Sustainability

[Philosophy Now]

by Tim Delaney

http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Sustainability

[tbieter]

I'm glad that I have a digital subscription. This looks like a great issue to read cover to cover.

[spike]

The one thing that this issue on sustainability doesn't include is the science and technology that has helped make our world sustainable, the most important part. For instance, over the years consumption of energy per capita has steadily decreased due to technological innovations. Technology and science has also steadily increased the the quantity of food.

What is needed today is a change of consciousness – and we feel that such a change can be bolstered by a better understanding of the meaning and relevance of sustainability.

There is something annoying about that statement, like things are going to get better if we just became more conscious and understood the meaning of language better. It sounds wishy-washy. No wonder there is such frustration with philosophers; they rarely look outside their discipline. Sustainability is about more than some possible meaning or relevance but about tangibles and the active world.

[spike]

1776. Three major events occurred that year, Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, the America Declaration of Independence and Edward Gibbon's book the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. They are connected by more than the year. If one examines them you find they have sustainability in common.

The Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence both promoted ideas that expand the human enterprise and personal freedom, chief sources of sustainability and the culture and innovations for it. In contrast Gibbon's book paints a picture of what happens when a civilization becomes stagnant and complacent, it loses sustainability and atrophies. More recently communism collapsed because it stagnated and atrophied. It succumb to entropy because it denied and thwarted the open society necessary for sustainability, the open society from which change and innovations come in order to remain sustainable.

[spike]

I think some of the articles in this issue sell sustainability philosophy short. Sustainability philosophy and philosophers have been around since The Industrial Revolution. Without them The Industrial Revolution and its aftermath couldn't have be mitigated.

The philosophy of sustainability is called economics. One the first well know philosophers of economics (sustainability) was Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. (Prior to him was John Locke.) Capitalism is a product of Smith's philosophy. One could say that capitalism is a philosophy, the economic and sustainable philosophy that has come to rule the world.

Then we've had the peripheral philosophers of sustainability, like Darwin and Freud who gave us an understanding of what it's all about and how to cope with it. So generally philosophy has been about the sustainability of civilization.

[tbieter]

I think some of the articles in this issue sell sustainability philosophy short. Sustainability philosophy and philosophers have been around since The Industrial Revolution. Without them The Industrial Revolution and its aftermath couldn't have be mitigated.

The philosophy of sustainability is called economics. One the first well know philosophers of economics (sustainability) was Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. (Prior to him was John Locke.) Capitalism is a product of Smith's philosophy. One could say that capitalism is a philosophy, the economic and sustainable philosophy that has come to rule the world.

Then we've had the peripheral philosophers of sustainability, like Darwin and Freud who gave us an understanding of what it's all about and how to cope with it. So generally philosophy has been about the sustainability of civilization.

The current issue of PN has a limited scope as the careful reader will see in the editorial.

From Tim Delaney's editorial "Sustainability" :

"In recent years there has been a growing concern over the topic of sustainability. And yet it is not always entirely clear just what the word ‘sustainability’ means, nor why it should be of such prime concern for all of us. In fact, there are many different usages of the word, and it can be connected with areas such as culture, economics, social realities, and political systems. This issue of Philosophy Now will examine the meaning of ‘environmental sustainability’ and its relevance to philosophy. (Emphasis added)

I suspect that there will be articles on other areas of sustainability in future issues of PN

[spike]

This issue of Philosophy Now will examine the meaning of ‘environmental sustainability’ and its relevance to philosophy.

Point taken! But the sustainability of the environment will come about more in an economic context. For instance, the more corporations talk about thinking and going green the more things will change and the environment will benefit. That is the philosophy that will count - the corporate philosophy. The corporate approach will change the attitude to the environment more than the musings from environment philosophers.

Having said that, there is a place for the ivory tower philosopher in trying to influence how corporate philosophy towards the environment is shaped, like that of Al Gore.

[spike]

I was just wondering why there are those who think negatively about the sustainability of Civilization while others believe it is sustainable. What is at the core of some people thinking negatively and others positively?

I guess it is hard to explain. But I think it is primarily due to how one feels about themselves and their place it the world. If one doesn't feel empowered in life, like they are being constantly manipulated by outside forces, one tends to be negative. In contrast, those who feel in control of their lives tend to be positive about the world.

I think it also has to do with whether one is a holistic thinker or not. Those who think small and don't try to see the larger picture tend to be negative about the world and its sustainability. Mind you, it's good to have both because the two interacting and opposing each other is what sustains and balances the world, like the two poles that keeps the universe functioning.

It has been noted, though, that the positive outlook is generally right. If the negatives won Civilization would have been toast along time ago. But I think the sustainability of Civilization has just begun.

[spike]

In this Sustainability issue there are also articles on History and Karl Popper. As is my nature I wanted to link all three subjects.

I think that History begets itself. For instance, WWI was a product of History. That event was a response to an accumulation of history, a human history of imperialism and hierarchy that insisted on remaining intransigent and stubborn. The human history that led to WWI was one that basically remained archaic and resisted change. WWI was History blowing a gasket and demanding change in how humans govern and organize themselves. It was also a result of, as the movie "Cool Hand Luke" famously put it, "a failure to communicate". History wanted humans to be more open and accommodating. Karl Popper talked about the reflexivity of History. WWI was a reflexivity of History and its desire for meaningful change.

Could it be that History, in its reflexivity, is making humankind sustainable? Sustainability is also very much about how humans organize and govern themselves. History, for example, has not favored authoritarian regimes, as evident by the collapse of the Soviet Union and more recently ones in the Middle East. Karl Popper considered authoritarian regimes the enemy of open societies. Perhaps Popper and History both knew that closed societies were the enemy of sustainability. Closed societies can't be critical thinkers or criticize the powers that be. Closed societies don't generate the ideas or methods for sustainability and change. Sustainability require flexibility and change in the way things are done, something authoritarian states have been very hesitant and ill equipped to do. History was also on a trajectory of progress and modernization. It needed systems that were sustainable and capable of sustainability. Authoritarian states did not cultivate such systems, hence History eventually giving them the boot.

I am wondering about Popper's idea of falsification. Could my theory on History and sustainability be falsified by "one piece of sound contradictory evidence" ?

[Arising_uk]

You're talking as tho' 'history' is an entity or thing?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I was just wondering why there are those who think negatively about the sustainability of Civilization while others believe it is sustainable. What is at the core of some people thinking negatively and others positively?
Define negative and positive with respect to the subject at hand.

I guess it is hard to explain. But I think it is primarily due to how one feels about themselves and their place it the world. If one doesn't feel empowered in life, like they are being constantly manipulated by outside forces, one tends to be negative. In contrast, those who feel in control of their lives tend to be positive about the world.
Manipulation is true for all but the elite. Control is an illusion for all but the elite. Define control in this context.

I think it also has to do with whether one is a holistic thinker or not. Those who think small and don't try to see the larger picture tend to be negative about the world and its sustainability. Mind you, it's good to have both because the two interacting and opposing each other is what sustains and balances the world, like the two poles that keeps the universe functioning.
A holistic thinker is opposed to the current model of civilization, as it has historically seen money as the pinnacle of concern, whereas sustainability of the human culture actually belongs in this position.

It has been noted, though, that the positive outlook is generally right. If the negatives won Civilization would have been toast along time ago. But I think the sustainability of Civilization has just begun.
Contextually quantify 'right.' Your use of ambiguous terms, full of subjectivity, leaves your points empty.

[spike]

You're talking as tho' 'history' is an entity or thing?

It's like a wave.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I was just wondering why there are those who think negatively about the sustainability of Civilization while others believe it is sustainable. What is at the core of some people thinking negatively and others positively?
Greed and power lust for the negatives, and giving and sacrifice for the positives.


I guess it is hard to explain. But I think it is primarily due to how one feels about themselves and their place it the world. If one doesn't feel empowered in life,
Great, as this eludes to the illusion of empowerment that is in truth, as if you'll get out of here alive!
like they are being constantly manipulated by outside forces,
Everyone is manipulated to a continuously variable degree. The elite haves, being less, down to the have not's, being more. The manipulating force is the construct of the legacy of those that have been in power from day one, termed as civilization, today.
one tends to be negative.
Incorrect, they are positive as they see the need to be free of being bought and sold.
In contrast, those who feel in control of their lives tend to be positive about the world.
Wrong, either they fail to see their being subject to the control of the construct, and thus those higher up the relative chain, or they realize, and are merely along for the ride, full of their drunken and passionate pride.


I think it also has to do with whether one is a holistic thinker or not.
This is true, the holistic thinkers see the entire picture and realize, in light of today's disparity in riches, that a bridle must be applied to the rich corporations, to ensure the sustainability of the life of planet earth.
Those who think small and don't try to see the larger picture tend to be negative about the world and its sustainability.
Incorrect, those who think small, are unwilling to sacrifice themselves in terms of monetary percentiles to ensure sustainability.
Mind you, it's good to have both because the two interacting and opposing each other is what sustains and balances the world, like the two poles that keeps the universe functioning.
True, only if the disparities weren't so great!


It has been noted, though, that the positive outlook is generally right.
Correction, the positive outlook is always right, and is the one that is willing to sacrifice what ever it takes, from the black, to ensure sustainability.
If the negatives won Civilization would have been toast along time ago.
Incorrect, the negatives have won, and as such, civilization is currently toast!
But I think the sustainability of Civilization has just begun.
I agree, or so it would seem, and it's about time, and I pray they follow through to completion.

Edit: Spelling

[spike]

I am on a cruise and thinking about the sustainability of the oceans.

[tbieter]

I am on a cruise and thinking about the sustainability of the oceans.