>> >Something that would be easily
>> >discussed and understood in person becomes rather confused in cyberspace.
>> >I was talking about definitions, Katherine was talking about strategies for
>> >change, and Jeff was talking about choices we make.
>>
>> We could be using different words but viewing the same thing. Or we
>> could use the same words and view different things.
>
>I was pointing out that we are talking about different topics and were
>confused by the overlap in words used.
>
>> What is the difference between "strategies for change" and "choices"?
>
>One is about bigger scale social movement and a discussion about how and
>why society changes. The other is about personal choices and values and
>working toward having them fit together. Related? Yes. The same? No.
>
>The physical distance that is a part of our on line discussion allows us to
>forget who we are talking to and where they are coming from, something that
>is very hard to do with people you talk to in person as often as we
>participate on this list. It also seems to place greater emphasis on
>saying something than on discussing something.
>
>Jeff, your rain seems to be finding its way down here. I'd best get some
>things done before it starts.
>
>Eric:
Its a great part of the pleasure of this list that we come from disparate
cultural backgrounds yet have so much in common. Is sustainability an
entity? a process? is it a personal goal or a societal one. (You can tell
its raining can't you?) We have little idea of each others political
cultures but I suspect that a discussion of politics would bring the list
crashing around our ears. Global sustainability in its literal meaning
would suggest that earth could be frozen as it is now, with its huge
consumptions of energy by a small percentage of its human population and
most of them - wealthy or starving - living personally unsatisfactory
lives. With some of the population thinking satisfaction comes through food
and another vast percentage thinking it comes through shopping. Of course
we would also have magically frozen it so that no more species are
extinguished, so that global warming won't happen, so that no one and
nothing is choking on the poisons we pour out. And we know this is not
possible and we substitute another magic definition in which we find the
secret of unlimited clean energy to feed, clothe and provide shopping
trollies for everyone without another tree falling in the rain forest -
which tends to be general population's definition of sustainable.
Some of us have started from our own personal patch - we have our little
islands to be sustainable on - grow our own fuel, our own food, our own
clothes, our own computers? It can be done so long as you don't want the
computer and for some people it has great personal satisfaction but it
isn't possible for most of the people on the planet - nor would most of us
actually want it to be - for myself I would like to think that our
sustainable planet could include the computer, the travel and all the other
things that require that some make the choice to live in bigger
communities, produce complex goods and rely on others to provide a
substantial percentage of their food.
So I guess sustainability is a societal process, a scientific process, an
educative process, a progression of personal choices - because if
individuals do not find personal satisfaction at some level they will not
make the societal choices necessary for human survival.
But maybe it is enough that Gaia survives - sustainability could simply be
the continued existence of the planet with some form of life on it
Kathryn
