my gravitation toward Eastern philosophy and my normally calm non-judgmental attitude. I tend to accept what is and adapt to situations as needed. I don’t worry much about what may be but rather attend to the things I want and need to do as best as I’m able.  Sure, I plan for the future, have hopes and dreams, and have a vision for a healthy world, but I don’t dwell on failures, shortcomings, and dead ends. The pragmatic MacGyver in me has dealt with unexpected situations enough times to have confidence that things will work out.

As this Earth Day neared, I considered how my perspective as a neutralist leaning towards optimism has shaped my reaction to environmental concerns of the day. I realized that I’m being apolitical.  Besides the typical reasons like parental and familial responsibilities, professional duties, and competing personal interests, life affords plenty of opportunities to be disengaged from the big problems like climate change, gun violence, gender rights, immigration, and a misguided Presidency. Life presents plenty of distractions and valid reasons not to be political.

What’s politics have to do with it?” you might ask.  That’s what I thought so I grabbed my copy of the wonderful Politics for Human Beings (Hummel and Isaak, Duxbury Press, 1980). There, I was reminded that “Politics is a social act to resolve the tension between human needs and social facts.”  Hummel and Isaac explain:

Social facts are old social acts that have become conditions. Social facts often frustrate human needs. For example, although people set up a corporation to satisfy their own needs and wants, as soon as their act becomes a condition, it frustrates the needs of others who share more in the pollution than in the profits created by the firm. Thus the social acts of one group of people to satisfy their own needs often frustrate the fulfillment of needs perceived by other groups. As soon as such tension between social facts and human needs is perceived, political consciousness comes into being.

So the question may be, how intense does the tension between one’s human needs and the social facts of the day have to become to inspire an individual to become politically engaged?  For a neutralist leaning toward optimism, there have been plenty of ways to rationalize inaction – the easiest being to be ignorant of what is happening. One might avoid the social facts by turning off the Twitter feed and the nightly news. Some may choose to binge on Netflix, focus on their physical health, or find peace of mind in Nature. Political leaders who advocate building walls and closing borders, isolating ourselves and being suspicious of strangers, and bullying those who present inconvenient facts encourage the hermits among us to find a quiet places to avoid being engulfed in the pervasive and stupefying societal miasma being spewed.

But by avoiding the situation, we allow it continue unchecked.  We accept and endorse through our silence.  We keep the virtue and honor of our higher ideals to ourselves and neglect to call out the shameful and indecent behavior of others.

That’s why lately I’ve become a pessimist.

It seems to me that it’s the pessimists who push the envelope and force others out of their accepting complacency by challenging the status quo.  By definition, it’s the pessimists who see the worst in things.  By extension, I think they are less content, less accepting, less forgiving, and less agreeable than their counterparts.  They complain more, they want change, they speak up, they get pissed, and they make trouble.  I don’t see pessimists as being constantly scowling and bitter, but I do see them as being more likely to get upset about injustices and inequities than a neutralist or optimist.  My long-gone dear friend Karen Lundegaard impressed upon me the lesson that “it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease” as she struggled with health coverage that was insufficient to offer adequate care in her short battle with cancer.  And, while fighting for her life against a bureaucratic health-care system didn’t tarnish her positive outlook on life, it left me with a lasting awareness that if people don’t complain, systems won’t change on their own. An excellent current example of what it takes to change a system can be found in Cecile Richards’ new book, Make Trouble (Touchstone, 2018).

Changing implies that something else will be “better” for those whose needs aren’t being met. Better is a judgment call – who’s to say what is better? Society needs to make that call through political action. I agree with Michael J. Sandel who in his 4/8/18 New York Time Book Review piece on Robert Reich’s The Common Good points out that, “Against the grain of much liberal thinking, Reich acknowledges that promoting civic virtue requires being judgmental about what moral attitudes and qualities of character our public life should affirm and promote.”

But for the rare exceptions, individuals, no matter how charismatic, virtuous, sincere, well-intentioned, and honorable, have an insignificant impact on the momentum of society unless they band together in with a common cause.  The winter 2017 #Resist movement in the U.S. that emerged in response to the Trump presidency can be viewed as non-violent action in accordance with fundamental principles of what is right and fair in America. The Me Too movement, March for Our Lives, and Black Lives Matter are other recent examples of people organizing to resolve tensions between needs and social facts. Building on Reich’s point the, I’ll suggest that current conditions justify being judgmental about what behaviors and actions we need to take for the well-being of us all: whether that involves social equity, women’s rights, gun safety, racial equality, or the environment.

Another such organization is Climate Reality: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/

Having attended Al Gore’s October 2017 training in Pittsburgh with 1,400 other enthusiastic leaders, I felt some optimism that society was recognizing that current conditions and trends were leading us to an undesirable future. The 11,000+ members of Climate Reality are working to help us recognize that:

1.     Yes – we must change what energy we consume and how we consume it;

2.     Yes – we can and are changing past conditions through energy conservation, renewable energy, and the phasing out of coal-burning technologies; and

3.     Yes - we will eventually change. Change is occurring but is the pace sufficient enough? I think not and it’s for that reason that I became a Climate Reality Leader.

The reality of climate change has been accepted worldwide. Actions from the individual who chooses the most fuel-efficient modes of transportation available to the nation-states who are working to implement renewable energy economies, span a wide range of morally-driven actions aimed at resolving the tension between perceived needs and current conditions. I’m pessimistic that the Trump presidency will do anything good about Climate Change.  My objective for the year ahead is to help fuel the awareness that politically engaged people can lead our political leaders in morally virtuous directions: one critical direction being toward the societal acceptance of the realities of climate change.

Happy Earth Day!

Cracked Concrete and Blue Crayons

Our House

A vision without a task is but a dream,
a task without a vision is drudgery,
a vision and a task is the hope of the world.

My dad borrowed this anonymous inscription on an 18^th century English church as the motto for his grassroots organization, the Alternative Living Technologies and Energy Research (ALTER) Project.  His vision was of university-based living laboratory teeming with eager students, earnest faculty, and engaged community members all seeking a more harmonious relationship with Nature.  His task was the transformation of a forgotten farmhouse on the campus of Slippery Rock University into what would become in 1990 the nation’s first Master of Science degree program in Sustainable Systems.  After its renovation, we called the farm Harmony House in part because of the adjoining Harmony Road but mostly to inspire a relationship with Nature we hoped would spring from the seeds that would be nurtured there.  Twenty-seven years after his abrupt passing in the spring of 1990, just weeks after having dedicated Harmony House to its mission (in true ministerial tradition, just like his pastor father before him), the Robert A. Macoskey Center for Sustainable Systems continues to fulfill three missions:

·       Education about sustainability through events, workshops and programs;

·       Physical demonstration of sustainable technologies and systems; and

·       Supporting sustainability-focused academic initiatives and research.

I am an environmental scientist today in large part because of the hope he had for the world.  In my high school years, I had no particular career aspirations and was content to pursue the passions of youth.  The mainframe computer with its decks of Fortran cards was interesting but I didn’t ride the wave of computing that captured the attention of many.  I did have a knack for drawing though that was encouraged by artistic parents.  So, when senior year rolled around and I was unable settle on a path, Dad took me to Slippery Rock so I could show his art professor buddy my portfolio.  Whether the professor saw a glimmer of talent or was doing a favor for a pal I don’t know, but I was welcomed the next fall to the art department.

That was 1977.  Just four years earlier, the U.S. had experienced its first energy crisis.  Three years before that, the first Earth Day had been celebrated and then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was formed.  In response to those and other events my dad had developed one of the more popular courses on campus called Philosophy and Alternative Futures.  Through expert guest lecturers and student research, he and his students explored the nexus of environmental ethics and innovative technology that was permeating popular culture in works like Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Fuller, 1969); Small is Beautiful (Schumacher, 1973); Soft Energy Paths (Lovins, 1977); and Progress As If Survival Mattered (Friends of the Earth, 1977).  Maybe it was attending his class that changed my mind about my career path as an artist.  Maybe it was the awareness that I didn’t really understand the environmental science behind what I was attempting to convey in my art.  Or, maybe it was my pragmatic acknowledgement to my future father-in-law (a salt-of-the earth Western PA steel worker) that my earning potential as an artist was not as great as practically any other choice.  Whatever the reasons, my junior year found me newly married and enrolled in the department of environmental sciences.  For the next two years, I’d often commute the 30 minutes to and from our home town to campus with Dad and talk about his vision and plans while trying to formulate my own.

Still at a bit of a loss in those days about what to with a degree in environmental science, 1981 found me accepted to one of the few such graduate degree programs in the country.  Although by mutual agreement, the marriage of high school sweethearts didn’t survive beyond two years at Mr. Jefferson’s University of Virginia, one thing that did was my passion for a systems integration of the environmental sciences.  At UVA I discovered not only lifelong friends including my wife of 32 years, but the interdisciplinary nature of environmental issues and the importance of considering the multiple scientific and social dimensions of our global problems and solutions.  A few years later with that M.S. and a little luck, I was able to validate my career path for a skeptical grandfather and patron by landing a job as an air quality scientist with the consulting firm, Environmental Science Associates, Inc. in San Francisco, California.

My naïve vision at that time was of an environmental protection corps that would clean up all of society’s pollution, establish an era of environmental stewardship and sustainability, and eventually eliminate the need for environmental cleanup altogether.  Thirty-one years later, while some of our biggest environmental legacies like many Superfund sites, the ozone hole, and atmospheric lead exposures have been mitigated; many old problems continue and new ones constantly emerge.  Sadly, environmental issues aren’t going away and we need more people, not fewer, working on these problems.

Several years ago I created this blog and named it Unshutter the Lantern as a reference to the hermit who emerges from his seclusion to share his thoughts with whomever is willing to listen.  As may be discerned from its address, hermitorhero, I struggle with the dichotomy between a desire for hermit-like seclusion and the need for hero-like leadership.  One of the first things I posted was a series entitled The Philosophy of Sustainability.  It had taken me years to articulate and express that vision and I felt good about the result but a practical task to implement that vision eluded me.

One day as I sat in an unstimulating office meeting this past August, I was excited to learn from the local non-profit, Sustainable Pittsburgh, that Al Gore would be coming to town in October to present training through his Climate Reality Corps.  After a quick review of the organization and their mission, I completed the application and submitted it for consideration.  My family and friends can attest to my excitement on being accepted to what would become the 36^th and largest training event in the eleven years since An Inconvenient Truth started a movement.

Like most kids, mine drew pictures of our house when they were children.  One my son drew from memory while in third grade gnawed at my psyche for years.  While the front porch and awnings are a bit crooked and the overall image is a bit abstract, he accurately depicted the disintegrating concrete driveway with its cracks and weeds.  That he had recalled those details as being integral to his image of our home has stuck with me ever since.  Not that as a child he would consider the cracks to be good or bad but that he had internalized that decay as part of his world.  I lived with the recognition that the disintegration of our driveway was normal to him and that bothered me.  He was away at college by the time we were able to finally have a new concrete driveway installed and sending him a picture of that freshly-poured surface helped to exorcise those old feelings.

Then all of those old memories came flooding back during one of the three days of Climate Reality training sessions in October.  We heard a story about a woman in China whose child drew pictures of her home with skies colored gray.  The mother asked why they were gray and reminded the child that the sky is blue.  When she pointed to the sky and saw the hazy smog, she understood why her child had internalized that as part of her reality.

Of course gray skies are just one of the many consequences of our unsustainable lifestyles.  The long list of large-scale consequences includes ecosystem destruction, species extinction, sea level rise, increased drought and fire, disappearing glaciers, and political instability.  Closer to home, the annual western PA waist-high snowfalls of my youth are long gone while tropical diseases like the zika virus have already reached the Mason-Dixon line.  Tick season lasts longer than ever, poison ivy grows more persistently, and as I write we’re having a thunderstorm in November, in Pittsburgh.

Nevertheless, as a scientist, consultant, and systems thinker, I’ve had faith in the ingenuity and fortitude of people to solve our global problems if we could recognize that the cracks in our driveway and the leaden skies overheard were actually bad things – not permanent parts of our reality that our children and theirs had to accept.  Then came Trump and his systematic efforts to dismantle environmental protections, global cooperation, and any sort of meaningful leadership of Americans as global citizens.  That was the last straw for me and one that I believe broke the back of many sturdy folks who have held out hope that national leaders would achieve positive change toward sustainable environmental policies.  

I want to look back 30 years from now in my golden years with praise and admiration for the achievements we all have yet to realize as we work to counter the reality we’ve all grown to accept as normal.  Complacency and faith must be replaced with urgency and action.  Climate change is not a belief system so don’t ask if people believe in it or not.  It’s a reality and it’s just science.  Sure, there are myriad complicated interrelationships, but fundamentally it’s very simple.  Does the energy equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs sound significant?  What if you knew that globally we are releasing that amount of energy into the atmosphere EVERY SINGLE DAY!  That’s not complicated – it’s just wrong.

So, when someone asks you, “must we change?” tell them emphatically, “YES!”

When they ask, “but can we change?”  The answer is “YES!”

Then ask them the question we all need to internalize, “will you change?”

The reality of our climate crisis is that, “YES, we will change.”  Change is inevitable, but at this time we still have the choice to change in a manner that we can control and manage.    It is already late and the path to a sustainable future will be challenging, painful, and sad regardless of how diligently and earnestly we work together to mitigate, adapt, and reduce suffering.  But, the longer we wait, the less viable that path will be as Nature will dictate the terms and the timeframe.  There is still hope if we band together with the many others around the globe who have been leading our leaders to a sustainable future.  If you share the vision of a sustainable human future on Earth, the time is now to find a related task worthy of your hero nature and get to work.  If we all do that, there will always be a need for blue crayons.

For more information, I urge you to explore these resources:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  http://www.ipcc.ch/

Skeptical Science:  https://www.skepticalscience.com/

Real Climate:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Climate Reality Project:  http://www.climaterealityproject.org

National Climate Assessment:  http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Union of Concerned Scientists:  http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.WfC9S-SWzB0

Climate Communication:  https://www.climatecommunication.org/

Yale Center of Environmental Communication: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/

Sustainability Principles 1, 2, & 3

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. 

A Philosophy of Sustainability

Wherein the 6 proposed elements of a philosophy of sustainability are summarized for easy recall.

‘A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.’

Tao Te Ching 80 - Lao Tzu

We all should be happy in our ways.  We needn't return to the knotting of rope, but we needn't be extravagant to be happy either.  Perhaps our culture became too enamored of the Darwinian concept of ‘survival of the fittest,’ and we have since been preoccupied with being the most able competitors.  Perhaps we need to evolve beyond such primal motivations and align our behaviors with a change in philosophy.  Such a Philosophy of Sustainability might revolve around six principles.

1.         All Things Are in a State of Becoming

Recognize that all things change and that change creates new things.  Be aware that what is being sustained is a process of increasing complexity and diversity and that humanity’s ability to harmonize with that process is reflective of our maturity as a species.

2.         All You Need Is Love

Approach all things with a loving attitude.  Recognize that we are all part of the same whole.  Recognize in others the myriad reflections of yourself and all you hold dear.  Treat the earth with reverence and respect - for it is the source of sustenance in this plane of existence.

3.         Satisfaction of Needs Strengthens the Body and Spirit - Satisfaction of Wants Weakens

Body and spirit need certain things to maintain health. Satisfying those needs promotes individual and community health.  Seeking after more than is needed leads to selfishness and conflict.  In everything seek to achieve moderation.  Do not do anything to excess.  Maintain perspective and appreciate all points of view.  Obsession leads to strife and conflict.

4.         Challenge Yourself to Cooperate.  Do Not Compete for the Sake of Challenge

Share resources and build consensus.  Cooperation is a physical manifestation of love.  Work together to achieve shared goals - do not strive to control others.  Competition leads to conflict and conflict leads to suffering.  There is no ‘us versus them,’ it is just ‘us.’  Be selfless in your enterprise - not selfish.  Challenge yourself and your loved ones to do their best for yourself and the whole.

5.         Waste Not Want Not

Take care in how resources and energy are used - they are precious and limited.  Take greater care in why they are used.   

6.        Take Responsibility for Your Actions

Take responsibility for your actions and challenge yourself to change your behavior when it becomes apparent that your actions are not sustainable.  Do not ignore the consequences of your actions or expect others to address them for you.

The Philosophy of Sustainability: Element 6 - Responsibility

This is Part 6 of a 6-part series wherein elements of a philosophy of sustainability are suggested.

6.                  Responsibility

‘Humans come of age are totally responsible for what they are and what they do.  We are free to do whatever we like within the limits of our several abilities.  We need only face the consequences.’

            Process – Robert A. Macoskey

We make choices every moment of every day.  ‘Shall I keep doing what I’m doing now, or shall I do something different?’  ‘Shall I look over there or keep looking over here?’  ‘Should I say something about that or keep my mouth shut?’  The consequences of some choices are trivial, but the consequences of others are profound.  The effects of some actions are foreseeable while the effects of others are not. 

Infants are not expected to be responsible for their actions.  As children, we learn acceptable behaviors and the consequences for not adhering to them.  Adolescents are given more responsibility, but are not held to high standards of accountability.  Young adults are expected to be fully aware of accepted behavior and are held accountable, but because poor judgment is common, the consequences for inappropriate behavior are often softened.  Adults are fully vested with responsibility and accountability for their words and deeds.  Adults are expected to be wise enough to understand the consequences of their actions and mature enough to accept them.

We can choose to establish rules for living our lives in accordance with philosophical principles.  We can also recognize that as time passes, our knowledge of what works and what does not will change.  We can choose to reevaluate our underlying principles as well as the ways that we interact with the world or we can steadfastly adhere to behavior even when signs tell us that the course is doomed.

We can choose to approach life from a perspective of love and reverence for all creation.  We can do unto others as we would have them do unto us and reap the benefits or we can approach life with disregard and irreverence and suffer the consequences.

We can choose to fulfill only our needs and by so doing leave enough for others.  Or, we can consume everything and leave nothing.

We can choose to cooperate with others to accomplish common goals and thereby build community and fellowship.  Or, we can struggle individually to satisfy selfish objectives that may make us rich in material but deprived in spirit.

And, we can devote time to understanding how our actions impact others and how we can achieve necessary objectives in ways that are elegantly simple.  We can redesign systems to use materials and energy more wisely and we can reuse or recycle resources to reduce waste.  Or, we can ignore the lessons of Nature and carry on without regard for resource limits, carrying capacities, or the impacts our actions have on the world around us.

Most importantly – we can take responsibility for our actions and change behavior when it becomes apparent that we have made poor choices.  Or, we can ignore the consequences and leave those concerns for others to address another time.