Are we winning? Is the increased interest in sustainability being sustained or are the majority of the population all finding it too hard? As the baby boomers retire and set up there sustainable nesting patches, how long will they be able to hang on? What new approaches can we use to get sustainability and trust back into the mainstream media and lifestyles? Eventually nature will force participation however how bad will it have to get for people doing the right thing before the decision makers start to act and polluters start to pay? This forum has lots of threads but how long are they sustained, how long until the loop back and overlap? Are there any examples of protracted collaboration or are most examples an inexperienced person making a call for help and then a few experts blue over the right answer? Does is look like training the next generation on environmental issues that most of the rest of society ignore been counter productive? How do we set the right example more and set up alternative systems and ideas that self promote?
Sustaining Sustainability
(95 posts) (16 voices)-
Lumbuck Thornton
MemberDidn't the Indian definition suggest sustainability was achieved if the behaviour or action was still viable to carry out in 7 generations? (eg not over hunting). Bit different from the current one where it just means being able to extract profit for a long period!
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 9:12:01 pm from IP # -
Eco
MemberAre you romanticizing indigenous culture? Would a nomadic subsistence lifestyle be a suitable alternative for life today - and would you want to live it.
We have to find a different definition of and route to sustainability to suit western sensibilities.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 10:16:28 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
Member"We have to find a different definition of and route to sustainability to suit western sensibilities."
Assuming this is possible. It is the complexity of our society that places so much pressure on our natural resources. Nonetheless, a nomadic existence couldn't support our population nor society in this day and age.
Posted Sunday 9 Jan 2011 @ 11:18:19 pm from IP # -
Eco
MemberAs Jeff suggests it is first necessary to know what is meant by sustainability.
In the long term sustainability must mean no net sourcing and use of non-renewable resources and the sourcing and use of all resources (renewable and non renewable) in such a way that does not cause excessive or long term environmental degradation and where environmental degradation is caused it is latter rectified by those that caused the degradation).
This means we can use renewable resources that are sourced and processed "sustainably" and disposed of and / or reused "sustainably".
Non-renewable resources that have a long useful life can be used so long as we don't just discard them at the end of their life. These types of resources need to be reused and recycled "sustainably" to allow reuse.
The use of non-renewable resources that have a short useful life can only be used in the short term to aid transition to sustainability but can have no use once sustainability is reached. The classic example of this is fossil fuels.
We have a long way to go.
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:49:27 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberEco you are correct. (At least I believe you are!)
Sustainability is about maintaining life by balancing natural and unnatural(human) cycles.
The definition of a cycle being that it feeds back into itself over and over again.
The definition of balancing being the ability not to allow one cycle to fail in preference of another.
I tried to demonstrate this in the presentation I did in Perth, for the ATA bi-monthly meeting last December, after being invited to speak there by Benny.Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:33:01 am from IP # -
Lumbuck Thornton
MemberGreat discussion... Certainly there are things missing from modern lives and lots of things that some how have been missed from our study of earlier lives and there is a whole lot of new stuff we are going to have to come to terms with as well at probably an increasing pace and with less resources.
So how do we stay a few steps ahead and work out the best steps to take ????
I like looking at things through new fresh approachs and revisiting things with the new knowledge and detail we now have available.I get the impression people are starting to get bored with the modern world, frustrated and are on the lookout for something better. If we can come up with some new ideas to get the community and government to rethink then we might be half way there. So far the most original idea I have come up with is passive solar outdoor furniture - I think this would really confront and challenge people and their instincts and be a new platform for us to build civilisation on a more sustainable basis or at least have a good laugh! See my other posting on this topic.
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:13:38 pm from IP # -
Eco
Member"I get the impression people are starting to get bored with the modern world, frustrated and are on the lookout for something better."
I don't really get that impression in the wider community. There may well be a subset of people, of which you may be a part, to which this applies. And it is very tempting to think that our own perceptions apply to a wider community than they actually do.I think the true picture is that most people in the community *are* on the look out for "something better". But that something is the 150 cm (or bigger) TV screen, LED backlit LCD with 3D capability. Or the McMansion. If there wasn't the demand they wouldn't be built and sold. And this culture of consumption is being encouraged by the structures of society and the people who have most to gain from those structures. Our society is based on consumption. If we stop consuming the economy collapses and people become unemployed. This was amply demonstrated in the GFC. Trillions of dollars were pumped into economy so we could consume. In fact Government gave us all a handout so we could continue to consume. And it didn't matter what we consumed so long as we bought something, anything - even if we threw it out the next day it was "good for the economy". This is the very antithesis of sustainability. And this is what we have to change if we want to become sustainable.
As I said - we have a long way to go. So while passive solar furniture might be a step in the right direction I am afraid it is a very small step. We need massive social restructure. Suggestions anyone?
Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:02:59 pm from IP # -
aussiesue
MemberThe answer is IMAGE!! In the past sustainability hasn't had cachet!
I think this "story/metaphor" is relevant:
Where I am building my house - an island - has one of the lowest socioeconomic indicators in Qld. The environment is pleasant, people have a laid back lifestyle, it is relatively close to the city and, of course, it is right near the sea. It also has power and water and garbage services. If you put those factors together, it ought to be a no-brainer by Oz standards for the place to be a runaway realestate success (ie spiralling house and land prices) Think Bundeena or Scotland Island.
But it's not. Land prices are cheap and houses don't sell. And funniest of all, the local council is agonising over how to provide "services" for all the "disadantaged" people. In a recent survey they actually asked "What would make people live at XXXX?"
There is no mall, no movies, one or two shops and you have to catch a ferry to the mainland to do these things. Instead people fish and garden and join one of the 30 activity groups. But it is not fashionable. Worse than that it is like living in the 1950's. Hell, there is only ONE coffee shop there! Mainlanders turn up their noses at the "ferals" who live there.
In many respects it shares many of the charactericstics of sustaiability, which also is patently A GOOD THING, but not yet being gobbled up by the masses. BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. NOW. Sustainability has become fashionable among the trendsetters - and therefore will flow through society as the price comes down more...like Balinese bures...)
Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:55:44 am from IP # -
aussiesue
MemberSorry, in the post above I accidentally deleted the first line - ie I was responding to Lumbuck Thornton's last question in his opening foray, "How do we set the right example more and set up alternative systems and ideas that self promote?"
Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:02:54 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberBy making it easier for people to do it. Most people will claim they are time poor. They don't want complex systems that take a while to educate themselves about or apply (at least initially). Recycling bins where you don't have to separate glass, plastic and paper are an example. They also want to see a perceived immediate benefit initially. Watching your power or electricity bills go down in response to an intervention is more likely to sustain an interest. Initiae a low yield-high cost project and people will abandon future attempts.
Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:12:27 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberI asked myself, do I live a sustainable lifestyle. I live on 100 acres of bush land, I use only Solar Power for the home and hot water. I drive my car twice a week for 260klms a week at approx 10l/100klm. I supply my own water from 3 x 5000 gal water tanks for the house and 2 x 1000gal tanks for the garden.I have thousands of trees on my land to act as carbon sinks and plant about 50 to 100 a week as I clear the garbage out. I use my old tractor for about 5 hours a week unless of course it has rained and then it doesnt get moved for weeks. I answer my self yes and then I ask myself how many other people would be willing to do what my wife and I have done with the limitations that it throws up and I answer not many. Most people would put it in the too hard basket. There is no instant gratification involved and that in todays society is what it is all about. Everything today is geared to the principle that one must have everything at ones fingertips 24/7 no matter what the cost. Have a look at the time when mobile phones from a major company were rendered useless for a couple of hours, the young peole of today couldnt come to grips with the fact that they didnt have instant contact with their friends or family. A simple thing like that and they couldnt cope so until sustainability can say yes you will have 24/7 everything you desire then it will forever be the poor cousin of nuclear or coal power. Its sad but true and if you dont believe me have a really good look at todays young. If its not the latest and greaest and gives you that feeling that you are in command then it is not even worth them having a look.
Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:03:29 am from IP # -
dymonite69
Member"here is no instant gratification involved and that in todays society is what it is all about. Everything today is geared to the principle that one must have everything at ones fingertips 24/7 no matter what the cost."
And that's why the changes have to be done in decrements. When your society is traveling in fifth gear, moving it into first will cause the transmission to self-destruct.
Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:09:07 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberAye D69
Alternatively a "immigration" to sustainability might be necessary. Start with sustainable aid and systems to the poor, they haven't got any "lifestyles" to lose and are desperate to get a "life" at all. Then when they show us how its done, immigrate. Besides it's not much of a change for them anyway, they're already 100% RE and accustomed to its performance!Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:20:59 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberStart with sustainable aid and systems to the poor, they haven't got any "lifestyles" to lose and are desperate to get a "life" at all.
Cant quite come to grips with that statement. I dont consider myself rich and some people may even say I am in the poorer class of society and yet I have been able to move forward. This has to be a holistic approach and not just selectively targeted at one socio economic group.
The rich are just as much part of this as any other group be they white collar, blue collar of whatever. People must be made to realise that they are all part of the problem and solution.
We have various people who are mega rich telling us that we must do this and do that to save the planet and yet by their own actions do exactly the opposite. That doesn't really send a good message does it. Start if you must with the well to do and if you can change their attitudes and behavior then you would stand a better chance of making those less fortunate take notice. Probably out of context but as an example have a look at the current trend with tattoos. It started not with the poorer class of people, although many did have discreet tatts, but with the celebrities who adorned themselves with tattoos in all manner of places and showed them to the world and it soon became the norm? for all. Get the well to do to make it fashionable by deed to be sustainable and the masses will follow like sheep. The Prius was a great example of this as more and more celebrities and the wealthy bought these cars and the people followed.Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:01:53 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberThatmosis
I meant the real poor in the third world that barely have enough to survive ie water and food. They are already too poor to afford fossil fuels hence they are 100% RE.
I agree the rich should lead by example, and even purposely fund this type of sustainable development in the third world and here.Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:14:08 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberTM "Get the well to do to make it fashionable by deed to be sustainable and the masses will follow like sheep. The Prius was a great example of this as more and more celebrities and the wealthy bought these cars and the people followed."
The problem with this is that the everyone else thinks you need to be rich to do sustainable things e.g. the opulent houses on Sanctuary magazine.
Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 8:29:39 am from IP # -
Lumbuck Thornton
MemberSo how do we make the "Sustainable lifestyles" a Volkswagon Beetle instead of so much hard work and expence? We need to go back to first principles and start nutting things out from scratch to see where all the improvements can be made instead of imposing a whole heap of needless unsustainable baggage into our lives.
Is it a new mindset for most people that we are after?
How do we best demonstrate that there are practical alternatives and new thoughts.Posted Friday 14 Jan 2011 @ 10:54:02 pm from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.