I am very impressed by your last message "trying to work up a definition for sustainability". As the professional ecologist and not only the NGO leader I agree with your final suggestions. The one thing (hi,hi - only one!) what I think about the last years -- how to make sustainability the working principle of the production process, i.e.economy.
Some of results of this thinking-process was my article "Hierarchy and Culture" and the "Declaration" (the second made with Sergey Fomichev). Now we are searching those who understand and support this kind of ecosystem management -- of culture-type not hierarchy-type. The first answers show that it is very new approach for people (not for nature - culture-type is similar to ecosystems development processes). We are very interested to receive you critics to make the next steps to explain our approach. Of course, we will be happy if you will publish and distribute these texts to those who are interested to discuss and - may be - to realise this approach on the landscape.
With big respect,
Sviatoslav Zabelin,
Socio-ecological union
[email protected]
No, we have not won,
We will die in the arena
- Iosif Brodskii
"Russia at the Crossroads" is maybe the best time and place to glance calmly over the present and future of humankind. The bright displays and advertisements don't blind the eyes, but the stomach is not sticking to the spine from hunger. All that we own, that we have done with ourselves and with the environment is nobody's fault. All that must be done to change the environmental reality we will have to do ourselves: there is no one to ask.
Thousands of hectares of forest have been wasted on paper to discuss what needs to be done for humankind to avoid an "environmental catastrophe." Almost nobody writes about what can realistically be done and what cannot possibly be done: it won't be published, and it's dangerous - it's long been accepted to behead messengers of bad tidings, and this tradition is faithfully observed.
We "just" need to transfer the train of human civilization onto different tracks, changing the previously announced route and destination. This can be done very quickly (one can count the years) and in a coordinated manner on the entire planet, since the "environmental problem" has not been solved in any one particular country. We need to convince/force/or otherwise make the populations of North America and Western Europe decrease their consumption by about five times, and give the saved resources to the residents of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Simultaneously, we need to convince/force/or otherwise make the residents of Asia, Africa and Latin America not have more than two children per family, and even better - one. And we need to convince/force/or otherwise make everybody eliminate their armies with their weapons, and everybody together should happily work on constructing a kingdom of universal justice on Earth. "Just" this.
"Just" this is derived from the simple fact that the planet Earth has limited resources and can support a limited number of animals of one species, including the type "human." And if there are more of such animals than there should be, then the natural limiting mechanisms are unavoidably turned on. There can be no exceptions.
Generally speaking, the species "human" (inasmuch as it is a "logical" species) has abilities to turn on its own mechanisms of limitation. The fact that I am writing these lines and that you are reading and understanding them is proof of this. We can control the birth rate; we can economize electrical energy; we have an understanding of justice, etc.
On the other hand, in its present state, the species "human" does not have the opportunity to make a feasible decision on turning on mechanisms of self-limitation. The fact that even in the most developed countries, no more than 10% of the population votes for the "Greens" is proof of this. More than 90% votes for various parties of unlimited material and technical growth.
We know what needs to be done, but we cannot act logically. So, we unavoidably fall under the influence of natural limiting mechanisms. Aggressiveness (crime, inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts, nationalism), stresses (heart diseases, alcoholism and drug abuse, suicide, social apathy), epidemics (AIDS, cancer, flu), and the pathology of pregnancy are only some of the most normal results of overpopulation (whoever does not believe me, observe fish in an aquarium: it's extremely instructive). Pollution of the environment, or more specifically, accumulation in the environment of non-biodegradable products of human activities (plutonium, strontium, cesium, heavy metals and dioxins are no more than specific products of human activities) is responded to by a general poisoning and weakening of the organism, and manifests itself in the growth of the death rate and the decrease of the birth rate.
* * * The species "human" possesses two principally different adaptations for self-organization of its activities: hierarchy and culture.
Hierarchy is a vertical system of management and subordination. It is universal for everything living and relates us with the rest of the animal world. A flock, clan, tribe, city, government: these are hierarchies of different levels. Their purpose is to provide maximum possible appropriation and consumption of environmental resources by their members through any available means, including at the expense of resources of other hierarchies, and also the protection of its members from other hierarchies. And these structures can do nothing else. They are an expression of the biological foundation of humankind, and their "work" is a completely natural source of all conflicts. At the same time, self-limitation and activities for the good of other hierarchies are completely unnatural for hierarchies.
Culture is characteristic only of humans and primarily is a system of rules of self-limitation. Mythology and science, art and religion, morals and customs are by their very essence collections of prohibitions, expressed by different means and intended to prevent conflicts with the environment. Associations of true creators of culture are generally non-hierarchical, and as a result of this they reside in harmony with the world. As a rule, they transcend borders and as structures are virtually unnoticeable. Hierarchies of "leaders" of culture, science and religion, as a rule, deny by their very existence the value of what they are intended to embody. The Holy Crusades and the Inquisition are naturally derived from the Church (hierarchy), and not from the Christian religion.
There are no reasons to count on hierarchies: with their help, it is impossible to solve the problem of getting humankind out of an environmental crisis. They simply "are not capable" of doing this. The same as there are no reasons to hope for an adequately quick change in the world order. No United Nations will make a decision to restructure the economy of the Earth on the basis of the ten evangelical Commandments ("do not kill," "do not steal," and the eight other similar ones). The examples - Kuwait and Yugoslavia, the Conference of the U.N. on the Environment and economic "cooperation" between the North and the South - have the numbers. And that means that one should proceed from the inevitability of humankind undergoing an era of the cruelest environmental catastrophe: through wars, epidemics, outbursts of crime and drug abuse, and many other unpleasant things.
It follows that one needs to clearly understand that preventing the environmental catastrophe of humankind is impossible. The task of saving humankind altogether is unrealistic. In the terms of the Christian religion, humankind is sinful, since it did not renounce a brutal method of self- organization, and therefore, it is doomed. And there is no Ark which will take this herd to another planet, just as there is no similar planet.
It makes no sense to lie, since this lie is not for the sake of salvation. It is too late to be warned: the environmental catastrophe is not waiting for us in the future, but is going on in the present. Its victims are becoming those who do not understand because they don't want to and those who do not understand because they can't. And those who do understand are also victims. There are no guilty ones, that's the way this world is set up. One feels sorry for the second group, but not for the first. The third group does not need pity.
In the era of environmental catastrophe, one can only save oneself, that is, save oneself and teach others. The rescue of those drowning is the work of those drowning themselves. The seeming paradox is that one can save oneself only by saving, because the foundation of all cultures is "love your neighbor as you love yourself." The saviors are saved, those who are able to live in accordance with the laws of Culture, not Hierarchy, during the era of catastrophes. Each person decides for him or herself how to do this. The more saviors, the fewer losses, and vice-versa.
Culture, whatever anyone else says, is united. Ceremonies and language, which help different associations transfer and "play" the rules of Culture, are varied. The self-worth of Nature and the Individual, the beauty of Love, "do not do to others what you do not wish yourself," admiration for intellect and its fruits are indisputable.
It is necessary to take the first step within oneself. For oneself, and also for a personal example: the most effective means for self-education and enlightenment. And only having checked the purity of one's own intentions seven times is it worth picking up a sword, if there are no other ways.
There are no hopes for a quick outcome. Therefore, the feast during the Plague is also an understandable personal choice and not a reason for condemnation. One should not spend strength denouncing those who have made such a choice. To each his own. After all, we too, today's saviors, most likely will not save ourselves. The chance for salvation is with the association of saviors, bearers and protectors of Culture. Our place is in the rearguard of those retreating before the onslaught of armed technology and consumer instincts of a human-like protoplasm. We are the shield of Nature and Culture, but we are also the target of "civilization of the 20th century."
My peers will not have the chance to taste victory, we are at the beginning of that path which can lead humankind to humanity. We will be brave and patient; today, nobody besides our comrades-in-arms will say "thank-you." And in the bright future, it might end up that there will be nobody to remember us. Good luck to you, saviors.
Dear God, give me the fortune to be persuaded of the mistakenness of what I have said!