What's wrong with being right

The questions posed during week six of this course are perhaps the most important questions we face as a collective.  What do we know about humanity’s ability to live within our means?  And what signals do we respond to in order to potentially regulate our “means?”  Simon Sinek (2010) gives a great Ted Talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html )regarding what humans respond to at least from a marketing perspective.  Sinak explains that the companies that have experienced the greatest success or at least the greatest degree of brand loyalty have focussed their marketing on the “why”.  Not the how or what, but the why.  Any company can explain what, or how they do something, but the companies with an ability to clearly communicate their why will be able to set themselves apart.  Sinek uses examples of companies like Apple and Southwest Airlines as models of his “Golden Rule” and how to brand your company.  No doubt the Environmental movement could learn a few things from modern advertising techniques, but I’m not sure a new brand message will be enough to curtail the rapid rate of conspicuous consumption that exists in Western culture.

Maybe the thing that has held the environmental movement back is the “fact” that they “know” they are right.  Nobody likes a know it all, and environmentalists are continually telling people what is going to happen, and that they better adopt their worldview or else, and if things turn out as environmentalists predict the only thing they will have to show for their efforts is a final gurgling “I told you so”.   So what do we do???  Re-brand, accelerate the demise of the current system??  A little humility might go a long way. 

I was recently traveling through the Massey tunnel in Vancouver which links Richmond and Delta under one of the arms of the Fraser River, and I could not help but be frustrated by every single cars individualistic perspective as they “deftly maneuver and muscle for rank, fuel burning fast on an empty tank, reckless and wild they pour through the turns, their prowess is potent and securely stern “ (Cake, “The Distance,” 1996), it was very reminiscent of Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy of the commons, as we all ground to a screeching halt as a result of a failure to recognise the benefit of making a small sacrifice for the greater good.

References:

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Great Expectations

Oh to be able to predict the future, what a gift that would be.  Many have made attempts to quantify our complex systems, derive patterns and predict the future. Some noteworthy, some forgettable, some intelligent, and some with let’s call it a lack of keen observational skills.  I don’t doubt the need for models in order to give us a glimpse at possible future outcomes, but the complexity inherent in the systems we are trying to model seems to allow for non-experts (media and politicians) to use any short-comings of our predictive capacities (I speak primarily of global warming) as a means of dismissing concerns and carrying on in the current trajectory.

In reading Ehrlich (2009) and his prognostications about the dangers of exponential population growth, another future theorist was brought to mind.  In 1945 in the midst of evolving nuclear technology, George Orwell wrote an essay called “You and the Atomic Bomb” in which he contemplated the significance of this new technology for future generations, and in particular the impact this new technology would have on the organization of Nation States.  I’ve noted some of the more interesting excerpts and points below.

·         Had the bomb been inexpensive to make, “the distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the state over the individual would have been greatly weekend” (Orwell, 1945, para. 3).

·         “Ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance” (Orwell, 1945, para. 4).

·         “For example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak” (Orwell, 1945, para 5).

·         “The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle” (Orwell, 1945, para 6).

·         “Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the re-imposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity” (Orwell, 1945, para 9).

After revisiting this article I could not help but think of energy as the new chain that binds us to an unchanging paradigm.  Those in power continue to centralize existing energy sources while simultaneously repressing innovation (you need look no further than the 2012 Federal budget) as a means of maintaining the status quo.  As was stated in the philosophers cafe this week: “We need to innovate and take risks” (Suhr, 2012).  This is the only way change will come about.  Innovation in the realm of energy could free developing nations from the remnants of a destructive imperial age and cold war.  As Zane alludes to in his description of Levin in lecture one, this does not have to be from new energy sources, but can come in the form of small scale energy sources that promote local autonomy.

So while our predictive powers might not rank very high on Meadows (1997) list of “places to intervene in a system,” they can serve as inspiration, and fuel discussions that can lead to “out of the box thinking”, that could lead to not using the phrase “out of the box.”

References:

Ehrlich, Paul, & Ehrlich, Anne H. (2009). The Population Bomb Revisited. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(3), 63-71.

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to Intervene in a System, Whole Earth, (91), 78-84.

Orwell, G. (1945).  You me and the Atomic Bomb.  Tribune. — GB, London. — October 19, 1945.

Suhr, N. (2012).  Re: social justice and the population bomb.  In the Discussion Forum.  Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 02:13 PM.

Time to get Radical?

In this week’s exploration of environmental economics we seek out ways in which these two interdependent disciplines can better work together in an effort to foster sustainability. I have spent a great deal of time over the past few years being frustrated by the continual marginalization of environmental concerns, not to mention the most recent framing by the Harper Government of environmental concerns as being radical.  What could be more mainstream than concerns over the well being of the biosphere that supports us?  Yet time and time again environmental concerns are juxtaposed with the need for economic growth. 

Lakoff (2010) discusses the failings of liberals in America to frame the environment in a way that generates meaning for the general public.  And I enjoy Lakoff’s (2010) description of how we are drawn to particular narratives.  I often find myself watching world events unfolding and wonder how the story will end.  Will it be a tragedy, a tale of the underdog coming through at the last moment, or perhaps the people involved will go through some transformative experience.  This analogy will likely reveal that I have spent far too much time watching organized sport, as well as the fact that I am an easy target for frames built around narratives. However, when I do (on occasion) watch a Montreal Canadiens game, I often find myself predicting the outcome based on the traditional narratives of sport: the underdog, the veteran player’s final push, the comeback, the collapse...  I increasingly see this playing out in politics, with leaders not necessarily attaching themselves to an issue, but rather to a story that people can relate to.

So what do people relate to in times of crisis?  Throughout history the trend has been towards more radical ideologies.  This narrative is playing out right now in Europe as they face what seems like an inevitable economic meltdown.  Greece recently split its vote between what are essentially Fascist and communist party’s, leading to the election of an ineffective minority government in their parliament.

Maybe it’s time to start framing environmentalism for what it truly is, a radical departure from mainstream values and ideologies (decide on your preferred level of sarcasm inferred in this statement).  Vive la revolution!

References:

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), 70-81.

The elusive “superorganism” found at the climax: A sailing analogy

As some of you know, I do a fair bit of competitive sailing in my free time, and while my thoughts often drift to the open ocean, or when I’m in Montreal, a bottlenecked river, I found myself reflecting on all that is beautiful about sailing as I contemplated the ideas surrounding order and chaos discussed by Worster (1994).

Sailing is an interesting sport in that it involves the incorporation of countless naturally occurring variables into a strategic plan that must also account for decisions made by your fellow competitors.  With proper preparation, wind patterns can be detected (sometimes oscillating in regular intervals, sometimes shifting persistently as a result of weather patterns), water currents can be estimated, and the effects of landforms on wind can be predicted with a degree of accuracy.  Armed with this knowledge you set up your boat and sails so as to best manage the wind velocity and waves, and develop a course of action for making your way around a fixed track. 

You would think with all this information in hand, victory would occur on a regular basis, but nature often throws you a curveball, and observations made before the race are not always relevant during the race, in order to be successful you must be able to adapt and change, no variable is fixed, including the rationale of your competition, and you must avoid chasing what was.  Sometimes you get lucky and a wind shift vaults you from the back of the fleet to the front, and sometimes the opposite occurs.  In order to achieve success you must be patient and find balance in all the chaos and order that surrounds you.  Frustration leads to reactionary courses of action, which in my experience seldom translate into success.

I always found it interesting that with all these variables at play, the same people can usually be found at the front of the fleet, and I think they are the ones that are best able to reconcile the predictive order and chaotic nature of wind and water.

This is an image taken moments before the start of a race (That's me steering 14905)

References:

Worster, D. (1994). Chapter 13: The Ecology of Order and Chaos The wealth of nature: environmental history and the ecological imagination (pp. 156-170). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilderness ethic holding us back?

After listening to the first of three lectures from week 3 revolving around the evolution of ecological thought during the post-war period, I was struck with a few questions (ok maybe just one question so far):

In contrasting the wilderness ethics of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century and contemporary ecological thinking, I was wondering if wilderness ethics is holding us back from the necessary paradigm shift required to ensure a sustainable future?  Wilderness ethics while wonderful for the preservation and conservation of natural habitats in its time, and well intended, is so entrenched in the way environmental issues are framed presently.  It allows for the separation of humans and their surrounding environment, and the notion that unconstrained development can occur in certain places, so long as we keep the environment safe in other places.  This line of thinking is what has led to fractured and disjointed ecosystems.

Earth from above

A great deal of discussion this week has revolved around balance and tensions between conflicting ideologies or epistemologies.  I keep coming back to our own system of government and economics to see if there are any emerging properties that might reflect some of the tenants of ecological thought.  I guess the basic principles of capitalism assume that the market, over time, will be self-regulating, and in the end will act in the best interest of the consumer to create equality, or rather opportunity, but this notion is presupposed, along with much of economic theory, on the idea that humans will always make rational decisions.  Unfortunately humans are not always rational and the basic principles upon which our most influential agencies have been constructed are inherently flawed.  So where does the regulation come from, who do we want to manage our “house”?  Do we want it to come from our governments?  I guess not, as we have elected a federal government that promotes the rights of the free market economy and seeks to eliminate or “streamline” any regulatory processes.  I think it’s important to maintain perspective when critiquing the Harper Government, it’s not as if they hide their agenda:

                “A belief that the purpose of Canada is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy.” (http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/  )

It’s nice of them to guarantee prosperity to everyone!  They do allude to the environment as being “a vital part of our heritage” (sounds very past tense) but don’t expect any policies that will aid in the promotion of its viability.  So how do we bridge the gap?  How do we allow people to see “the forest as more than just a collection of trees” (Odum, 1977)?  It comes down to individuals, and individual reflection on what really matters, then perhaps we might end up with a government that reflects a collective belief that “action based on holistic values and properties is a viable alternative to development on the basis of competitive exclusion alone” (Odum, 1977, p. 1291).

I guess part of the problem lies in the fact that modern technology has moved people in developed countries a few steps removed from the natural environment, and has thus diminished our (I’ll throw myself into the mix) sense of equilibrium as the resulting feedbacks from our excessive consumption are delayed.

I struggle with what to do, do you work for change within the boundaries of a system that has led us to where we are at present?  Privatize natural resources; add monetary value and individual ownership to entities that are presently without rights?  I don’t think so, it feels counter intuitive.  As Moncrief (1970) writes: “The forces of democracy, technology, urbanization, increasing individual wealth have led us down this path” (p. 511).  “The environmental problem is a human problem and has its roots in a distorted and unbalanced perception of existence” (Al‐Damkhi, 2008).  It would seem irrational to search for solutions within the very processes and belief systems that have led us here.  Odum (1977) suggests that “it is in the properties of the large scale, integrated systems that hold solutions to most of the long-range problems of society” (p. 1289).  Maybe we just need some new photo’s of Earth from space so that people can once again view Earth as a whole!

References:

Al‐Damkhi, A. M. (2008). Environmental ethics in Islam: principles, violations, and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65(1), 11-31. doi: 10.1080/00207230701859724

Moncrief, L. W. (1970). The Cultural Basis for Our Environmental Crisis. Science, 170(3957), 508-512.

Odum, Eugene P. (1977). The Emergence of Ecology as a New Integrative Discipline. Science, 195(4284), 1289-1293.

Week 1 The roots of ecological thought

Week 1 the roots of ecological thought

Opportunity Cost

The objective of this Blog is to share ideas and insights related to the course:  The Biosphere and Ecological Sustainability: The Idea of Ecosystems.  In this first week we have explored a variety of readings and lectures aimed at examining the roots of ecological thought.  Where did these ideas come from and where are they leading us to?

Perhaps a more poignant question would be: where are we headed without these ideas?  Our current societal trajectory has us landing in some pretty scary places, but it remains important, in fact vital, not to get sucked into all the doom and gloom, because our trajectory is not fixed, and we have never had more tools available to us that facilitate the spread of information and new ideas.

Let us now reflect on a week that began with the discovery of Uranus and ended with a discussion on conspicuous consumption.  A couple of things jump out at me:

·         The Kuhn (1962) reading made me want to explore simultaneous innovations that have occurred in isolation.  I was always intrigued by the fact that numerous civilizations that existed without contact past or present from the outside world, were able to develop similar technologies.  More intriguing even, is the fact that so many aboriginal cultures existing in different corners of the planet developed belief systems that mirrored each other.

·         Discoveries are a cool form of a positive feedback loop.

·         I think it’s important to remind ourselves that cash economies are not inherently evil.  Just like a subsistence economy (which we often romanticize) it is a system that evolved as a means of managing resources, a system that has become more complex, as more variables were introduced, and larger populations came to rely on it.

·         The discussion on conspicuous consumption was very stimulating and it brought me back to an economics term (as I know we have many “economists” in our class): Opportunity cost.  This describes the connection between scarcity and choice, as measured by the loss in value by the choice not made.  Our opportunity cost is growing exponentially (in both monetary and non-monetary terms) each day we as a collective choose to continue to consume our resources at a destructive rate, each day we continue to believe in a system that promotes unlimited growth, and each day we continue to value the attainment of wealth above all else.  What is the total opportunity cost of the new Federal budget?  Choice after choice made for the perceived benefit of an unsustainable system.

                                                    http://thesystemmd.com/?p=1028