Back to TRUEHOME




MANDALA


  WANTED: people who would like to start living fully ecologically and socially sustainably now, as an indispensable alternative to the ineffective ways of trying to counteract the effects of the environmental and social degradation that are being practiced today (that is - trying to do merely less harm, but harm anyway, instead of aiming for a true balance); people who would like to start virtual (in concept only, for now) ecologically and socially sustainable communities immediately, research how to establish real, actual sustainable communities eventually, and devise ways of living as ecologically and socially sustainably as possible in the interim.  
   The case is straightforward: In order to stop and reverse the destruction and degradation of the Earth done by humans, humans should start to live truly ecologically and socially sustainably now, in balance with all Earth ecological processes, and in harmony with social processes in order to heal the Earth and themselves. So far, on the whole, only attempts to lessen the damage that has and is being done have been practiced, a practice that has only, if ever any, short-term positive results. So far no fundamental changes that would result in lasting improvements have been initiated.
   Although living fully ecologically sustainably might seem at first absurd and impossible - it would mean to live without cars and electricity, just to start the list of things that one would not have (unless truly ecologically sustainable ways of manufacturing and maintaining of cars, electrical, and other high tech machinery can be found), - at a bit more detailed inspection the advantages of living truly ecologically and socially sustainably would clearly outweigh not having a car, the TV, and the like. If people on this planet adopted an ecologically sustainable life-style, no one would have to be hungry, poor, or homeless! As it is now, it is only a small fraction of people who live in a relative comfort, have enough to eat, and have a decent place to live - most of that at the expense of others, humans and non-humans alike. Also with living truly eco-sustainably there would not have to be any problems with overpopulation and over-use of resources. People would learn to live in harmony with their resources, eventually adjusting the size of their communities according to resources available.
   It is important that living eco-sustainably is practiced in viable communities. A "viable community" in the context of ecological and social sustainability is a community that is capable to propagate a culture from generation to generation independent of any outside human populations without any discomfort. One could think of a "viable community" as one that exists on an island for countless generations, without the need for any contact with other human populations. The size of a "viable community" would have to be arrived at experimentally, - could perhaps be estimated from the material record of prehistoric societies, as it would undoubtedly be impossible to find one such that would have survived the process of globalization.
  Many people, over the ages, attempted to live ecologically sustainably, but because they did not go the whole way, and because they did not have a sufficiently large community (i.e. a "viable community) to live in, they ended up practicing a compromise (caused by having to rely on the mainstream, expansive culture in, at least, some things), and inevitably they were re-absorbed back into the mainstream culture that is basically unsympathetic to anyone attempting to break away, because to the currently dominant exploitive culture it would mean an escape of valuable resources in terms of human labor and land that would cease to be accessible for exploitation. It is also possible that many people did succeed to live ecologically sustainably, however - with no community that would enable the ecosustainable philosophy to be taught to children undiluted, the eco-sustainable culture became extinct with its practitioners.
   There is enough knowledge available to learn from about how to live ecologically sustainably in order to do it properly. Naturally enough, one could not start living so straight away, there would be transitional phases to go through; first enough many people necessary for forming sufficiently large communities that would be viable (communities that would be able to propagate ecologically and socially sustainable culture without the danger of being negatively influenced by the expansive, outside culture) would have to find each other, land would have to be found, etc. However, with a clear goal in sight - to live in harmony with the natural ecological processes and with all life of the Earth - it would be possible to succeed.
   It is important that people should start living fully, truly eco-sustainably in the developed countries first, because those countries set the pace for the rest of the world, and those countries are also responsible for the most environmental degradation and social tensions in the world.
   Whatever attempts at fixing the environmental problems that are underway today could never stop, let alone repair, the damage that is being done to the Earth, because of a lack of a clearly defined goal. The goal of most (if not all) environmentalists of today is not to stop doing and to repair the environmental damage, but merely to slow down the damage being done, whether this is being realized by them, or not. It is wanting electric cars instead of eliminating the need for cars. It is needing solar electric light at night (heavy, environment damaging industry is needed to produce panels and batteries), instead of relegating tasks that require light to daylight time, and leaving the night for relaxation, story telling and being together with the family.
   There will have to be a lot of discussions to conduct before anything serious could be undertaken, but this is as it should be.

Click here for more information!
* The term "ecologically sustainable" would be best defined by "being compliant with the Earth ecological processes". Thus, for an example, introducing more CO2 into the ecosphere than can be re-absorbed by natural processes would not be ecologically sustainable, likewise using more water from an aqufer than can be replenished naturally, and so on.
"Social sustainability" could be defined with the help of the definition of "ecological sustainability" - generally people who fight can not worry much about the impact of their behavior on the environment, and people who are ecologically irresponsible do not bother about their being socially responsible either, as a rule, it would seem.

Subscribe to ecosustainablecommunities
Powered by groups.yahoo.com