TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A Glimpse of the Scale of the Universe
James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis and the Gaia Concept
R. Buckminster Fuller – Abundance for Everyone
Thomas Jefferson
Richard St. Barbe Baker
Francis of Assisi
The Necessity for a Truly Global Approach
The Bioneers
Animal Use of Technology
AIR
DRINKING WATER
FOOD
SHELTER
Underground, Earth-Sheltered and Earth-Bermed Homes
Yurts
Tipis
Bamboo Houses
Papuan Stilt Houses
Shipping Containers as Housing
Quonset Huts
Homes on Wheels
Domes
The Dymaxion House
Adobe Houses
Earthships
Stone Houses
Concrete Houses
Innovative Building Materials
Arcologies
Cities Floating on Water
Cities Floating in the Air
Underwater Cities and Artificial Islands
Houses Made from Living Trees
The Value of Aesthetic Beauty in Dwellings and Other Structures
Questioning the Need for Large Dwellings
Benefits of “Spreading Out” and Having Nature Around You
Bird-friendly glass windows
CLOTHING
HEALTH CARE
WASTE
FUEL AND POWER
Solar Power
Wind Power
Methane from Sewage
Geothermal Power
Wave and Tidal Power
Telluric Current
Safe Nuclear Energy
The F-T Process
Personal Power vs. Public Utilities
VEHICLES AND TRANSPORTATION
Smaller, More Efficient Vehicles
Purely Electric Automobiles
Hybrid Automobiles
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Biodiesel
Bicycles and Velomobiles
Hybrid Bicycles and Tricycles
Motorcycles
Scooters and Electric Motorcycles
Cars with Motorcycle Engines
Public Transportation
Segway-like Conveyances
Traveling on Foot
COMMUNICATION
Cell Phones
Why Make Books and Other Printed Materials from Trees?
TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL
Biomimicry
Permaculture
The True Costs of Manufacturing a Particular Item
How Can Technology Harm Us?
Increasing “Ephemeralization” and Efficiency
The Middle Ground between Silicon Valley and “Amish Country”
EMPLOYMENT AND TAXATION
POPULATION REGULATION
BIODIVERSITY
Maintaining Biodiversity on Land Used By Humans
PEACE, WAR AND POLICING THE PLANET
POLITICS AND LAW
EDUCATION
RECREATION
Gardening and the Aesthetic Value of Nature
CONCLUSION
Copyright © 2006-2008, Thomas D. Owens
Summary
Hopefully this overview has been of some use to you in deciding on ways you can improve your own life without damaging the future prospects of humanity and the other forms of life on Earth. As we have seen, there is no longer any need for human beings to subjugate nature for their own perceived benefit.
We can have it all, or at least everything that’s really important – comfort, the enjoyment of both technology and nature, and a clean, healthy environment for ourselves, our progeny and the non-human life forms with which we share our planet. And if enough individuals and enterprises make even gradual moves towards these ends, an overpowering trend will develop. That trend can lead us to a sustainable, guilt-free future in which human technology progresses as has most life on Earth over the millennia, in tune with the rhythms and workings of Gaia as a whole.
It can be done, and of course, it MUST. You and I can help get it started, and by reading this, you’ve already begun. Good luck.
(Back to Table of Contents)
We can have it all, or at least everything that’s really important – comfort, the enjoyment of both technology and nature, and a clean, healthy environment for ourselves, our progeny and the non-human life forms with which we share our planet. And if enough individuals and enterprises make even gradual moves towards these ends, an overpowering trend will develop. That trend can lead us to a sustainable, guilt-free future in which human technology progresses as has most life on Earth over the millennia, in tune with the rhythms and workings of Gaia as a whole.
It can be done, and of course, it MUST. You and I can help get it started, and by reading this, you’ve already begun. Good luck.
(Back to Table of Contents)
Gardening and the Aesthetic Value of Nature
What’s the value of having beauty in one’s surroundings? Is having a beautiful garden (even one that provides no food) just a pleasant pastime that provides something nice to look at, or is it actually beneficial in other, measurable ways?
At least one university study has shown that the greener the surroundings, the lower the chance of crime.
And perhaps there is other inherent value in families having their own gardens whenever possible (again even if not growing any food crops). It seems to me that nurturing plants and watching them grow brings a person to a closer and greater appreciation for the natural world in general. After all, just knowing something about a subject can often increase one’s interest in it, and concern regarding it.
For example, when I first moved to a piece of land with lots of native vegetation growing on it, I liked the idea of having some seclusion and privacy, but knew very little about most of the plants that were growing there. In fact, they pretty much looked alike to me, blending into one greenish mass of vegetation. But when my polymath friend Marty Pickard came over and showed me how to recognize the differences between the many species of trees, bushes and other plants growing at my place, I gained a whole new appreciation for them.
All of a sudden, I was no longer surrounded by a single mass of greenery, but instead by individuals of a score of different species. And after that, I never looked at plants the same way again. I gained an intimacy and understanding of plants that I had never dreamed I would possess, or even want to. Whereas before, animals, with their movements and antics, were always of more interest to me, now I could discern if individuals of a particular species of plant were increasing or decreasing in number, flourishing or languishing. And I became just as interested in the plants on my land as I was in the animals, and have since planted many, many more.
So, for me at least, there seems to be definite value in one’s yard (if you’re lucky enough to have one) containing more of nature than just the typical, manicured lawn (which is an extremely un-natural, human contrivance). Whether you indulge in gardening or just keep part of your property in an un-manicured state and then observe what goes on there, you’re bound to learn a little about nature, and perhaps develop a slightly “greener” outlook toward things.
And according to Roger S. Ulrich at the Center for Health Systems and Design, Colleges of Architecture and Medicine, Texas A & M University, a number of studies have now shown that “simply viewing certain types of nature and garden scenes significantly ameliorates stress within only five minutes or less”. Perhaps amazingly, just having a garden at a hospital (or even plants in the lobbies) can be a stress reducer for patients, families and healthcare workers.
At the very least, just stepping outside into a garden filled with the sounds of birds’ songs has to be preferable to hearing only the normal sounds of human activity – gas-powered lawnmowers and “weed eaters,” sirens, cars and trucks, and the like.
Most everyone can appreciate nature’s beauty, at least on some level. Indeed, the very concept of a “paradise” in the Christian, Moslem, Jewish and many other religious traditions is that of a garden, like the Garden of Eden. And the Ancient Greek root of the word for paradise is paradeisos, one of whose meanings was “garden.”
Indeed, the human bond to the natural world is nothing new, and can hardly be denied.
(CONTINUE READING)
At least one university study has shown that the greener the surroundings, the lower the chance of crime.
And perhaps there is other inherent value in families having their own gardens whenever possible (again even if not growing any food crops). It seems to me that nurturing plants and watching them grow brings a person to a closer and greater appreciation for the natural world in general. After all, just knowing something about a subject can often increase one’s interest in it, and concern regarding it.
For example, when I first moved to a piece of land with lots of native vegetation growing on it, I liked the idea of having some seclusion and privacy, but knew very little about most of the plants that were growing there. In fact, they pretty much looked alike to me, blending into one greenish mass of vegetation. But when my polymath friend Marty Pickard came over and showed me how to recognize the differences between the many species of trees, bushes and other plants growing at my place, I gained a whole new appreciation for them.
All of a sudden, I was no longer surrounded by a single mass of greenery, but instead by individuals of a score of different species. And after that, I never looked at plants the same way again. I gained an intimacy and understanding of plants that I had never dreamed I would possess, or even want to. Whereas before, animals, with their movements and antics, were always of more interest to me, now I could discern if individuals of a particular species of plant were increasing or decreasing in number, flourishing or languishing. And I became just as interested in the plants on my land as I was in the animals, and have since planted many, many more.
So, for me at least, there seems to be definite value in one’s yard (if you’re lucky enough to have one) containing more of nature than just the typical, manicured lawn (which is an extremely un-natural, human contrivance). Whether you indulge in gardening or just keep part of your property in an un-manicured state and then observe what goes on there, you’re bound to learn a little about nature, and perhaps develop a slightly “greener” outlook toward things.
And according to Roger S. Ulrich at the Center for Health Systems and Design, Colleges of Architecture and Medicine, Texas A & M University, a number of studies have now shown that “simply viewing certain types of nature and garden scenes significantly ameliorates stress within only five minutes or less”. Perhaps amazingly, just having a garden at a hospital (or even plants in the lobbies) can be a stress reducer for patients, families and healthcare workers.
At the very least, just stepping outside into a garden filled with the sounds of birds’ songs has to be preferable to hearing only the normal sounds of human activity – gas-powered lawnmowers and “weed eaters,” sirens, cars and trucks, and the like.
Most everyone can appreciate nature’s beauty, at least on some level. Indeed, the very concept of a “paradise” in the Christian, Moslem, Jewish and many other religious traditions is that of a garden, like the Garden of Eden. And the Ancient Greek root of the word for paradise is paradeisos, one of whose meanings was “garden.”
Indeed, the human bond to the natural world is nothing new, and can hardly be denied.
(CONTINUE READING)
Recreation
In Southern Florida, where I live, swimming pools are ubiquitous. Many housing developments have community pools, and more and more homeowners have their own pools in their backyards.
Each of these pools, of course, requires weekly (or more frequent) treatment with chlorine and muriatic acid, or some similar combination of chemicals, to disinfect the water and maintain a tolerable pH.
But what if (assuming you had the money for a pool at all), instead of building a conventional swimming pool behind your house, you built a natural, lush, swimming "pond" with non-sterile, yet clean and filtered water? (After all, water at ocean and other bathing beaches isn’t sterile, yet people love it and safely swim in it.)
Sharing that pond with you, the swimmer, would be aquatic and semi-aquatic plants, and (perhaps) some non-aggressive, colorful fish. Instead of using a conventional pool filter, such a pond could benefit from the filtering effect of the plants, combined with a "bio-filter" using beneficial bacteria (as in modern water-treatment plants) and perhaps a mechanical filtration system.
A pool of this design can be built of concrete with natural rocks set into it. It can contain one or more waterfalls, and also be surrounded by thick green vegetation, creating a much more inviting retreat than a conventional swimming pool.
Such a pool, balanced with the right combination of plants and fish, will not create the conditions for much algae to grow on its sides. And what algae does grow won't look out-of-place or create a problem.
With a pool like this (which is essentially a giant aquarium that people can swim in), you don't have to worry about it looking pristine all the time. In fact, you don't want it to. And as long as there are plenty of plants and not too many fish, the water will stay clear and fresh, and once the “system” is balanced, the filter can almost become an afterthought. In effect, you’ve created your own natural swimming pond.
This is a concept that hasn’t yet taken off in the United States. But in Europe, long known for its “green” citizens and sophisticated aquarium hobbyists, an Austrian company known as Biotop is building natural swimming ponds for home and commercial applications.
There are many design and maintenance considerations, of course, including avoiding water-borne human illnesses like leptospirosis while ensuring the water is safe for its non-human inhabitants, such as fish (although Biotop doesn't recommend them), amphibians, etc. But natural-style pools in Europe have been shown to meet the extremely stringent German water purity laws, so there is no doubt that they can be built to be as safe as any other swimming pool.
And think of how exciting it could be to step out of your back door into a lush, jungle-like setting, with your own secluded “swimming hole”! To me, at least, it’s a much more appealing prospect than having a conventional swimming pool, whose chemical-laden water will even kill surrounding vegetation when spilled onto it. It’s like the difference between the old-fashioned saltwater aquariums with their white, bleached coral and modern “live reef” tanks - a sterile system versus one full of vibrant life.
(CONTINUE READING)
Each of these pools, of course, requires weekly (or more frequent) treatment with chlorine and muriatic acid, or some similar combination of chemicals, to disinfect the water and maintain a tolerable pH.
But what if (assuming you had the money for a pool at all), instead of building a conventional swimming pool behind your house, you built a natural, lush, swimming "pond" with non-sterile, yet clean and filtered water? (After all, water at ocean and other bathing beaches isn’t sterile, yet people love it and safely swim in it.)
Sharing that pond with you, the swimmer, would be aquatic and semi-aquatic plants, and (perhaps) some non-aggressive, colorful fish. Instead of using a conventional pool filter, such a pond could benefit from the filtering effect of the plants, combined with a "bio-filter" using beneficial bacteria (as in modern water-treatment plants) and perhaps a mechanical filtration system.
A pool of this design can be built of concrete with natural rocks set into it. It can contain one or more waterfalls, and also be surrounded by thick green vegetation, creating a much more inviting retreat than a conventional swimming pool.
Such a pool, balanced with the right combination of plants and fish, will not create the conditions for much algae to grow on its sides. And what algae does grow won't look out-of-place or create a problem.
With a pool like this (which is essentially a giant aquarium that people can swim in), you don't have to worry about it looking pristine all the time. In fact, you don't want it to. And as long as there are plenty of plants and not too many fish, the water will stay clear and fresh, and once the “system” is balanced, the filter can almost become an afterthought. In effect, you’ve created your own natural swimming pond.
This is a concept that hasn’t yet taken off in the United States. But in Europe, long known for its “green” citizens and sophisticated aquarium hobbyists, an Austrian company known as Biotop is building natural swimming ponds for home and commercial applications.
There are many design and maintenance considerations, of course, including avoiding water-borne human illnesses like leptospirosis while ensuring the water is safe for its non-human inhabitants, such as fish (although Biotop doesn't recommend them), amphibians, etc. But natural-style pools in Europe have been shown to meet the extremely stringent German water purity laws, so there is no doubt that they can be built to be as safe as any other swimming pool.
And think of how exciting it could be to step out of your back door into a lush, jungle-like setting, with your own secluded “swimming hole”! To me, at least, it’s a much more appealing prospect than having a conventional swimming pool, whose chemical-laden water will even kill surrounding vegetation when spilled onto it. It’s like the difference between the old-fashioned saltwater aquariums with their white, bleached coral and modern “live reef” tanks - a sterile system versus one full of vibrant life.
(CONTINUE READING)
Education
How can education be used to reduce the conflict between technology and nature? Sergio Palleroni, research fellow at the Center for Sustainable Development at the University of Texas, Austin, requires his students to travel to third-world countries, where they design and personally build environmentally- and socially-appropriate dwellings and other structures, particularly for low-income people (see the PBS miniseries, design: e²). In the process, the students gain a profound hands-on grasp of the value of understanding not only what goes into the physical construction of a building, but the benefits of designing it to best accommodate the unique nuances of both the people who will use it and the ecosystem it occupies.
It seems to all be about respect – respect for nature, for other human beings, for beauty and function.
What if, from the earliest age, all children were taught a profound respect for nature? Might that have an effect on how the leaders, and indeed all the people, of the future dealt with the interaction of technology and the natural world?
Although there have undoubtedly been examples of pre-technical societies despoiling their environs, in general such people have held a profound respect for the natural world (albeit generally coupled with a supernatural fear of many aspects of nature). And if the everyday inhabitants of modern technical societies can be instilled with a love and respect for the natural world, combined with a sufficient understanding of scientific explanations for natural phenomena, isn’t there a greater likelihood that most people will want to recycle their waste, and in general, reduce their negative impact upon the environment?
It is said that the Andaman Islanders of the Indian Ocean coolly reacted to the initial signs of the great tsunami of December 2004 by immediately heading to higher ground if on shore, and heading further out to sea if fishing in boats. Having a tradition of being fishermen and living close to the earth, the elders remembered the stories that had been passed down to them thanks to their ancestors. And they knew what to do after seeing even the earliest signs of the tsunami’s approach. As a result, most of them survived.
But other people living in the areas affected by the tsunami came from lineages that had lost their ancestral memories of such events, and many of them died, not reacting quickly enough to escape.
If we humans, as a species, can regain a sense of being an intimate part of nature, while at the same time appreciating and reaping the benefits of modern science and technology, then our technology can actually benefit nature as well as ourselves. If, as architect William McDonough says, we design everything considering the benefit of all future generations of not just humans, but all species, our technology can happily progress without ill consequences forever (see design: e²).
More and more institutes of higher education are now offering programs, and even degrees, in an innovative field referred to as “STS.” For example, the Program in Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempts to address what role science and technology play in major world events and human civilization. It is not offered as an independent major, but can be part of a joint or double major when combined with a science or engineering degree. Perhaps this new melding of science and engineering with concepts from the humanities will result in fresh views regarding the technologies of the future.
(CONTINUE READING)
It seems to all be about respect – respect for nature, for other human beings, for beauty and function.
What if, from the earliest age, all children were taught a profound respect for nature? Might that have an effect on how the leaders, and indeed all the people, of the future dealt with the interaction of technology and the natural world?
Although there have undoubtedly been examples of pre-technical societies despoiling their environs, in general such people have held a profound respect for the natural world (albeit generally coupled with a supernatural fear of many aspects of nature). And if the everyday inhabitants of modern technical societies can be instilled with a love and respect for the natural world, combined with a sufficient understanding of scientific explanations for natural phenomena, isn’t there a greater likelihood that most people will want to recycle their waste, and in general, reduce their negative impact upon the environment?
It is said that the Andaman Islanders of the Indian Ocean coolly reacted to the initial signs of the great tsunami of December 2004 by immediately heading to higher ground if on shore, and heading further out to sea if fishing in boats. Having a tradition of being fishermen and living close to the earth, the elders remembered the stories that had been passed down to them thanks to their ancestors. And they knew what to do after seeing even the earliest signs of the tsunami’s approach. As a result, most of them survived.
But other people living in the areas affected by the tsunami came from lineages that had lost their ancestral memories of such events, and many of them died, not reacting quickly enough to escape.
If we humans, as a species, can regain a sense of being an intimate part of nature, while at the same time appreciating and reaping the benefits of modern science and technology, then our technology can actually benefit nature as well as ourselves. If, as architect William McDonough says, we design everything considering the benefit of all future generations of not just humans, but all species, our technology can happily progress without ill consequences forever (see design: e²).
More and more institutes of higher education are now offering programs, and even degrees, in an innovative field referred to as “STS.” For example, the Program in Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempts to address what role science and technology play in major world events and human civilization. It is not offered as an independent major, but can be part of a joint or double major when combined with a science or engineering degree. Perhaps this new melding of science and engineering with concepts from the humanities will result in fresh views regarding the technologies of the future.
(CONTINUE READING)
Politics and Law
Few today would doubt that “Big Oil” and transnational corporations control much of what goes in politics and law worldwide.
Crusaders like John Perkins of the Dreamchange Coalition continue to make gallant efforts to “stand up to” deeply-entrenched financial and government powerhouses.
But if big business (and governments) can be convinced that environmentally-friendly techniques can actually be more efficient and cost-effective than what is now being done, then real change can finally be effected, and in a “win-win” way for everybody.
In "Sustainability", an article in Deep News (January 1999, Vol. 10, No. 1, formerly found at http://bfi.org/files/pdfs/gbn_sustainable.pdf) Hardin Tibbs discussed the concept of “K-capitalism.” “K-strategists” are organisms like trees, which prosper in the long term, as opposed to “r-strategists” like weeds, which put great amounts of energy into growing as quickly as possible, but which then live short lives. Tibbs outlines how businesses can develop their own k-strategies in order to benefit both the organizations themselves and the planet as a whole.
Also in the realm of politics and law lies ecofeminism, a concept part of which entails that as women gain more power in the greater scheme of things, the “environmental movement” will do the same. In other words, ecofeminists believe that oppressive, domineering treatment of women is tied-in to similar treatment of other races, species and the environment as a whole.
The African concept of ubuntu similarly states that all human beings are part of a greater whole, and the degradation of anyone is deleterious to us all. Extending this beyond humans and to nature itself seems only a logical conclusion.
Likewise, as technology moves more into harmony with the natural world, modern forms of slavery can be diminished and perhaps eliminated.
What modern forms of slavery? Namely, the frequent mistreatment of children as well as the non-human inhabitants of our planet. Because if technology is to be reconciled with nature, children must no longer be forced to work in sweatshops, nor should animals be treated in cruel ways, such as the confinement of veal calves in cages where they can barely move. As intelligent, thinking beings, we can do better than that.
In certain human cultures, women have been considered property. And while this is now seen to be wrong by most modern human beings, animals are still legally considered property, even in countries seen as having the most enlightened “human rights” policies. Animals are still forced to perform “tricks” for human entertainment, fight each other while humans wager on the winner, and give up their lives to feed us (often after short lives of unimaginable misery).
Richard Ryder has proposed that creatures that can feel pain should not be treated like slaves by human beings. Many people, of course, would argue with him, considering many animals to be just another food source for the human population. But how many U.S. citizens, for example, would willingly eat a dog or a horse?
Indeed, as technology once again becomes more a part of nature, rather than its enemy, the enslavement of living beings can only be an obstacle to progress. As animals are seen as beings with an equal right to exist on this planet, and not as our inferiors, our relationship with them can improve. Similarly, even the poorest human children, worldwide, should be able to spend their childhood years learning and becoming resources for the future, and not toiling as slave-laborers.
(CONTINUE READING)
Crusaders like John Perkins of the Dreamchange Coalition continue to make gallant efforts to “stand up to” deeply-entrenched financial and government powerhouses.
But if big business (and governments) can be convinced that environmentally-friendly techniques can actually be more efficient and cost-effective than what is now being done, then real change can finally be effected, and in a “win-win” way for everybody.
In "Sustainability", an article in Deep News (January 1999, Vol. 10, No. 1, formerly found at http://bfi.org/files/pdfs/gbn_sustainable.pdf) Hardin Tibbs discussed the concept of “K-capitalism.” “K-strategists” are organisms like trees, which prosper in the long term, as opposed to “r-strategists” like weeds, which put great amounts of energy into growing as quickly as possible, but which then live short lives. Tibbs outlines how businesses can develop their own k-strategies in order to benefit both the organizations themselves and the planet as a whole.
Also in the realm of politics and law lies ecofeminism, a concept part of which entails that as women gain more power in the greater scheme of things, the “environmental movement” will do the same. In other words, ecofeminists believe that oppressive, domineering treatment of women is tied-in to similar treatment of other races, species and the environment as a whole.
The African concept of ubuntu similarly states that all human beings are part of a greater whole, and the degradation of anyone is deleterious to us all. Extending this beyond humans and to nature itself seems only a logical conclusion.
Likewise, as technology moves more into harmony with the natural world, modern forms of slavery can be diminished and perhaps eliminated.
What modern forms of slavery? Namely, the frequent mistreatment of children as well as the non-human inhabitants of our planet. Because if technology is to be reconciled with nature, children must no longer be forced to work in sweatshops, nor should animals be treated in cruel ways, such as the confinement of veal calves in cages where they can barely move. As intelligent, thinking beings, we can do better than that.
In certain human cultures, women have been considered property. And while this is now seen to be wrong by most modern human beings, animals are still legally considered property, even in countries seen as having the most enlightened “human rights” policies. Animals are still forced to perform “tricks” for human entertainment, fight each other while humans wager on the winner, and give up their lives to feed us (often after short lives of unimaginable misery).
Richard Ryder has proposed that creatures that can feel pain should not be treated like slaves by human beings. Many people, of course, would argue with him, considering many animals to be just another food source for the human population. But how many U.S. citizens, for example, would willingly eat a dog or a horse?
Indeed, as technology once again becomes more a part of nature, rather than its enemy, the enslavement of living beings can only be an obstacle to progress. As animals are seen as beings with an equal right to exist on this planet, and not as our inferiors, our relationship with them can improve. Similarly, even the poorest human children, worldwide, should be able to spend their childhood years learning and becoming resources for the future, and not toiling as slave-laborers.
(CONTINUE READING)
Peace, War and Policing the Planet
In whatever wars occur in the future, how will victory be defined? If a “war” is waged against a vague enemy such as “terrorism,” then how can victory ever be determined?
After all, in wars of the past, one country could invade and subdue another, and then be confident that their side had “won” the conflict. But when a country is waging war against a concept, it seems that there’s no clear way of ever determining that victory has been achieved.
It’s like trying to eliminate all prostitution, gambling or non-medical drug use. Such things can be controlled and limited, but a “war” against these practices is a waste of time.
Rather than wage wars, wouldn’t it be better to address the root causes behind lack of cooperation between countries? If through improved technology, living conditions can be made better for ALL of us, and the “gap” between the “haves” and “have-nots” dramatically decreased, then at least one cause of strife will be diminished.
Those of us in the “rich” societies are enjoying relative luxury in many ways at the expense of those in “less-developed” countries. But rich countries are using up our shared planet’s resources at a far greater rate than those in other countries. However, with more efficient means of using technology, such as those espoused by McDonough and Braungart, it now seems possible to improve the standard of living worldwide without destroying the environment for us all.
Poverty, after all, is the root cause of much crime, jealousy and conflict. Ignoring it can only increase the likelihood of war and especially terrorism in the future.
And poverty results in increased pollution and other environmental problems by people more concerned about trying to survive week-to-week than in keeping their surroundings pristine. The sad deforestation of Haiti is a prime example of this. Desperately poor people have cut down the trees to provide fuel for their immediate needs. The results have been devastating, but are totally understandable.
The problems of ethnic hatred, despotism and greed are of course much more complex. But war in the future will have to be limited, if for no other reason than preventing devastating damage to the planet that we all share. And it’s not just nuclear wars that can be devastating. Conventional and even “drug wars” can also wreak havoc on the planet.
Think of the deforestation of Vietnam caused by “Agent Orange,” sprayed there to remove enemy cover and destroy food crops. That defoliant not only poisoned vast areas of lush vegetation (including rain forests that helped cleanse the planet’s air), but also ruined the health of many human beings who were exposed to it, probably due to the carcinogenic dioxin that it routinely contained. Some areas of Vietnam that once contained three-tiered tropical forest still refuse to grow anything. And high levels of dioxin can still be found in much of Vietnam’s soil. There is much concern whether birth defects there may be linked to it, and of course, the ultimate damaging effects of Agent Orange on that beautiful tropical country and its people are still unknown.
Similarly, the herbicide glyphosate (used in the popular weed-killer Roundup®) has been used by the U.S. government to kill opium poppy and coca crops in Columbia. Although ostensibly sprayed by aircraft only on such drug crops, wind can easily carry it onto food crops and fragile rainforest plants. And when it comes to human contact with it, who’s to say whether glyphosate is really any safer than Agent Orange? Indeed, in 1996 Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup® (and also one of the former manufacturers of Agent Orange), made an out-of-court settlement in which it agreed that it would no longer advertise the product as "“safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk”.
On the United States mainland itself, in California, ecosystems in fairly remote areas of national parks are being damaged due to the diversion of environmentally-sensitive streams by marijuana growers to irrigate their crops. Due to the illegal activity, certain park areas may no longer be safe for visitors to trek into (per National Public Radio broadcast on 9/27/06). And in Mexico, large tracts of national park areas have been cleared by campesinos for subsistence farming only to fall under the control of drug traffickers who use the land to grow their illegal crops (National Public Radio broadcast on 9/24/06). But whether the land is used to grow corn or much more profitable “drug plants,” the native forest is still destroyed and ecosystems are severely impacted.
There can be no question that the detonation of nuclear material on Bikini Atoll had devastating effects on the natural environment. And while radiation levels have had time to decline and are now rather low, there is still contamination of the soil with cesium-137, which precludes the long-term consumption of any foods grown there. The place is still not safe enough for the Bikinians to return to, although it was their ancestral home and was damaged through no fault of their own.
And the firing of the oil fields during the first Gulf War dumped huge quantities of hydrocarbon smoke into an already-strained planetary atmosphere. Combined with the deliberate spilling of millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf, the environmental damage was devastating. In fact, scientists predict that “damaged fisheries in the Gulf will not recover for at least 180 years.”
Especially in light of all of this, interdependence, rather than war, must become the “wave of the future.” Like symbionts in a coral reef or rainforest, we must learn to depend on one another for our mutual benefit and even survival. Transnational corporations have done this for years, with Toyotas and BMWs now being built in Tennessee, and Fords in Europe, Australia, Mexico, South America, South Africa, China and Russia. If companies can cooperate so effectively across national borders, then governments (and individuals) can, and must, also do so.
At least since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has essentially been at war with the natural world itself. And now that the technology of wars between humans (including the “Drug War”) is also becoming more and more devastating in an environmental sense (with nuclear weapons at the top of the heap), we are in increasing danger of letting our intraspecies conflicts ruin the planet for ourselves and virtually all other life. How can it be worth it?
(CONTINUE READING)
After all, in wars of the past, one country could invade and subdue another, and then be confident that their side had “won” the conflict. But when a country is waging war against a concept, it seems that there’s no clear way of ever determining that victory has been achieved.
It’s like trying to eliminate all prostitution, gambling or non-medical drug use. Such things can be controlled and limited, but a “war” against these practices is a waste of time.
Rather than wage wars, wouldn’t it be better to address the root causes behind lack of cooperation between countries? If through improved technology, living conditions can be made better for ALL of us, and the “gap” between the “haves” and “have-nots” dramatically decreased, then at least one cause of strife will be diminished.
Those of us in the “rich” societies are enjoying relative luxury in many ways at the expense of those in “less-developed” countries. But rich countries are using up our shared planet’s resources at a far greater rate than those in other countries. However, with more efficient means of using technology, such as those espoused by McDonough and Braungart, it now seems possible to improve the standard of living worldwide without destroying the environment for us all.
Poverty, after all, is the root cause of much crime, jealousy and conflict. Ignoring it can only increase the likelihood of war and especially terrorism in the future.
And poverty results in increased pollution and other environmental problems by people more concerned about trying to survive week-to-week than in keeping their surroundings pristine. The sad deforestation of Haiti is a prime example of this. Desperately poor people have cut down the trees to provide fuel for their immediate needs. The results have been devastating, but are totally understandable.
The problems of ethnic hatred, despotism and greed are of course much more complex. But war in the future will have to be limited, if for no other reason than preventing devastating damage to the planet that we all share. And it’s not just nuclear wars that can be devastating. Conventional and even “drug wars” can also wreak havoc on the planet.
Think of the deforestation of Vietnam caused by “Agent Orange,” sprayed there to remove enemy cover and destroy food crops. That defoliant not only poisoned vast areas of lush vegetation (including rain forests that helped cleanse the planet’s air), but also ruined the health of many human beings who were exposed to it, probably due to the carcinogenic dioxin that it routinely contained. Some areas of Vietnam that once contained three-tiered tropical forest still refuse to grow anything. And high levels of dioxin can still be found in much of Vietnam’s soil. There is much concern whether birth defects there may be linked to it, and of course, the ultimate damaging effects of Agent Orange on that beautiful tropical country and its people are still unknown.
Similarly, the herbicide glyphosate (used in the popular weed-killer Roundup®) has been used by the U.S. government to kill opium poppy and coca crops in Columbia. Although ostensibly sprayed by aircraft only on such drug crops, wind can easily carry it onto food crops and fragile rainforest plants. And when it comes to human contact with it, who’s to say whether glyphosate is really any safer than Agent Orange? Indeed, in 1996 Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup® (and also one of the former manufacturers of Agent Orange), made an out-of-court settlement in which it agreed that it would no longer advertise the product as "“safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk”.
On the United States mainland itself, in California, ecosystems in fairly remote areas of national parks are being damaged due to the diversion of environmentally-sensitive streams by marijuana growers to irrigate their crops. Due to the illegal activity, certain park areas may no longer be safe for visitors to trek into (per National Public Radio broadcast on 9/27/06). And in Mexico, large tracts of national park areas have been cleared by campesinos for subsistence farming only to fall under the control of drug traffickers who use the land to grow their illegal crops (National Public Radio broadcast on 9/24/06). But whether the land is used to grow corn or much more profitable “drug plants,” the native forest is still destroyed and ecosystems are severely impacted.
There can be no question that the detonation of nuclear material on Bikini Atoll had devastating effects on the natural environment. And while radiation levels have had time to decline and are now rather low, there is still contamination of the soil with cesium-137, which precludes the long-term consumption of any foods grown there. The place is still not safe enough for the Bikinians to return to, although it was their ancestral home and was damaged through no fault of their own.
And the firing of the oil fields during the first Gulf War dumped huge quantities of hydrocarbon smoke into an already-strained planetary atmosphere. Combined with the deliberate spilling of millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf, the environmental damage was devastating. In fact, scientists predict that “damaged fisheries in the Gulf will not recover for at least 180 years.”
Especially in light of all of this, interdependence, rather than war, must become the “wave of the future.” Like symbionts in a coral reef or rainforest, we must learn to depend on one another for our mutual benefit and even survival. Transnational corporations have done this for years, with Toyotas and BMWs now being built in Tennessee, and Fords in Europe, Australia, Mexico, South America, South Africa, China and Russia. If companies can cooperate so effectively across national borders, then governments (and individuals) can, and must, also do so.
At least since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has essentially been at war with the natural world itself. And now that the technology of wars between humans (including the “Drug War”) is also becoming more and more devastating in an environmental sense (with nuclear weapons at the top of the heap), we are in increasing danger of letting our intraspecies conflicts ruin the planet for ourselves and virtually all other life. How can it be worth it?
(CONTINUE READING)
Maintaining Biodiversity on Land Used By Humans
Michael L. Rosenzweig, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, is an advocate of what he calls “reconciliation ecology.” Like William McDonough, Braungart, Hawken and the Lovinses, he believes that nature and commerce need not be enemies, and that if we confine our conservation efforts to parks and reserved natural areas, that will not be enough to save wild plants and animals.
Instead, he proposes that instead we allow and encourage the natural world to prosper even in areas under heavy human use. Citing Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida panhandle, Rosenzweig recounts how innovative management techniques have allowed such endangered species as longleaf pine and red-cockaded woodpeckers to actually prosper and increase even in an area used as a testing range for the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb), or Mother-Of-All-Bombs! In addition, every year thousands of people camp, hunt and fish at Eglin. And some of the pine is sold for timber, at a profit!
Among the techniques used to make the land more agreeable for the endangered species is the burning of pine forest areas, which has no ill effect on most of the pine trees, but eliminates leafy competitor trees. Another is the drilling of nest holes in live pines for the use of the woodpeckers. These simple practices have enabled these two endangered species to prosper there, while humans still use the land.
Rosenzweig also cites the benefits of such things as backyard bluebird houses, micro-parks in Chicago constructed on the sites of unused gas stations, and measures put in place to make the “roughs” on golf courses into useable habitat for wild animals and plants. (This information on Dr. Rosenzwieg is from an article in the Fall 2003 edition of the University of Arizona alumni magazine, formerly posted online at http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/Fall03/ecology.html).
In the tropics, Dagmar Werner of the National University in Costa Rica is pursuing a program of breeding captive green iguanas (Iguana iguana) and later releasing them to live in farmers’ fencerows (consisting of living trees of varying height) and “shelterbelts” along field edges. There, the iguanas are given supplemental food to keep them around and make it easier to harvest some of them later. Werner has calculated that “a farmer could breed 90 six-and-a-half pound iguanas a year from one hectare of forest stocked with yearlings” and make a profit of approximately $2 per pound selling them as food. While earning that sum may not seem like much to people from more developed countries, it nonetheless, as Werner says, “represents a happy marriage between economic development and wildlife conservation”. Even the relatively small income gained from such practices could still be valuable to a campesino family.
Incidentally, the method of using sticks from trees such as Bursera simaruba as fenceposts in places like Costa Rica is an age-old, yet ingenious method of fence construction. The posts grow into new trees when set into the ground, and thus do not rot as dead posts would. Further, the now living fences can support animals such as iguanas and many others.
Perhaps with the aid of measures such as these, and more to come, humanity can learn to successfully co-exist with nature so that both may prosper in the future.
(CONTINUE READING)
Instead, he proposes that instead we allow and encourage the natural world to prosper even in areas under heavy human use. Citing Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida panhandle, Rosenzweig recounts how innovative management techniques have allowed such endangered species as longleaf pine and red-cockaded woodpeckers to actually prosper and increase even in an area used as a testing range for the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb), or Mother-Of-All-Bombs! In addition, every year thousands of people camp, hunt and fish at Eglin. And some of the pine is sold for timber, at a profit!
Among the techniques used to make the land more agreeable for the endangered species is the burning of pine forest areas, which has no ill effect on most of the pine trees, but eliminates leafy competitor trees. Another is the drilling of nest holes in live pines for the use of the woodpeckers. These simple practices have enabled these two endangered species to prosper there, while humans still use the land.
Rosenzweig also cites the benefits of such things as backyard bluebird houses, micro-parks in Chicago constructed on the sites of unused gas stations, and measures put in place to make the “roughs” on golf courses into useable habitat for wild animals and plants. (This information on Dr. Rosenzwieg is from an article in the Fall 2003 edition of the University of Arizona alumni magazine, formerly posted online at http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/Fall03/ecology.html).
In the tropics, Dagmar Werner of the National University in Costa Rica is pursuing a program of breeding captive green iguanas (Iguana iguana) and later releasing them to live in farmers’ fencerows (consisting of living trees of varying height) and “shelterbelts” along field edges. There, the iguanas are given supplemental food to keep them around and make it easier to harvest some of them later. Werner has calculated that “a farmer could breed 90 six-and-a-half pound iguanas a year from one hectare of forest stocked with yearlings” and make a profit of approximately $2 per pound selling them as food. While earning that sum may not seem like much to people from more developed countries, it nonetheless, as Werner says, “represents a happy marriage between economic development and wildlife conservation”. Even the relatively small income gained from such practices could still be valuable to a campesino family.
Incidentally, the method of using sticks from trees such as Bursera simaruba as fenceposts in places like Costa Rica is an age-old, yet ingenious method of fence construction. The posts grow into new trees when set into the ground, and thus do not rot as dead posts would. Further, the now living fences can support animals such as iguanas and many others.
Perhaps with the aid of measures such as these, and more to come, humanity can learn to successfully co-exist with nature so that both may prosper in the future.
(CONTINUE READING)
Biodiversity
What’s the value of biodiversity? Does it really mean that much? So what if rainforests and coral reefs, the two most biodiverse habitats known, are being destroyed at record rates?
Richard Leakey has called the current wave of biodiversity reduction the “Sixth Extinction,” referring to the five other great extinction events known to have occurred in the past. However, this is the first one known to have been caused by humans, and not external events.
For example, many scientists are convinced that 65 million years ago, a huge meteorite struck the earth, causing the extinction of perhaps 50% of life on the planet. But fossil records seem to indicate that about 250 million years ago, over 90% of all life on Earth was destroyed in the Permian-Triassic extinction (perhaps due to an asteroid or comet impact), an event of which far fewer people have ever heard.
The implications of this are obvious – can life survive regardless of what’s thrown at it? Or is the ongoing sixth extinction a harbinger of our own demise?
Also, ethically speaking, do we have the right to decimate or wipe out other life forms? Again, the biblical directive to subdue nature no longer seems applicable. And what of life forms not yet even recognized by science? How can we know what we’re destroying if we aren’t even aware of its presence?
The field of what can be called “cryptobiology,” the search for still-undiscovered life forms, is sometimes ridiculed when people think about the so-called “Loch Ness Monster” or “Bigfoot.” But while the majority of large animals and plants have already been described by science, who knows what still awaits discovery? And who are we to dismiss the “value” of such life forms, especially before scientists have even examined and studied them?
(CONTINUE READING)
Richard Leakey has called the current wave of biodiversity reduction the “Sixth Extinction,” referring to the five other great extinction events known to have occurred in the past. However, this is the first one known to have been caused by humans, and not external events.
For example, many scientists are convinced that 65 million years ago, a huge meteorite struck the earth, causing the extinction of perhaps 50% of life on the planet. But fossil records seem to indicate that about 250 million years ago, over 90% of all life on Earth was destroyed in the Permian-Triassic extinction (perhaps due to an asteroid or comet impact), an event of which far fewer people have ever heard.
The implications of this are obvious – can life survive regardless of what’s thrown at it? Or is the ongoing sixth extinction a harbinger of our own demise?
Also, ethically speaking, do we have the right to decimate or wipe out other life forms? Again, the biblical directive to subdue nature no longer seems applicable. And what of life forms not yet even recognized by science? How can we know what we’re destroying if we aren’t even aware of its presence?
The field of what can be called “cryptobiology,” the search for still-undiscovered life forms, is sometimes ridiculed when people think about the so-called “Loch Ness Monster” or “Bigfoot.” But while the majority of large animals and plants have already been described by science, who knows what still awaits discovery? And who are we to dismiss the “value” of such life forms, especially before scientists have even examined and studied them?
(CONTINUE READING)
Population Regulation
In the terms of modern science, a species’ population is defined as being stable if it remains about the same size. Earth’s human population is now unstable. It is growing at a ferocious rate, and may one day bring forth unpleasant natural mechanisms to reduce it.
How many humans can the planet sustain? Were Malthus, and later, the Club of Rome, right? Or will Fuller’s “increasing ephemeralization” allow virtually unlimited growth?
As Fuller himself stated, “Spaceship Earth”, despite its size, is a sealed system, with limits. The planet’s population is currently over 6 billion people (in 2008), and is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050 (per United Nations projections).
Even with increasing efficiency in food production and resource utilization, we must eventually reach a ceiling beyond which human population growth cannot be supported. And with the westernization of China, demands on natural resources will soon grow to unprecedented levels. After all, it doesn’t take a great imagination to imagine the devastating pollution that could arise if the Chinese become as industrialized as the United States – with two or more internal combustion automobiles belonging to every Chinese family, the planet’s atmosphere could quickly become unbreathable and global warming could go “through the ceiling.”
One seemingly inevitable conclusion is that birth control, while abhorrent to some, is almost inarguably preferable compared to the other option – the death of unaborted, planned or unplanned children by starvation. As a way to help eradicate hunger, birth control at least deserves consideration. After all, the biblical dictum “go forth and multiply,” which seemed logical when our ancestors were competing with wild animals for survival, seems far less relevant now that humans dominate the planet.
(CONTINUE READING)
How many humans can the planet sustain? Were Malthus, and later, the Club of Rome, right? Or will Fuller’s “increasing ephemeralization” allow virtually unlimited growth?
As Fuller himself stated, “Spaceship Earth”, despite its size, is a sealed system, with limits. The planet’s population is currently over 6 billion people (in 2008), and is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050 (per United Nations projections).
Even with increasing efficiency in food production and resource utilization, we must eventually reach a ceiling beyond which human population growth cannot be supported. And with the westernization of China, demands on natural resources will soon grow to unprecedented levels. After all, it doesn’t take a great imagination to imagine the devastating pollution that could arise if the Chinese become as industrialized as the United States – with two or more internal combustion automobiles belonging to every Chinese family, the planet’s atmosphere could quickly become unbreathable and global warming could go “through the ceiling.”
One seemingly inevitable conclusion is that birth control, while abhorrent to some, is almost inarguably preferable compared to the other option – the death of unaborted, planned or unplanned children by starvation. As a way to help eradicate hunger, birth control at least deserves consideration. After all, the biblical dictum “go forth and multiply,” which seemed logical when our ancestors were competing with wild animals for survival, seems far less relevant now that humans dominate the planet.
(CONTINUE READING)
Employment and Taxation
Bucky Fuller proposed a system wherein people would no longer be forced to work at jobs which they disliked and regarded as meaningless. Instead, each individual would be liberated to pursue work and/or studies that intrigued him or her, and which might be more likely to benefit the planet as whole.
Dylan Thomas called a job “death without dignity” (per Frank McCourt quoted at http://www.achievement.org/), reflecting the miserable resolve felt by those who toil at jobs they hate.
And world traveler and writer Harold Stephens, a man whose life has been filled with more adventure than most people could even imagine, has said he’s been able to live an exciting life by simply never worrying about trying to make a living, but just doing what has felt right for him at the time. Bucky Fuller himself also adhered to a similar philosophy. And the ancient Greek and Roman philosopher-scientists we so admire today also undoubtedly would have avoided any type of work that didn’t totally intrigue them. Either through the good fortune of possessing pre-existing wealth, or the conscious choice of a Ghandi-like spurning of material possessions, they afforded themselves the luxury of being able to engage in whatever intellectual pursuits they thought important, and probably would have looked down on those who settled for less.
As mentioned earlier, wealth disparities among members of hunter-gatherer societies were minute compared to those which are commonplace today. After all, think of the tremendous difference in material wealth between Bill Gates and even the average U.S. citizen, let alone people in “less-developed” countries. And then think of the material possessions of the chief of a tribal society compared to the other members of his tribe. Perhaps the chief had a more impressive horse, better weapons, or more wives, but otherwise his “standard of living” was basically the same as everyone else’s.
And while there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy, there’s also nothing wrong with being satisfied with having “enough.” The problem for the “wage slave” today is not that of having too little, but of never being satisfied and always wanting more. Bigger houses, more expensive cars and the like are now considered necessities by many people, who in order to pay for them, slave away at jobs they hate.
In Natural Capitalism, Hawken and the Lovinses propose a future in which there are no longer any income taxes levied on personal income or savings interest. Instead, taxes would be levied on businesses that pollute the environment (of which there are plenty). Thus an incentive would be created – businesses would rapidly shift to more efficient, less-polluting methods of operation, and pollution would decrease. But as standards became increasingly intolerant of any pollution, there would probably always be enough polluters around to fill the tax coffers.
In addition, the authors of Natural Capitalism also insist that commerce and environmentalism can and must co-exist. Further, they insist that by doing so, there will be benefits on both sides – increased efficiency of production and an improvement of the environment. And they’re not the only ones who feel this way.
Founded by the late actor Dennis Weaver, the Institute of Ecolonomics seeks to demonstrate “that creating a symbiotic relationship between a strong economy and a healthy ecology is the only formula for a sustainable future.” As previously mentioned, Weaver practiced what he preached, having his cake and eating it too by having his (eco-friendly) mansion built of recycled materials.
Along similar lines, the late Jacques Cousteau’s concept of Ecotechnie is an attempt to bring together economics, technology, and the social sciences to advise decision-making based on long-term consequences of what we have done and will do in the future. By taking the long view and combining the best thinking from many disparate disciplines, this exciting new approach could perhaps improve the future for the majority of Earth’s inhabitants, human and otherwise.
There is no inherent reason why environmental protection and individual prosperity cannot go hand-in-hand.
(CONTINUE READING)
Dylan Thomas called a job “death without dignity” (per Frank McCourt quoted at http://www.achievement.org/), reflecting the miserable resolve felt by those who toil at jobs they hate.
And world traveler and writer Harold Stephens, a man whose life has been filled with more adventure than most people could even imagine, has said he’s been able to live an exciting life by simply never worrying about trying to make a living, but just doing what has felt right for him at the time. Bucky Fuller himself also adhered to a similar philosophy. And the ancient Greek and Roman philosopher-scientists we so admire today also undoubtedly would have avoided any type of work that didn’t totally intrigue them. Either through the good fortune of possessing pre-existing wealth, or the conscious choice of a Ghandi-like spurning of material possessions, they afforded themselves the luxury of being able to engage in whatever intellectual pursuits they thought important, and probably would have looked down on those who settled for less.
As mentioned earlier, wealth disparities among members of hunter-gatherer societies were minute compared to those which are commonplace today. After all, think of the tremendous difference in material wealth between Bill Gates and even the average U.S. citizen, let alone people in “less-developed” countries. And then think of the material possessions of the chief of a tribal society compared to the other members of his tribe. Perhaps the chief had a more impressive horse, better weapons, or more wives, but otherwise his “standard of living” was basically the same as everyone else’s.
And while there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy, there’s also nothing wrong with being satisfied with having “enough.” The problem for the “wage slave” today is not that of having too little, but of never being satisfied and always wanting more. Bigger houses, more expensive cars and the like are now considered necessities by many people, who in order to pay for them, slave away at jobs they hate.
In Natural Capitalism, Hawken and the Lovinses propose a future in which there are no longer any income taxes levied on personal income or savings interest. Instead, taxes would be levied on businesses that pollute the environment (of which there are plenty). Thus an incentive would be created – businesses would rapidly shift to more efficient, less-polluting methods of operation, and pollution would decrease. But as standards became increasingly intolerant of any pollution, there would probably always be enough polluters around to fill the tax coffers.
In addition, the authors of Natural Capitalism also insist that commerce and environmentalism can and must co-exist. Further, they insist that by doing so, there will be benefits on both sides – increased efficiency of production and an improvement of the environment. And they’re not the only ones who feel this way.
Founded by the late actor Dennis Weaver, the Institute of Ecolonomics seeks to demonstrate “that creating a symbiotic relationship between a strong economy and a healthy ecology is the only formula for a sustainable future.” As previously mentioned, Weaver practiced what he preached, having his cake and eating it too by having his (eco-friendly) mansion built of recycled materials.
Along similar lines, the late Jacques Cousteau’s concept of Ecotechnie is an attempt to bring together economics, technology, and the social sciences to advise decision-making based on long-term consequences of what we have done and will do in the future. By taking the long view and combining the best thinking from many disparate disciplines, this exciting new approach could perhaps improve the future for the majority of Earth’s inhabitants, human and otherwise.
There is no inherent reason why environmental protection and individual prosperity cannot go hand-in-hand.
(CONTINUE READING)
The Middle Ground between Silicon Valley and “Amish Country”
How much technology is enough? While the benefits of modern technology are obvious, many people today are seeking a simpler, less complicated existence. But even Thoreau didn’t stay at Walden Pond for very long, soon returning to civilization and a life of comparative ease (at least for the times). So each person must seek his or her own balance between simplicity and technological acquisitiveness. After all, the more you have, the more you have to take care of and be responsible for.
But conversely, most people reading this today (myself included) are probably rather “spoiled.” We don’t want to have to rise every morning at four o’clock to start milking cows in a cold barn, and we like our computers, televisions and high-tech automobiles. Yet many of us still yearn for a vacation in the country, away from some of the complexity of modern life.
Since so many people love and appreciate both natural areas (along with the plants and animals that inhabit them) and the wonders of modern technology, the world of the future must combine both. Maintaining balance between the two is the only route to a successful, sustainable human future.
Increasing numbers of people in the industrialized northern half of the globe are moving away from attachment to “the Grid.” And at the same time, people in rural areas of the less industrialized countries are gaining more of the benefits of technology, including such things as relatively inexpensive hand-cranked laptop computers, and even Internet access.
In order to be sustainable, human technology must eventually become as much a part of the world’s ecosystems as everything that existed before humans came onto the scene. Once that balance is reached and maintained, there will be no limits to technological development.
(CONTINUE READING)
But conversely, most people reading this today (myself included) are probably rather “spoiled.” We don’t want to have to rise every morning at four o’clock to start milking cows in a cold barn, and we like our computers, televisions and high-tech automobiles. Yet many of us still yearn for a vacation in the country, away from some of the complexity of modern life.
Since so many people love and appreciate both natural areas (along with the plants and animals that inhabit them) and the wonders of modern technology, the world of the future must combine both. Maintaining balance between the two is the only route to a successful, sustainable human future.
Increasing numbers of people in the industrialized northern half of the globe are moving away from attachment to “the Grid.” And at the same time, people in rural areas of the less industrialized countries are gaining more of the benefits of technology, including such things as relatively inexpensive hand-cranked laptop computers, and even Internet access.
In order to be sustainable, human technology must eventually become as much a part of the world’s ecosystems as everything that existed before humans came onto the scene. Once that balance is reached and maintained, there will be no limits to technological development.
(CONTINUE READING)
Increasing “Ephemeralization” and Efficiency
Bucky Fuller spoke of the “ephemeralization” of technology, in which machinery of various kinds often becomes smaller, lighter, more efficient, and cheaper to produce over time.
This, as we discussed above, has certainly been true of computers, as is obvious to anyone who has been using them for several years. In fact, the computer I’m using to write this is not only the most powerful one I’ve owned so far, but it’s also the smallest and the least expensive.
The same is true in a sense for automobiles. While, unlike computers, their prices haven’t declined in actual currency terms, modern motor vehicles are providing fantastic value for the money. Cars now are far safer, more comfortable and efficient than in the past.
Indeed then, how can one argue that the actual “cost of living” has increased, when middle-class American citizens now own computers, big-screen televisions, cell phones and other conveniences that even the richest people of only fifty years ago could not possess?
(CONTINUE READING)
This, as we discussed above, has certainly been true of computers, as is obvious to anyone who has been using them for several years. In fact, the computer I’m using to write this is not only the most powerful one I’ve owned so far, but it’s also the smallest and the least expensive.
The same is true in a sense for automobiles. While, unlike computers, their prices haven’t declined in actual currency terms, modern motor vehicles are providing fantastic value for the money. Cars now are far safer, more comfortable and efficient than in the past.
Indeed then, how can one argue that the actual “cost of living” has increased, when middle-class American citizens now own computers, big-screen televisions, cell phones and other conveniences that even the richest people of only fifty years ago could not possess?
(CONTINUE READING)
How Can Technology Harm Us?
Modern human beings benefit from technology in countless ways. But in what ways can technology hurt us, and indeed, how may it have done so already? Are most of us already so divorced from nature that we can never regain a healthy relationship with it, as certain tribal people maintained for millennia?
Will computers become smarter than humans? Will this be a problem?
Moore’s Law states that the power of computer hardware doubles about every two years.
And mathematicians and computer scientists like Vernor Vinge have predicted that computers will be more intelligent than humans by the year 2020.
After that, their intelligence could continue to grow to levels so far above that of a human, that perhaps their mentation would become as far removed from ours as ours is from that of a cockroach. At that point, who knows what could happen?
But Vinge also admits the possibility of such beneficial developments as computer augmentation of the human brain, so that you could perhaps instantly learn a new language by somehow having it “downloaded” into your cerebral cortex. So in general, Vinge sees the increase in computer intelligence as a positive development. Time will tell.
(CONTINUE READING)
Will computers become smarter than humans? Will this be a problem?
Moore’s Law states that the power of computer hardware doubles about every two years.
And mathematicians and computer scientists like Vernor Vinge have predicted that computers will be more intelligent than humans by the year 2020.
After that, their intelligence could continue to grow to levels so far above that of a human, that perhaps their mentation would become as far removed from ours as ours is from that of a cockroach. At that point, who knows what could happen?
But Vinge also admits the possibility of such beneficial developments as computer augmentation of the human brain, so that you could perhaps instantly learn a new language by somehow having it “downloaded” into your cerebral cortex. So in general, Vinge sees the increase in computer intelligence as a positive development. Time will tell.
(CONTINUE READING)
The True Costs of Manufacturing a Particular Item
Even though companies like Wal-Mart now sell many products at prices attractive even to lower-income U.S. residents, what are the hidden costs behind each item?
Are children in sweatshops building it?
How much environmental degradation occurred in the process of creating it?
Did it require that an inordinate quantity of raw materials be utilized, and refined down to the state in which they are finally used in the item’s manufacture, regardless of the waste produced? And could those raw materials be utilized in another way that would benefit (for example) both “first world” recipients of them and the residents of the country where they originated, as well as nature itself?
Or could the product have easily been made with recycled materials, saving money and eliminating the need to remove raw materials from the natural environment?
(CONTINUE READING)
Are children in sweatshops building it?
How much environmental degradation occurred in the process of creating it?
Did it require that an inordinate quantity of raw materials be utilized, and refined down to the state in which they are finally used in the item’s manufacture, regardless of the waste produced? And could those raw materials be utilized in another way that would benefit (for example) both “first world” recipients of them and the residents of the country where they originated, as well as nature itself?
Or could the product have easily been made with recycled materials, saving money and eliminating the need to remove raw materials from the natural environment?
(CONTINUE READING)
Permaculture
The concept of permaculture has been defined as " the science and art of integrating and connecting indigenous resources with available appropriate technology to mimic natural processes." The term was coined in the 1970s by Australians David Holmgren and Bill Mollison.
Similar to biomimicry, it follows the precepts that we should first look at the patterns of the natural world and then try to blend our activities and development with them as seamlessly as possible.
Permaculture, of course, flies in the face of the biblical concept of subduing nature. It is more in line with the “philosophies” of pre-industrial traditional and tribal societies, who have largely had a less deleterious impact on the environment over the centuries than modern western cultures.
However, there is also now evidence that prehistoric migrants to North America may have decimated (or even driven into local extinction) certain animal populations, especially large mammals and fish. For example, excavations of Indian refuse disposal sites (so-called “shellmounds”) in California by Dr. Jack Broughton seem to indicate that there was over-hunting long before Europeans arrived, and that even the huge populations of birds noted by some European settlers in North America may have been present only due to the decimation of the Indians themselves by European diseases before many settlers arrived.
And the ecological destruction of Easter Island by its original settlers has also been well-documented.
Still, few would argue that, in general, modern industry has caused more damage to the natural world than any other human activity that came before it. So permaculture has been proposed as a way of reversing that trend. As succinctly defined by Bill Mollison, permaculture is a “design system for creating sustainable human environments.” Envisioned as a holistic, systems theory approach, it sees as absolutely integral the relationships of all of the components of the earth and biosphere. And like the belief systems of Native Americans, for example, it essentially avows respect for all things – animals, plants, rocks, water, human beings, everything.
(CONTINUE READING)
Similar to biomimicry, it follows the precepts that we should first look at the patterns of the natural world and then try to blend our activities and development with them as seamlessly as possible.
Permaculture, of course, flies in the face of the biblical concept of subduing nature. It is more in line with the “philosophies” of pre-industrial traditional and tribal societies, who have largely had a less deleterious impact on the environment over the centuries than modern western cultures.
However, there is also now evidence that prehistoric migrants to North America may have decimated (or even driven into local extinction) certain animal populations, especially large mammals and fish. For example, excavations of Indian refuse disposal sites (so-called “shellmounds”) in California by Dr. Jack Broughton seem to indicate that there was over-hunting long before Europeans arrived, and that even the huge populations of birds noted by some European settlers in North America may have been present only due to the decimation of the Indians themselves by European diseases before many settlers arrived.
And the ecological destruction of Easter Island by its original settlers has also been well-documented.
Still, few would argue that, in general, modern industry has caused more damage to the natural world than any other human activity that came before it. So permaculture has been proposed as a way of reversing that trend. As succinctly defined by Bill Mollison, permaculture is a “design system for creating sustainable human environments.” Envisioned as a holistic, systems theory approach, it sees as absolutely integral the relationships of all of the components of the earth and biosphere. And like the belief systems of Native Americans, for example, it essentially avows respect for all things – animals, plants, rocks, water, human beings, everything.
(CONTINUE READING)
Biomimicry
Many of the design strategies we’ve already discussed have stemmed from the concept of biomimicry, i.e., learning from how nature does things. It’s not really a new concept, considering that the Wright brothers studied birds in flight and read Sir George Cayley’s studies of how birds flew before constructing their first airplane. But it’s a concept that has largely been abandoned, until fairly recently.
However, biomimicry holds great promise for the future, as brilliantly elucidated by Janine Benyus, founder of the Biomimicry Institute and author of Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. One of the many fascinating approaches she discusses in that book is how biomimicry may one day solve the current problem of non-biodegradable garbage, as scientists work to develop durable plastic-like substances patterned after the shells of crustaceans such as lobsters.
(CONTINUE READING)
However, biomimicry holds great promise for the future, as brilliantly elucidated by Janine Benyus, founder of the Biomimicry Institute and author of Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. One of the many fascinating approaches she discusses in that book is how biomimicry may one day solve the current problem of non-biodegradable garbage, as scientists work to develop durable plastic-like substances patterned after the shells of crustaceans such as lobsters.
(CONTINUE READING)
Technology in General
At least in “developed” countries, technology has obviously made people’s lives easier in many ways, but the general concept of how we should use technology is something that is often overlooked. The time has come to examine how far technology should be taken in the future, and in what directions it should be taken so as not to create excessive conflict with the natural world.
(CONTINUE READING)
(CONTINUE READING)
Why Make Books and Other Printed Materials from Trees?
I love books as much as anyone, which is obvious to anyone laying eyes upon the piles of written material surrounding me at home.
But the destruction of trees to create paper for written materials is now an unnecessary practice. Bamboo, hemp, straw, corn, flax and other rapidly-renewable, recyclable materials offer a better option.
Bamboo is one of the fastest-growing plants in existence, with some species growing more than a foot a day under the right conditions. Hemp, which was much more widely used before marijuana was defined as an illegal substance, provides a useful fiber for paper without destroying trees.
And a variety of other substances may also be used to create books and other written documents. McDonough and Braungart’s book Cradle to Cradle is printed on a waterproof synthetic paper-like material made from "plastic resins and inorganic fillers" (Cradle to Cradle, First Edition, p. 5).
Also, while still having some limitations compared to conventional books, e-books offer a reader the option of carrying a sizeable library in a pocket-sized PDA or other electronic device. Perhaps a major flaw with the e-book concept, though, is the constantly-changing nature of technology. While a printed book from 500 years ago is still readable today, will a document created on the electronic media of today still be readable 500 years in the future? After all, how many people still have the equipment to play 8-track tapes? (And that technology is less than 50 years old!)
So the issue of longevity is perhaps of some concern – who wants to see valuable works essentially disappear from the face of the Earth? But still, as paper replaced vellum, which required the killing of animals for their skin, something in turn must one day replace paper, which requires needless killing of trees.
The Kindle, a new e-book reader created by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, may provide a more book-like interface than any previous electronic book device. It may also one day provide the availability of all known published works from the past and present. And if it takes off, perhaps it will measurably reduce the need to cut down trees in order for people to read.
Indeed, if one has a love of both books and trees, then it would seem to make sense to both protect books that have already been made from trees, and to protect trees in the future from being destroyed to make more books.
(CONTINUE READING)
But the destruction of trees to create paper for written materials is now an unnecessary practice. Bamboo, hemp, straw, corn, flax and other rapidly-renewable, recyclable materials offer a better option.
Bamboo is one of the fastest-growing plants in existence, with some species growing more than a foot a day under the right conditions. Hemp, which was much more widely used before marijuana was defined as an illegal substance, provides a useful fiber for paper without destroying trees.
And a variety of other substances may also be used to create books and other written documents. McDonough and Braungart’s book Cradle to Cradle is printed on a waterproof synthetic paper-like material made from "plastic resins and inorganic fillers" (Cradle to Cradle, First Edition, p. 5).
Also, while still having some limitations compared to conventional books, e-books offer a reader the option of carrying a sizeable library in a pocket-sized PDA or other electronic device. Perhaps a major flaw with the e-book concept, though, is the constantly-changing nature of technology. While a printed book from 500 years ago is still readable today, will a document created on the electronic media of today still be readable 500 years in the future? After all, how many people still have the equipment to play 8-track tapes? (And that technology is less than 50 years old!)
So the issue of longevity is perhaps of some concern – who wants to see valuable works essentially disappear from the face of the Earth? But still, as paper replaced vellum, which required the killing of animals for their skin, something in turn must one day replace paper, which requires needless killing of trees.
The Kindle, a new e-book reader created by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, may provide a more book-like interface than any previous electronic book device. It may also one day provide the availability of all known published works from the past and present. And if it takes off, perhaps it will measurably reduce the need to cut down trees in order for people to read.
Indeed, if one has a love of both books and trees, then it would seem to make sense to both protect books that have already been made from trees, and to protect trees in the future from being destroyed to make more books.
(CONTINUE READING)
Cell Phones
Author Stephen King calls cell phones “21st-century slave bracelets.” In many ways, it’s hard to argue with him.
An amazing bit of technology, the cell phone nonetheless can create a sense of anxiety for many people, who would feel naked without theirs. And although it allows communication in the case of emergency, it also encourages banter in situations that might be better without it.
In bookstores, libraries, churches and virtually everywhere else, people gab into their mobile phones. Those with hanging earpiece/microphone attachments often start talking into them “without warning,” initially prompting searching glances from those around them, who thought they were being spoken to.
And while the cell phone has essentially reached the miniaturization level of the Dick Tracy radio-wristwatch or the Star Trek communicator, who knows what might arise in the future? Perhaps cell phone-like devices will be implanted in our heads, creating truly hands-free electronic communication.
But many of us, without being Luddites, may wonder how far the mobile phone concept should be taken. Jack Canfield, co-author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul book series, has stated that he does carry a cell phone, but keeps it turned off and only uses it for outgoing calls. He sees no need to be constantly available to whoever may feel like calling him at any particular moment (see his great book, The Success Principles). And who can blame him?
The need for constant communication and mental stimulation is becoming stronger with younger generations, who’ve grown up surrounded by cell phones, instant messages while online, and internet-enabled wireless devices. The pace of life is ever-increasing, and those who’ve whiled away childhood hours playing frenetically-pace video games often have little patience for grammatically-correct letter-writing or other slow means of communication. Instead, abbreviated text and chat-messages are the norm, and it is considered de rigueur for the modern human to be able to send or receive calls, anywhere and anytime.
In addition, the ubiquity of cameras in cell phones is creating a privacy issue in many ways. Nowadays, one can often not be sure that he or she isn’t being photographed at any particular time.
And there are of course considerations on the health side of the issue. Newer, digital phones transmit less energetic signal “bursts,” not continuous higher-powered signal streams like the older analog phones. Yet who really knows the ultimate possible health hazards of frequently holding a microwave transmitter next to your head? After all, remember Johnnie Cochran, O.J. Simpson’s famous defense lawyer? A near-constant user of cell phones virtually from their inception, he died at age sixty-seven of brain cancer. His neurosurgeon stated that Cochran’s tumor was on the side of his head where he habitually held his cell phone, and that he had noticed the same pattern with other brain cancer patients.
The world’s first call on a portable cell phone occurred in 1973. Cochran died in 2005 – the maximum possible time he could have used cell phones was no more than 32 years (certainly a long time in itself). But what of today’s children? Because while the mainstream medical profession hasn’t in any way condemned cell phone use (and also took a long time to really criticize cigarette smoking), who can know what possible ill effects could be someday experienced by individuals who may have commonly used the devices for 40 or 50 years, or more?
(CONTINUE READING)
An amazing bit of technology, the cell phone nonetheless can create a sense of anxiety for many people, who would feel naked without theirs. And although it allows communication in the case of emergency, it also encourages banter in situations that might be better without it.
In bookstores, libraries, churches and virtually everywhere else, people gab into their mobile phones. Those with hanging earpiece/microphone attachments often start talking into them “without warning,” initially prompting searching glances from those around them, who thought they were being spoken to.
And while the cell phone has essentially reached the miniaturization level of the Dick Tracy radio-wristwatch or the Star Trek communicator, who knows what might arise in the future? Perhaps cell phone-like devices will be implanted in our heads, creating truly hands-free electronic communication.
But many of us, without being Luddites, may wonder how far the mobile phone concept should be taken. Jack Canfield, co-author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul book series, has stated that he does carry a cell phone, but keeps it turned off and only uses it for outgoing calls. He sees no need to be constantly available to whoever may feel like calling him at any particular moment (see his great book, The Success Principles). And who can blame him?
The need for constant communication and mental stimulation is becoming stronger with younger generations, who’ve grown up surrounded by cell phones, instant messages while online, and internet-enabled wireless devices. The pace of life is ever-increasing, and those who’ve whiled away childhood hours playing frenetically-pace video games often have little patience for grammatically-correct letter-writing or other slow means of communication. Instead, abbreviated text and chat-messages are the norm, and it is considered de rigueur for the modern human to be able to send or receive calls, anywhere and anytime.
In addition, the ubiquity of cameras in cell phones is creating a privacy issue in many ways. Nowadays, one can often not be sure that he or she isn’t being photographed at any particular time.
And there are of course considerations on the health side of the issue. Newer, digital phones transmit less energetic signal “bursts,” not continuous higher-powered signal streams like the older analog phones. Yet who really knows the ultimate possible health hazards of frequently holding a microwave transmitter next to your head? After all, remember Johnnie Cochran, O.J. Simpson’s famous defense lawyer? A near-constant user of cell phones virtually from their inception, he died at age sixty-seven of brain cancer. His neurosurgeon stated that Cochran’s tumor was on the side of his head where he habitually held his cell phone, and that he had noticed the same pattern with other brain cancer patients.
The world’s first call on a portable cell phone occurred in 1973. Cochran died in 2005 – the maximum possible time he could have used cell phones was no more than 32 years (certainly a long time in itself). But what of today’s children? Because while the mainstream medical profession hasn’t in any way condemned cell phone use (and also took a long time to really criticize cigarette smoking), who can know what possible ill effects could be someday experienced by individuals who may have commonly used the devices for 40 or 50 years, or more?
(CONTINUE READING)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
