Vision Comments Answered

On this page, Josh Farley responds to one person's comments on the ESDA vision as printed in RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #727. The feedback is in red font and Josh's responses are in blue.

THE VISION SO FAR

The most important outcome of the first ESDA future search conference was the creation of a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable America in the year 2100. Creating such a vision is an enormous undertaking, and what we produced is really only a rough sketch. An important part of our work will be to flesh out this vision, and make sure that it is a desirable vision to a representative majority of Americans. We hope you can take the time to read our vision, and offer us your comments. Would you like to live in this world? Are there elements of our vision with which you disagree? Are important pieces missing? When you are done, please send your feedback to farley@cbl.umces.edu.

We have organized our vision into five separate components: Worldviews, Built Capital, Natural Capital, Human Capital and Social Capital.

WORLDVIEWS

Worldview plays a very important role in creating a sustainable and desirable America. What is worldview? Worldview is a belief system held by an individual, community or society that explains the world around us and our experiences and role in that world. Our worldview tells us who we are and what is the purpose of our existence. It tells us where we are: what kind of world and environment do we live in? It also tells us what is right and wrong about the world, and how to preserve what is right and fix what is wrong. Worldview is determined largely by the culture in which we are raised.

A worldview that is appropriate under one set of conditions may not be under another. This only makes sense (does it? sort of redundant, elitist, self congratulating - drop this statement. It doesn't always make transparent sense to everyone - which is why corporations/corporate culture still annihilate the environment using the same methods and principles from the 18th century though they have the perspective and technology of the 21st ). Worldview tells us what kind of world we live in, and the kind of world we live in is continually changing. Worldview is also intimately linked to culture and circumstance. One might argue that there were three basic worldviews in colonial territories in North America at the turn of the 18th century. European Americans lived in a sparsely populated world of vast frontiers and untamed wilderness. In their worldview, natural resources were limitless and humans, civilization, machinery and basic consumer goods were scarce. The rest of the world was (seemed) far away and unimportant. Native Americans lived in a full world (define what a "full" world is; vague), surrounded by neighbors, both enemies and friends. Humans were part of a harmonious natural system (not necessarily true, and tends to romanticize aboriginal cultures as somehow ideal. Anthro/soc studies show this is not the case in all aboriginal cultures.) that provided all of their needs under careful stewardship (was/is this the Native American world view?). African Americans lived under cruel bondage in a grossly unfair world. (extend the parallel structure of this paragraph. This explains the Afro-American experience - not their worldview). These three different cultures viewed the same world in dramatically different ways. Over time American culture has converged somewhat (converged to what? A single culture? Be more specific - a shared virtual culture, or a fractured real set of cultures that agree to certain principles? What is the real "truth" here?) as has our worldview. Enormous differences in worldview still remain (assumes more than one culture, and contradicts any convergence) among the people of North America/ the United States, but the differences are perhaps not as great as divided us in the 18th century (subjective statement. Afro-Americans could claim that while they are not subject to institutionalized slavery, they are subject to institutionalized poverty).

Now however, our world is dramatically different. Once abundant natural resources (list some examples: forests, fish stocks, groundwater, etc.) have become scarce, and humans and their accoutrements (better word available? Not all signs of humanity are physical) are now over/super-abundant. In today's age of rapid technological advance, population growth, and resource consumption, the world appears to be changing faster than our worldview. (great sentence) Many components of our worldview are no longer in harmony (avoid using word twice in two successive paragraphs) with today's physically different world. In many cases, what was once reasonably viewed as a solution to our problems has now become a part of the problem. (Provide examples)

The America we envision in 2100 is based on a very different way of viewing the world than is commonly held today, one that is more in harmony with the physical constraints imposed by a finite planet. Humans will (Never assume will with humans. We do as our ego, not our ideals dictate. Use need to instead) re-establish a spiritual connection to nature. Our worldview must no longer divide the planet into humans vs. nature. People must come to recognize that humans are part of nature, one species among many, and must obey the laws imposed by nature. We need to recognize that nature is not something to be subjugated, but is instead something we depend upon absolutely to meet both physical and spiritual needs. We will recognize that natural resources are scarce and must be invested in. Our goal will be to create sustainable conditions conducive to life in the broadest sense.

Alternate (keep the wills): We envision in 2100 that humans will re-establish a spiritual connection to nature. Our worldview will no longer divide the planet into humans vs. nature. People will recognize that humans are part of nature, one species among many, and must obey the laws imposed by nature. We will recognize that nature is not something to be subjugated, but instead is something we depend upon absolutely to meet both physical and spiritual needs. We will recognize that natural resources are scarce and must be invested in. Our goal will be to create conditions conducive to life in the broadest sense.

For centuries the (European/Cartesian) worldview of mechanistic physics dominated Western society. Within this worldview, each action has an equal and opposite reaction, and only by studying systems at smaller and smaller scales, can we come to fully understand these reactions. As more and more people come to understand the inherent complexity of ecosystems and human systems, we will come to realize that results cannot always be predicted, and that irreducible uncertainty dominates the provision of life support services by (huh? Do you mean that "life support" that healthy ecosystems provide to organisms? Or just humans? Unclear. You could just drop these six words and the sentence is fine as well.) healthy ecosystems. An ecological worldview of complexity and indeterminacy, inspired by nature as mentor -- holistic, integrated and flexible -- will replace the worldview of mechanical physics.

Individualism is appropriate and perhaps even necessary in a world of vast frontiers and unlimited elbowroom. Individualism will still be extremely important in 2100, but will need to become far more tempered by a concern for the common good. This can lead to a system where communities promote total individual liberty as long as individual actions do not have a negative impact on the community. Individuals in return must learn to accept that they are a part of society, and that it is unfair to impose costs on society (what about other organisms? Or do they measure into this worldview? Be more inclusive) for private gain. This attitude will be necessary if we are to wean ourselves of our dependence on heavily polluting single occupancy vehicles, for example (Seems totally thrown in at the end of this paragraph. Expand into a paragraph of examples that discuss more than just transportation, like water usage, land stewardship, energy/power consumption, etc.).

Further, ever increasing consumption can no longer be considered an integral component of human needs as it is today. People should pay attention to their other needs and desires, such as joy, beauty, affection, participation, creativity, freedom, and understanding. Building a strong sense of community (alternately: Building stronger communities) can help us meet these needs, while working ever harder to pay for more consumption deprives us of the time and energy required to fulfill them. Thus, status should not be conferred by high incomes and high consumption (individual ends) but rather by contribution to civil society and community ends.

With the recognition that consumption beyond limit is not only physically unsustainable but also does little to improve our quality of life, we will understand that a steady state economy is our goal. A steady state economy does not mean an end to development. Rather, it simply (drop this word - there is nothing simple about implementing this process) means that we limit the input of raw materials into our economic system and their inevitable return to the ecosystem as waste to a level compatible with the ecological constraints imposed by a finite planet with finite resources. We must live within the carrying capacity of our planet. We do not yet know the carrying capacity, and the carrying capacity is subject to change. Therefore, adaptive management must be a guiding principle. The economy will be solar powered (oh really? What about other sources of energy - like fuel cells, wind power, even nuclear [which isn't even fully utilized when you consider that the DOE limits the use of a fuel rod to 3% of total fuel; the other 97% of usable rod is dumped]. Solar isn't the only option in most people's agendas). Economic production will focus on quality, not quantity. Rather than focus on the production of goods, we will focus on the production of the services provided by goods. We do not need cars, we need transportation (The culture and status of automobiles, plus the emphasis on individuality, is not likely to eliminate autos any time in the near future. We had animals for 30000 years; we may have cars for that long too. What we may need are cleaner cars and fewer cars. There is an entire cultural fear of public transportation [which is what you are strongly hinting at here] that I believe you underestimate. As long as white suburbanites fear crime and ethnic peoples, public transportation is going nowhere. Until we eliminate fear of people of different color, we will continue to have insulated suburbs - an even greater problem then how we get to and from one place to another). We do not need televisions; we need entertainment. Goods are only a means to an end, and by recognizing this our economy can develop as never before without physically growing (Is physical growth of an economy a bad thing in every situation? For instance, eco-tourism requires a physical product environment, and yet, in the terms of this worldview's value system, and entirely viable economy).

This last paragraph is on the borderline of sounding like radical voodoo-whodoo that will likely get vigorous head nods from leftists, looks of concern or apathy from the Christian centrists, and downright disdain from the traditional right. Take a lesson from Bill Clinton - watch the tone of this worldview vision if you wish to recruit and enlist from the center. Use tactics of subtlety to appeal to the undecided audience. Remain polarized in your language, but not to the point of potentially alienating those you most wish to convince. Eliminate absolutes from this world vision. There is nothing absolute about anything - you said so in your dictum on healthy ecosystems. There is an irreducible intangibility in every system - including any economy, society, or community you may wish to build. Remember, you do not need the unwavering allegiance of all, but a solid majority. That is the true American history and legacy.

[To be continued.]