Printable View
What is your definition of sustainability?
I don't necessarily want this to become a thread for arguing about who is right and who is wrong. But I would like to see the plethora of SLers' ideas about what sustainability means to them, and perhaps how their SL is geared toward it.
Go! :)
I don't believe that we can have a sustainable culture that relies on industry and technology. Our civilization is destroying the Earth.
I also think that our own "ecological footprint" and consumer actions have little to no impact on the environment, even if every single person did the very most they could.
I work through various groups as an activist to change our culture. As for my personal life, I practice permaculture and am spending time learning other means and methods for community survival without technology. I would not say I'm a prepper, but I do believe in being prepared. I think there is a lot to be said for the Transition Town movement.
Every civilization so far has crashed; I believe ours will as well. That doesn't necessarily mean the extinction of humans; it does mean the extinction of industry. I have done a great deal of research on this, and the research supports my conclusions.
(For the most part, I try to keep my politics off of SLF, as I would with any group of friends of mixed political opinions and beliefs.)
I think the Natural Step people are onto something with their approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_Step
I've always thought this is a superb approach. As an engineer/scientist/mathematician it has great appeal, as it lays out the system conditions that seem likely to allow a long-enduring culture to survive. You can of course argue about the particular conditions, but I think the overall approach of laying out the guidelines is very productive, and to me seems one of the few ways to avoid collapse, die-off, or some of the other bad paths.
http://www.thenaturalstep.org/sustai...em-conditions/
http://www.thenaturalstep.org/sites/...es/4SP_Box.png
Fire is a technology. The simplest stone tool is a technology. Birth control is a technology. Clean water and proper waste treatment are technologies. Shelter is a technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardenarian
We need technology to survive as a species, we have evolved to use some very essential ones. The key is to use our technologies in a sustainable fashion. Not to revert to something pre-Homo Habilis.
Yes, I would never eschew technology as a whole, but I pick & choose those systems that are useful to me. I live very nicely without use of a cell phone, TV, or microwave, but I really enjoy easy access to electricity, modern health care, and the water/waste systems.
I think we've gone beyond the need for sustainability--we are at the point where the buzzword should be "regenerative." We can't sustain what we have because if we do, we're still up the creek. We need to regenerate fertile soil, creeks and rivers, clean air. We're at the point where we have to do some smart backpedaling. I happen to believe that technology can play an important role in this, but at the same time we have to recognize that we have gone too far in one direction and it's time to turn back.
But to answer the question, to me sustainability means that we, as human beings, should go back to being part of the cycle of life instead of flouting it.
ETA: I just happened to be reading a sample of Joanna Macy's new book and found a relevant passage:
"A sustainable society is one which satisfies its needs without jeopardizing the prospects of future generations." That definition is a little too vague to me, frankly, because people today have this inherent expectation that you can go into "debt" (exploit the earth and its resources) but then "pay it back" later (restore the damage). So the quote above doesn't take into account that some debts bankrupt you. Nature's balance sheet doesn't work they way our minds do.
I'd rather think of it as "a sustainable society is one in which we contribute actively to supporting the natural ecological systems which, in turn, support us."
Sustainability is understanding that if stranded afloat in the Pacific Ocean in a raft with two others and one Hershey's chocolate bar, eating the entire candy bar while your raft mates sleep is immoral and will likely get you thrown overboard to the Sharks.
Throwing you overboard is a waste of resources.
Not according to the sharksQuote:
Originally Posted by Chicken lady
Sustainable is living with the least impact on the earth and the resources available now and for future generations. I don't buy anything that will go into landfill - think solar garden lights, disposable items, plastic items that are not recyclable, plus a simple diet and lifestyle with minimal clothes and furnishings
I'm reading a book "1491" - some of the things put forward are not agreed upon by different people in the field, but the author makes the case that a lot of the "bountiful" found here when folks arrived from Europe was due to extensive land and ecological management done by the native populations before diseases brought in by the Europeans decimated their numbers. Not sure if all the theories hold up, but it builds an impressive picture of sustainable living.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
creaker:
I think that living the way most Native Americans lived in the Americas before the European invasion is probably one of only a very few sustainable ways to live. I think you have to go stone age. haha
My mother-in-law and father-in-law are both anthropologists, specializing in the US. I have spent decades with them on field expeditions. I think it's a great mistake to frame things as "the way most Native Americans...". There were/are in reality so many different cultures and practices that you run the danger of romanticizing and overly simplifying your analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
http://www.fantom-xp.com/wallpapers/...lorado_USA.jpg
I know there were like 500 different nations. So they all had major differences. But the fact is that things were nowhere near as F-ed up as Europe. And there is only so much damage you can do stone age style.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Native Americans and "stone age style" seems contradictory to me
I am not a Professor of Native American Studies, but I don't think many (if any) Native American tribes from what is now the US had metallurgy of any kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
They did. Copper mostly. The Makah village here in Washington state that was well-preserved by a pre-contact landslide has all sorts of metal tools, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Here are some copper tools from Wisconsin, 3000BC->1000BC
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-_DSC03436.JPG
Wow... Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info.
For some interesting First Nations-based models of sustainable living, you might find it worthwhile to look into some of the peoples of the Pacific NW coastal region.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Here's a start of a bunny trail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
Awesome, thanks. :)
You are a real character, bae. I never know what to expect from you!
Yes, I agree. I saw elsewhere that you mentioned Derrick Jensen's "Endgame." That is exactly where I'm coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler