aoi

Changing American Perspective on Consumption...

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:39:00 +0000

Some recent articles in the New York Times show an interesting trend:

For one, they too have finally noticed that there is not just Slow Food, there are even ideas of a Slow Life.
A life which is nicer because it is not so involved in the rat race which only looks at quantity and efficiency, but also at quality and efficacy.
There is a lot to be said both about some problems with and about some possibilities for that, considering the oft-made argument that it were only possible if you are rich to start out with...

Not only that, but there were reports about the way people are cutting back on expenses:
First of all, that it is a process by which you cut back where it is either not noticeable or socially supported. More-or-less-conspicuous consumption, where everyone sees it and judges you by it were not changed (or not much).
That's something heard of a lot when the poor of industrialized countries are discussed: "I can't not buy my children these label-clothes, they'd be laughed at; everyone has them. As long as we can afford a flat-screen TV (even if it's through debt), we are doing all right..."
Secondly, shocker!, people actually try to live within their means, paying cash rather than putting purchases on the charge card. The interesting thing in this article, to my mind, was the statement by a woman that she would, not long ago, have viewed the Cadillac in the neighbor's driveway as competition to keep up with; now she sees it as a sign that this neighbor is in trouble, chained to monthly rates for it...

Interesting developments.
May thrift be coming back as a virtue?
And, what does it mean for our view of the economy when you realize that the American economy is (some 70%, last I read) driven by consumer spending - and much if not most of that is through easy credit!?

Environmentalism in China

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:38:00 +0000

A note for my collection of relevant articles:

Report
China’s Emerging Environmental Movement
Quietly and somewhat surprisingly, green groups are cropping up throughout China and are starting to have an impact. In the first in a series on Chinese environmentalists, journalist Christina Larson visits with Zhao Zhong, who is leading the fight to save the Yellow River.
By Christina Larson

Link: Yale Environment 360

Very well worth checking out!

Stability and Unrest in the Himalayas

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:37:00 +0000

Not technically on sustainability, but related to the human-nature view in different cultural perspectives:

China, and including Tibet, have a tradition of seeing the (moral) behavior or humans and the stability of nature as being intimately related to each other.

To be technically correct, I should say "have traditions"... in China, this has been an aspect of the Confucian world view (cf. http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/religion/confucianism/ for a quick introduction), with the emperor the main connection in ancient China.
In Tibet, that notion of an interrelation of moral deeds and natural constancy (or more commonly, natural/spirit's punishment for human immoral behavior) is related to both Bon and Buddhism…

Anyways, I wonder if anybody would make anything out of the synchronicity of headlines we are getting right now...

on the one hand: Magnitude 7.2 quake, three others, hit China
on the other hand, all the news about the riots in Tibet
[the links go to CNN.com]

Of course, both sides could interpret it the way they want to see it, in support of their cause: Even the earth shakes with the riots/protests.

I just find it very troubling that things had seemed, judging by all the information I was seeing in documentaries and newspieces, to be getting rather better, more peaceful.

Transition Towns

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:36:00 +0000

I had heard that mentioned recently, now I found an article on the theme of "transition towns" (in The Guardian, UK).

The things they are discussing, for one, fit well with the themes of our Zentrum für Zukunfts-Kompetenzen (Center for Future Competences; website - so far only - in German).
Maybe more importantly, certainly for my project, it's another case of people "pre-adapting": changing for the world that might well come (and, methinks, learning things which are good to know anyways - and I'm talking about the bushcraft and sock darning more than about the survivalism...).

Moreover, it's another one of those cases where the spotlight is put not on the "why bother"-attitude towards sustainability, but on the opportunities and possibilities that it offers, and that make the question be pretty stupid.

I don't know if they are related (in factual connection), but at least in theory the "ecovillages" movement seems rather similar; "re-localization" initiatives are pretty much the same thing (but seem to be more common in the USA).

NYT: "Japan Sees a Chance to Promote Its Energy-Frugal Ways"

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:00 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/world/asia/04japan.html

Of course, Japan has its own problems when it comes e.g. to insulation of homes, but there is a lot happening not only when it comes to the latest electronic gadgets:

We tend to overlook that Japan is further along (than Europe) on the shift to an aged population - or, put differently, to the population shift that will (have to) happen if the world population is ever to stabilize.
There is a different view of the human-nature relationship, with humans less separate (with both good and ill effects).
...

For more on what's going on, check out "Japan for Sustainability"

18 Years of Environmentalism

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:34:00 +0000

Just recently, I found this video again, which I remember from my early days of engagement in environmental affairs, back when I was a child.

Before leaving for Latvia, I had been looking through some magazines also from around that time (1990); now my mum looked through clippings.

And you know what? Except that some of the science has changed, and such articles now include web links, the problems and solutions described sound exactly the same as they do now. Watch the vid and you might get what I mean...

I think, it's high time to approach things differently. Or are we just waiting for the long-prophesied environmental apocalypse to hit us, even while necessary changes would also be changes for the better?

Why (a) Positive Ecology?

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:33:00 +0000

One, maybe two, million organizations work on sustainability (both environmental and social) issues, according to Paul Hawken's estimate (in his recent "Blessed Unrest. How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming").

Assuming that there were a hundred persons in each and every one of these organizations, that would make for a large movement - of 100 to 200 million people - indeed.
Ray and Anderson, coming from a slightly different angle, argued for the existence of 50 million "cultural creatives" in the USA and assumed that there were at least that many in Europe.

In other parts of the world, there is an even larger part of the world's population. And, looking at the listing of issues that Hawken created, not so few people should be working towards sustainability even outside of the "developed" world.
Then again, following the conventional arguments which assume that a certain level of (economic-industrial) development has to have been achieved before people can afford to work towards a green lifestyle, it should not be too high a ratio of people.
So, let's assume that the number were correct. In that case, 3.3% of the world's population may be involved in sustainability issues. Still a fringe, but not all that bad...

Of course, many people are likely to be members of different organizations; many will not be members but be influenced. More importantly, if the aim is a transformation of ways of life and of making a living to sustainability, the largest organizations are likely to have many supporting members. Members who give money but hardly do anything else, wouldn't and might think they couldn't.
Some organizations here in Central Europe ask for donations as a way of helping them help to do their work. Undoubtedly it's true. Yet, regarding sustainability, the same money is probably made in ways which work directly in counter to the organizations' goals. Ay, there's the rub.

To promote change, it takes a positive vision, and practical suggestions for getting from here to there.

Organizations working towards sustainability tend to want a different, and better, world. A world where the diversity of life, both human and non-human, continues to flourish; where humanity has a chance to develop further, whether it be spiritually or technologically.
Yet, many arguments that people outside of those few percent already involved get to hear most are the likes of "jobs vs. owls": asking them to give up - or never achieve - a relatively comfortable, modern way of life in exchange for a bleak life that might "save the planet" in the future.

Therefore, it is necessary to focus more on the positive side of changes towards sustainability: On how ways of life and of making a living which serve sustainability also promote human happiness, through the synergies between the two issues (which do indeed exist).

Playing and Sustainability

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:32:00 +0000

Sustainability is typically a dry, hard, uncomfortable issue.

On the one hand, it's no wonder: After all, we are talking about things like global climate change, natural catastrophes the effects of which may be exacerbated by climate change and certainly affect more people on a more-crowded world, conflicts over resources, and so on, and so forth. Lots of gloomy stuff.
In all that, discourse on sustainability usually takes the shape of the prophet walking in from the desert, warning of the impending apocalypse, and asking all to mend their ways. No matter what the immediate pain would be, you gotta act...

On the other hand, "green living" is a fashion, the tightening economic circumstances are not good for this fashion's (usually upscale) representatives, but may be excellent support for a return to values of thrift and make-do and the accompanying reduction in conspicuous consumption.
Moreover, there is a new realization that "green collar jobs" in fields such as renewable energy and energy conservation are likely a better - more future-proof, and addressing social as well as sustainability issues - way forward than forging ahead into likely trouble with business-as-usual.

Nobody likes being told what to do (notwithstanding that this is basically all that marketing does, and very successfully). The new generation of people involved in sustainability affairs are realizing that -

"The mission is serious and yet, like life at the Oberlin house, it blends
idealism, hands-on practicality, laid-back community and fun.
“It’s not about telling people, ‘You have to do this, you have to do that,’ ” Mr.
Brown said. “It’s about fitting sustainability into our own lives.” And hoping,
he added, “that a friend will come over, recognize that it’s fun, start doing
it, and then a friend of theirs will start doing it.”
Source: New York Times, May 26, 2008 - How Green Is the College? Time the Showers

Suggestions for things you can do, steps you can take to reduce your consumption, decrease spending, and possibly increase life happiness, are something very different from the lists of "50 simple things to do to save the planet."
Taking a playful attitude to these issues, serious as their background may be, it becomes a way of taking control of your life, living instead of just sloughing through life, running in the rat race...

What is aoi?

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:30:00 +0000

aoi, first of all, is the Japanese word for the color green/blue (and it can also stand for youth). Traditionally, the green of vegetation and the blue of water and the sky were both described with this word.

It is a fitting label:

First of all, the issues that face us are both green - environmental protection, conservation of biodiversity, sustainable agriculture - and blue - the challenge of water availability, ocean dynamics, and global climate change.
Secondly, "blue" is coming to be used as a descriptor for initiatives that go beyond mere "green" issues to include social and economic themes as a direct part of what they are about.

Actually, we have been there - knowing that sustainability is really about protecting our own living conditions and chances for a decent life - for a while:

American environmentalism may have been a bit too strongly oriented on the idea of wilderness as nature apart from human influence, which is to be protected by keeping people away. Yet, there are also great ideas and initiatives for sustainability. Not least, the recent push for "green collar" jobs.
European environmentalism already had to be a bit more inclusive. Not least, many of the landscapes that we are very fond of are not wilderness, but rather cultural landscapes shaped by millennia of agriculture. The idea of Nachhaltigkeit (sustainability) also came out of European forestry, seeking to use the resource without depleting it.
Moreover, from its start, the idea of sustainable development was founded on the idea of three pillars: ecology, economy, and society. All of these would need to be considered.
(Unfortunately, although ecology as being about the preservation of our very life-support systems should be the foundation, it was usually turned into an afterthought to economic growth.)

Still, we need to go deeper:
Why bother to do anything differently?

Whenever there are calls to mend our ways, there's this question. It's understandable. And it is plain stupid.
For their long-term survival, societies have always had to change. In our very lives, we see many changes. - It's just what life is.

Changing your lightbulbs to CFLs alone won't do the trick, though.
Our very cultures - the way we live, the ways we make a living, and even the aims we orient ourselves on - will (have to) change.
Change to living according to nature - both ecological principles, and "human nature."

Saying this, it's usually said that you can't tell people how they should live… Well, our "normal" ways of life actually do just that, consumerism is based on it.
Sustainability, on the other hand, requires diversity. Ecological principles may be like the laws of aerodynamics (as Lester Brown suggested in "Eco-Economy"). - If you want to fly, you have to pay heed to them. Nonetheless, using a squirrel suit and constructing a jetliner are both valid options.

The ways we live are neither sustainable, nor do they lead to happiness anymore.
The necessary change is deep, but largely in keeping with equally deep human values and needs. It offers possibilities for both the development towards post-materialist values to "being," "living" rather than only "having," "consuming," and for the material development so many people of this world still need.

It takes courage to face the questions of what the sense of life is, and how we should live it. At the same time, there is a deep power in recognizing these questions rather than letting ourselves be distracted from them through the modern "bread and games."

aoi aims to accompany others in, and shows my own ways of, harnessing this power of understanding yourself and living according to nature.

Can't Afford...

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Many people complain they can't afford much anymore.
The old adage goes, "I can't afford to buy cheap."

Nowadays, the usual argument is that too many of us don't make enough money to buy high quality products… and all products are all too similar.
Well... How much money do we spend on conspicuous consumption, on entertainment, on electronic gadgets which will be dated shortly, and fashion items which won't be fashionable next season?

With fashion especially, it's interesting how we want to express our individuality, and then do so by following the same trends and fashions as everyone else. And the wheel of spending, consumption, and disposal just goes on and on. (-> http://www.storyofstuff.com/)

As for the lack of quality differences, this has been getting a more difficult issue. Still, there are ways to judge quality, if only we learn them and pay attention.

Views change, too:
As I recently pointed out, there have been a few articles describing how people have come to shop more cheaply where it's fashionable or not noticeable (though that might not bode well for organic and local produce which is commonly still more expensive than conventional produce from far-away places, thanks not only to economies of scale and labor costs, but also to rather artificially cheap transport cost, subsidies, and externalities).
And some items of conspicuous consumption are not something to keep up with anymore, but something to pity someone else for...

Re-Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Gerald Schmidt) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:17:00 +0000

The blogs on "Cultures of Sustainability" and of "aoi" are on similar issues, so I tried to integrate them into one. This attempt pretty much crashed the blog, so now I'm working on getting things back up...