Re: [DE] Sustainable - a definition

At 10:45 5/09/99 -0700, you wrote:
> ... it is obvious that the goal is not sustainable, but invigoration. ...
>
>      ... 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. ...

**  As a philosophical description (giving some guidance for personal
decision), it's pretty good.

**  However, it clearly states that the destruction etc. caused by one's
continued living can be not only cancelled-out by the
benefit-to-all-else-on-the-earth resulting from one's life, but that the
more highly invigorated life produces &/or results-from minimising the
destruction etc. and maximising the benefit-to-all-else.

**  Nice to imagine it's possible, and I believe that's a major attraction
of Deep Ecological thinking, but: 

(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 the end of their life): "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.
     Separately;
(ii) It implies that 'the goal' (being highly invigorated), would only be
achieved by near-zero destruction and disruption caused by one's actions. I
can't imagine a highly invigorated person producing near-zero destruction
and disruption, unless they were saint-like or god-like, certainly not
middle-class-American-like.

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