Re: [DE] Sustainable - a definition

>>At 10:45 5/09/99 -0700, Eric wrote:
>>>      ... Sustainable means that the system in question will continue
>>>to function at a level of vitality relative to the degree of benefit or
>>>destruction and disruption caused by one's actions. ...
>> 
>At 20:05 6/09/99 +1200, David MacClement wrote:
>>(i) To me, the detrimental effects of virtually everyone's life are large
>>and continue every day, mounting up to a huge effect by the end of each
>>year. The benefit-to-all-else-on-the-earth resulting from one's life is
>>miniscule in comparison. There might be one-in-a-million people of whom it
>>can be said (at their life's end): "the world is clearly a much better
>>place because they have lived"; note that the criterion is not the usual
>>one where that phrase is used. We're not talking about benefit to humans
>>here, or if we are, it's a distinctly minor part of the accounting.
>
At 08:01 6/09/99 -0700, Eric wrote:
>Are you talking about how people are living _now_, or about humans living
>in general regardless of lifestyle?  I am looking for ways of living that
>are probably not being done now - at least by incredibly few people anyway.
> If it requires that there be only ten million humans and that they live as
>hunter-gatherers, then so be it.  If we can find a way in which one billion
>humans can live sustainably, then so be it.  I'm not tied to a specific
>outcome, other than a sustainable one.
>
**  You say: "how people are living _now_", and you're probably (Eric less
than most on this list) thinking of all those you know, when you say
"people .. living". Most North Americans and about half of Europeans, and
the rich everywhere in the world (they're invading Auckland for the APEC
summit at the end of this week), have only the vaguest idea of what daily
life is like for the _average_ human on earth these days.
    I was in fact referring to such an average human life; I'm guessing,
but I suspect it's exemplified by a Thai man, wife and 3 children with a
thatched 2-room house up on poles in a country area there. If he doesn't
yet have an old scooter, he has every expectation of being able to afford
one soon. They feel that life is hard but good; rubber-tapping (latex slabs
hung on their fence) is reasonably reliable, so if they decide they need
perhaps a piece of furniture, they can save up for a few months and get it
- luxury! Fifty years ago, the average human had a much better material
standard of living, before the recent population- and
consumption-explosion; probably (again a guess) what typical townsfolk had
in Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird", or what I experienced growing up
(relatively) poor in New Zealand.
    Living a 'normal' life in the rich parts of the world is by no means
normal - it _really_is_excessive_, and corresponds remarkably well to the
parasitical excesses of the aristocrats of the Roman Empire before it came
crashing and crumbling down.

     We five lived for a month with the near-desert-dwellers of Leh Ladakh
(North India), in 1988. I find it hard to imagine a human life whose
existence is of a clear net benefit to the earth, but the householders of
Leh would come close. 
  Helena Norberg-Hodge, of the International Society for Ecology and
Culture, has written of the vanishing sustainable way of life of these
people. I haven't read her books - I'm describing my own observations from
the time we were welcomed into their homes as paying guests.
     Water in Ladakh is very precious; it comes from melting snow on the
north side and to some degree from monsoon clouds tumbling through the
Himalayan passes on the south side. Because of its value, it is shared as a
matter of course. Households use the eight-inch-wide streams of relatively
clean water flowing downhill through the small town built on the outwash
fan of what has been a mountain river and is now generally a creek, for
everything except drinking water (which comes from above the town, through
pipes to communal taps). The soakage provides ground-water to keep things
alive.
     Virtually everything is self-contained within the town and its
neighbouring fields. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and humus are recycled
regularly; they also are precious. The (mud-brick or adobe) houses are
2-story, with the animals in much of the ground floor at night and in the
(long!) winter. The toilet-room is upstairs, above a small room that acts
as a composting toilet, including dry soil that you push down through the
hole when you've finished. A significant reason for welcoming tourists
(during the summer) is to increase the compost, so it and animal droppings
can then be taken out to fertilise the grain fields and fruit and nut
trees. There are no lawns; the very good soil around each house is
constantly full of plants in summer as a kitchen-garden. A child is told
what to pull up (e.g. carrots) or cut (e.g. brassica, like cabbage) and
bring in to be cooked for the evening meal, which we shared. House space is
_very_ well used - the five of us, ages 51 to 10, shared a large single
room. Each child has their own responsibility; clothes-washing (in the
nearest stream), taking the animals to the commons, etc. Everyone there
knows they are valuable.

**  This is only one of a small number of ways that one can live
sustainably according to Eric's measure. I generally agree with Mike's
contention that humans have pushed their way into a huge number of places
where they shouldn't have gone, though my criterion is to ask: what do
virtually all species do, including australopithecus and homo. So killing
an individual is not to be avoided as strongly as he makes out. I don't
agree that, if an American is killed in East Timor or Kosovo, that's so
serious that heaven and earth have to be moved to fix it. Over-crowding and
resource competition generally do contribute to stress and other forms of
death. What's so strange about that?

**  Ladakhis are related to Tibetans, and more distantly (I think) to
Inuit; all dwellers in harsh, unforgiving places where their ingenuity and
community spirit are essential, and their environment is fragile - mistakes
on the part of the humans could ruin things long-term.
    If one starts with the assumption that life is better than non-life (as
in a completely dead desert - they do exist), then one _could_ say that the
presence of the people of Leh has "made the desert bloom", so their net
effect is good, positive, sustainable.

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove nospam spaces)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html#top
*************************************************************