Schumacher College London Seminar

These are the notes I took at the a Seminar on Sustainability organised by Schumacher College, Devon, in London.
Personal impressions to follow in subsequent post. For now, here's the notes.

On the meaning of the term 'sustainable development':

* Yes, it has been hijacked by thousands of different, sometimes even contradictory uses. No, we do not need to abandon it altogether. To do so would be to be held hostage to these contradictory meanings which have gradually become hostage to it.

* We view 'sustainability' as living without hindering Earth's ongoing evolutionary processes. This means reducing our tread on the land to the barest minimum. Generally, living within our means. Gaining the same amount of - or more - fullfillment from each other, our communities, our surroundings, as we currently seem to gain from objects, cash transactions and material flows. This does not mean that we completely de-materialize our lifestyles. This would be the opposite extreme and not desirable or effective in the long term. It means that we begin to develop our crippled, latent sense of place, love of place, a recognition of the Earth's sentience and soulfullness. It means that we should switch from our current trajectory of economic growth - one based on scarcity, exponentially increasing demand, and individualism, to one based on cooperation, a sense of community, creativity, and abundance.

* The most urgent task in this endeavor is recovering lives of meaning. This is largely the task of a vastly reformed education system.

* How do you reconcile the personal with the political?

There is no distinction!

The way we come to this conclusion is by observing the process our students at Schumacher College go through.

First, they uncover their personal sense of connection with the Earth. Their personal sense of it, their embeddeness within it. In a tangible, physical way. Then, inevitably, they examine how their current lives 'fit' within this alternative perspective. This does not imply an automatic 'shift' to that perspective - but inevitably, the feeling of connection, embeddeness, and love of place tends to create a strong bond to this 'other way of seeing' oneself - as part of something greater, vaster, intelligent and loving. The process of examining how one lives one's life is often painful, long drawn out and uncomfortable. Everyday actions that one normally takes for granted begin to appear misguided. If the person then takes the decision to create alternatives to these unsustainable actions - to change their behaviour, to not blindly be part of something because 'everybody else does it too', this is the beginning of political action. His sense of right and wrong begins to become conscious. His actions begin to be motivated by a sense of love, rather than unexamined habit. And once on this path, the individual becomes an unstoppable force.

On development - Vandana Shiva and Gustavo Esteva:

* Three false assumptions regarding 'development' dominate current thinking:

1. Financial transactions indicate economic development. Low financial transactions - or an absence of financial transactions - denotes an undeveloped or underdeveloped society.

2. The 'developing countries' are intrinsically backward. They therefore need external help - and a 'push from the outside' if they are to overcome their present state.

3. The powerful have a right to design the lives of the weak.

* Living within local means is an effective antidote to globalisation. While not everything can be sourced locally, it is enough to stipulate that whatever can be sourced locally is given preference to that which comes from far away. Localization is also an antidote to localism. Today, we observe that the more globalized your economy, the more parochial your consciousness becomes. We want to localize the flows of environmental goods and services - and globalize consciousness and solidarity.

On agriculture and GM crops - Vandana Shiva and Gustavo Esteva:

* Remember that GM does not create traits. It simply relocates them.

* Flood, drought and salt resistant varieties already exist - their use has been pushed to the margins, their availability has been commercialized. To the detriment of both societies which were once empowered holders of local knowledge, adept at selective breeding and active monitering, as well as the environment. Typically, when one of the two loses out, so does the other. What is socially unjust is inevitably environmentally unjust, somewhere or the other.

* Seeds need to be brought back into the commons.

On environmental education - David Orr and Karen Blincoe:

What does environmental education need to impart?

- Above all, a love for the planet. This is a basic starting point, from which all other education must flow.

- Second, we need to give students the practical skills to deal with the upcomming period of transition.

- Third, we need to devise a list of what analytical skills they might need.

Above all, though, they will need a sense of hope. Optimism is essentially a prediction. There is no reason to look at the current data and be optimistic. There is, however, every reason to be hopeful. But hope in this case is a verb with it's sleeves rolled up. In the end, it is hopeful people who will save the world. It is not optimists, and it is certainly not pessimists who will do this.

We fail our students by not showing them their individual potential as human beings. If education can show people their own uniqueness and then highlight where they fit into the larger scheme of things, it can produce purposeful, directed and positive human beings. Show them that they are already complete! Lacking in nothing! Full of creative, unique potential. And then teach them how to recognize, develop, and love themselves for it. Teach them how to go out and be forces in the world. Passive education - listening, note-taking, reading and writing exams deadens their sense of active potential, delays it, numbs it.

What advice do you have for students within the current system?

- Use the system. Don't let the system use you. Don't become a product.

- Find out what you need to know - and then go after it and learn it.

- Don't become a technician, learning processes. Learn something deeper!

- Have fun! Do other things. Be brave. Start something of your own.

For every act of specilization, we need an act of synthesis. Rigour in lateral, connective, 'pattern' thinking is a key skill to develop.

_______________________________________
For A.

Sustainable Development

A defintition by C.S. Holling:

''Sustainability is the capacity to create, test and maintain adaptive capacity. Development is the process of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the two, "sustainable development", thus refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities and creating opportunities. It is therefore not an oxymoron but a term that describes a logical partnership."

(emphasis added)
Holling 2001 in Newman and Dale 2005, 'Network Structure, Diversity, and Proactive Resilience Building: a Response to Tompkins and Adger' Ecology and Society 10(1):22

Climate Change and World Peace for Dummies

As pointed out by Eric Pooley of Time Magazine, Al Gore's Peace Prize will be a subject of intense debate. One camp will hail it as deserved recognition, at long last, of the severity of climate change and the urgency with which it needs to be tackled. Everyone else will call it either: a.) SlightlyRidiculous (since there were more deserving candidates and/or causes) or b.) Totally and Completely Ridiculous (since the climate change-world peace link is a myth or worse, since climate change itself is a myth).
You probably know by now which camp I belong to.
And therefore can imagine my irritation, annoyance and frustration when I encountered this article on The Telegraph, entitled 'What has Al Gore done for world peace?' by Damian Thompson. What annoyed me more than the article itself (which at least made some attempt at pulling together a series of 'facts') was the string of absurd reactions to it in the Comments section. Two major themes were - Climate change is not real / Climate change is not linked to peace (or lack thereof).
Below is my response. I have deliberately left out the all-important incident-and-example rhetoric, since people tend to twist every piece of evidence to suit their own particular perspective. The thread I have proposed below has already been written about extensively. My summary of it is simply a compressed version:
______________________________
A theme that should ring true, and close to home, for all the Yankee cowboys here (suitably simplified to match the level of intelligence I see on this forum). Try, if you can, to wrap your minds around this -
1. An important driver of human conflict is intense competition over scarce (or highly desired resources)
2. Climate change entails a change in the distribution of some highly valuable natural resources - like freshwater.
3. The resulting poverty is likely to drive areas of scarcity (Africa, parts of Asia, etc.,) into further sociopolitical unrest.
4. Therefore, an important driver PREVENTING unrest is the mitigation of climate change, or at least adaptation to it.
5. Education is the first step towards changing policies, since we (and by we, I do not mean the United States) live in a (supposedly) democracy-loving world.

Therefore the link between education and peace.
Therefore the conspicuous lack of peace within America and American 'foreign policy'.
Therefore the Peace Prize for an environmental educator.

Geddit?
_____________________________________________________

I Write of That Journey

I've been struggling for a while to articulate what this blog is really about. Sure, it's about my PhD and my thoughts on environmentalism. The title is inspired by a quote by Gregory Bateson: "What is the pattern that connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose? And all four of them to you? And you to me?"

But obviously, if you were to ask me so what does that mean for your blog, my answer would be two-fold:

The short one: I want to write about connections. Process. Cause and effect. Momentum. Direction.

The long one: At the heart of all of these things there is a throbbing pulsing intangible something. If I were a mystic, I would call it Love. Not the tattered word that supersaturates our relationships, our recreation, our lust or our quest with sickly sweetness. Something more. Something deeper. I find that other people have described this much better than I will ever be able to. I make it sound like fluff. Like a pretty concept. Their words reveal it as a crystal-hard, glowing here-now-and-always Thing. Perhaps because they have experienced it. And I, despite always looking for it, have always been a creature of movement, too restless and impatient to grasp it. Mirabai (The picture above depicts her singing a devotional hymn to her beloved Lord Krishna) writes of it as a journey - that was the first appeal. But if you read closer, it hasn't got anything to do with moving, and everything to do with (cliché as it sounds) knowing that you are already there. Less of becoming, more of being.

Here, in her words, is the pattern that connects:

I Write of That Journey

Mirabai

I remember how my mother would hold me.

I would look up at her sometimes and see her weep.
I understand now what was happening.
Love so strong a force
it broke the
cage,

and she disappeared from everything
for a blessed
moment.

All actions have evolved
From the taste of flight;
the hope of freedom
moves our cells
and limbs.

Unable to live on the earth, Mira ventured out alone in the sky –
I write of that journey
of becoming as
free as
God.

Don’t forget love;
it will bring all the madness you need
to unfurl yourself across
the universe.

What freedom! What light, what colour, what joy, what music, what transcendence, have we seen - any of us - compared to this!?

Read it. Read it again. Read it with your eyes closed, if you want to see it. Know it.

Responses to The Alarmist Perspective

This is shaping up into a valuable debate, for me at least.
Here are two responses to 'The Alarmist Perspective' (below):
Response 1:
Again, as you said, I think you've done a better job than the article in articulating what the problem is. And

while that has it's use (I'm not for a moment implying that just because you don't have a 100% doable solution, you stop talking about the problem), you still haven't given me much clarity on what can be done. I ask that because even if the government won't listen (as of now, that may change), industry might. For selfish reasons like "we care about the environment, buy our products". It's happening in the West, it'll come here. But my sincere advice to you in your struggle would be not just to tell us all what's wrong, but identify realistic ways of changing or at least amending it.

Response 2:
I'll try and keep it as short as possible - I thought the article was thought provoking. However, most such writing is rarely ever action-oriented, which in turn means that although it aims at drawing attention to a problem, offering solutions is not the aim.

In this case, especially, offering solutions is not entirely possible. Not because we aren't well equipped but simply because solutions will come with understanding and that won't come when there's such widespread ignorance about the absolute criminality that for instance, gas spewing generators perpetuate.

As for your take on the issue, especially the theoretical aspect of it, Za, it makes a lot of sense to fit such patterns into a larger psycho- economical framework. Where I work, this is what we are trying to tell the government - that growth is usually viewed as progress when actually it might imply a change. In theoretical terms, what we view as a linear and upward trajectory might be a parallel process. So, we've been trying to get the planning commission to listen to the idea of having separate planning processes for growth that will necessiate sustenance of what we already have and growth that will take us further. As we explain to the babus, the difference is if I have an apple, do I want to keep it fresh or do I want to make it into juice? And more importantly, that making it into juice will means I have to keep it fresh first.

I hope that makes sense to you? I work with a government where the going is tough. It might offer some hope to say that I see the will to change things only growing. That has come about because we lot (that Za calls social activists, who are actually just restless creatures gnawing at the government day in day out) refuse to give in to a normative discourse, which in this country is very very easy to do. Instead, we are stressing the pragmatic benefits of taking an alternative approach. I must say that I am very very impressed with how increasingly attentive the political establishments are in this regard.
As for the corporate giants, I am repulsed by how little they do. Body Shop for instance go around advertising their "good" behaviour. But what about it's nine other sister concerns all owned by L'Oreal that don't do anything even remotely close to what Body Shop preaches through it's product advertising? Sorry, perhaps I expect too much. But I don't agree when it is alleged that the government might not listen, but corporates will for whatever motive. History shows otherwise. We must remember that at the end of the day, the government is a non profit organisation - which means it will do whatever necessary to govern the country and that won't happen if the country is going up in smoke. I know I said I'd keep it short. Blimey!

I also received a very well thought out, valuable comment on some of my economic points in a Comment to the original post.

This post is getting rather long though, so I will summarize my arguments for and against all three responses in a separate one. Keep the arguments coming!

The Alarmist Perspective

A couple of weeks ago, an article in the International Herald Tribune caught my attention.
The piece deals with the huge shortfall between capacity and demand for power in Growing India and the hugely inequitable supply that results from this.

I've been reading things like this for a while - as will anyone who reads the news - but I thought it was interesting that the article was carried by a non-Indian newspaper. Says something about the scale of the problem, I thought. So, as is my wont, I sent the article out to a bunch of my Indian friends and asked them what they thought.

A question that subsequently arose in one of the responses was: Is halting economic growth really the answer?
Great question. I thought it'd be great practice at debating, communicating and thinking, to respond. Below is the email I sent in return. I'd love some constructive criticism on the points I made:
__________________________________________
Hey,
Thank you for asking the hard question. (If you were simply asking it in passing, forgive me the spiel below, but simply cannot resist debate and practice. So spiel below I will, please.)

My Response, off the top of my head and not relying on any 'party line', this is just me talking back:

It was a while ago that I read this article, so I don't remember the subtler messages, but if it did imply that halting economic growth is the solution then no, I don't agree either. Obviously though, there must be room for subtler solutions: it can't be either zero-growth or unbridled growth at any and all costs.

A couple of points I would make off the top of my head:

1. Inclusive growth seems impossible in trickle-down perspectives. This assumes that if we have a large amount of wealth, the benefits of this will trickle downwards to those who need it, ultimately. The inherent paradox is: Economics assumes the Perfectly Rational Man, but trickle-down requires a certain degree of altruism. Perfectly Rational Men are, (at the risk of vast oversimplification) opportunistic, relatively short-sighted and basically out to get the largest slice of the pie. (Obviously. I am not implying that rationality is evil, but this is what it entails - do everything in your power to be on top, push, struggle, get there. And I am like that too, I don't deny it. Why else have I accumulated a carbon footprint large enough for some small nations, trying to get a PhD.)

2. Lets not forget that this model of economic growth also assumes infinite resources. Our economy - even when it switches from manufacturing to services (as economies in the process of becoming 'developed' do), is powered by coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro- power. Two things stem from this:
2a.) The power of these resources flows from resource-rich but economically marginalized areas (the countryside) to resource-poor economically integrated areas (cites and industrial centres). This inherently furthers the marginalization of large sections of our population.
2b.) The resources themselves, managed as they are at present, will either run out or become unfeasibly expensive to harvest within the next two generations (an oversimplification based on some theory and some observation, but you can change the numbers from 2 generations to 5 to 10 - the ultimate answer is not less alarming for it). After that, technologically developed 'alternatives', so far untested for the scale and depth at which they will have to be employed, are assumed to 'take over'. For the concerned environmentalist and social scientist, this reads (much to my alarm) as follows: An over-heating economy marked by inequity and resource-poverty is about to explode into absolute chaos.

The underlying theme in all of this: Inclusivity does not come with increased growth, it comes with effective distribution. Right now I see lots of growth, but where is it going? Is anyone consciously putting in as much effort into distributing the benefits as they are into powering even more growth? (In pockets, they are. Great. More power to the people driving the process, and long may it continue. But overall, I think the balance is still skewed in favour of more, more MORE.) If overall economic well being were the aim, I would see a balance between growth, sustainability and equity.

I do not see this. If you do, let me know - it would lift some of my blackness to find that no problems exist where I think they do.

If I sound Marxist, worry not, I'm not calling for that - I'm in no place to offer a solution like that. All I can say is that: grow as much as you want, the problems will grow in lockstep if growth does not assume a radically different face, because the paradoxes are built in.

Right. So I've done worse than the article by now: brought in lots of theory, sounded alarmist and not offered a concrete way out. Great. At least it's practice in how (not to) communicate. Blah. Honestly, what is the point, no one is going to listen to a dolly-haired girl wearing Miss Selfridge shorts and red nailpolish. Humph.

Rambling incoherently now,
Zareen.

My Reasons

Browsing Google during an extended study break this evening, I found out about the earthfireice campaign to collect a million pledges from individuals and businesses to to take simple steps to cut their carbon emissions. As I took my (six) pledges, I created a small profile and stuck it up to a google map. I'm now a small green dot in Colchester (the only green dot in Colchester up on that particular map - if anyone'd like to make some promises and keep me company, it'd be great!)
Anyway - as I created the profile, I came to the 'spieling' part that usually annoys me senseless. But today, I realised something that's been at the back of my mind, wordless, for quite a while. A large part of my reasons for taking personal action against global climate change has less to do with the misery I know it will inflict on my own children (should I choose to have any) than on the misery I know it is already inflicting on 'other' species. I don't want to go into the myriad statistics on the numbers of species we can expect to lose from the direct and indirect effects of a drastically changed world. Instead, these are my reasons:

The feel of monsoon rain on hot Indian earth, smelling like gardens in heaven will smell like.
The feel of cold breeze, laden with the scent of lemon trees. The splash of a polar bear, the water running off its fur. Butterflies. Hedegehogs waking up on time. Seals. Forest peace. The dance and war of ocean storms. The sight of fields ripening under an autumn afternoon.
All of these are my reasons.

At the end of the day, the only reason I need is to look out of my window and find the sun shining off the leaves of spring trees to Know that it is the 'right' thing to do to bleed to death, trying.

Rust and Stardust indeed!

A question I often ask myself - as does everyone interested in environmental issues does, I think - is: To what extent is degradation an inevitable process of the ongoing experiment with civilisation? Or to put it another way: did we get to the state we are in (both the glories of it as well as the darkness) unconsciously? And so, how on earth are we going to begin learning our way out of it?
A related issue is: What difference can I make? Or 1000 people like me. Or a million. Can we really do anything at all? Of course, I have often heard that the answer lies somewhere between yes and no. No, we might never change anything. Yes, we already have. No, we might never change anything. But Yes, it is important to keep trying. And keep trying we will. Some of us will give up, some of us will not, and some of us will give up and then resume.

On a deeper note, though, I can't help but think of all those who talk about the essential illusion of reality. By that I don't mean the absence of circumstance or cause and effect. These are Are, of course. But underneath them, there is this thought, repeated endlessly through the ages, but particularly well put by H.P. Blavatsky:
"The Universe is the periodical manifestation of (an) unknown Absolute Essence."
So, at the deepest levels, we do not know what turns the cosmic wheel. And, as Stephen Hawking put it, to know why it turns at all would be "to know the mind of God".
And yet, we all know that: "Yet, the Universe is real enough to the conscious beings in it, which are as unreal as it is itself" (another one by Blavatsky).

Is this enough of an imperative for continued action? That the universe is real enough? That is an open question and to some extent irrelevant in the everyday workings of environmentalism.
Yet, in opening the deepest basis of action itself to scrutiny, it paradoxically opens a path towards remarkable balance and perspective: The Universe is real enough to the conscious beings in it - which as unreal as itself. What are the tiny things that keep us from the 'deepest driving desires' which the Upanishads say form our true essence? And if the preservation of nature (read: beauty, wholeness, truth, whatever words you want to insert) is, as many have felt, a deep 'driving desire', perhaps the rest is really just rust and stardust.

Incoherent or simplistic as this may be as a justification for continued blood, sweat and tears, it is a thought that has shone one small white shaft of light into the dark place inside me that is filled with doubt.
And for that, I am grateful.

(On a slightly irrelevant note, and just to dispel some of the existential confusion the thought of not actually existing might have engendered (I do flatter my own post, I know), look at the talk page on Wikipedia's article on the Upanishads. It seems that these people could do well with reiterating to themselves the basic philosophy of the writings they so hotly debate: the rest is rust and stardust!! The 'divine hand' that prompted the scripture in the first place must be laughing its sides out.)