1.7 Sustainability Course

First thought.

[quote] It is important to recognise that the concepts of ‘environment’ and ‘development’ are used and understood in many ways. [end quote]

It's recognising that development is used and understood in so many different ways that makes it, and most words that sound harmless enough, very frightening. Mainly because to some of us the use of these words describe a concept that's destructive but at the same time disguise it, even make it attractive coated with justification.

Much like progress. Using that word also permits many iniquities to be disguised, and/or justified. Who would be against progress? Because most people think progress is a wonderful thing without knowing exactly what the speaker means when using that word. Thinking it means what they believe. The hackneyed saying “you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs” sounds reasonable, even clever but it takes the attention away from the broken eggs and deflects us from questioning if we need the omelet and if the price the eggs pay is really worth it?

Development has been happening and is still. Yet nothing is better, depending of course where you stand, and the development of elements and its movement creates something that is just different worse for others.

There are those driven by a want or perceived need for money who push development in the direction where they will gain the most immediate personal financial benefit and accolade. Yet make the long term outlook for their actions appear to benefit everyone and suggest often mendaciously, it's what everyone wants? Many just follow the suggestion, have done in the past, will do in the future.

Those who develop and construct high rise buildings or more “efficient” fish farming techniques, justify it pointing to the problem of over population. They say people need more food and places to live where space is a premium. Their solutions not only treat the symptom, they make money by creating conditions that will allow the symptom to become worse and by their development be felt less and therefore not be an immediate warning of the dangers of the worsening cause that will bring our society low, and eventually destroy it altogether.

The Taoist in me sits back and thinks maybe this is what should happen? That a development like breeding cows that produce human milk is a thing that should be left alone, a symptom treated, a cause left to increase in destructive potential?

Then survival:

[quote] Each person in the world requires resources to survive so naturally there will follow exponential graphs for world resource use over the same time period. [end quote]

What definition of survival? Is it just to stay alive?

Each country and each individual has a different definition and level that they call survival. Is survival just staying alive within a sustainable government by force or ballot, that generally consists of people who need a great deal more than the ordinary person requires to survive?

Or is survival something more. A reasonable, sustainable quality of life that allows the citizens of a country to expand their knowledge in all areas and strive to fit better into the environment around them?

Survival to some is to be wealthy, to have a great deal of financial back fat which will sustain them through the toughest times. Allowing them to bow not at all to any catastrophe? Other than when food or clean drinkable water is so valuable that the growers and those who have it won't sell at any price. When money becomes useless and can't even be eaten?

To sustain life is survival, but most people can sustain dignity as well, and some no matter how much they have of anything will never have any dignity. But it's arguable that dignity is required for survival or anything else.

In this instance, possibly to sustain ones life is not survival, maybe it is really to sustain others, all beings, that we know or believe to be sentient or not, and they in their turn will sustain us as well? Sustaining a fair government and a just system of law as well as an environment that we are proud to hand over to our children and grandchildren may be survival. But that's impossible to define, it's very individual and complex.

[quote Steven Mac Andrew] The solutions might have to borrow from different disciplines or views. For example, is eco-tourism not a culmination of ecologist, environmentalist and economist view? [end quote]

That sounds a good mix? But it would depend on the percentage and priority of each of those that would make it sustainable.

I knew a city person once who had a small piece of land and upon it were more sheep than it could sustain. It was told to me that the number of sheep grazing on that paddock were required to put the amount of meat the family consumed on the table. So there could be no less sheep.

The sheep ate themselves out of grass, some died and some suffered and there was no meat on the table from those sheep that year because the survivors were all in to poor condition. A few less sheep, a little less meat on the table over the year, or to bring in a little food to sustain the flock would have been a better mix and sustainable. Instead all the meat for the table had to be bought at top price that year.

It's all about the mix and the priorities.

It's best to understand the needs of of what you wish to harvest and what it grows on, and adapt your own needs to that as well. Because it seems to me to survive you first have to ensure what you're surviving on will also survive. If it thrives, so will you. No matter if its a fair council or a store that survives on the custom of the local people. It means you may have to pay a little more to sustain it. But then, what cost convenience and a sustainable community?