The great debate in cosmology is about whether the universe we live in is open or closed. It doesn’t matter in the slightest during the lifetime of our planet, but it is fundamental to our understanding of the nature of where we live. That is, will the expansion that started with the Big Bang continue until all energy dissipates into nothingness or will gravity’s pull (to put it crudely) bring everything back together in a Big Crunch? The former is described as open and latter as closed.
Similarly, there is a fundamental question about our species’ attempts to live sustainably. Sustainable development has been adopted as a requirement of government and business, with varying degrees of effectiveness, but that avoids examination of society’s absolute sustainability. In other words, is enough progress being made to ensure our indefinite existence? Or, how much sustainable development do you need to achieve sustainability?
We could add “in a finite amount of time”, but that caveat is self-inserting because sustainability will not wait for ever. We can only live unsustainably for so long, by simple definition.
So how do we determine whether any particular instance of sustainable development is open (ultimately unsustainable) or closed (improving quickly enough to achieve sustainability)? And can we then extend such a method to a community, nation, region or species?
Even quite simple systems like fish stocks have to be monitored over several years to get a clear picture of how fishing practices affect them. As a result, assumptions of effect have to be made and continually modified when planning sustainable development of any activity. But the evolving picture should quantify any permanent effects and trends, and the ultimate sustainability should be evident.
The activity of a community or organization could be assumed to be the sum of its component activities, so if each component activity is judged as sustainable then it should follow that that community’s activities are sustainable. And a slightly more complex criterion for sustainability would be that any unsustainable component activities would have to be balanced out by other positive activities--akin to carbon offsetting, but allowing strictly compatible effects.
The sustainability of the activities of larger groupings of people could be assessed in a similar additive way, until we can judge the ultimate sustainability of our species. But at present, with very little assessment being made, we can only make an informed guess.
Which brings me back to the comparison with cosmology. Where most experts (climate scientists, anthropologists, ecologists, historians, etc.) might judge our current rate of development as unsustainable, opinion is probably more evenly divided on the question of whether we can and will accelerate development enough to achieve sustainability.
Until the informed view becomes so hopeless that we no longer believe we can achieve sustainability, it will remain the prime objective. Or rather, it should remain the prime objective but the mainstream focus has been stuck on sustainable development with no recognition that such development has to be anything other than nominally positive.
This is one paradigm change that is probably best started at grass-roots level, because our species’ ultimate sustainability is the summed effect of its constituent communities. Each community has to achieve sustainability in isolation or in combination with others. Although “think global, act local” always seemed trite and unfair when so much human activity is already consolidated and globalised, communities can demonstrate sustainability one-by-one and the cumulative pressure will be brought to bear on the communities, nations and regions that remain.
As a final thought: achieving global sustainability, will necessitate societal change. Hence, the Green Revolution, if it is to happen at all, might well be won without ideological confrontation. And where’s the satisfaction in that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
On reflection/constructive criticism, the relationship between sustainable development and sustainability needs a little clarification, which I will try to provide with an example.
If a wood of 10,000 trees can supply 100 mature trees every year (you can tell that I know nothing of forestry) then that crop (100/year) is sustainable. If the current rate of harvest is 1,000/year and 10 fewer trees are being felled every year, the reduction in tree removal is sustainable development, i.e the harvest is becoming more sustainable or tending towards sustainability.
But this is not in itself sustainable because all the trees will be gone in 12 years (two years later than if there were no change). If, however, the number of trees removed is reduced by 100 trees every year then the sustainable level will be reached in 10 years, and if the harvest is reduced a little further then the tree population will start to recover.
This is very crude modelling, but I hope it makes the basic point.
It was also pointed out (thanks Lucy) that "Green revolution" is usually taken to mean the increase in output from industrialisation of agriculture and perhaps "ecological revolution" might be more appropriate.
Post a Comment