Sustainable Futures

[eric + michiko <emstorm@metro.net>]

I recently posted this to a couple of other lists, so I apologize for any
cross-posting.  I was hoping to get some more feed back than I have so far.
 As always I appreciate comments, questions and other perspectives.  I know
I have posted on this topic any times in the past; I this does not wear
thin for too many of you.  It's just a pet topic of mine.   First I cover
definitions and general guidelines of sustainability, then go into visions
of a sustainable future, and finally steps for moving toward a sustainable
future.

Eric Storm

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

SUSTAINABLE HUMAN LIVING


DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINES

The process of living, whether human, fish or tree, necessitates inputs and
outputs, or, in other words, exchanges with its ecosystem.  Most species
have been around long enough to have worked out a vital balance of
exchanges.  As new species or behaviors appear in an ecosystem there is a
period of adjustment required by most participants of that system. 

Humans are relatively new, but had they stayed within their original
ecosystem and kept new behaviors to a minimum they would surely be as
sustainable as the antelope and grasses around them.  Now humans are as
widely spread as any species and can not be expected to limit themselves in
habitat or range within any relevant time frame.  This, in itself, is not a
problem. It could be argued that until as recently as around 1900 the human
population, perhaps if more evenly distributed, was not excessive.  With a
population of six billion not expected to stop growing for some time, it is
possible that sheer numbers now make humans unsustainable, regardless of
lifestyle patterns.  Even with a maximum population of one billion, many of
the current practices (mostly in the developed countries) would still be
unsustainable.

A population can be considered sustainable if the health of its ecosystem
is not compromised by its inputs and outflows.  Besides an intuitive
approach, such health could also be roughly measured by things such as:

- detectable differences from similar habitats without human interference
- number of species
- number of interconnection between species
- health of species populations
- rate of extinctions
- time required for human artifacts to become undetectable
- percentage of land area affected by humans
 
To judge a population's effects on its ecosystem it is important to look at
both the amount and the type of input/output exchanges.  The amount of
exchange is directly related to population and to rates of average
consumption / waste production per individual.  Both must be within
tolerable limits, which are set by the ecosystem, though it must also be
noted that each influences the other.  If a population is strictly limited
to only its local resources, with no import or export of people or
materials, then a balance would certainly be found over time.

Some types of exchanges are well tolerated even at high rates of
population, consumption and waste production.  Breathing is a good example.
 Many other limiting factors would come into play before human breathing
would create significant problems.  Other types of exchanges have
significant impact even at low rates of population, consumption and waste
production.  Nuclear technology and genetic engineering are good examples
of this.  Even a "small" mistake in these industries can be disastrous.
Most types of exchanges fall in between and their use must be evaluated
accordingly.

Resources, sources of input, can be classed by their availability over
time.  Some resources (such as gravity, solar, wind and geothermal energy,
and perhaps things like salt water and nitrogen) are available such that
they may be considered virtually undiminishable.  Other resources are
relatively quickly renewed in a healthy ecosystem (such as soil, fresh
water, species habitat, and living things such as trees, grasses, fish) and
can be considered relatively endless over time, if the integrity of the
supporting ecosystems is not diminished and the rate of use is slower than
that of renewal.  A third class of resources (such as metals, fossil fuels
and fossil water) are created on such time scales that they can be
considered to be essentially finite.  Any use of resources from this third
class decreases the amount available to others now and in the future, and
therefore must be used very conservatively.

Waste production must be limited to a rate and in kind so that the
ecosystem is not overwhelmed.  To assure this, all human products left
unattended should become undetectable over a relatively short time.
Harmless, naturally decaying products should be undetectable within the
human life span, or roughly one hundred years.  More destructive products
should be undetectable in much less time, depending on the degree of harm
they cause.  Any waste that is harmful enough to necessitate very quick
removal should be avoided completely.  There should also be no detectable
accumulations of materials beyond levels found in similar areas undisturbed
by humans.  Waste product should also be kept within the ecosystem from
which they were produced.  This will allow for monitoring of effects and
allow for natural recycling and replenishing to occur.

Ethically, we should also consider the equity of use among those living and
what we leave behind for future generations.  Since not all ecosystems are
equally well endowed, equal availability of resources globally is not the
goal.  Instead, the emphasis should be on restrictions to resources from
within one's ecosystem and equitable availability within local areas.
Evaluation of local carrying capacities would provided a good overview.

This ethical consideration of equitable availability of resources applies
to other species as well.  Even a species as wide spread as humans has no
right to commandeer a huge percentage of any given resource to the
exclusion of others.  Even twenty percent seems rather excessive and
arrogant.  Whole bio-regions are constantly being bent to the desires of
humans.  Modern agriculture is an obvious example where humans strictly
govern which species are allowed to make use of a piece of land.  Our
sprawl and pollution also infringe on the space of other species.

Therefore, to insure sustainability (negligible negative impact on
ecosystems) it is necessary to follow the following guidelines (with my
estimates):

- Low human population (less than one billion)
- Minimal land area use by humans (less than 20% in any category)
- Avoidance of behaviors high in risk to ecosystem (wide margin of error)
- Appropriate rate of use of renewable resources (constant monitoring)
- Very conservative use of finite resources (avoid whenever possible)
- Restriction to use of local resources (+90% within 25 miles)
- Human by-products quickly undetectable (up to 100 years)
- Equitable use among local inhabitants and future generations (all species)
- Awareness of local carrying capacities (aim for 50% of capacity)


VISIONS OF THE FUTURE

Humans surely lived sustainably until about 10,000 years ago, allowing for
a few possible exceptions.  Population was low and still spreading around
the globe.  Technologies were also limited by knowledge, energy and local
resources, so that only the occasional abuse of renewable resources was
possible.  Over the last 10,000 years unsustainable living patterns have
increased.  Today very few people are living completely sustainably, though
many (mostly in the undeveloped countries) are living in ways that would
only require minimal adjustments to become sustainable.  So any of the
hunter gatherer cultures that had adapted to their place over hundreds of
generations are examples of sustainable human cultures.

Many of the less westernized cultures living in the undeveloped countries
could become sustainable if they were to limit the import and export of
people and materials from their local ecosystems.  Some of them would
require a transition period to relearn or rediscover ways of living in
balance within their local carry capacities, but significant parts of their
current living patterns are sustainable.

The vast array of such cultures and the even larger number of now extinct
cultures of previous hunter gatherers provide us with an invaluable
resource of cultural patterns from which the rest of us could learn.  It
would seem that a common pattern arises with small communities (villages or
extended families of 20 - 30 people) connected to a network of other local
communities (tribes or districts) which in tern are loosely connected to
other nearby networks.  Each culture can be an ingenious expression of
providing for its needs and maintaining a balance within the ecosystem.

As long as a community stays well within the local carrying capacities and
keeps imports and exports to a minimum, unsustainable behavior is naturally
limited by available energy and resources.  In fact, limitation of imports
and exports of people and materials may be all that is required, since any
abuses of local carrying capacities will eventually effect the behaviors
and populations of local inhabitants.

If restricted to local resources, cultural patterns stabilize enough over
time so that environmentally abusive trends are minimalized.  Culture and
living patterns are in constant evolution, though it is prudent to make few
and cautious changes once a system is working.  Our largest source of
unsustainable practices comes from the ability for some people to use
resources from far away places and deposit harmful wastes elsewhere.
Similarly, excessive populations are supported through imports, breaking
the natural systems of recycling and slowing eroding fertility in many
areas.   Since many of our current living patterns are not sustainable,
major changes in the developed countries are necessary with resistance to
change most likely being our biggest obstacle.

Few local areas have the necessary sustainable resources for large scale
production of distributable energy, metals, and many industrial and
consumer products.  Without large scale production, there is little need
for a massive transportation network.  Most of the activity that supports
large modern cities would not be possible, though smaller cities of less
than perhaps fifty to a hundred thousand people might still be viable.  In
a local economy without large scale industry, automobiles become
impractical if not impossible.  I would expect that over time it would not
seem worth the effort and energy required to produce many of the modern
conveniences found in the developed countries, and they would disappear or
go through radical changes.  Life throughout the world would come to
resemble the life patterns found in parts of some non-western, undeveloped
countries.

I would hope that such a transition would not lead to the spread of poverty
and hopelessness, with people simply throwing away all that the present has
and resigning themselves to a bare existence.  Instead, I would hope that
human creativity rises to the occasion and finds ways to live fulfilling
and joyful lives, while still living within the local limits.  My awareness
of the many vibrant cultures, past and present, found throughout the globe
makes me confident that this is all possible.


STEPS TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

The main obstacles to change toward a sustainable future are not
technological.  Most of what is needed is known or can be deduced once the
desire to change is in place.  Motivations, values and beliefs are the main
obstacles.  The momentum of human civilization and the supporting
motivations, values and beliefs will not easily allow for changes toward a
sustainable future.  Current discussions about sustainable economics,
development and agriculture are too superficial to accomplish a truly
sustainable future.  We must look much deeper to the supporting
motivations, values and beliefs to begin any real and lasting change toward
a sustainable future.

Therefore I would suggest a better understanding of human motivations,
values and beliefs to be the highest priority.  We need to learn how and
why we adopt certain motivations, values and beliefs.  The cultivation,
creation or awareness of new motivations, values and beliefs that will
support a sustainable future is necessary.  I would suggest the following
possibilities:

- elegant simplicity  vs.  extravagance
- generosity  vs.  possessiveness
- sense of place  vs.  sense of ownership
- intimate connections with Nature  vs.  sense of battle with Nature
- group cohesion and support  vs.  war and individualism

Other specific steps to take once work has begun on motivations, values and
beliefs should include:

- evaluation of local carrying capacities (especially population and
renewable resources)
- finding ways to adjust human populations to less than local carrying
capacities
- building stronger local communities and economies and reduce exports
- finding simple and fulfilling living patterns
- minimize total land use
- stop production of persistent material wastes
- clean up polluted sites and eliminate future risks of pollution

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *