++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback on: "A Dream of Sustainability" (E-W 1/4/94)
Steven Viederman is Vice President of The International Society for Ecological
Economics. He has a dream about building a shared vision of sustainability,
then restructuring our society and ourselves to make it become reality. His
restructuring would key on education and politics. In "A Dream ...", as
described in last summer's RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL, he defines
sustainability and suggests five areas where a sustainable society would differ
from our society today: (1) equity and ecology will be primary considerations in
assessment and implementation of all policies, particularly economic policies,
(2) humility and restraint will characterize our actions, (3) sufficiency will
replace efficiency, (4) "right scasle" and community--place and locality--will
be preserved, defended, and encouraged. To Viederman sustainability is more than
a scientific precept, it is "and ethical guiding principle."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: PETER TRENCHI:R08F09A
Date: Jan 05,94 9:34 AM
Idealistically, I could eat this stuff with a big spoon. It sure reflects a lot of the feelings I have. However, realistically, I'm not convinced that the guise of sustainability should ever be invoked. It merely allows us an opportunity to be placated by whatever futuring model happens to be currently in vogue. Have we so quickly forgotten the LTSYC (Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity) of Forest Planning (round 1) which we used as an assurance that ASQ (Allowable Sale Quantity) was "sustainable"? Resiliency in the face of change is probably a better indicator of perpetuation. Certainly, diversity and freedom of choice (movement) appear to be contributing factors, but the normative ideals of equity etal may actually be counterproductive. Taken to some equilibrium (which is one of the major economists' fantasies [er... models]) equity would lead to some sort of social homogeneity. This is antithetical to the kind of diversity that is needed to support resiliency. Although, I enjoyed the article (I'm still sweeping warm fuzzies off my desk), it doesn't directly hit upon the single most important issue of perpetuability - Population Management. Of secondary importance is the amount of energy subsidy each individual of each (New York skyscraper eg) subpopulation requires to continue their status quo. As we crash into the walls of finite agricultural real estate and stored energy materials, these two factors will precipitate changes that we cannot seem to make on our own. Thus far, these changes have been neither tidy nor equitable and (from a global perspective) there's no real hint that this will change anytime soon. Steve's comments / vision / dream makes more sense within an American context and perhaps that is the limit of his scope (or maybe it's "Western Civilization"). If so, then it's like the case of the cruise ship captain who went ashore (on the first lifeboat) so he could "better direct the evacuation." Our musings have no meaning except within a global context that recognizes the interrelationship of many factors most of which are exogenous to our control. PT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback on: ** Eagle Bird: Mapping a New West ** (E-W 2/4/94)
Charles Wilkinson and Michael Anderson's LAND AND RESOURCE PLANNING
IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS has become a narrow-niche classic in
understanding the history and legal underpinning of the Forest
Service. But Wilkinson engages in broader issues too. In Wilkinson's
EAGLE BIRD: MAPPING THE NEW WEST (1992) his focus is on the many
issues reshaping the West. Joe Colwell, from the Spearfish-Nemo
Ranger District, Black Hills NF, was impressed enough with EAGLE BIRD
to write up a short review for us. Colwell shows us the parallels
between Wilkinson's assessment of what is happening and our own
ecosystem management--as people pay more attention to place, nature,
community, and connections as well as politics, economics, and law.
4 pages. Dave.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: JOHN J. LAVIN:R04F02A
Postmark: Feb 08,94 1:33 PM
Dave/Joe... just read Joe's review of "Eagle Bird:Mapping a New West", by Charles Wilkinson. Page 2, under "Arrogance and Ownership", gives God a bad rap ("the settlement of the West was based on God and Manifest Destiny"). This implies belief in God is bad, arrogant and out of date. Page 1 states, "Muir defined the spiritual foundation of all conservation debates". I don't think he defined it, but certainly resurrected the worship of nature as a sustitute for worship of God. I love and respect nature...but worship, I reserve for God. I hope that Wilkinson et al can accept that it is possible to love nature and worship God.
Any discussion of this gets tricky. Appreciate your thoughts. My interpretation was different than yours. Not a bad rap on God so much as the attitude we too often find in zealots and warriors--that they have God on their side. Im not sure God takes sides in some of these minor debates or quests. I also think Muir realized the face of God in the natural world. Some people may call this worship of nature. I prefer to see it as the worship or admiration of God thru his/her works as displayed in natural things, such as orchids. Sort of like "can a person be all bad if they respect and admire an orchid". If thats worship of nature, then we need to better define worship, nature and God. I leave that to theologians and philosophers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback on: "Words for a Sustainable World" (E-W 2/7/94)
How much difference do words make? Donella Meadows attempts to answer that
question in her recent column "Words for a Sustainable World," from the
Bennington Banner (VT). How much more a part of humanity do we feel when we
speak of "the future of humanity" instead of "the future of man," Meadows asks?
And how can we really talk about sustainability when we talk about "growth and
"progress" as if they were synonyms for sustainability. Meadows concludes that
"The planet earth develops, diversifies, evolves. It does not grow. The same
must ultimately be true of the human economy." Only by getting the words right,
can we begin the journey that will usher-in a new era in human culture
development--an era of sustainability. 2 pages.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Jeff DeFreest:R04F10A
Date: Feb 07,94 4:53 PM
It sounds like she's into "buzz-words". I feel too much emphasis is placed on the proper wording and not enough on the proper action. When I attended the Geo-fest at Lake Tahoe last fall, numerous folks asked for a definition of "Ecosystem Management"...I have yet to hear a good definition. I have a conceptual feeling for what EM means, and I feel the FS has been implementing it quite well in general, through a conscientious interdisciplinary decision process. Maybe actions no longer speak louder than words; but with a growing population on this planet, the human race (or "Mankind") needs to work at using its resources wisely, and stretching them as much as possible with well thought out actions, and not worrying so much about what to call it.
From: Rob Holmes:W01B
Date: Feb 08,94 7:12 AM
Wow, this is an outstanding article! Dave, I appreciate your network for fostering honest dialogue and helping to sensitize folks to critical issues, e.g., language as a tool. Keep up the good work.
From: Paul Rogers:S22L02A
Date: Feb 08,94 8:14 AM
Bravo! Now if only every small to medium size town in the West could read and comprehend these sentiments. We do look to "growth" as our savior, and it hurts. -Paul
From: PETER TRENCHI:R08F09A
Date: Feb 09,94 9:39 AM
Very well written. My compliments to the chef. And here's my favorite stupid & arrogant phrase - "third world country." Without sounding like Abbott and Costello, who's first, who's second, who decides what is the hidden meaning in this ordinal classifier? Is it win, place, and show? In terms of sustainable development, those terraced mountains in Asia that have been farmed for several thousand years are probably better qualified than our rice and soybean operations in eastern Arkansas that are sucking the aquifer dry and leading to land subsidence (imperfect participle of the verb subsidize?). PT
From: Shannon L. Downey:R05F11D51A
Date: Feb 11,94 6:22 PM
It occurred to me recently, that whenever someone talks about the need for progress, we must automatically ask the question "Progress toward WHAT?" I was quite amazed to realize that this distinction is almost never made. Let's face it, "progress" needs to be used as a verb that requires an object. Not as a noun! - Shannon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback on: "Human Dimensions of EM--Targets and More,"
(E-W 1/18/94)
In early December Doug MacCleery responded to Jim Nelson's speech on
ecosystem management (EM). In late December we aired some of your
responses to MacCleery's article. Now its MacCleery's turn to respond
to his critics on two main points: 1) will reductions in federal commodity
outputs have adverse environmental effects on ecosystems elsewhere?, and
2) Should those "off site" effects be taken into account in EM planning? (also
are planned resource outputs incompaticlge with EM?) 7 pages.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Steven Eubanks:R09F03A
Date: Jan 19,94 8:30 AM
Lots of good dialogue on an important aspect of forest management. Doug's information about worldwide impacts are pertinent. However, the fact remains that avoiding impacts to other parts of the world is not an adequate reason for us to degrade our ecosystems (I don't think that's what Doug is advocating, but I know other folks who seem to have come to that conclusion on a "lesser of two evils" basis). Our problems with sustainability will continue to grow until we deal with two issues: population growth and per capita consumption. If we don't deal with these issues in the U.S., and use our successes to lead the world by example (instead of our 'normal' approach of suggesting what's good for everyone else and not changing ourselves), all our noble efforts in ecosystem mgmt and sustainability will do nothing more than stall the inevitable. I believe we have the knowledge to deal with these issues, but so far not the inclination I also believe we (the Forest Service) have a role to play in furthering the dialogue and advocating actions that address both population growth and per capita consumption--as a resource mgmt agency, we're in a position to be leaders in addressing issues that affect the nation's natural resources. Thanks for the forum for furthering the dialogue! Cheers
From: Phillip Freeman:R09F02A
Postmark: Jan 19,94 10:07 AM
I guess I missed Doug MacCleery's original response to Jim Nelson's speech, but his recent contribution to the discussion leads me to make a few comments. All over the Forest Service we still seem to be attempting to come to grips with just what we mean by "ecosystems management". In my mind, Garrett Hardin's term "ecolate thinking", defined as asking the question "...and then what?", is really about the best definition around. I believe MacCleery demonstrates a good example of that kind of thinking. Hardin points out that we can never do just one thing, and what MacCleery is doing is asking the "and then what" questions concerning changing federal natural resource policies. I really don't want to get into the various points made by both MacCleery and the respondents except to agree that both wood products and those made from non-renewable resources are underpriced, especially when the costs to future generations are considered; of the two types of products, I believe thorough analysis would reveal that the non-renewable products are the more seriously underpriced. The main point I want to make is that if somehow we could force the market to accurately reflect all the social and environmental costs associated with various products, the message it would communicate is that we have already exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of the planet to sustain us in anything like our American standard of living.
It is our professional duty to focus on the effects associated with national forest management-that's what we get paid for. As a citizen and environmentalist, however, I'm much more concerned about the larger questions, and the better we get at asking the "and then what" questions about national forest management, the more we are going to touch on those larger questions. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that if we are going to have any hope of passing along to our descendants a life with the biological and ecological richness that we enjoy, then we have got to come to grips with the problem of controlling human population. We're already seriously late in beginning to do that. While I'm concerned about old growth, wilderness and endangered species, I'm also concerned that some of the precious human energy and time being devoted by my fellow environmentalists to those issues had better be diverted to the much more socially and politically difficult issue of population. Otherwise, we may win some of the battles now, but we're doomed to lose the war.
From: PETER TRENCHI:R08F09A
Date: Jan 19,94 11:12 AM
After being exposed to very cogent arguments on both sides of the targets vs Ecosystems debate, my feeble mind hit the overload level and went searching for some general model to sort things out. Barely having the faculties for a dichotomous scheme, I started listing my reactions under the categories of Ecosystems and Targets. Perhaps by shaking these out into categories, I could make sense out of a discussion that appears to be both sincere and correct from both stances (ie have targets, don't have targets). Here's the list of what I came up with.
Ecosystems Targets
Heterogeneity Homogeneity
Ecosystems Targets
Change Stability
Uncertainty Assurance
Reinvented Govt Old Govt.
Chaos Linearity
Diversity Similarity
Intrinsic/Spiritual Value Market Value
Butterflies Guns & Butter
Interdisciplinary Functional
...and there are probably many others, but I only had enough gas to go once
around the mental block. What does all this mean and why didn't I just join in
on the debate over specific points? Well....it's hard to enter the "How many
angels will fit on the head of a pin?" type of debate when it appears that
society is struggling to redefine both angels and pins. As we try to
understand ecosystems and our relationships with them, little baby steps
probably won't work. What's required is some sort of giant leap. This leap is
very similar to the ones taken by; ragtag farmers against the British Colonial
authority; scientists, astronomers, and reformers against the Catholic Church;
Russian and Eastern Europeans against the Soviet system; and (for balance)
lemmings. All of these leaps were (are) made without foreknowledge of where
one will land and of what conditions pertain after the leap. It's difficult to embrace the normative notion of community stability when that notion is only applied to the human community. The ecological community has not known stability (especially in the past several centuries) and to understand how and why it persists we must abandon the entire concept of stability or anti-change. Questions and fears such as "How can we predict what will occur? What kind of future will that create?" etc. have typically been addressed by models based upon the solution of (some sort of) linear equations. This holds true for the FS and many fine businesses and financial institutions. This was (and in many cases still is) the way we were (are) taught to envision the world. If it weren't for the routine failure of linear modelling in terms of assessing reality, things would be fine & dandy. Just give me the numbers for those externalities and (no problem) I can show you just how lumber compares to concrete and steel. Just as adding more pumps and thingys to carburetors didn't solve performance and pollution problems in the 70's, tweaking our models will not solve the ecosystem problems of the 90's.
Fundamental design change is needed to ensure the perpetuability of our nation's forested ecosystems. We are fortunate to be blessed with very resilient ecosystems, but that still doesn't mean that we know where that point of no return is where an ecosystem 'snaps' to a lower level of complexity and resiliency. What we do know is that all the best linear models and targets failed to prevent our current situation.
Those things associated with targets; stability, assurance, and market value from a functional assignment of responsibility didn't work. And, boy, were we surprised. We had been taught that the system worked; that our linear models that lumped similar and homogeneous items together would resolve the 'guns vs butter' dilemma of resource allocation; and that we (white hats & all) could deliver the goods and services expected of the Old Gov't.
So what happened?? Model failure pure and simple. Our model of gov't, our model of forests, and our model of people all failed to predict or solve the situation at hand. Hadn't we seen it coming? Can't we blame politics? With a few more coefficients, we could 'make it work'. Let's face it folks, we didn't do anything that was wrong (for that time and place) in fact we did many creative things (and I don't just mean the Allowable Cut Effect). But this is the Information Age and the same factors that are toppling totalitarian empires are toppling our linear heirarchical functional models. Rather than lay in the road ditch asking "what hit me?", it's time to move on and embrace a far more comprehensive model of our world.
This model doesn't always crank out the set in stone numbers that many know as targets. Rather it is a way of envisioning our ecosystems and our relationships with said ecosystems. It understands that heterogeneity, change, and uncertainty are a part of the system and that while we can't always predict what will happen, we know that diversity gives us the best chance of perpetuability through any chaotic events. (For those who doubt the impact of chaotic events, check your local TV for the latest earthquake stories and remember Mt. St. Helens). Our gov't is being reinvented to work with constituents to achieve outcomes and in this sense we're actually ahead of the game with Desired Future Conditions. By utilizing our interdisciplinary strength and recognizing intrinsic social values as well as market values we can take world leadership in the management of ecosystems. So those of you with butterflies in your stomach, swallow hard and join in the fun.
Well that's the end of my word list. Let's just remember that posturing is useful for dept. store mannequins but flexibility is more useful for living beings that aren't just trying to 'sell' a point.
To: Dave Iverson:R04A
CC: d.maccleery:w01c
From: Dick Artley:R01F17A
Postmark: Jan 19,94 11:19 AM
Subject: Reply to: ** Human Dimensions of EM: Targets and more...**
I very much enjoyed reading your 1/18/94 paper in Eco-Watch responding to comments (including mine) to your 12/1/93 paper. Your paper was articulate and definitely clarified several key points that appeared previously. You certainly put my mind at ease...thank you. The very fact that your 12/1/93 paper elicited the responses that it did is a testimonial to the EM enthusiasm our employees hold. We are all different folks with different backgrounds and beliefs...and as such, one would expect people to respond to change at different rates. I still maintain that there are some (the preponderance in TM) who are having a more difficult time dealing with the switch to EM. This is entirely understandable and a natural human reaction to this situation is to maintain a hold on the past as long as possible. We'll need to help those folks along. We both agree that there will and should be wood products outputs under EM. Our outfit will continue to require folks with "timber" expertice...perhaps even more under EM than in the past, given EMs increased complexity. My paper was strongly worded with the intent of making a point.....perhaps too strong, since I hurt some feelings which wasn't intended, but it reflected my deeply held convictions that we are on the right track with EM. I wish we could discuss the issue in person, we'd find much in common. thanks
From: Dick Artley:
Date: Jan 19,94 11:31 AM
[and: ending another note...] With 20/20 hindsight, my paper would have stressed more that nobody who has worked in TM in the past has any reason to hang their heads. They (we) did what was right at the time...we carried out our mission at the time. Whats so exciting is that we have the maturity and guts to look back and monitor...maybe even self criticize...and change as a result.
Editor's note: Artley's paper:"Is There a Conflict Between Ecosystem Management and Predetermined Annual Timber Targets," 1/13/94, is available from the author.