Eric
>
>I will only add that in my vision of a
>sustainable future there will be no computers. I'm not saying we need to
>be perfect now; I'm saying let's try to find ways of moving in the right
>direction (good ethics, better material choices, etc.). I am not "Mr.
>Eco", far from it (I have been known to use both styrofoam and computers!)
are you saying here that its all right to use computers so long as you are
using them to communicate the idea that we need to get rid of computers?
> But I don't get
>why you are willing to support the use of styrofoam, when it is just these
>kinds of materials that make people (and other things) sick.
>
I truly hope you don't find out the hard way Eric.
>Yes. We need to be MOVING in the right direction. Each step helps, and
>may lead us to a day when humans live in a sustainable, harmonious
>relationship with the planet. Some steps are bigger than others, but the
>little ones add up too. My point is to spend some energy on "what
>direction". I think solid ethics help a lot, as is the ability to compare
>action with ethics.
>
By definition anyone on this list has thought about the ethics of
sustainability, but as soon as one compromises ones ethics in any way at
all - and that includes sending email - one has made an ethical decision to
compromise - at least I always think ethically before I compromise - I even
try to think ethically before I open my mouth and put my big foot in it,
though I probably don't try hard enough.
>
>Kathryn wrote:
>
>>Most of us could, if we wished, and on this side of the
>>atlantic, live in houses where there was very little
>>chemical pollution - lead, sulphur, chlorine about the strength
>>of it and we knew what those were in and what the dangers were. But we
>>don't live in that simple world, and however much we try to pretend in the
>>building of our ecopaths, it won't come again unless global catastrophy
>>triggers it. You can't get back into Eden once you eat the apple.
>
>We could do much better than we are, and we need to keep moving in that
>direction. No one is pretending to "build an ecopath". Each individual
>will move on their path. It becomes an ecopath when the individual decides
>to try to live more sustainably. As Jeff often points out, we may not see
>a day when we can sit back and say we are done. We just need to keep
>taking steps in the right direction. Sometimes I, too, am pessimistic that
>humans won't voluntarily move toward sustainability; all I can do is try my
>best and help others do the same. Just because others will not try to be
>more sustainable does not make it okay for me not to try. I don't like the
>ethic of "other people are bad, so it's okay for me to be bad too."
>
I didn't say that I was pessimistic about humans moving towards
sustainability, I said that we can't get back to the old simplicity, there
are just too many of us. If the human race doesn't become sustainable there
won't be one before too long. But I think it will be a very highly designed
sustainability based on detailed and complex knowledge - and it will need
computers to work it all out unless there has been a catastrophic
population fall.
>>So we have to look at the pros and cons of computers and styro foam. And if
>>styrofoam keeps some people alive and maybe hastens the death of others
>>than its up to the individuals involved to decide whether they use it, and
>>how, and how much, and to lobby for better alternatives. it sure ain't up
>>to us to pass judgement. Part of being human is fighting to stay alive. And
>>if we think that computers are part of the way we want society to go then
>>we use them but try to use those that leave the smallest footprint on the
>>earth. . . (snip) . . . But . . .(snip) . . . we are the good guys here
>folks - we
>>are all doing it differently but we are all doing the best we can.
>
>So, from what I see here, I take it your ethical principle is that
>individual survival has priority over all other factors and that the size
>of ones ecological footprint should also be considered when possible.
Nope, my ethical principle is that it is up to each of us to decide what
priority we put on our survival - and with a child with multiple allergies
I spend a lot of time thinking about it
If
>that is true, then you may find it relatively easy to choose to use
>styrofoam. I don't like the first part of that ethic, and that is why I
>suggested looking for a "better" material.
>
Actually we hadn't mentioned whether I would personally use styrofoam or
not until now. As it happens in the climate I live in and with the water
table here even with a waterproof membrane (which we have) a concrete slab
would drain heat and cause major mold problems without styrofoam underneath
it. Which is why my internal floors, which were rotting away, have been
rebuilt in this fashion, and why I now have a warm conservatory floor which
heats the rest of the house for 7-8 months of the year, which means that we
don't need burn as much carbon dioxide producing fuel, directly or
indirectly, as we otherwise would.
> Or another way
>of looking at it, when you let ethics evolve under the surface, it is hard
>to avoid a very selfish ethic, especially in our culture. Perhaps we are
>incapable of being anything else, a sad thought. But, if that is so, then
>we can avoid all of the altruistic pretenses and get on with survival.
Personally I think altruism is necessary to survival - life would be pretty
boring without paradoxes wouldn't it? But I don't see why an ethic evolving
under the surface would be selfish - surely starting under the surface one
heads towards the light. My whole life and work has been dedicated to the
view that unless one works for the human race and the planet it lives on
one might as well never have been born. But I am not going to let my child
suffer and perhaps die for that viewpoint - he needs to live and make his
own choices and I happen to think that the compromises I make for him could
be important for a lot of other people in the future - just as I think that
any compromises Cyndi needs to make in order to continue her work are going
to have a net benefit to all of us. Individual survival means that an
individual survives to contribute.
>
>
>Now, let's look at the actual problem of building a "safe cabin". I am
>still hoping that we will all take up the challenge as a group to define an
>ethic (for the person who needs the building) and solve the problem of how
>to build it. Any takers?
>
Frankly I don't know enough about the Ontario climate, or the specific
microclimate at the exact location involved, to give any sensible advice -
especially as the materials I have experience of are very limited because I
live in a country which is right at the back of the line when it comes to
earth friendly technology - we just get to read about it on other people's
web sites.
Anyway Eric, yes, you touched a few raw nerves. Particularly when you
assume that when other people make compromises they haven't thought through
the ethics, but that its OK when you do it because you have.
slainte
kathryn
