Wednesday, August 28, 2002

Why ORTEGRITY ? Timothy Wilken writes: There are three types of humans to be found in our present world. Which type you are depends on what you believe about how the world works. Adversaries believe there is not enough for everyone and only the physically strong will survive. They believe humans are coercively dependent on others, and they best understand the language of force. Neutralists believe there is enough for everyone, if only you work hard enough and take care of yourself. They believe humans are financially  independent and should be self-sufficient unless they are too lazy or defective. They best understand the language of money. A new type of human is emerging called synergists. Synergists believe there is enough for everyone, but only if we work together and act responsibly. They believe humans are interdependent and can only obtain sufficiency by working together as community. Synergists best understand the language of love. But, to be successful in our present world, the synergist must understand all three languages and know when to use them. Synergists must sometimes use the language of force, and sometimes the language of money, it depends on whom they are talking to. However, when synergists are seeking allies—when synergists are seeking to build community—they must speak the language of love. Synergists are trying to heal the wounds inflected by those who don't understand how the world could work. This then is the essential challenge to the synergists. Can we work together and act responsibly in time to save our ourselves on this planet ? ... Not without tools !  (08/28/02) Its Much Worse Than It Appears John Vidal reports from Johannesburg: The real level of world inequality and environmental degradation may be far worse than official estimates, according to a leaked document prepared for the world's richest countries and seen by the Guardian. It includes new estimates that the world lost almost 10% of its forests in the past 10 years; that carbon dioxide emissions leading to global warming are expected to rise by 33% in rich countries and 100% in the rest of the world in the next 18 years; and that more than 30% more fresh water will be needed by 2020.  ... The paper's calculations of environmental degradation suggest the many conventions, treaties and intergovernmental agreements signed in the past decade have had little or no effect on stopping the rush for timber and mineral resources in the developing world and that extinction of species is now reaching 11% of birds, 18%-24% of mammals, 5% of fish, and 8% of plants.  Over the next 18 years, says the report, global energy use is expected to expand by more than 50%, and by more than 100% in China, east Asia and the former Soviet Union. Transport is by then expected to account for more than half of global oil demand. "The non-renewable fossil fuel resource base is expected to be sufficient to meet demand to 2020 though problems beyond that point are foreseen for natural gas and possibly oil," the report says.  ... Environment and development groups yesterday reacted to the report with horror.  (08/28/02) Wanted: scientists for sustainability NATURE -- Politically speaking, the outlook for the World Summit on Sustainable Development is grim. Thousands of politicians, including the leaders of more than 100 countries, will fly into Johannesburg over the next two weeks — but most will have left their chequebooks at home. Delegates will spend ten days discussing how the world can continue to develop without jeopardizing the Earth's resources and life-support systems, yet even optimistic observers do not expect much in the way of new financial commitments. But although the summit looks like being a political flop, it could be a turning point for scientists concerned with sustainable development. Whereas governmental attempts to address sustainability issues remain confused, researchers are slowly building a picture of what science can contribute. "The full power of what science has to offer has not even begun to be adequately tapped," says Jane Lubchenco, an environmental scientist and sustainability expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis. At the summit, scientists like Lubchenco hope to hatch a new way of doing research that addresses the needs of sustainable development. How, for example, can fields from marine biology to economics work together to produce answers to specific local problems? And what can Western scientists do to help bolster research in developing countries, where local knowledge and scientific input into sustainability issues is often lacking? "Johannesburg is one of the first steps on an exciting and difficult journey," says Thomas Rosswall, executive director of the Paris-based International Council for Science (ICSU), which has been at the forefront of representing the interests of scientists at Johannesburg. "We need to create a science for sustainable development." (08/28/02) There are None so Blind as Those that will not See Not believing reality can be very dangerous. The Jewish people during WWII were very much victimized by the world of “ought to be”. The American government played into that tragedy in a very large way. There was a group of Jewish people who suffered even more than those who were gassed in the concentration camp gas chambers. These were extraordinarily brave individuals who risked their lives to smuggle out pictures of the death camps. These photographs eventually reached the American government providing proof of Hitler’s atrocities. The American government said they were fake. Why? In the American government’s world of “ought to be”, atrocities like those shown in the photos just didn’t happen. In their world of ought to be those kinds of things simply don’t happen. The photographs had to have been faked. Sadly, the whole world learned four years later that the photographs were not faked. A young and profoundly naive young "anti-environmentalist" as risen. He tells us all is well. The Earth is fine. Overpopulation is a myth. Pollution is not a problem. We need more development not less. Unfortunately, this fool  is attracting a lot of attention. Statistician Bjørn Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary. In spite of its numerous errors and biases, "the Lomborg scam" (as leading biologist E.O.Wilson aptly calls it) has been welcomed by gullible or like- minded journalists and politicians."  Even the New York Times is giving him space.  (08/28/02)  Are We Already Too LATE ! NATURE -- Global Environmental Outlook 3 (GEO-3), a study of the links between environmental, social and development issues, contains a range of dire but familiar predictions about the impact of factors such as climate change and industrial development. But the report, released last week in the run-up to August's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, was unusually pessimistic about the prospects for reversing the damage. ... But the sustainability scenario's predictions shocked some of the authors. "The delays between changing human behaviour and environmental recovery came as the biggest surprise to the regional experts," says Jan Bakkes of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands, one of the report's authors. The report found that even if environmentally friendly approaches were adopted now, carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to rise until 2050. Water shortages would continue and coastal pollution would increase slightly. Bakkes blames difficulty in altering energy and transport infrastructures. (08/28/02) Confronting Consumerism NATURE -- An important new issue is emerging in the arena of sustainable development that rivals environmental concerns in importance. It is consumption — or rather, mis- and over-consumption. This is a less tractable problem than environmental degradation in that politicians see efforts to contain consumption as a superb way to lose votes. It is at the heart of the sustainability debate, as it covers the depletion of natural capital, such as key non-renewable resources, and the capacity to absorb pollution. But it will receive almost no attention at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next week. Nor, for that matter, has consumption received the attention it deserves from researchers in either the natural or the social sciences. Indeed, certain economists view consumption as the natural purpose of the economy. In sociological terms, we have only hazy ideas of why people consume as they do even when it ostensibly does not deliver the satisfaction it promises. Do consumers feel that they enhance their identity by what they purchase and by keeping ahead of the Joneses? Does shopping truly provide retail therapy? These questions remain largely a black hole of research, but we have even less idea of how to supply consumerist needs through other means. ... The book's bottom line is to advocate new lifestyles, underpinned by modified value systems. The approach can be summed up by one-liners such as "The best things in life are not things", and "How to advance from 'more is better' to 'enough is best'?" The book makes an excellent exploration of what could turn out to be one of the front-rank issues of our time. Tackling consumption will not be simple. We have had 10,000 years of believing that more of anything must be better, and have had solid reasons to believe this. Switching to lifestyles that are not better off but simply better will be a formidable challenge. It raises all manner of questions about the fundamentals of our societies, as this book admirably proclaims. (08/28/02) 6:22:39 AM

© TrustMark 2002 Timothy Wilken. Last update: 9/3/2002; 6:03:36 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.