Two Blogs Are Better Than One!

One of the purposes of starting Missing The Bigger Picture was to improve my writing and focus my thoughts. Well... it's worked!

I've discovered two principal themes in my writing and have decided to separate them into two blogs that I'll publish on alternating weeks.

This House of Cards will focus on the problems that I perceive within our society and the unsustainable nature of social precepts, concepts and structures.

The Sustainability Puzzle will address my creative thinking and solution approach to developing a more sustainable world. The bulk of my entries for MTBP have been transferred to this site.

I want to thank all my loyal readers for their support and always look forward to your thoughts and feedback.

Happy New Year!
Robert

Global Warming, Sustainability & the Nobel Prize

Awarding the Nobel Prize to Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has once again highlighted the global crisis we now face. While the prize raises awareness, it falls short of informing people about the big picture issue of sustainability. So, the question I’m asking today is: what is the relationship between Global Warming and sustainability, and why is it important to understand?

The topic for this entry surfaced when I heard Lou Dobbs questioning the choice of Al Gore’s Global Warming campaign as worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Dobbs commented that he believed competition for resources will constitute a greater source of conflict than Global Warming. The truth is both are symptoms of unsustainable practices – the root cause of many of humanity’s woes. I believe it’s important to understand because our response will be framed by our understanding of the problem. So, if our goal is only to combat Global Warming, we will still fail the challenge and continue to face consequences of the sort Lou Dobbs refers.

Obviously we urgently need to elevate the public dialogue to include sustainability, but we face an inherent conflict in the argument because it involves changing how people see the world and live in it. I think it’s natural for people to fear change, especially the economics, because what is unknown is perceived as a threat to their personal ability to survive. This is why informing people about the issues, as well as articulating and demonstrating our response to the challenge, is so important – to dispel fear and engage people to change their behavior for all our benefit.

Does Gore’s new celebrity status or the popularity of his film diminish the validity of his argument? This notion becomes particularly fierce during presidential elections. However, if we as a democratically organized society believe what we preach, then their opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Democracy includes everyone, but is most effective when people are informed about the issues. To dismiss anyone’s opinion is to denigrate democracy itself and I would challenge whether or not those espousing such opinions are interested in maintaining our democratic system. Maybe they like the name “democracy”, but names are meaningless – it’s our actions that count. In fact, it’s arguably a moral obligation of celebrities to utilize their fame to focus public attention in our “megaphone-based” version of democracy. And, while it may be inefficient, it’s what we got.

I believe the Nobel Prize award to Gore is important for several reasons. It serves as advertising for an important issue and significantly contributes to raising global awareness to create the critical mass needed for change. Also, the fact that the Nobel committee is relating global warming with peace is significant in educating the public about the complexity of the connections involved, and hints at the integrated nature of truly sustainable solutions. So, as someone with no megaphone, I’d like to thank the Nobel committee for using theirs to advance the cause.

Loneliness and American Culture

What prompted this topic was an interview I saw with an immigrant worker. He said he didn’t want to live in the United States because of the “loneliness and sadness” that comes with life here. From my travels I’ve come to sense that Americans are not the happiest people on the planet, but that’s not the story you’ll hear from most of my compadres. So, today I’m considering the topic of loneliness and American culture.

What is loneliness? Does it go away with more “friends” or more phone calls? Perhaps I’m unusual in that I can be in a crowded room and still feel lonely. I’ve also noticed that the only thing worse than being lonely is being in a relationship and alone. These observations suggest that loneliness is not just a physical phenomenon, but results from not feeling connected to other people. Unfortunately, I think lonely people are everywhere simply because we don’t know how to communicate. And, I truly believe you can’t communicate meaningfully with others until you can so with yourself. So, while some may consider loneliness as a “bad” thing in life, I would suggest that it is essential to the human experience because it is a tool to help us understand both our self and our society.

I think the predominance of loneliness in our culture stems from several sources. In general, Americans have a strong sense of independence and competition. While this may suit us in many circumstances, independent minded people may not take advantage of natural support systems such as family. This influence is minor compared to the effects of our Great Experiment. Modern urban planning has disconnected people through the design of our car culture. The automobile allows us to pick and choose who we socialize with so we aren’t challenged to “just get along” and emphasizes the theme of self over community. Furthermore, our economics is pulling families apart. Families face financial pressures for two incomes to survive, conflicting with children’s needs to connect with their parents. Additionally, our social system tells us that in order to survive, we have to ignore certain failures of our economics such as homelessness, poverty and lack of health care. And, to compound it all, the speed and distractions of our world leave few with the time needed to think and reflect on such matters. While liking yourself is a simple solution to loneliness, its fulfillment is problematic in our world.

If people reinforce their cultural beliefs through the stories they share, then are we blindly following the blind? If love is everywhere in our media why are divorce rates so high? Maybe that IS the problem! For Americans love is nothing deeper than a series of images or emotions we capture and hold in our head to recreate at a later time. Maybe it’s unromantic of me to break down the notion of “love”, but the truth may lie a little deeper in the pile of details. From my experience love is a result of trust. Trust results from shared experiences, communication or both. If we don’t engage in trusting partnerships, I believe the end result is the sense of loneliness. In general, Americans start relationships at a boiling passion. But the reality is that it can only cool from that point. In India for example, where the couple may not even know each other describe such relationships as starting cool and warming with time into a great friendship.

How does this topic relate to sustainability? As we promote solutions around the world we are also exporting the problems inherent with those solutions. So, when we consider how to change our world into a sustainable one, we want to be sure that our choices do not systemically create and promote such problems. How? For example, pedestrian friendly communities increase the connectedness we feel with others and contribute to overall physical health. Transportation based on public solutions rather than individual ownership eliminates systemic deficiencies while increasing cooperation, common access and decreasing the cost of living requirements.

Perhaps our understanding of freedom is still immature. Maybe our freedom ends where our responsibilities toward others begin. And, maybe we choose to take on those responsibilities both individually and socially to nurture and address our inherent humanity.

Policy Makers Gamble with Our Common Future

While our collective awareness of how human activity has affected our planet continues to grow, there is considerable debate as how to proceed. Some call for drastic measures while many want more information. Yes, there is a lot of room for disagreement, but I believe we can all agree that there is still a great deal we don’t understand about our planet and its systems. In fact, I don’t believe we will possess enough knowledge to make an absolutely informed decision for several hundred years to come. However, if we heed the advice offered by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, despite our “analysis paralysis” this core principal that forms the basis of our insurance industry insists on the implementation of sustainable policies in order to fulfill this moral code.

Philosophically and technologically we possess the capabilities to realize a sustainable common future, but in the real world actions speak louder than words. By that I mean we simply need to look at actual behavior to determine intention. Is our government looking out for the least of us? From my vantage point it looks like big business has benefited the most from the current American political leadership. The uninsured and underinsured are growing, the middle class is shrinking, the environment continues to degrade and corporate profits are growing – all in response to government policies. In my book, sincere contrition for one’s past errors is best demonstrated through the immediate change in one’s behavior.

Another tactic that is not uncommon in our political culture is to punt the ball down the road and let the next guy worry about it. Similar to President Bush’s strategy toward Iraq, this tactic strives to let the next party in power take the political fallout for making the hard decisions. However, unlike most of us, you have the power to affect systemic changes now. Time is not on our side and such political tactics only contribute to the enormity of the problems we face while we wait for you to leave your offices. Remember, in a court of law ignorance is not a defense so you will be judged for you failure to take action.

One of the arguments politicians use to defend their actions is that CO2 is a global issue and requires everyone to act in order to be effective. Wrong! Leaders act first! You can’t control others, you can only control yourself. If our actions demonstrate the type of nation we are, what does our behavior say about us? Maybe the US government prefers dividing up the costs to address global warming by paying our percentage of total historical gas contributions? It sounds very fair to me, and also very expensive. Now is our chance to avoid the high cost of “fair” by investing into transforming our society and economy now! Through their inaction policy makers are leaving us morally vulnerable to taking responsibility for creating this environmental mess.

Then there’s the chicken and the egg argument for inaction that there is “no public support.” Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that one of the essential duties of a government is to look at the “big picture” issues as well as future threats and address them by educating the public and developing solutions. While our government attempted to deal with the inherent unsustainability of our energy supply by invading Iraq, this is at best a stop gap measure with no long-term benefit to the people of the United States, and has turned out not to even have a short-term benefit except to corporate interests.

Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Parliamentarians, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens, start doing your job -- no one said it was going to be easy.

On The Web

Grist
Environmental Issues served with a twist!
www.grist.org

World Changing
Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright, Green Future
www.worldchanging.com

2½ Planets: Implications of Our Way of Life

What are the implications of scientists’ verdict that we currently consume the equivalent of 2 and half planets? Well, begin by imagining the Earth is a cruise ship with all 6.6 billion of us on board. If we consume the ship’s resources of food, water and fuel at the same rate humanity does today, by itself our ship will run out of food, fuel and water. In order to sustain the supply of resources, there would need to be at least another cruise ship and a half to keep up with our demands. And, since the ship represents our reality and not our ideals, half of all the available food, water and fuel is consumed by only 10% of the passengers.

Now, in order to include all 6.6 billion passengers equitably into our western standard of living, how many planets would we need? Five planets? Seven planets? The specific number is unimportant because any number larger than one is arguably suicidal. It also implies that in an already over-productive system we permit a constant underclass because our system cannot support 100% of us. Our system of providing for ourselves and our families does work for a percentage of the population, but it has not proven itself capable of providing for the entire population. So our faith in the system to rid the world of poverty by offering a job to everyone is a myth. Indeed, the world is mostly divvied up among a few and their successors will live comfortably. For the remainder, our fate is predetermined. And, what does this imply for our projected population of 9 billion by 2050? Poverty will grow and only a very small percentage will live in the comfort many of us do today. Is that fair? Is that the future we want?

Maybe the issue comes down to what we believe the purpose of life is. Does that mean treating others “humanly”? At a minimum that would suggest offering food to the hungry, water to the thirsty and shelter to the homeless. While this form of social security exists in small doses, it does not exist in the abundance necessary to meet current humanitarian needs. And, if it is as simple as “getting along with others” then with the growing intolerance of religious and political extremism we are headed in the opposite direction. What if our “success” in this life is not determined by what we have accumulated, but in how we treat others? We like to evangelize our ideals that we value life above all else, but our actions sadly reveal another story.

The future we dread of rampant poverty and wars over water and oil is rapidly approaching and quick action is needed to thwart it off. With every plan there is a time component of preparation and implementation. And, as time creeps by, so does the population continue to grow, resources continue to be over-consumed, the problems compound in complexity. And, if addressing the issues begin with a 10 year plan, that’s 10 years after the decision to implement and after we develop consensus to take action. But, remember, in a court of law, ignorance is not a defense -- to not choose is by default our choice.

One of the profound implications of sustainable systems is that among the many options and choices that are possible, we are choosing to limit our choices to only sustainable ones. In the United States which was founded on the ideas of liberty and personal freedom, this will be a tough pill for the American ego to swallow because it implies that we are limiting the scope of our freedom. But, isn’t that just another definition of responsibility? Maybe sustainable choices are part of an evolving civilization. Maybe the challenge we face is simply to grow up.

On The Web

Consumer Consequences
Play this game sponsored by American Public Media & see how many planets are needed to sustain 6.6 billion people that live like you!
www.consumerconsequences.org

Is China the World's Fool?

Wow! While China is definitely unique in our world’s history, the question of the moment is: to what end? Thousands of years of contiguous culture and history have added up to… this? Contaminated food products, recalled children’s toys laced with lead, contaminated rivers and what could be argued as slave labor? How the mighty have fallen! Now seemingly always a step behind the pack of “developed nations”, the latest incarnation of the People’s Republic of China seemingly makes it the worst of the worst, focusing on money and status rather than the historically noble pursuits of its culture such as scholarship and philosophy.

China has become the epitome of careless, capitalist behavior by ignoring our environment as well as its workers’ health and safety standards. Having once mocked the capitalist system, they now kowtow to their new God: Money. They have embraced the worst of capitalism – pure consumption for consumption’s sake and now prostitute the resources of both land and labor for the wealth and power of a few. If actions speak louder than words, then the PRC’s continued stance toward Taiwan and Tibet say enough, but their choice to support regimes of dubious intentions in their search for energy sources make them a more dangerous monster than the original! So, like Al Queda, it has become part of the problem – complaining about the world around it, but offering no new solution, only oppression and control.

It’s unfortunate, because China possesses the philosophical roots of social sustainability in its Confucian past. He believed the most effective government began with self-regulation of the individual -- an ideal that is both counter-intuitive and difficult to achieve, even here in America. Rather than trying to control people’s behavior, people must feel free enough to reveal their own brand or morality. Behavior will be moderated by natural social tensions where actions reap appropriate consequences rather than through legal regulation.

Unfortunately, there is no leadership coming from the country that constitutes almost 20% of the world’s population. While Chinese are among the brightest in the world and have a rich history to draw lessons from, they are also subject to the limitations of “Group Think” that they are so vulnerable. China is trapped by its collective ego -- forged from its past and controlling its future. I’m not sure if the Chinese put all their faith in authoritarian governmental styles because they fundamentally don’t trust each other or like an abused woman they constantly go back to the same abusive boyfriend – because it’s what they know. However, at this point if where we need to go is a 90% reduction in our global consumption of resources, any country not contributing to the solution is part of the problem.

From this corner of the world, if all China is offering is more of the same and our consumption behavior is the problem, they are part of the problem and unable to recognize the price they are paying in both resources and reputation. They are pursuing the same policy line as us – self-interest at the expense of less powerful countries – an unfortunate present, disconnected from its rich past. Oh well, I think it was considered an honored position to play the court’s fool…

If We're Serious About Sustainability...

It’s kind of a silly title because if we were serious about sustainability, we would already be on our way to building a sustainable future. While some scientists and leaders have suggested that we may have 10 years (now 9 years) to make a course correction before it becomes unchangeable, since it’s not even a conversation piece yet, it seems we have a long way yet to go which brings me to the title. If we want to coax the rest of society into a sustainable direction, we have to acknowledge the obstacles we face.

For example, we would normally look toward government to identify the sustainability need and lead us toward it, but today’s governmental system is more managerial in nature and doesn’t want to “rock the boat.” Today we are offered a consumer based solution to a greener future, but a nine year timetable does not offer the immediate and drastic changes that may be required. The American Congress and Presidency are more concerned with how to reconcile the current revenue streams and capacities to maintain our economy rather than deal with some vague threat.

However, in last week’s entry I noted that a sustainable economy will be a subset of our current economy as it will be far more efficient with fewer resources. This is an interesting point because it suggests that such a sustainable system could also operate in parallel with what we already have. What is the significance of this? Well, it offers us a seamless transition to a sustainable economy without having to “dismantle” what we already have – one of the great fears of our government managers.

By “planting and growing" a system from the start, it offers several advantages. It offers a sustainable counter-balance to our consumer society providing immediate reductions in green house gases. A parallel system is the most efficient way because it encourages as many people to voluntarily migrate to the sustainable economy as possible. The pioneers of this sustainable system will also become examples to those living outside the system to encourage a new way of living. The beauty of it is that if it is good, it will grow and if it’s a bad idea, it will wither.

I truly believe that for any civilization, the road to a bright and hopeful future has only one path and that is through a sustainable way of life. So, if we’re going to get where we need to go, we need to admit what the obstacles are in order to develop solutions. The American government, for one, faces shortfalls in revenues for Social Security, Medicare, education and infrastructure repair and replacement. With some creative thinking, these liabilities can be managed and mitigated if integrated with a plan to develop sustainable systems.

On The Web

US Comptroller General Issues Warning
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words

I’ve been working on a presentation on sustainability and I was staring at the “sustainability graphic” and had some interesting epiphanies – at least for me. In general the graphic communicates our current perception of sustainability and thus also offers us some valuable insights. While it visually demonstrates the relationship of the social, environment and economic spheres, it is also hinting at what sustainable solutions will look like.

The most glaring message of the graphic is that sustainable solutions are a subset of our current knowledge. While we don’t know everything, from our experience we have gained quite a knowledge base of economic, environmental and social knowledge. Sustainability basically puts the lens of long term thinking on the options available to us and eliminates those options that do not take our long term interests into account. What remains is not “new” knowledge, but existing knowledge that supports society’s goals.

The graphic reveals another truth – sustainable solutions will exist in all three spheres. One of the ways our modern knowledge has developed is by dividing the fields of interest. Sustainable solutions, however, will contain elements of all spheres and will contradict our current perception of specialties. This makes sense, because these solutions focus on efficiency rather than the sprawling patchwork of systems that make up our modern life today. For example, we think of shelter as serving the social sphere. In a sustainable system, the home may become the centerpiece of the economic system because with the internet it can become the kernel of small home or community based businesses. Likewise, a sustainable home also becomes part of the environmental solution in its zero-energy use.

The graphic also visualizes the change ahead of us. The solutions do exist, but much of what we accept as normal today is also unsustainable. The inevitable truth is that systems will change and shrink. In order to achieve sustainability we will each have to “give up” some of what we take for granted today. For example, while cars are synonymous with individual freedom and expression, they have also been devastating to both the environment and human health. Mobility, however, is the trademark of our modern life. A practical, user-friendly but public mobility and transportation system will have to be implemented in order to get us where we need to be.

The graphic also acknowledges that sustainable solutions will be “different” from the current norm. What is considered “fringe” now may be part of the solution. For example, perma-culture has a strange title and may seem mystical or nebulous, but it’s actually a very practical approach to achieving permanent agricultural systems through land management techniques. I don’t believe anyone is anti-environment, but human nature is to resist what is unfamiliar. Our challenge is to clarify our social objectives and choose smarter ways of achieving them.

Our Common Future

In addition to the “sustainability puzzle” I’ve made frequent reference to “our common future” throughout this Blog. What do I mean by this phrase, why is our future common and why is it important? Well, to put it as simply as possible, while we emphasize our differences in color, race, sex, religion and language, we have more in common than we have differences. While we achieve many things in our individual lives, our single greatest legacy is what we leave our children. And, a reasonable question to ask is: have we contributed more to their problems (bad) or to their solutions (good)? It’s important to recognize our common future because I believe we have arrived at a time of choice with the power to choose between creating a world of our dreams or one made of our most dreaded fears.

Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.

If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.

Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.

So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.

The CNN/YouTube Debates

In concept, the idea behind these presidential debates sponsored by CNN and YouTube is intriguing because of the way it democratizes the debate process. Ideally, they have the potential of injecting new questions and under-discussed topics into the public discourse. However, depending on the questions selected, they could also turn out to be standard debates asking standard questions built on novel user videos and YouTube hype. Hoping for the best, I submitted my video question.

Do you think it’s immoral for 5% of the world’s population to consume over 25% of its resources? And, as President, what will you do to lead us to a sustainable future?

First and foremost, I’m asking these questions because I really want to know the answers. I truly believe that creating a sustainable future is the single most important challenge facing humanity today, but it is only discussed on the sidelines. While a sustainable future should be everyone’s top priority, it isn’t because of lack of both interest and awareness. I understand that its human nature to think our individual actions can’t affect such a large world especially when most of us are focused on own daily struggle to stay “above water.” However, these debates offer an opportunity to start changing that mindset by educating the public about the issues we face and their urgency.

Secondly, I wanted to challenge the candidates. I didn’t want to ask a standard debate question because those usually have pre-determined answers and rarely give additional insight to who the candidate is or how they think. Sustainability is a “big picture” question because it involves long-term thinking – a quality seriously lacking in our current planning and desperately needed in our next president. So I’m hoping my question will provoke unrehearsed responses, reveal the “big thinkers” and maybe even trip up a few of them. ;-)

Finally, I wanted to bring the issue of morality into the question since it’s been a buzzword in recent elections. I personally feel like the term was introduced to polarize the electorate and believe it hasn’t served us well because it has tended to push urgent and important issues to the wayside. Sustainability, however, ultimately relates to the very moral issues of how we treat one another both now and in the future. So I’m trying to point the morality finger at ourselves and see if we have matured enough as a society to admit our own mistakes and failures. In a way this is a litmus test on our dedication to moral behavior: Is it a term of political convenience or of our guiding convictions?

I recently heard this: Our hopes minus our doubts equal our reality. While this may be true for an individual, I think it is equally true for society as a whole. I don’t think I’m alone in hoping that this is not as good as it gets -- that a better future lays ahead. But, that hope also implies a change from where we are now to what we hope to become. Whereas we have largely stumbled into our present, a change to a sustainable future will only result from our conscious choice and good leadership. My hope is that this question will contribute to the public’s awareness of the issues we face and begin a dialogue on our common future.

Follow Up

Tommie Thompson Responds to my Question at the ABC Republican Debate
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3452217

My Response to Tommie Thompson's Answer
http://ugv.abcnews.go.com/player.aspx?id=577754


Related Links

CNN/YouTube Debates
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/the-skinny-on-cnn-youtubes-presidential-debates/

Submit a Video Question
http://www.youtube.com/debates

The Sustainability Puzzle

Throughout this Blog I’ve often referred to something I call the “Sustainability Puzzle.” In this entry I’d like to explain more clearly what I mean by this concept. If we look at the world as a whole, how people live their lives and earn a living, scientists estimate we currently need at least 2 and a half planets to “sustain” the systems we’ve created that support the way we live -- and that is with at least half the planet in poverty. In short, I believe we can do better.

The first question to ask is what do we mean by sustainability? Well, one way to look at it is from the American Indian perspective. In their decision making process, many tribes would think in terms of how their decisions and actions would affect the seven generations that followed them – not wanting to negatively impact their opportunities through short-sighted choices. Today some refer to this socio-economic goal as “intergenerational equity”--I prefer to keep it simple and call it "being responsible." While integrating such a long-view perspective into our modern world would have wide ranging implications -- from the food we eat to how we produce power, from how we transport goods to how we build our homes and communities – it’s more important to face the facts: we are consuming our children’s resources and not living within our means.

So, why is it a puzzle? First, I truly believe it’s possible to sustain everyone and not diminish our modern comforts. In fact, I believe a truly sustainable system can raise the standard of living for the majority of people in the world. And, the ability to achieve this does not lay in some distant technology of the future, but in common sense solutions that already exist. In order to be sustainable, we will need to consume fewer resources than we currently do now. The “puzzle” part is re-organizing these elements in a way to achieve a system that everyone can benefit. The internet will be a key component of the solution because it can replace much of the brick and mortar infrastructure that has evolved to form our marketplaces. But, the internet can do the same virtually and more cheaply, while allowing greater access and less environmental impact through web pages, virtual presence and VoIP technologies.

My sister told me a story this week that I’d like to share with you because I think it demonstrates the predicament we face today. One day a storm came to a village and the rain started falling. A man of great faith looked out his window and saw the streets flooding and climbed to his roof. He prayed to God to save him as the waters continued to rise. Well, later that day a man approached in a canoe and asked him if he would like a ride. The man of great faith declined the offer knowing that God would save him. A little while later, someone else came by in a row boat and again offered a lift to the man on the roof top and again he said no because God was going to save him. The waters continued to rise and the man continued to pray and a little while later a motorboat came by offering him a ride. The man with great faith turned down the offer knowing that God would save him. Well, the waters kept rising and eventually he drowned. When he arrived in heaven he stood before God and asked him “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “I sent you three boats! What more was I supposed to do!”

The solutions to save our world are here. Our challenge is to recognize the pieces of the puzzle and start building a sustainable world that we can all enjoy.

Additional Reading:

Behind Consumption and Consumerism
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp

Everyone Wants to be a Millionaire

Have you ever noticed that everyone wants to be a millionaire? Or, at least look like one. Las Vegas is probably the ultimate manifestation of the market trying to satisfy this almost universal desire, allowing the common man the chance to experience the “good life”. Cell phones, large houses, expensive cars and perhaps even an air of indifference to those around us – we communicate to others with these symbols of seeming success. The problem is that these benchmarks aren’t necessarily rooted in reality even though we convince ourselves of many “needs.” I’ve lived in large houses and found that I usually end up in the same three rooms, day after day, while the others collected dust until its occasional use.

But, where does this universal desire come from? My guess is that it grows from another universal, but rarely acknowledged human condition – insecurity of self. Speaking from my own experience I think it stems from the desire to attract others to you – be it parents, siblings, friends or lovers. They are symbols of success and happiness we use to communicate indirectly simply because we don’t know any better. We don’t know where to find happiness and we don’t know what to communicate. But, like the blind leading the blind we continue looking for happiness in the same place our parents did, the same places our friends look and where society tells us we’ll find it.

Is this necessarily a bad dynamic? Well, in my opinion it has two major consequences. One, by seeking fulfillment in others, happiness will continue to elude us. And, if dealing with depressed people were the only consequence, I wouldn’t necessarily bother you. But, it is the second consequence that disturbs me: that we’re destroying our planet in this seemingly ever expanding cycle of consumption that gets us nowhere but more frustrated because what we bought hasn’t made us any happier! Sustainability dictates that we have to “get over” this indirect communication with the stuff in our lives.

You won’t find existential happiness in the stuff you buy or in the relationships these symbols attract. But I think it primarily comes from you liking yourself. And, the intimate relationships we seek can only result after we’ve made peace with ourselves. But, when you finally do, you have something to offer that is both unique and that you believe in. No, not everyone is going to like what you have to offer, but that’s okay. The only people we truly want in our lives are those who appreciate us for who we are and we definitely don’t need to be a millionaire to do it either. :-)

The Sustainability Puzzle: A Trickle-Up Economy?

I’m no expert at economics, but I don’t believe it takes an expert to ask questions and make some basic observations. I’ll first state the obvious: our present system economics has brought us to where we are now -- a world transformed as a result of technological development. The big question is whether this particular style of economics is the best way forward.

I ask this question because no system is perfect and despite the many positive advances we’ve made, it has come with both serious social and environmental costs. Perhaps the most telling consequence is our resistance to change our harmful behavior for fear of its negative impact on “the economy”. I’m specifically referring to global warming and the economic machine that generates carbon emissions. But, in general the end result of our system is that two-thirds of the world’s resources are utilized to sustain only one-sixth of the planet’s population. This consumer based economy screams waste and inefficiency relying on wealth “trickling down” to solve the problem of poverty.

So what would the characteristics of a sustainable system be? I think it would have to meet at least two criteria. One, it would be capable of meeting the needs of the entire population and two it would not harm our environment in the process. I believe these goals are both reasonable and achievable. A key theme to the solution is the notion of investing in oneself and the role of government policy is to provide the tools that support this theme such as education, sustainable infrastructure and LEED platinum designs to name a few examples. Here are some thoughts on achieving these goals.

Trickle-up: If the system is truly going to provide for everyone, it has to be built around everyone’s productivity and cannot be over-productive. Concepts such as the 40 hour work week need to be rethought and replaced with a more realistic approach of “many hands make light work”. Also, it may seem backward to suggest it, but we need to shift from an industrial based economy to one which is sustainable based on renewable resources in which the vast majority can actively participate and thus “trickle-up”. This would suggest a rural, knowledge based economy that is actively participates in local; agriculture (I’m thinking of a quasi- Kibbutz system).

Sustainable Transportation: Fundamental to our modern world is our ability to transport goods and services. Unfortunately, our methods and volume of transportation are the source of many of our problems. A sustainable system will be rooted in smart public transportation. Luckily, the power of the internet can eliminate a lot of unnecessary transportation.

Time-Based Currency: While using time as a currency is not practicable in all situations, it provides a more direct and equitable exchange for services while at the same time promoting a sense of community. Perhaps hours will be the currency of the sustainable economy and will allow a means for a hybrid system as we “switch gears”.

Small-Scale Government: Ideally small, local governments are more effective at responding to its citizenry and creating a sense of involvement and community. However, in the age of the internet and a well designed people moving system, networks of small communities can form the basis of large-scale economies that will sustain us all – just more efficiently and effectively.

Economics is not something “other” that we should fear, but rather it is a description of how we manage our resources amongst ourselves. While these thoughts are admittedly vague, incomplete and probably making economists and businessmen cringe, this entry is more about developing and sharing ideas because, not only can we do better, we have to do better.

The Price of Paradise

A couple of years ago I moved to the small town of Avalon on Catalina Island. I discovered that like any place there are advantages and disadvantages to living there. I must admit, Avalon is very appealing in many ways. It’s a small town of about 5,000 people living in a one square mile area. It’s picture perfect with a beautiful harbor to view every day. People greet each other. There is no commute time except for the 5 to 10 minute walk to work. There is hardly any crime and it seemed to me a haven from the “real world”. This “paradise” did not come without a cost and that was the extremely high cost of living with very few jobs that could sustain those costs. But in my conversations with people, they would reply that this was “the price of paradise”. I disagreed and moved back to the mainland to continue my search for paradise. But my experience raised an interesting question: if the world is to become the utopia we all hope for, what will be the costs and will people be willing to “pay” for our paradise?

What if the price of paradise is a world with no private cars. As a major source of pollution, an intense user of resources and a source of economic division (see “Rethinking the Sources of Poverty”) its very likely the world will need to depend on mass public transportation to achieve a sustainable and equitable world without poverty. Will people be willing to give up this symbol of freedom and individuality? I would definitely give up the costs, the frustration of traffic and pollution and crime cars create for a paradise that has affordable, accessible and safe mass transit.

What if we each have to “pitch in” a little more to achieve our paradise? Speaking for myself, I get bored doing the same types of activities and enjoy being both a thinker and a laborer. I look forward to picking grapes of helping on a farm. Now if that were my only job it might get old, but such chores were a community effort as it is in a Kibbutz, I would rather do that than pay taxes or exorbitant food prices to avoid that chore. I’m not sure where people develop these notions of what jobs are important and which are not, but every job fulfills an important place in modern communities. It seems to me that such distinctions are a result of ego and to achieve paradise we each will have to recognize the essential needs of each role, job and task and “pitch in” to achieve equality and sustainability.

What if we each have to tolerate the ridiculous beliefs of others? It seems that our paradise will be defined by peace. But peace does not happen just by itself, it happens through our choices. Peace could be achieved by a benevolent dictator, but I don’t think any of us want to be told how to live. Peace could also be achieved by creating a homogenous population – one religious belief or one race, but I think diversity is a resource and offers strength. And, once again, I get bored being around people just like me, don’t you? Perhaps in paradise we will just have to choose to be tolerant of each other which means we will also have to exercise restraint in the public sphere. I think the great freedom we seek will require great responsibility from each of us (see “Lost in Freedom”).

What if we each have to eat more fruits and vegetables to make our paradise a reality? It may sound silly to contemplate, but our food habits are causing many of our health and ecological problems. For example, beef production is a major source of methane gas and our overfishing is depleting stocks in the oceans. Our agricultural system is overly complex relying on fossil fuels for transport and toxic chemicals to increase yields. And, in general, we overeat because we are depressed and lonely and the excess weight fuels high healthcare costs. Paradise will have none of these problems, but that is because the solution is to buy more locally available organic produce and in general rely less on resource intense meat and fish. In fact, in paradise we might each have to grow a small vegetable garden so as to take on some of the responsibility ourselves.

What if we each have to better educate ourselves and think before we act? We all want to be needed, to be heard by others and contribute to the solutions – the ideal of a direct democracy. But, the founders of America knew that a democracy required a well educated public to make informed choices. It seems to me that in paradise we will each need to be educated. We will each know when to speak up and contribute and when to be quiet and listen. None of us are equal in our gifts, but we each have something special to offer. In our paradise we will all be empowered to achieve our potential (see “Educationally Challenged”).

A key notion of paradise is that it is something different from how we live now. And, in order to achieve this paradise there needs to be change. The distance from where we are now to achieving that paradise is the time it takes us to make those choices. I'm not saying that what I've outlined is the price of paradise, but if it were would you pay it?

The Sustainability Puzzle: The Cornerstone is the Home

In trying to solve problems, sometimes I find it useful to picture in my head the end result so that I can more clearly define the goals and objectives as well as the practical steps needed to achieve them. In considering the sustainability puzzle I ask myself what are the inevitable components that will make up a sustainable world? Ideally it will be a world without poverty and this implies that no one will lack food, clothing and shelter. Even though its is not distributed equitably, today the world produces enough food and clothing for everyone, so I want to focus on the issue of shelter.

The concept of the sustainability puzzle is simple, but complicated by the number of people involved. Simply put, the challenge is for the Earth’s population to utilize its resources in a way that does not deprive the many future generations of their fair share. In the context of housing, the challenge is framed around resources including materials, construction labor and energy requirements over the lifetime of the house. Now, the nature of this challenge is not a technical one, it is a design challenge of organizing the pieces in a replicable way – an easier challenge than going to Mars and arguably more urgent.

The architectural challenge is to design a home that achieves at least the following objectives:

LEED Platinum Efficiency: This is the highest efficiency rating thus far established by the US Green Building Council and is primarily conquered in the design phase. While terms such as LEED are known by “green conscious” builders in the United States, the objectives and methodology should be integrated into the design for those who do not even know the term. Let’s just say that this is a minimal efficiency standard that should be achieved in a sustainable design.

Owner Built: Benjamin Franklin offered us advice that endures time. “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And so too building one’s own house makes the home as a foundation of sustainability more affordable and therefore in the reach of more people. To achieve this goal the design implication is that the house must be easy to assemble and here lies an opportunity for innovation. Just as IKEA simplified the furniture assembly process through a few innovative gadgets, so too should a house be designed so that it becomes more of an assembly process rather than a construction process. The building material is also an important factor. I’m a big fan of strawbale construction and one reason is that as a material it aesthetically forgiving and the large building blocks make the building process more intuitive.

Modular Design: Part and parcel to the principal of designing a house that can be owner built is also one that can be built in pieces and contains components that can be added. This makes the construction process more affordable as it can be accomplished on a “pay as you go” basis. For example, the house I plan to build is purposely designed in a “U” shape so that one half can be built first to provide the essential core of the home, a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, and more living area can be added at a later date as money permits.

Sustainable Materials: The LEED rating system takes the type of material into account, but on a global scale, we need to get away from many of the energy intense materials that we currently are accustomed to. While strawbale may not be the panacea for all locations, it is a sustainable material in that it is an agricultural byproduct that can be supplied locally and is therefore very affordable. Furthermore, it has a high insular value that reduces energy inputs. While cob construction is an alternative, the shear weight of the material would seem to become a barrier to many.

Open Source Design Concept: The designs should be open and available to everyone for free if we truly want everyone to reduce energy use and achieve a minimal standard of living. While this flies against the current practice of architects creating unique designs individualized for the homebuilder, this is a cost that can’t be afforded by most.

House in a Box: If there are a few core designs, component kits could be sold to further lower costs and make the building process that much easier. These vital components include pipes, floor radiant heating tubing, nails, water barrier paper, electrical wires, switches and plugs, solar panels, faucets and even toilets and sinks. But don’t be deceived by the word “kit”, in all likelihood these would be delivered to the home assembly site on a pallet!

A sustainable design will definitely require a great deal of “out of the box” thinking to achieve these goals and possibly more. A truly integrated design will also take into account the surrounding landscape and could include an edible garden to further empower the homeowners and lessen the overall burden on transported goods. While there are definitely other pieces that make up the sustainability puzzle, I believe the long-term sustainability begins with a well-designed and practical house. I hope that architects will take on this challenge that could truly form the basis of our sustainable future.