I have been reading a lot about sustainability lately, trying to pin down what it really means. I am doing this because I have grown tired of hearing the term bandied about thoughtlessly, used as a marketing slogan in my profession, used as a rallying cry for unthinking do-gooders in the public sphere, and because it is connected with ideas I find fascinating, i.e., the notions that we have to connect us with nature, and the notions we have of nature itself. Two pieces I looked at are this booklet by a professor in England who’s specialty it is, and this article on ‘carrying capacity‘ by a human geographer at Berkley.
Th images at the head of this post represent the two paths we are told we can follow: The first is that of bacteria reproducing in a petri dish, the population growing rapidly, then crashing – that’s the path we are supposedly on now; the second is the ‘closed loop’ of eco, bio, sustainable, new age, no growth economics that the prophets seek to bring us to. The theological/ethical dimensions of the latter view are obvious simply from the array of images presented when you google ‘sustainability’ for images.
Mr. Jackson’s booklet (Prosperity without Growth) goes into great detail about the inequalities, inefficiencies and spiritual dogmas of our present cultural ecology of free enterprise capitalism and consumerism. He tells that countries with much lower GDPs than the USA or UK have the same, or better!, life expectancies, same or better infant mortality rates, and that new measures of ‘happiness’ show no strong link between materialistic or consumer abundance and satisfaction. Is this news? Is this what the Sustainability Program amounts to – a plea to examine the nature of The Good Life, and to act accordingly? Very old wine in new bottles.
For the record, I largely agree with this philosophic critique of our current social arrangements, but where I part company with the prophets is my belief that our current path IS sustainable, though not preferable (to me). What these folks are doing is packaging an ethical, philosophical, moral, religious, spiritual and political point of view inside a pseudo-scientific theory. The logic goes, if we do not change towards a sustainable path, we, human civilization, will crash like those one-celled creatures in the graph at top. (The intellectual incoherence of this view is dissected in Nathan Sayre’s essay that I have linked to this post.) Without the Damoclean sword of global meltdown hanging over us, why would anyone do anything to change? Because society would be more just, more fair, more satisfying, less damaging to the ecological communities we cohabit with on Earth? There’s too much money to be made to bother with that stuff!
So, what do we end up getting in the absences of a reasoned and organized attack on the status quo? We get the same old economic system and its injustice and inequality, but we get bike-lanes (I like ’em), ‘green products’, (I hate ’em), tony new-urbanist developments (works for me), hipster eco-esthetic (I like to shop there) carbon footprinting (useless and deceptive) and so on…