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.
|