Want sustainability: need more

I've avoided it before, but I have to dish the same old quote from Bruntland: "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." There are many other definitions that are just as good, but this one famously talks about "needs" rather than activities. Perhaps, after four years of debate on the bleak future for humanity, the Commission felt that we could only plan for necessity rather than desire.

Others have made the connection between Bruntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission) and Maslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) since both use the same frame of reference. It only seems right that we should aspire to meet all our needs, including self-actualisation, so any sustainable development has to leave room for or nurture individuals' whole being.

Among our higher needs is an appreciation of the balance between the individual's desires and the effect that acting on those desires will have on others and society as a whole: an appreciation and formation of a personal moral code that interfaces effectively with others'. The exact method by which such a code is developed and adopted cannot be immaterial: codes handed down by religious order will be different from those developed in conservative societies, which will be different again from those developed in more liberal communities.

Although the differences might be critical, it would be hypocritical to say that one methodology should be preferred over another if we value self-determination. Which is one reason why it would be wrong to add transcendence or spirituality to the top of Maslow's hierarchy as some have done. One may believe that morality is handed down from God, but one cannot impose that belief on others.

Similarly, although several religions (notably Buddhism) see transcendence as the ultimate goal in personal development, that does not make it a need that has to be facilitated through sustainable development. Further, it cannot facilitate transcendence. One can be achieved in exclusion of the other.

What can be argued is that in facilitating moral development, an organisation has to be moral itself. Codes of conduct are not unusual, but are usually part of corporate or political image building. A social organisation with a moral code would behave somewhat differently, and the recent snow highlighted one particular way how.

Like many companies in the UK, my employer either believed that clearing the snow from outside the building was not its responsibility, or that clearing snow would leave it liable for injuries suffered subsequently. In the latter case, behaviour is decided by straightforward risk assessment. But what would the "right" thing be to do? Surely, for the good of the community that my company is part of, we should have cleared the snow and taken the risk?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing that Bruntland's definition brings attention to is that the Commission was clearly talking about development and not sustainability. Committed effort by motivated individuals has moved the mainstream focus to the point that surely we should be talking about "sustainability development"?

Integrity

When I started this blog, it was to counter the idea that a Gandhist solution is impractical because human nature will undermine it. Essentially, I thought that if it came down to whether we are inherently good enough or not then we had better be good enough or we might as well give up and go home.

But what if we can make integrity a must-have element of the way things are organised? Like sustainable development and stewardship, integrity could become an aspiration or buzzword that becomes embedded in how we do things.

So what does that mean?

Law is the bedrock of a harmonious society, but it alone does not foster gentility. If anything, the cold, hard surface of legislation can cause resentment. Laws are seen as something to be grudgingly accepted, worked around, bent or slyly broken. In other words, law alone does not promote integrity.

People of faith might argue that the shortcomings of rigid structures of statehood can be overcome by a moral outlook, based on religious teaching. And they would have an essential truth in saying so: while laws are often based on moral principles, their operation and adoption often does not. It is soft, moral values that have to be implemented too.

Whether morals require faith or not, or as I would argue, they are a facet of human nature, the challenge is to effectively join two very different materials. To stretch the metaphor of law as bedrock, integrity must lie on top and in the crevices, providing fertile soil.

Already, the line between compulsory laws and voluntary standards is blurred, both where standards become de rigeur and where management systems standards require a commitment to obeying relevant laws. But this doesn’t encourage a mindset that sees personal, organisational, corporate and societal behaviour as interconnected.

Such a mindset is critical to a sustainable community because any disharmony between the levels of and elements of society makes it harder to keep together.

Integrity will be seen as an essential part of how the elements of society operate in the same way that many individuals in desperate need of positive thinking operate. They “fake it to make it”, smiling until smiling becomes second nature and they feel a genuine warmth for others.

Organizations can and should claim integrity as an aspiration until that is exactly how they behave. At that point, no-one is being conned, trust is earned and “light-touch regulation” can become a reality.

Maybe “communitarian” would be more accurate

In the last post, I implied that we will reach global sustainability more effectively from the bottom up than from the top down. The more I think about it, the more I believe that’s absolutely true.

All the problems commonly identified in our current systems of governance are piled up against our attempts to achieve sustainability. In other words, the perfect worked example of why we need systemic change, which is worth spelling out.

1. Vested interests. The business sectors creating the most waste, pollution and greenhouse gases while consuming vast quantities of non-renewable resources are also among the most profitable and/or high turnover businesses. In a system that, by its very definition, runs on the accumulation of capital, i.e. where money is power, these vested interests are also the most influencial.

2. Disconnect. The prevalent view is that since climate change (seen as the most urgent sustainability issue) is a global issue so it as to be tackled at the global level. At the same time, the pre-eminent global governance body, the United Nations, is perpetually being criticised as being undemocratic and ineffectual. Proposals have been around for some time to improve the UN (streamline it, make it directly elected, make involvement dependent on human rights record, whatever) but the irreconcilable truth is that global governance is neither feasible nor desirable except where global consensus exists. Which is not much.

3. The prisoner’s dilemma. Western governments (well, the US anyway) have been quick to point out that they have every intention of addressing climate change but they will not do so if it disadvantages their industry and economy. This may be completely untrue, since investment in sustainable technology will give a nation an economic advantage, but they won’t be convinced. Or maybe they are simply lying to excuse bowing to vested interests. The grain of truth in this assertion is a form of the prisoner’s dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) and the world’s greatest powers will not move towards sustainability fast enough unless they can recognise the dilemma and trust each other to do their share. The dynamics of global politics do not engender trust.

4. Disconnect II. Where we do elect representatives to positions of power and influence, the power seems paltry and voting feels pointless. Voter turnouts and party-political activism are in seemingly terminal decline. Few people know who their Member of Parliament is, and fewer still know who their local councillor(s) is/are. Local government, with over 80% of its expenditure decreed by central government, is ineffectual because it has been made impotent. Members of Parliament represent an average of 74,000 voters in a population of nearly 100,000. If your only political activity is voting in a winner-takes-all election, it’s no surprise that it feels like pissing in the sea and expecting anything more than a moment’s warmth.

The antithesis of a flawed theory is not necessarily a correct one, but in this case—the struggle for sustainability—the flawed theory is that global governance will make us sustainable, when the evidence is that it cannot and will not, while leading from below is certainly more practical, easier for people to understand, and a damn sight more empowering.

Empowering, that is, for local communities. Which is why it might be less confusing to call my ideology “communitarian” rather than anarchist.

Is our sustainable development open or closed?

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?