Re: [DE] What is SUSTAINABLE?

[I thought this was just addessed to me, but another similar one has just
arrived so I'm sending this earlier one to the list as well.  D.M.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eric wrote:
> > ... I also did not want someone to think that once an activity is
> >labeled "sustainable" that they can do it however they want.
> > ... I'm just pointing out that learning sometimes has a lot of other 
> >activities supporting it and they all need to be done in a 
> >sustainable way to call "teaching and learning" sustainable.
> > ... to show that it is how things are done, not the activity itself.
David MacClement wrote:
> **  You've now made it clear that you weren't objecting to (most of) the
> list, rather that any such list would need the caveat that "these are more
> likely to be sustainable activities than most(?) others now-a-days, but the
> details must be examined for sustainability, even here".

Eric now:
Glad to see that it -is- possible to communicate via the computer
sometimes.  I have been noticing for the last 6 months just how difficult
it can be without the face to face interaction.


>   However, there _are_ cases where the high-energy-per-unit-weight of
> gasoline allows a high-value job to be done which would otherwise either
> not be done or would take 10-to-100 times longer, leaving time for
> necessary other jobs. I'm specifically thinking of a shoulder-carried
> circular-saw brush-cutter on our farm, used for keeping tracks and pasture
> clear of old-man gorse; the regular animal-care would suffer if the
> clearing was done with a hand-saw. Likewise, there are some necessary jobs
> to be done where aluminum (produced in small quantities using
> hydro-electricity), possibly recycled, is far and away better than any
> alternative.

I agree that there would be cases "where the high-energy-per-unit-[of work]
of [something can] allow a high-value job to be done."  A good famiiarity
with "lifecycle costs" and similar ideas and information will make these
judgements easy and more accurate.

As for aluminum backpack frames, I don't think I'd put them in that
category, just yet (see below also).  I do agree that aluminim (being a
fairly abundant material and very recyclable) will probably have its place
in the future.


> **  My point is, if you use a sufficiently stringent criterion for
> 'necessary', you find that almost all of what people do now is unnecessary.
> 
> **  Since anything beyond the 'necessary' is optional, it _should_ be
> optional! The people themselves should have the option; not people with
> power (rich, or corporations, or governments) arranging things for _their_
> own benefit, and convincing everyone(?) that they must work, to survive. 
> **  People will clamour to do one of the 'necessary' jobs, including
> housing and school repairs, just to have something useful to do. Money and
> 'the market' won't be the major decider of what people do, as they are now.
> **  With so much time on most people's hands, most of the time, activities
> like hiking, sailing clinker-built boats, horse-riding, gliding, making
> music and other performance, and so on will be a focus of many people's
> lives, not 'frivolous' additions to one's 'main job': working for a living.
> **  With so many people out in (relatively) natural surroundings and having
> time to think, views (like DE's) of their place in the scheme of things
> should be easy to spread - I'd say a large minority would start looking for
> something like deep ecology to give meaning/purpose to their lives.

Interesting idea!  I also think this is where Betsy's "beauty, art, music,
ritual and celebration" (I'd add "fun".) comes in as vital needs --
something to do with some purpose or meaning.

But I noticed something in the ideas you mentioned here:

> However, there _are_ cases where the high-energy-per-unit-weight of
> gasoline allows a high-value job to be done which would otherwise either
> not be done or would take 10-to-100 times longer, leaving time for
> necessary other jobs.

and

> **  People will clamour to do one of the 'necessary' jobs, including
> housing and school repairs, just to have something useful to do.


Given this senario, why would anyone care if something took "10-to-100
times longer" to do?  Would it just be more of the "necessary jobs" that
"people will clamour to do"?  Since we've got the people, and they need
purposeful jobs, wouldn't "worker productivity" become a negative concept?

Again, I grant you that there still might be times when "the high-energy
-per-unit-[of work] of [something can] allow a high-value job to be done."
But if we are clever enough, there will be a good balance of things to do
and people to do them.  I'd still like to leave plenty of time for the
"frivolous" activities, especially keeping in mind the time in Nature and
the enjoyment they could bring to people's lives, spending time with loved
ones (which would include Nature!).

I'd rather spend the time making a wood backpack frame than spend time
making an aluminum one; working with wood is much more pleasant.  So, in
your senario, I guess I'd make my own wood one : )  Actually sounds pretty
good now; I'm ready for a backpacking excursion.
 

> **  Maybe the recent winter weather is getting to me!

My sympathies.  We're approaching our longest days and having quite nice
weather along with them (highs = low 20's; lows = 10 ish; sunny with
occaisional clouds and breezes).  But, just to keep things in balance, it's
also my allergy ("hay fever") season as the grasses dry out (We basically
have 6 months of drought, roughly May to Oct.).


Eric