The Politics of an Ecologically Sustainable Societydavidrisstrom.org/Articles/SustainableSocietyPolitics.doc · Web viewAs Lynn White said, “What we do about ecology depends on

HUMAN ECOLOGY SPECIAL TOPICS C01 1992Student: David Risstrom, 9106105

Supervisor: David Dumaresq

THE POLITICS OF AN ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY

The threat of the end of human history seems to approaching earlier than many people anticipated, and whilst some people seem alarmed by this, a surprising proportion of the Australian population is not. By reflecting on our political and scientific history I wish to shed more light on our motivations for the manner in which our modern industrial societies behave, with the underlying assumption that as our understanding of the power and responsibilities we have as human beings increases the more likely it is that our interactions with the environment will improve.

I disagree with Paul Ehrlich’s contention that ecology is non-political, socially neutral and based on facts. (Enzensburger, 1976: 161) This essay considers some of the many political elements that influence our perceptions and involvement in our ecology, that I see as being at the heart of the environmental crisis. Nevertheless, the question of nominating a political system for its compatibility with an ecologically sustainable society is a difficult task, let alone considering the intimately related issue of how that society may be reached. Although Keynes said ‘in the long run we shall all be dead’, it will not be for the lack of trying. For those of us who want to achieve a more equitable world, these opportunities are borne out of man’s unique capacity for culture become a valuable way of providing meaning to our lives.

In order that societal change concerning the environmental has significant effect and stability, issues will always require sanctioning by the public at large. Therefore my claims to follow for ‘what are’, and ‘what should be’ need the following qualification. The dictatorship of humanity has been a pervasive influence in human thought for millennia. One effective way to encourage this change is to integrate what we want for the world in what we do, but before we do so, I feel it would serve us well as participants to understand something of the social soil we walk upon and invest our future within. Building on the ideas proposed by Dennis Altman, Stephen Boyden and Ted Trainer for the encouragement of adapting from a greed society to a conserver society, I have considered some of the elements of social organisation that deserve our attention. As well outlining some of the longer term evolutions I would like to see, I have sought to outline some of the thoughts and strategies of past social theorists and activists that may be both useful and practical in Australia. Ted Trainer has dubbed his notion of an ecologically sustainable society as ‘the conserver society’. Based on small scale, cooperative and highly self sufficient local economies, the conserver society notion provides an optimistic conception of how we might structure our society to reduce our current high levels of resource consumption. (Trainer, 1990: 1) Stephen Boyden identifies the potential for achieving cultural adaptation towards a sustainable society as depending on four conditions; recognition that an undesirable state exists, knowledge of the cause or causes of the undesirable state, the means to deal with the undesirable state and finally, the motivation to take appropriate action by those in society who make the relevant decisions. (Boyden, 1990: 24)

As many of the values which currently permeate Australian society have been transported from Europe since invasion by England in 1788, the history of social and political thought of contemporary Australian society finds a great deal of its roots in the Western thought. Rather than seek to replace one form of imposition of values with my own, I have sought to concentrate on the elements that may influence and mitigate adaptation towards an ecologically sustainable society, rather than providing prescriptions according to particular political systems. Nevertheless, in considering the practicability of these notions, let’s first begin by looking at how we have related to the biosphere and the organisms inhabiting it thus far.

GAIA AND US - TAKING THE TIME TO THINK

The biosphere is to becoming increasingly degraded, and whilst human civilisation has progressed, it appears that the ecological cost of these advances may not be tolerated by Gaia to the extent we had previously assumed. Though an ecological crisis is unlikely to destroy Earth, I believe it may bring the end of human habitation in the way we appear to have taken as given. As issues of environmental degradation are directly related to those of equity, successful attempts to address ecological problems must address both. One of the great challenges of the postmodern era is to consider how this tapestry of ecology and equity may be woven to balance the requirements and desires of all of Gaia’s elements. While it may be easy to scoff at the rights of animals and plants, it is increasingly obvious that unless the requirements of non-human elements are given greater consideration than the dismissive contempt they receive now, the extent to which their contribution to our well being continues is questionable.

Whilst modification of the environment is an anthropological fact inherent in all biotic activity, man has accelerated this process by the application of technology and a power structure that increasingly subjugates its constituency from the role of ends for activity to one of means. This activity has tended towards reproduction of itself through the creation of social norms that evolve to be perceived as reality, perpetuating the cycle of further inequality and environmental destruction, which I see as a degree of modification of a system to a form in which reversion or adaptation to a sustainable state is improbable.

The historical significance of human activity is the degree to which humankind has succeeded in modifying the environment. This pattern of behaviour has arisen from the context of a teleological argument placing man as the organism of prime importance in the web of life, fostering a belief that implicit with ‘dominion over the Earth’ was either, that power could be utilised to control infinitely complex physical systems, or the assumption that their tolerance to external manipulation was for all practical purposes, limitless. By relating to the environment as if human influence extended to control, humankind has chosen a path of increasing technological manipulation of natural systems.

The transition from pre-modern to postmodern society has seen the materials of production, be they natural resources, people or time, subjugated to the increasingly disenchanted entities which are able to exert sufficient coercive power. These entities need not be restricted to the owners of capital, for if society is viewed as a matrix of power, they may be involved in any interaction. They may also extend to our personal involvement in the serving of a concept such as economic growth, a work ethic or a belief in the assumed responsibilities of citizenship. Nevertheless, as our understanding of the complexity of natural systems expands, faith in our power to adequately control natural systems is diminishing. As humans are unable to live independently of natural systems, this has consequences for the utility natural systems can ultimately afford.

THE PROCESSES OF POLITICS.“To moral outrage has more recently been added a sense of doom, based on a gradual realisation of the limits placed upon the apparent end of scarcity by the ecological realities of our time.”

Dennis Altman, Rehearsals for Change, 91

Politics is the imperfect expression of the interaction between the way we want things to be and what we do about them, whether by act, omission or ignorance. The way in which Australians have responded politically to mounting environmental pressures is interesting, for I believe that in considering the history of change, we can fashion a picture of what we see as possible for the future.

While the recent increase in environmental awareness is promising, it has commonly been along the lines of clearing up or causing less damage from industrial affluence, an approach that could be described as that of shallow ecology. (Naess, 1973: 95) Typically these responses call for measures such as law reform concerning pollution control, denying the need for questioning of our affluent lifestyles. (Trainer, 1990: 35) While this represents some progress from the post-war boom era, it is not enough. Beck neatly identifies the transformation of the ecological issues towards a populist recognition. He says “The cultural blindness of daily life in the civilisation of threat can ultimately not be removed; but culture ‘sees’ in symbols. The images in the news of skeletal trees or of dying seals have opened people’s eyes. Making the threats publicly visible and arousing attention in detail, in one’s

Sustainable Politics / David Risstrom / Page 2

own living space - these are cultural eyes through which the ‘blind citoyens’ can perhaps back the autonomy of their own judgement.” (Beck, 1992: 120) The response which I wish to encourage, typified by the conceptual frameworks of social and deep ecology, is the suggestion that we need to reconsider our affluent lifestyles and the rates of production, consumption and economic growth our society presumes is both normal and sustainable. The strategy I wish to consider for achieving such social change is Dennis Altman’s proposal for the prefiguring of society.

Altman describes four elements that need to be interwoven to enable stable change. He describes these four elements as the subversion of existing values, the mobilising of potential support, the confrontation of existing structures and practices and the prefiguring of new values and institutions. (Altman, 1980: 134) Altman notes that none of these four elements by themselves can either change government or voting patterns, and so represent an extraparliamentary conception of politics. (Altman, 1980: 135)

IRRATIONAL RATIONALISM AND THE ROLE OF OUR EGOS.The idea of nature as a realm to be subjugated, mastered and made to serve the needs of the human species marks a sharp break with traditional conceptions of the relationship between human societies and their environment, being the principle that underlies the unchecked exploitation by all modern industrial societies.


Gamble, An Introduction to Modern Social and Political Thought, 63

Francis Bacon epitomised superbly the perception that nature was subject to the rational will of humankind in its belief that the application of human endeavour to the modification of nature was the “relief of the inconveniences of man's estate.” (Leiss, W., 1976, 37). According to Bacon, the state of the world was largely due to “humanities traditional unwillingness to recognise that it possessed the capacity to enslave nature in the service of human ambition.” (Leiss, W., 1976: 38). The implications of this outlook are plain to see if one imagines the roles of animals and people are reversed, as in the cartoon above. The origins of this homocentric ethos may be explained by the dominantly Western tradition which encourages humans to organise systems to direct energies for their own purposes. This notion crystallised in one form as the Protestant work ethic, but is not limited to that class, with many analogous instances of culturally inherited suppositions being taken as ‘given’. Whilst some of the early civilisations of Northern Africa that placed emphasis on community and custom have had major effects on the local environment, their propensity to ‘export’ their culture has been insignificant when compared to the Northern European experience.The Enlightenment notion of the ‘Mastery of Man over Nature’ has provided a platform for modern people to deem their authority as a ‘right’ and for movements to the contrary to be considered as usurpation. Rousseau prescribed this desire for ‘man to exercise influence over all’ in The Social Contract stating “…the general will alone can direct the forces of the state in accordance with that end which the state has been established to achieve the common good.” (Rousseau, 1972: 69) The belief structure which assumed the natural rights of man has ‘no other limits’ than those which are determinable by the law underscored a rational belief that it was natural for humankind to assume a powerful role in the matrix of social relations. Humankind’s faith in its power to control via the application of rational thought became pervasive in modern western ideology, with science as a source of knowledge about the natural world being perceived by many as the panacea providing solutions to the practical problems of human habitation. (Sargent, 1988: 32)

A major emphasis given to the growth in the size and speed of the wheels of industry was to maximise the supply of goods available for the satisfaction of human desires. The pervasive scientific rationalist disposition towards classification and demarcation have become almost habitual. The combination of science, technology and industry have been a powerful mechanism in the activities of human endeavour, being largely responsible for providing the motive force for the seventeen century conviction that the human species can, should and will conquer nature. (Leiss, W., 1976, 37). Time, labour, resources and rational thought have become important ingredients for the firing of our production. The basic agents of change have been perceived as technology and the new rationalist and individual ethoses, with the result that industrialism has triumphed in a very different form to that originally conceived by the early proponents of industrial progress. The optimism of Western civilisation has come to be accompanied by a new pessimism and disenchantment about the world which it has created, weakening both the unity between moral concerns and objectives of Western ideology and its commitment to rationalism.

Although romantics have challenged the course economic rationalists were mapping, industrialism has become a strong force in Western societies (Gamble, 1987: 18), encouraging the illusion that influence constitutes control. Indeed, the modern Western outlook is often described as Faustian, because its motivation to search for the most efficient means available to realise desired ends has always been linked to a Faustian will to dominate. This disposition has seen the refinement of an ethos known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a principle that strongly influences Australian political thought, proposes that if human choices are describable in terms of utility, rational choices on that basis should be made. The Benthamite utilitarian doctrine presupposed that only individuals can truly assess the utility of entities for themselves, and that actions should be guided by the principle of ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Policy should be judged by some measurable consequence rather than by reference to a concept of rights or justice (Gamble, 1987: 83), significantly, with a noticeable absence of representation of non human interests.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


The rise of modern science is closely associated with the rise of modern rationalism, the basing of claims to truth and knowledge upon human reason and the idea of progress: the possibility of continual human, social and material improvement. (Gamble, 1987: 58) Belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge lies at the root of Cartesian thought (Capra, 1982: 42), with its role as the main source of knowledge, truth, objectivity and rationality enhanced by its practical application to production, appearing today as the essence of modernism. The basic demand of modern science is that inquiry should never be restricted. Taboos are taboo and as Bacon said, ‘knowledge is power.’ Since industrialism and technology were the most visible signs of the success of human mastery and the understanding of nature, neither stream was able to disavow them, and so return to pre-industrial modes of production has become largely unthinkable.

Technical rationality governed the search for efficiency, transforming means to ends. Rationalism meant individuals should be left free to act as rational independent human beings, justified by reason and the perception that subordination of the natural world to human desires was acceptable. But technical rationality and rationalist ideals of human liberation have become increasingly separated. Pursuit of technical rationality in industrial society has increasingly become subordinate to the wider ends of imperatives. (Pusey, 1991: 11) Society has come to be conceived more and more in economic terms as the sphere of economic individuality where individuals would rationally seek their self interest.

Many people, including the social ecologist Murray Bookchin, express doubts that given the human condition, the application of science is necessarily beneficial or even benign. He says, “humanity has passed through a long history of one-sidedness and of a social condition that has always contained the potential for destruction, despite its creative achievements in technology.” (Bookchin, 1982, 41) As Carol Merchant identifies, part of the problem presented by the ecological crisis may be that, despite its intended emphasis, the study of science and in particular, ecology, is not immune to mechanistic treatment. In her review of scientific work in America, Merchant concludes that since the 1950’s ecology studies have been reductionist and mechanistic. (Merchant, 1980: 103)

THE ECONOMIC MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

Although the economic system is an important part of the society which helps it to strive for its purpose, it does not function alone.

Nugget Coombs, The Return of Scarcity, 2

There is a tendency to believe that because economics has become so ingratiated in our rationality, the map it portrays is reality. I disagree, believing this is one of the fundamental misconceptions that leads us to treat each other and our environment in a utilitarian fashion. E.F. Schumacher describes my perception of the role of economics succinctly;

“To say that our economic future is being determined by the economists would be an exaggeration; but that their influence, or in any case the influence of economics, is far reaching can hardly be doubted. Economics plays a central role in shaping the activities of the modern world, inasmuch as it supplies the criteria for what is ‘economic’ and what is ‘uneconomic’, and there is no other set of criteria that exercises a greater influence over the actions of individuals and groups as well as over those of governments. It may be thought, therefore, that we should look to the economists for advice on how to overcome the dangers and difficulties in which the modern world finds itself, and how to achieve economic arrangements that vouchsafe peace and permanence.” (Schumacher, 1973)

In my opinion, economics is an approximation of the priorities and desires we socially proportion to the things we collectively value. It is a useful abstraction that evolves from a commodity mode of production, and is subject to inherent misvaluing through inequality expressed in financial wealth. The economic system is not divinely ordained, but is the product of human ingenuity. (Coombs, 1990: 143) Whilst many early economists had strong humanistic persuasions, later developments, especially as accentuated by Ricardo have gravitated towards being called a science (Daly, 1989: 28), with the result that Neo-classical economics projects an almost Darwinist relation between system and environment, contradicted with an almost absolute refusal to adapt demands to the increasingly finite resources of the physical environment. (Pusey, 1991: 21)


Coombs sees the contemporary economic system as an historical artefact. (Coombs, 1990: 1) A further delve into history may help explain why. Modern economic theory developed in the context of Calvinism, with both outlooks being a bid for personal freedom against the interference of earthly authority. Calvinists, who subscribed to a form of social contract theory (Baradat, 1991: 54), based their belief on the conviction that outside a narrow realm, motives of self interest are overwhelming dominant (Daly, 1989: 6), even though economists celebrated as rational that which Calvinists deemed as sinful. Wishing to argue that consciousness is autonomous and can exert an independent role in the course of historical change and social development, Weber argued that religiously inspired ethical behaviours, methodical order and ascetic rational behaviours enmesh with the requirements of the developing mechanics of capitalism. Weber saw it as significant that not only ideas can be independent, but the possibility that religion may bring about fundamental changes in the economic structure of society. In doing so he argued that the Protestant ethic was instrumental in fostering modern capitalism, saying “One of the fundamental elements of the spirit of capitalism, and not only of that but of all modern culture: rational conduct on the basis of the idea of a calling, was born … from the spirit of Christian asceticism.” (Weber, 1968: 180)

Economists typically identify intelligent pursuit of private gain with rationality, thus implying that other modes of behaviour, such as ‘other regarding’ behaviour and actions for the public good are not rational. Polanyi observed that in capitalist modes of production “instead of economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system.” (Polanyi, 1957: 57) The abstract economic person has the unique characteristic of not consuming what she produces, and not producing what she consumes, allowing her to be untroubled by issues of quality, utility, durability etc., whilst being mediated by exchange values, flows and quantitative aggregates and balances (Gorz, 1976: 14) Marx criticised this supposition by economists, who by narrowing their field of inquiry to the ‘economic core process’, evade the ethical issue of distribution. (Capra, 1982: 216)

GROWTH INTO WHAT?Although only about one fifth of the world’s population live in established high-energy societies, characterised by Stephen Boyden as Ecological Phase Four, their value systems, economies and technologies have far reaching and profound impacts on the remaining human inhabitants (Boyden, 1990: 59), as well as an incalculable number of organisms and symbiotic systems. Australia has a valuable opportunity to highlight some of the possibilities for a transformation to Ecological Phase V (Boyden, 1990: 193), and argue this from the perspective that the future of natural systems in Australia presents opportunities and implications that may affect the entire biosphere.

To most economists and political participants, economic growth means an increase in the gross National Product (GNP). The implications of this become clearer when you realise, for example, that the seemingly modest annual growth rate of 3% actually represents a doubling every 24 years. (Jacobs, 1991, 53) To environmentalists this usually infers increasing consumption of natural resources and subsequent pollution. These need not be the same (Jacobs, 1991: 54) A crucial concept is the ‘Environmental Impact Coefficient’ of GNP which is the degree of impact or amount of environmental consumption caused by an increase of one unit of national income. (Jacobs, 1991: 54) While the idea of EIC is not precise, requiring the yet to be developed ability or propensity to measure environmental impact, it is useful in understanding the relationship between the rate of economic growth and environmental degradation. (Jacobs, 1991: 55) While it is true that current patterns of economic growth are inducing major ecological problems, it is possible to envisage a fall in EIC compensating for an increase in national income, such as may to some extent occur in the transition from manufacturing to service based industry, and the increased use of recycling.

Ted Trainer argues that a sustainable society must be far less affluent than the way we live today, aiming to produce as much as we need for comfortable and convenient living standards. (Trainer, 1990: 1) Constructed somewhat alone the lines of a syndicalist anarchist conception such as envisaged by Kropotkin, Ted believes that local economic sufficiency will allow people in small regions to increasingly use the resources of the region with minimal dependence on imports or disassociated and distant economic forces. (Trainer,


1990: 4) The main obstacle he sees, as for myself, is the widespread understanding, and hopefully acceptance of the benefits of such communities. What then can be done to facilitate an increasing freedom for people to choose such an alternative?

TO BE OR BECOME? THAT IS THE QUESTION.The first step begins with informing more people of the benefits of such a society. Equally important, we need to stop relying on our definition of the good life primarily set in the terms of economic man. While out Western obsession with having more remains commonplace we need to emphasise how to reduce our impact on the biosphere. Whilst Marxism may provide for ethical reciprocity between humans, its ability to transpose those concerns into respect for the nature appears to have been limited. Gorz and Bahro qualify the value Marxism has as an option for an ecologically sustainable future. As Gorz says in Ecology as Politics, “Growth oriented capitalism is dead. Growth oriented socialism, which closely resembles it, reflects the distorted image of our past, not of our future. Marxism, although irreplaceable as an instrument of analysis, has lost its prophetic value.” (Gorz, 1980: 11)

Whilst communism and the presence of an unalienated community would theoretically provide many of the benefits deep ecologists seek, it does not seem to be an option that many people are prepared to canvas with much enthusiasm. Therefore, even as a transitional measure, the way we relate to our environment with our current structures needs to be re-evaluated, in many instances with a view to replacing them with different assumptions. Jacobs has written a very good book, The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future, that provides strategies for what I see as interim reform. He says that although environmental protection may mean constraints on economic activity (Jacobs, 1991: 59), the key to sustainable development lies in its core meaning. (Jacobs, 1991: 60) He identifies three elements; first, the entrenchment of environmental considerations in economic policy making. Secondly, the incorporation of an inescapable commitment to equity and finally, the consideration of the word ‘development’ within the notion of economic welfare which acknowledged non-financial components. (Jacobs, 1991: 60)

An analogous, but less satisfactory approach is the valuation of the environment. David Pearce, in Blueprint for a Green Economy and its sequel Blueprint 2 qualifies this often misunderstood idea of valuation as characterised by the notion that ‘economists value the environment’. In defense of the assumptions made in modern economic models, Pearce says “they are not valuing the environment itself. They are valuing individual human preferences for or against the flow of services from the environment.” (Pearce, 1991: 4) He counters the use by some greens of ‘infinite value’ as suggesting “they mean either that their values are very high, or that environmental assets somehow lie outside the realm of money values.” (Pearce, 1991: 5) Pearce identifies excessive degradation of the environment and natural resources as resulting from the values of natural resources not being fully recognised and integrated into decision making processes by governments and individuals in the marketplace. (Pearce, 1991: 83) While I can see the attraction of such measures as an organisational structure for those fully engaged in the religion of economics, I believe its emphasis on pricing avoids the issue of considering where our ethical priorities lie. If the outcomes are to be found in similar approaches concerning human population equity I do not hold much faith in them.

Modern economic theory has suggested that inhibitions concerning the quest for wealth are not necessary for the general good, and may even impede its realisation. I whole-heartedly disagree. The philosophy of equity through trickle down, where each individual seeks to maximise economic gain, postulates that as the total product of society increases all benefit. (Daly, 1989: 89) This belief has been a massive furphy with inequalities seeming to grow at an alarming rate, both between and within countries. Whilst this quest for wealth had been mitigated in the past by concern for justice, fairness or well being of the community, the expression of economic libertarianism in the contemporary times of junks bonds and speculation seems almost totally devoid of these.

LAW, LEGALITY AND MORALITY

The motivation, willingness and power of individuals and groups to influence debate and address inequality are important features of the path to social change. (Sargent, 1987: 227)


Nevertheless, the environmental issue is a social issue couched in the physical world. It is a question of how modern societies will use the power they have acquired to influence the future of the Earth’s biosphere. Our politicians are often lawyers and economists perceiving a world where man-made laws were used to harness physical entities, with their outlooks, policies and interpretations often seeming to reflect the Eighteenth Century belief in the Great Chain of Being. But our resistance to the influence of the Laws of Thermodynamics on all things within the biosphere has become increasingly expensive. I believe the Western world’s faith in the ability to continue to manipulate the environment economically is slowly being challenged. This is an area of dispute that underscores the debate between the influences of deep and radical ecologists and the economic dry’s. My hope is that, as more legally trained people perceive the friction between the liberal values their legal system is built on, and the increasing totalitarian nature of advanced liberal democratic capitalist societies, momentum will gather for a return to rights based theories and morality, rather than positivist interpretations of written law.

This argument sometimes surfaces in the mainstream as a conflict of direction for policy. The increasing influence, at least in the short term, of the utilitarian faith in dry economics of the New Right in Australian politics does not bode well for some ecologists view of an evolution towards an ecologically sustainable biosphere. The issues raised by radical ecologists such as Barry Commoner and political activists such as Rudolph Bahro, in questioning the viability of our Western tendency towards ravenous consumption and economic growth, have more realistic emphasises for me (Bahro, 1982: 24). Whilst Governments are responding to environmental issues faster now than 20 years ago, some of the promising indicators, such as the passage of environmental legislation, may simply constitute a symbolic reassurance to elements in the community that these issues are important. (Najman, 1988: 139)

CENTRALISED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: THE ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAUCRATIC WAR

The ability of large national bureaucracies is far more limited than I feel many people provide credence for. I hope a brief survey of the efforts of the U.N. will illustrate my concern. Limits to Growth, the 1972 report of the Club of Rome, broadcast a gloomy forecast for the modernity project, suggesting a radically new philosophy on life was requisite for humanities survival. Unprecedented industrialisation, population growth, widespread inequitable malnutrition, serious depletion of known non-renewable resources and a noticeably deteriorating environment were portrayed in a manner informed Western citizens could now comprehend. The report, focussing on the problems of compounding human activity, showed that industry was growing at an exponential rate. Soon after the release of Limits to Growth, Stockholm hosted the now famous 1972 conference on the human environment. The conference’s outcome, while inherently difficult to assess, appeared to be largely a series of diatribes between the developed and developing nations which left ecologically minded people somewhat despaired. The 1974 follow-up report, Mankind at the Turning Point, calling for a ‘new path’ to walk us through the perceived ecological predicament, suggested economic growth with differentiation, urging the globalisation of our ecological conscience. Significantly, it did represent some progress, in that it emphasised the idea of harmony with growth rather than the conquest of nature. (Jung, 1991: 87)

The World Commission on Environment and Development, established in 1983, and first meeting in October 1984 as an independent body of UN status, provided a formal platform for discussing these issues. The extent of the problems they sought to face are illustrated in part by the following observations. In the 900 days between its first meeting and publishing of its report, the world didn’t stop. The drought triggered crisis in Africa peaked and was estimated to have killed over one million people. 1,000 people were left homeless by liquid gas tank explosions in Mexico City. A leak from the Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal killed more than 2,000, and injured more than 20,000. The Chernobyl reactor failed, with the consequences of radiation exposure being severe. Agricultural chemicals, solvents and mercury flowing into the Rhine from a Swiss warehouse killed millions of fish and threatened the drinking water of West Germany, and an estimated 60 million people, mainly children, died of diarrhoeal diseases related to drinking unsafe water and malnutrition. (Commission for the Future, 1987: 3)


In comparison to the Stockholm conference, Our Common Future, the 1987 report by the World Commission on Environment and Development to the United Nations General Assembly, labelled as a blueprint for a global strategy suggesting a common agenda for action, seemed to be a large step forward. Receiving its first major public appearance in the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the notion of ‘sustainable development’ was the main feature of the Brundtland report. The Brundtland report described sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. (WCED, 1987: 43) It received apparently widespread public political acceptance by the G7 group of industrialised countries at the 1988 Toronto summit (Jacobs, 1991: 59), and on the positive side as Kerry Turner recognises, the sustainability concept, regardless of definition problems, can play a catalytic role as a means of exploring the interface between environmental economics, environmental science and ethics. (Turner, 1991: 209)

While necessarily limited, and insufficiently radical in its response to the problems it sought to address, Our Common Future was at least an indication that the risk of using more appropriate words and sentiments could be made. The overview provided by the World Commission set noble intent in their pronouncement that “We have the power to reconcile human affairs with natural laws and to thrive in the process. The Australian Commission for the Future, stating that the fundamental message of Our Common Future was the integration of economics and ecology (Commission for the Future, 1987: 25), qualified the extent to which its purposes would ‘jingle for the cause’ claiming “we must first structure our economic system to ensure that Australia will be able to ‘pay its way’ in the international economy. (Commission for the Future, 1987: 25)

Unfortunately, Our Common Future is not radical enough for ensure the survival of humanity. It’s emphasis on sustainable development, defined as ‘human’s ability to meet and ensure the economic needs of the present without compromising those of future generations’ was still couched in the language of economic man. (Jung, 1991: 87) The transition of the imperatives of our political priorities from that of economic man, particularly classical economic man, to ecological person I believe is a necessary requisite for an ecologically sustainable society. The current concern of the Commission is the UNCED conference to be held in Rio in June 1992 is set to reconsider a number of issue including an ‘in principle’ instrument known as Agenda 21, and the potential to ratify conventions on climate and biodiversity. These world programs are important and the custom or necessity of using diplomatic dialogue to discuss in syntax what should be said directly in words, often belies the possibility that the meeting of minds, such as international conferences like the UNCED meeting in Rio, pronounce major changes in the perception of an inherently conservative apparatus. Nevertheless, while many of the bureaucratised sections of society appear to be in favour of these moves, these official expressions are simply our governments acting to the extent and in the manner to which our perceived expression of our will authorise them to do so.

CAPITALISM AS AN ORGANISING PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

The rise of capitalism has been central to the social revelation which has transformed the world. Capitalism’s permeation into our Western ethos has tended towards the result that everyone should treat other entities in the market as not as ends in themselves, but as means to an end. As Luhmann says “especially with the help of the mechanism of money the economy builds its own values, its own goals, norms, criteria of rationality, and directions of abstraction, by means of which the behavioural choices of its domain are oriented.” (Luhmann, 1982: 200)

The German political economist, Karl Marx, spent a large part of his life producing a critique of capitalism which, in my opinion retains relevance today. As discussed above, Marx criticised political economists tendency to base their premises on self-seeking and the pursuit of profit as natural to humans, pointing out that the formation of an exchange economy is the outcome of a historical process and that capitalism is an historically specific form of production no more final than the forms that have proceeded it. (Giddens, 1981: 12) Marx was also critical of the assumption that purely ‘economic’ relations can be treated in isolation, where notions such as ‘capital’, ‘commodities’ and ‘prices’ are used as if they had a life independent of human beings. Whilst economists often attempt to reduce everything to


the economic, Marx maintained that all economic phenomena are at the same time, social phenomena, with a particular kind of economy presupposing a particular kind of society.

Critical of the consumerist direction that modern society has chosen, Arendt says if the ideal world of the liberated consumers society were here, “we would no longer live in a world at all, but simply be being driven by recurring cyclic processes where things manifest themselves then vanish, never persisting long enough to surround the life process in their midst.” (Arendt, 1973: 134) Hwa Yol Jung sees Marx’s contribution to our awareness of exploitation and alienation between people as one of his greatest contributions, though less so concerning people’s exploitation and alienation of nature. (Jung, 1983: 171) In drawing these strands together, Marx conveyed the belief that the essential issue is that the contradictions inherent in capitalism inevitably lead it to fail in its quest to master nature, even though it has itself produced the technology necessary to do so. The self-destructive nature of capitalism and its internal contradictions as it encounters limits to growth in the nexus between its desire for more commodities from which to extract value, and the physical energy gradients it encounters in seeking more value, “allow it to be recognised as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards its own suspension.” (Marx, 1973: 410) Though contemporary thinkers engaged in the limits to growth debate are unlikely to deny this tendency, I believe the damage done in the interim in ‘waiting’ for capitalism’s collapse is to an extent the biosphere, humans and more probably, human culture is unlikely to survive.

Marx saw humankind as having developed from within nature and in mutual interaction with nature. The dialectic of nature means that the natural world is what it is now because of its historical interactions with people. (Lee, 1979: 11) Humankind’s consciousness of this, in a social relationship that does not deny its expression, is theorised as allowing people to be responsible. In reducing the extent of alienation integral to capitalism through the introduction of socialism and communism, Marx believed humankind would nourish its species being and no longer need to substitute those desires through commodities.

Habermas argues that the employment of science and technology by capitalism has not only delayed its day of reckoning, but are not complicit in capitalism's legitimation. (Habermas, 1970: 111) Habermas illuminates this possibility with an interesting analysis of Marx’s distinction between forces of production and relations of production, asserting that we can’t arrive at the ultimate socialist society simply by replacing them with socialist economies. We must also develop the sphere of interaction. Marx had emphasised the role of forces of production in constructing society, seeing production as the source of evolutionary pressure. Habermas suggests that central to Marx’s worldview was an account of the historical self-constitution of the human species through labour. (Grumley, 1991: 53) In relating to Marx’s discussion of the relationship of man to humankind and man to nature, Habermas posits that the conditions of labour in are turn affected by the social relations. Habermas asserts that behind all knowledge lies human interests, knowledge being motivated by transcendent, concrete social interests of some kind. In relation to the natural sciences, Habermas believes this is expressed as an intellectual interest in controlling nature.

Habermas is pointing out that there is a dimension of interests not normally theorised by positivists, and that traditional human sciences have a transcendent interest at arriving at consensual understanding. Critical sciences seek to break through this positivist trend of other sciences, with the formation about law-like connections setting off a process of reflection in the consciousness of those that the laws are about, therefore possibly encouraging reflective consciousness to seek change. Therefore, as many Critical theorists believe, whilst modern economy may act selfishly, it might also reflect critically, and thereby facilitate change. As history incorporates development permitting us to influence it to change, this may allow present day socialists to recognise and incorporate limits to growth in their conceptions of socialism. The future of socialism, therefore, as an organising principle for an ecologically sustainable society, rests on the recognition of the shortcomings of some Classical labourist conceptions of humankind and the biosphere. If true socialism were achievable, of which I am uncertain, for the reasons given above, I believe it would potentially provide a far more ecologically sustainable system of political organisation than capitalism is ever likely to achieve.

THE SOCIALISING POWER OF CAPITALISM


Weber viewed the rise of capitalism as synonymous with the rise of bureaucracy. (Emy, 1990: 507) Seeing rational-legal economic conduct as becoming the standard for social behaviour, Weber recognised the likelihood that growing bureaucracy could place society in an ‘iron cage’. As Emy says in discussing the conflict of economic and social political ‘realities’ within Australia, “...further dehumanising social tendencies ... mankind has built a productive machine ... not controlled or directed by anyone except, perhaps, the category of technocrats and system managers who have a certain degree of power.” (Emy, 1990: 507) Given time, the social arrangements to control people become a kind of machine which is automatic and self-powered. (Sargent, 1988: 199) This has major consequences for attempts to create a greater egalitarian society in Australia. Marxists would argue that capitalism must continually legitimate a system which is inherently exploitative and unjust. Capitalist societies encourage the growth of materialist, consumer and growth oriented societies because as the concept and meaning of life become utilitarian and instrumental, rather than moral and substantive, legitimacy is linked to sustained growth. Coombs says, “It can be argued...(Australian society)...has so sacrificed identity and security to the demands of stimulus that we no longer have any sense of who or what we are or any consciousness of personal or community purpose.” (Coombs, 1990: 2)

In its purest form capitalism is the “accumulation of private property or wealth to a virtually unlimited degree.” (Theophanous, 1980: 49) Capitalist economies are geared to provide satisfaction for the wants it has helped to create, and by doing so obscure the true nature of the significance of production. (Emy, 1990: 493) If you accept the validity of this claim, this raises conflict in the maintenance of freedom, power, legitimacy and justice which are implicit in liberal democratic theory. This is an important issue for those seeking social change to understand, as the importance and centrality of capital accumulation may limit the options available for true reform. In some radical critiques of capitalism, freedom comes to be viewed from a materialist viewpoint and depends upon one’s involvement in the production process. Private ownership of the means of production thereby creates a class of capital with decisive control over the material circumstances of others, the proletariat. Human labour becomes a commodity from which surplus value can be extracted. This is then portrayed as normal, reinforced by the use of legal contract and allusion to laws of ‘supply and demand’.

Theorists such as Friedman suggest some of the problems associated with injustices in capitalist societies can be justified by “reducing the strain on the social fabric by the widespread use of the market” (Friedman, 1962: 24), and can be addressed by economic measures such as the use of ‘negative income tax’. (Barry, 1989: 25) The limits of this analysis are obvious, given the shortcomings of classical economics as discussed above. Lindblom underscores the complexity of monetarist decision making processes, arguing that in liberal democratic market capitalist societies, two separate but overlapping decision making areas, government and the market system, share the major decisions concerning resource allocation. In a free market model business is given a privileged position (Held, 1983: 203), meaning government must design policy with a mind to supporting ‘business confidence’ in a kind of ‘automatic punishing recoil’, therefore limiting the policy options of government to the constraints of the private accumulation process.

If legitimation of the current social system is dependant on a continued supply of services and commodities, a fiscal crisis could precipitate a legitimation crisis. Offe sees the likelihood of this occurring in his recognition that there is a “tendency inherent to a specific mode of production to destroy those very preconditions on which its survival depends.” (Offe cited in Emy, 1990, 504) If this ‘concept of contradiction’ induces a major disruption in a supply of either goods or earnings, this has the potential to lead to the condition described by Durkheim as anomie. (Gamble, 1987: 176) The interim effect of increases in a dissonant society has not gone unnoticed. The rather pessimistic outlook of Marcuse identifies this theme in his suggestion that all advanced capitalist societies are totalitarian, with liberty repressed by the technical imperatives of the capital industrial system. Marcuse says, “this society is irrational as a whole. Its productivity is destructive of the free development of human needs and faculties, its peace maintained by the constant threat of war, its growth dependent on repression of the real possibilities for pacifying the struggle for existence-individual, national and international.” (Marcuse, 1964: 9)

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS


Australian politics seems to be dogged by a general cynicism and apathy. Altman describes a widespread loss of faith in politics, saying it is no secret that there is a widespread disillusionment with politics in many Western countries. (Altman, 1980: 91) A major source of despair in social activists in recent times has been the increasing influence of right wing thought in Australian politics, with some environment groups adopting a ‘bunker mentality’ whilst success of political change through traditional channels remains slim. Frankel, challenging the worth and promotion of laissez-faire policies in Australia says, “In reality, most defenders of laissez-faire favour the maintenance of repressive state apparatuses and all forms of state subsidies which protect or enhance private accumulation.” (Frankel, 1983: 4) The accumulation of virtually unlimited economic resources by corporations may threaten to deny many individuals the form of economic autonomy on which the principles liberal democracy depend, having particular consequences in the light of the desire of the New Right for free market laissez-faire policies in Australia. (Hogan, cited in Woodward, 1985: 181)

POWER AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Essentially the strategy of the alternative culture involves the subversion of existing values, the mobilising of potential support, the confrontation of existing structures and practices and the prefiguring of new values and institutions.

Altman, Rehearsals for Change, 134.

The enormity of the problems facing those wishing to encourage reform is obvious given the basis and bias of contemporary Australian politics. This social climate has encouraged some people to look beyond the established power structures for change. I find Altman’s proposals for ‘Change by Consciousness’ appealing. (Altman, 1980: 102) Altman, referring to a form of consciousness based anarchism, alludes to the possibility of grass roots change in political organisation stressing cultural politics. Describing this as a triumph of Kropotkin over Marx (Altman, 1980: 103), Altman sees this stream as analogous to traditional anarchism as outlined by Woodcock (Woodcock, 1980). Altman describes two broad principle as guiding anarchist thought; the first a suspicion of the state and the second a stress on the need for transformation in values rather than the coming to power of the new elite. Altman is wary of social democracy as a strategy for change in this respect. believing that attempts to establish and maintain social democracy means its proponents must ultimately work within the restrictive framework of liberal democratic values and institutions, and thus be forced to help legitimise them. (Altman, 1980: 97)

The way we continue to validate our present mode of life is integral with the need to feel we belong in our society. The belief in norms such as the egalitarian Australian whether justified or not, provide society further legitimation. (Western, 1983: 5) As Berger describes, through a process of socialisation, the social world, with its multitude of meanings, becomes internalised in the individuals’ consciousness. (Berger, 1979: 14) Dominant values are thereby more likely to be internalised allowing the individual to become ‘a useful member of society’, facilitating the maintenance of the hegemony. Gramsci described hegemony as “the leadership and influence exercised by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, particularly through its control of education, the churches, and the media, so gaining consent for its continued rule.” (Gamble, 1987 :256) Irrespective of whether one believes that class divisions are applicable, the trend for conspicuous consumption and the widening of the gap between rich and poor, indicate that the myths of a truly egalitarian Australia can no longer be equated with reality. Complex societies, by nature stratified and differentiated, are ‘all in various degrees imperfect forms of human association containing major inequalities.’ (Emy, 1990: 215) The conundrum then becomes which of the dimensions of inequality are acceptable, which are not and what are their consequences.

A strong theme in ecofeminist critiques such as those of Ariel Sallah is the hegemony of male centred arrogance in the attempt to control of all other entities within the biosphere. Rather than identifying overt control as the main motivating factor for male dominance, ecofeminist critiques centre strongly around the notion of coercion by dominant groups, especially males, in the way we live our lives. Appeals for conformity to normality and coercion for those who differ are strong attractor forces in maintaining the status quo. In my view, people are rarely forced to do anything, rather they make choices between the perceived rewards, punishments and consequences of a certain path of action versus another. Foucault’s radical interpretation of the propagation of power was that “power produces reality, domains of


objects and rituals of truth” and that “the evolution of norms, use of discipline and punishment and the defining of laws assists in its acceptance as reality and its reproduction as knowledge about correct behaviour.” (Foucault, 1979: 304) Foucault explored these ideas in his study of the power of normalisation and formation of knowledge in modern society. Foucault’s explanation of power is a description of the ‘iron’ that, as for Prometheus, binds the modern person to its present course. He says, “At present, the problems lie rather in the steep rise in the use of...mechanisms of normalisation and the wide-ranging powers which, through the proliferation of new disciplines, they bring with them, further perpetuated by “the presence of the judges of normality everywhere.” (Foucault, 1979: 306) The relevance in this can be seen in the evolution of norms and the defining of laws which promote the notion of the impracticability of low impact living as reality. Even though most people would deny their reinforcing of this notion, often it is simply propagated as a ‘belief’. As Sargent states, “the social arrangements to control people become a kind of machine which is automatic and self-powered. (Sargent, 1988: 199)

In summary, consensus in advanced industrial societies has come to mean the acquiescence in the goals and decisions of the dominant elites in exchange for a stream of material goods from the industrial economy which mould our private life styles (Gamble, 1987: 172). This needs to be different for an ecologically sustainable society. As can be seen the actions of groups such as the H. R. Nicholl’s society and its colleagues on the Right, imperatives founding technical rationality still remain, as do the pressures to maintain and organise consensus in industrial societies. Positivist claims of politics and values as being unrelated to issues of technology, economics and the environment need to be challenged. (Sargent: 1988: 172) The notion that human influence constitutes sustainable control is highly questionable, and one I do not subscribe to. In conclusion, even if attempts are made to reduce inequality, the complexity and disorganised nature of the social matrix of power means success would be difficult to achieve.

THE CONTINUED LEGITIMATION OF OUR AFFLUENT LIFESTYLES

Modern societies, characterised by complex interlocking and interdependent institutions, require increasing influence and energy inputs for maintenance of their systems. The resultant tendency for systems to become more volatile and less predictable seems to affect social relations in a number of ways, including a faster rate of change in fundamental values, group and institutional relations, and a greater difficulty in making forecasts about future societal states. (Western, 1983: 342) Service to the system has facilitated a social construction whereby “the survival of mankind is threatened by over-population, waste of resources, by the voluntary weapons of nuclear war and the involuntary ones of population. The forces of enlightened rationality seem to have been turned against their best purpose.” (Dahrendorf, 1974: 69) John Stuart Mill recognised the difficulties inherent in trying to nourish a system that attempted to diminish inequality through working primarily for the common good (Gamble, 1987: 83), affirming the importance of self interest as a motivating force, and while supporting the market economy, hoped that an evolution towards altruistic behaviour would allow the development of socialist systems which fostered individual prosperity.

Rousseau argued that the only legitimate basis for state power was an agreement or contract made between all individuals who were associated in the state, and that this must be continually renewed. This is the model finding a resurgence since the release of the British production Top Guns and Toxic Waste. The notion of a social contract involves a schema whereby the members of a society are empowered by the recognition that the bureaucracy which governs them finds its grundnorm in their consent. (Prins, 1991:17). Rousseau regarded human beings as capable of a much higher moral life where they would choose not what satisfied their own interests, but what promoted the good of others. Although Rousseau theorised this notion in the form of the Eighteenth century nation state, it is easy to see how its framework may incorporate the inclusion of nonhuman entities. A state comprised of moral individuals in this sense would be ruled by the general will, because individuals would desire not what was good for themselves, but what was good for the whole community. The problem of what was the general will at a given time was more difficult to define, though the disassociation of morality with daily activity to provide subsistence and reward seem to have evolved beyond the extent to which Rousseau may have envisaged.


The malaise that appears to have permeated a great deal of modern settings may have a lot to do with systemic problems of providing meaningful employment. Marcuse links environmental degradation with the notions of inequality and neurosis saying “the impoverishment of vast areas of the world is no longer due to the poverty of human and natural resources, but to the way in which they are distributed and utilised. (Marcuse, 1975: 9) Marcuse’s described American workers as ‘one-dimensional’, having been bought off by the system, and identifying with it so completely that “people recognise themselves in their own commodities”, becoming what they own. (Marcuse, 1964:154)

The emergence of oligarchical capitalist monopoly structures, for which the New Right wish to sew seeds in the fertilised pastures of Australia past achievements, represents a further constraint to those wishing to encourage a more equitable, democratic and ecologically sustainable society. As I believe increasing encroachment of TNC’s will lead to large undemocratic profit oriented, probably foreign capitalised bureaucracies (Frankel, 1983: 187), these forces need to be challenged. The liberation of greed and ‘galloping consumption implicit in any further policy shift to the right will quickly diminish the small gains so far made in conservation. (Lines, 1990: 15) Arguably, much of the lack of both action and bipartisan support can be attributed to a lack of political will within the Australian political elites. I believe that for stable change to occur that does not risk totalitarianism, people must increasingly realise the options and abilities they have to pursue lifestyles other than that determined by the conceptions of normality foisted daily upon us.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY

What is real here is ingested, taken into oneself. The symbolism is that of making the unfamiliar familiar: we literally eat the other, take it into our guts, and as a result are changed by it.

Berman, The Re enchantment of the World, 270.

The way we perceive ourselves as both, part of the environment, and the power we have to influence the way we live is of vital importance. Frequently we assume our perception represents a faithful reproduction of our environment, though this is not necessarily so. Reality is created, (Berger, 1975: 134) and may be strongly influenced by many factors. (McColl, 1985: 240) Perceptions are taken for granted as representing reality when in fact they are strongly influenced by family, school, peers, local community and the messages portrayed through the media. (Berger, 1975: 134) Most people in Australia do not belong to political parties, read Hansard or listen to Parliament. They rely on the media for their knowledge of political news. (Condon, 1983: 103) Media can mould public consciousness about issues by becoming a major and credible source of information connecting discrete events to construct a picture of the world, thereby limiting the view of the world to a narrow sphere. (Woodward, 1985: 243) Ginsberg examines what he calls ‘the marketplace of ideas’ in Western democracies suggesting that whilst the dissemination of ideas and information are only relatively infrequently subjected to overt oppression, the marketplace of ideas effectively disseminates the beliefs and ideas of upper classes while subverting the ideological and cultural independence of the lower classes (Ginsberg, 1986: 86)

While the media do not determine what people think about politics, they inevitably influence both the way people think about individuals in government and political events, and how they respond. (Smythe, 1980:14) Smythe says, “a significant aspect of the media is as an agent in bringing to attention a selection of issues with varying priorities to the individual, thereby giving priorities to their problems, who whether implicitly or explicitly, use time and resources to attend to matters according to ordering of these priorities.” One of the greatest precursors for change is thus bringing people's perception of the environmental imperatives of the future to a level in which they are willing to accept or initiate reform.

PROGRESS AND BUREAUCRACY

The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

Walter Benjamin

The extent of bureaucratisation is one measure of the modernisation of traditional societies. The more bureaucratised a country, the more attention is paid to expert knowledge and


efficiency. Welfare and progress are increasingly determined using terms defined by experts, with the culture becomes rationalist and utilitarian, searching out the cheapest and effective manner for achieving stated goals. Social goals tend to become defined in terms of the technical means that are available, with democracy being perceived as cumbersome as it is increasingly believed that only experts have the knowledge and experience to decide. The masses become welcome to exercise free will and choice in the market place, where as individuals they may use their economic ‘votes’ to choose a life style within the limits of their resources. Generally, they are not welcome to participate collectively in the formations of decisions throughout the bureaus of private capital and government which maintain and service industrial society, as this is seen as too expensive, wasteful and as potentially lead to technical incorrect and ill advised decisions. (Gamble, 1987: 155)

The increasing size and complexity of modern society has led many people to feel that they are helpless in contributing to the solving of ecological problems. Especially in the C20, the idea of progress became to be seen as an illusion (Gamble, 1987: 155) with rationalism coming to be distrusted. Weber was interested in rational economic’s penetration into all of society, with the mechanisms of accounting practices such as balance sheets, double entry book-keeping, calculation of profit and loss, measurement and quantification which through utilitarianism, became the basis for a systematic political theory. Formal accounting practice became everyday knowledge for bureaucracies, with the society gradually being subjugated to the same utilitarian ethos of cost/benefit that had already permeated business life (Gamble, 1987: 157), and continues to be a major theme in the utilitarian methodology of some Australian bureaucracies such as the Resource Assessment Commission. As Ian Hughes describes, faith in progress has been spread under a largely European hegemony and has penetrated almost everywhere. (Hughes, 1992: 16) The fact that these beliefs are strongly instilled in the bureaucracies of the organisations which shape our daily activities implies the task in achieving change is enormous.

HUMANS AND NATURE

What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship.Lynn White, The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis, 105.

At its benign best, the emphasise in the majority of both liberal democratic and socialist states is on a pathway to ‘sustainable development’. Sustainable development has been widely accepted as “humanity's ability to meet and ensure the economic needs for the present without compromising or sacrificing those of future generations.” (Jung, H., 1991: 87). Jung borrows Weber's Enlightenment notion of the ‘iron cage’ of bureaucracy and applies its framework to describe our epoch as that in which “technology has become totalising, one-dimensional, planetary, and terrifyingly normalising.” (Jung, H., 1991: 89). Jung further draws the strands of speciesism and individualism together to accuse them of being implicated in the manipulation, exploitation and attempted domination of nature that has appeared to express itself in modern technological man.

Speciesism, the prejudice of the human species against other species is an often unstated but implicit belief of those who support man’s dominion over the earth. As Charles Birch explores in On Purpose, the presumption that the frequently successful attempts of domination by humankind over nature allow it to perceive a subjugation of natures purpose to that of its own. (Birch, 1990: 19). The anthropocentric humanism of both liberals and Marxists houses this assumption implicitly in their diverging motivations through similar mechanisms for the satisfaction of human endeavour. These worldviews are exemplified well by the widespread acceptance of the arbitrary labelling of regions as ‘wasteland’ predisposing them to attempts to modify them and bring them under the yoke of the productive process. The potentially noble savage description of ‘nothing in excess’ has been dispossessed by dominant modern beliefs in growth, progress and power. (Foley, 1987: 114)

A TURNING POINT

After a time of decay comes the turning point. The powerful light that has been banished returns. There is movement, but it is not brought about by force. … The movement is natural, arising spontaneously. for this reason the transformation of the old becomes easy. The old is discarded and the new is introduced. Both measures accord with the time; therefore no harm results.


I Ching, cited in The Turning Point

Capra believes that we, as a society and as a planetary ecosystem are reaching a turning point (Capra, 1982: 15) Whilst humankind’s culture has brought unprecedented power, it is unrealistic to believe in a utopian transformation that denies the power that technology and high population densities have brought us. Whilst the notion of sustainability is complex, involving issues of inter-generational equity, intrinsic value and morality, I think it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that development of the human condition is the only way humankind and its cohabiters on Earth are likely to retain the wonderful things we have brought with us. As a source of optimism, there are signs that our human arrogance is diminishing. Our faith in the ability of science and technology is increasingly shaky.

Nevertheless, the disputes are unlikely to stop overnight as evidenced by the following instances. In June 1983, Semenov, the head of the Department of Nuclear Energy and Safety at the International Energy Agency said concerning Chernobyl “a serious loss of coolant accident is practically impossible’, though within three years he was shown to be wrong. (Bellini, 1987: 246) The Wesley Vale disputed also raged closer to home, which Phil Toyne aptly characterised as a “conflict between those who would develop without regard for the environment, the maintenance of resources, and the long term maintenance of jobs on one hand, and those who wish to retain the wild forests and develop resources in a planned way on the other (Toyne, 1989: 102)

Jo Camilleri describes the prospects for a convivial society, while not promising, as not entirely bleak (Camilleri, 1989: 112) Ecological questions achieve direct political dimension by being declared political issues by quantitatively relevant groups of the population. The very conflicts that some people interpret as regression may themselves provide the final requirement for successful adaptation: motivation for change towards an ecologically sustainable society. Whilst it is imperative that we achieve some form of re-enchantment of the world, the way in which we, as the biosphere’s human inhabitants decide to achieve this remains an ongoing question for us all. As it is becoming increasingly obvious that human influence does not constitute control, incorporating the traditions of the early Anarchists, the politics of an ecologically sustainable society must incorporate the maximum of freedom of expression of each individuals ‘species being’ for change to be progressive and stable. Whilst this may represent a huge ask, we’ve got all of us to do it and ‘the world’ to gain from it. I encourage every reader to consider how they see themselves as a part of this opportunity, consider what they feel is best to do, and do it.

In conclusion, any summary of the usefulness of the theories and models considered here will produce the preponderance of opinions of which this essay has only raised a few. In the final analysis, any decisions taken are made through the subjective filter of ones own experiences, and whilst some scenarios would be preferable to others, no single theory enjoys a ‘monopoly of truth’. Likewise, any answer to the question of ‘how best to restructure society’ will be met with varying responses according to the respondents perception of what best describes Australian political reality and which future pathway is most desirable. It must also be stated that irrespective of any desire to formulate or support a theory of a preferred model of society, these may be undermined by the inherent difficulties in imposing rational creations on dynamic entities such as human societies.

As existence is largely a question of doing one thing instead of another, whether priorities are given to problems implicitly or explicitly, time, effort and resources will be apportioned to these matters according to the ordering of these priorities. Resolution of conflicts over the use of wild resources will only achieve depth and permanence if our social constructions of reality wish it to be so. With the application of modern technology, the power of humans to disrupt natural systems is far too pervasive to be disregarded. As argued by Dennis Kenny in his recent seminar on the ‘moral ecology of modernity’, science itself does not instigate activity such as the Manhattan project. It becomes another tool, another technology, much as an arm or an eye that uses its projections to interpret and potentially influence the world. If we have the opportunity to engage our ‘inner self’ as Laing characterises it (Berman, 1988: 6), rather than the alienated sterility of our false self, as typified by faith in more technology fixes and increased reliance on coercion, perhaps then at least as a meaningful genesis, humanities endeavours will increasingly encompass the diverse potential of the biosphere. As Lynn White said, “What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature


relationship.” (White, 1975: 105) I think it is important to remain receptive to ideas and the energies of those wishing to encourage change and adaptation, and to consider that models for future development may still to be evolved.


A THOUGHT TO BEGIN WITH

Evidence strengthens the will to take action. It does not compel it. Crawford-Brown, Environmental Ethics, 167

In this essay I have deliberately avoided imperatives, prescriptions and statements of ‘scientific fact’. I have grown resistance to them. On beginning this essay I felt I had some reasonable preconceptions about the organisation of society, which I thought were valid to prescribe. Having read, thought, talked and written more, I am less certain. The kind of society which I wish to encourage is one in which the potential of its participants, human and otherwise are maximised. The ideas of Ted Trainer and Dennis Altman are very appealing to me. Reading them leads me to thinking of what I can do to incorporate these ideas in my life and in others. This is the beauty of such a proposal. While it does not prescribe the type of political system required for an ecological society, it creates its own precepts that seeks to subvert the dominant malaise, by demonstrating how much more satisfying life can be by becoming more involved in it, rather than obedience to an externally imposed ‘existence’.

I think it was Einstein who said “science may be able to describe everything, but it will mean nothing.” I think I see his point. There is a time to recognise when providing facts and a good argument are just that. A good argument. An enthusiastic future for our society is extremely important to me. I would like to add a personal note in finishing. The issues concerning creating an ecologically sustainable society are immense in scope, and for anyone wishing to consider such issues holistically as I do, the myriad of connections and sensitivities become so much as to be almost overwhelming. There are times when the issues seem so large and the bureaucratic responses of our ‘world leaders’ ridiculously pitiful. I think it is realistic for us to expect some humanity within us, and to consider and sometimes forgive our disappointment at what we hope could be as being very difficult to achieve, if it is at all possible. If this locates my desires as that of an anarchist, then so be it. As I say, borne from a developing desire to be guided by ethics rather than prescriptions, I think this is an area where I find myself unwilling to pronounce normative description where I do not feel they are well founded. For me, the politics of a sustainable society are one in which as many organisms as possible have the freedom to contribute and express the inherent social aspects of their beings. Whilst it is unlikely to produce a perfect world, as a start I feel outlooks such as these may improve it.

On writing about wilderness some time ago I wrote this and it feels appropriate for what I wanting to convey.

My strongest argument for large relatively untouched territories is that I want them. I want to believe in them. I want to feel that man’s desire to exert power all over the world need not extend to every fine place there is. I want a democracy to extend to the rights of non-human entities, to experience the way the world can be without man placing a foot in it. Without concerting what he experiences into another part of ‘his’ dominion of utility. These may not be very good reasons for those who disagree, but the scientific, the legal, the economic, the radical and the violent expressions all boil down to one issue. They express what we want.

I agree with Stephen Boyden’s claim that the greatest single impediment to successful cultural adaptation has always been ignorance. (Boyden, 1990: 321) The exploration of some of the issues that contribute to and encourage our ignorance is vital if we are to prefigure a new form of ecologically sustainable society. As Ted Trainer may suggest, ‘if you really want to save the planet…’maybe some of these and your thoughts are worth considering. No matter what, I think encouraging change for the better may require a mixture of patience and sweat. We’ll see.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, D., 1980, Rehearsals for Change: Politics and Culture in Australia, Melbourne: Fontana.

Arendt, H., 1973, The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bahro, R., 1982, Socialism and Survival: Articles, Essays and Talks, London: Heretic Books.

Baradat, L., 1991, Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact, 4th edn., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Barker, T., (ed.) 1991, Green futures for Economic Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, R., and Muller, R., 1975, Global Reach: The Power of Multinational Corporations, London: Cape Books.

Barry, N., 1989, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, 2nd Edn., London: Macmillan.

Beck, U., 1992, ‘From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment’ in Theory, Culture and Society, Vol 9, Middlesborough: Sage Publications.

Bellini, J., 1987, High Tech Holocaust, Victoria: Greenhouse Publications.

Berger, P., and Berger, B., 1979, ‘Becoming a Member of Society’ in Rose, P., Socialisation and the Life Cycle, N. York: St. Martin’s Press.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T., 1975, The Social Construction of Reality, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berman, M., 1988, The Re-enchantment of the World, Cornell: Bantam.

Birch, C., 1975, Confronting The Future - Australia and the World: The Next Hundred Years, Middlesex: Penguin.

Birch, C., 1990, On Purpose, Sydney, NSW University Press.

Birrell, R., 1990, From Growth to Sustainability; Implications of the Swedish Experience, Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.

Bissio, R. (ed.), 1990, Third World Guide 91/92, Montevideo: Instituo del Tercer Mundo.

Bookchin, M., 1982, The Ecology of Freedom, London: Cheshire Books.

Boyden, S., Dovers, S. and Shirlow, M., 1990, Our Biosphere Under Threat: Ecological Realities and Australia’s Opportunities, Sth. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Boyden, S., 1989, Western Civilisation in Biological Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brown, B., 1987, ‘Greening the Conservation Movement’ in Hutton, D.(ed.), Green Politics in Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Brown, L., 1990, State of the World, Worldwatch Institute, New York: Norton

Camilleri, 1989, ‘Beyond Rainbow Politics’ in Arena, No. 92, Melbourne: Arena Publishing.

Campbell, J.,1991, Paper: The Moral Imperative’s of Man’s Future Evolution, California: University. of California.

Capra, F., 1982, The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, London: Collins.


Castoriadis, C., 1984/85, ‘Reflections on Rationality and Development’ in Thesis Eleven, No. 10/11, Melbourne: Philip Institute.

Commission for the Future, 1990, Our Common Future: Australian Edition, Sth. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Condon, C., 1983, ‘The Media and Politics’ in Issues in General Studies, S. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Connell, R., 1977, Ruling Class, Ruling Culture, London: Cambridge University Press.

Coombs, H., 1990, The Return of Scarcity: Strategies for an Economic Future, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford-Brown, D. and Pearce, N., 1987, ‘Sufficient Proof in the Scientific Justification of Environmental Actions’ in Environmental Ethics, vol. 11 No. 2, Univ of Georgia: Environmental Philosophy Inc.

Crozier, M., 1980, Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, London: University of Chicago Press.

Crozier, M., 1964, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Daly, H., and Cobb, B., 1989, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable future, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Dahrendorf, R., 1975, The New Liberty-Survival and Justice in a Changing World, London: Routledge and Kegan.

Democratic Socialist Party National Executive, 1990, Socialism and Human Survival: For a Green, Democratic and Socialist World!, Sydney: New Course Publications.

Durning, A., 1989, Mobilising at the Grassroots, Ch. 9 in Brown, Lester R (ed.)State of The World 1989, Worldwatch Institute, New York: Norton.

Dyer, K and Young, J. (eds.), 1990, Changing Directions: The Proceedings of Ecopolitics IV, Adelaide: University of Adelaide.

Edgar, D, 1980, The Control of Resources’ in Introduction to Australian Society, Macmillan.

Ehrenfeld, D., 1981, The Arrogance of Humanism, New York, Oxford University Press.

Emy, H. and Hughes, O., 1988, Australian Politics: Realities in Conflict, Sth. Melbourne, Macmillan.

Encel, S. and Berry, M. (eds.), 1987, Selected Readings in Australian Society: An Anthology, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Enzensburger, H., 1976, ‘A Critique of Political Ecology’, in Rose, H., (ed.), The Political Economy of Science, London: Macmillan.

Erskine, J., 1987, Paper: Integration of Conservation and Development Towards Implementing the National Conservation Strategy for Australia, Canberra: Australian National University.

Featherstone, M. (ed.), 1988, Postmodernism: Theory, Culture and Society, Vol 5, Nos. 2-3, London: Sage Publications.

Foley, G., 1987, ‘Lewis Mumford - Philosopher of the Earth’ in The Ecologist, Vol 17, London: Tom Stacey Ltd.


Foucault, M., 1979, Discipline and Punishment-The Birth of the Prison, Middlesex: Penguin.

Frankel, B., 1983, Beyond the State?; Dominant Theories and Socialist Strategies, London: MacMillan.

Friedman, M.,1962, Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galtung, J., 1973, The Limits to Growth and Class Politics, Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.Gamble, A., 1987, An Introduction To Modern Social And Political Thought, Hampshire: Macmillan.

Giddens, A., 1981, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory; An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ginsberg, B., 1986, The Captive Public: How Mass Opinion Promotes State Power, New York: Basic Books.

Gordon, A., and Suzuki, D., 1990, It’s a Matter of Survival, North Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Gorz, A., 1989, Ecology as Politics, Boston: South End Press.

Gorz, A., 1982, Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism, London: Pluto Press.

Gough, I., 1979, The Political Economy of the Welfare State, London: MacMillan,.

Grumley, J., 1991, ‘Marx and the Philosophy of the Subject: Markus contra Habermas’ in Thesis Eleven, No. 28, MIT Press: Cambridge.

Habermas, J., 1970, Toward a Rational Society, London: Heinemann.

Held, D., 1983, Models of Democracy, London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Herman, E., and Chomsky, N., 1988, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon Books.

Hewison, G., 1989, The Global Factor: Issues and Images in International Law, Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre Publishing.

Hirsch, F., 1977, Social Limits to Growth, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Howard, D., 1989, Defining the Political, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.

Hunt, J., 1972, Socialisation in Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Hutton, D.(ed.), 1987, Green Politics in Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Jacobs, M., 1991, The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future, London: Pluto Press.

Jung, H., 1991, ‘Marxism and Deep Ecology in Postmodernity: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Ecologicus’ in Thesis Eleven, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kenny, D., 1990, ‘Science, Creativity and Morality in an Ontogenetic Era’ in Reichel, A., 1990, The Proceedings from the ‘Out of the Crucible’ Conference, Sydney: University of Sydney Centre for Human Science and Technology.

Kenny D., 1992, Seminar: The Moral Ecology of Postmodernity, Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environment Studies.

Kirk, B, 1975, Biology Today, California: Random House.


Kropotkin, P., 1988, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, London: Century Hutchinson.

Lee, D., 1980, ‘On the Marxian View of the Relationship between Man and Nature’ in Environmental Ethics, Vol 2, No. 1, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Lee, D., 1982, Toward a Marxian Ecological Ethic: A Response to Two Critics, Environmental Ethics, Vol 4, No. 4, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Leggett, D., 1987, ‘Building Communities: The Green Alternative’ in Hutton, D.(ed.), Green Politics in Australia, Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Leiss, W., 1976, The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Commodities, Toronto: University of Toronto.

Lines, B., Spring 1990, The Green Failure, in Arena, Vol 92, Melbourne: Arena Publishing.

Linke, R., 1980, Environmental Education in Australia, Nth. Ryde: Allen and Unwin.

Luhmann, N., 1982, The Differentiation of Society, New York: Columbia University Press.

Lukes, S., 1986, Power: A Radical View, London: Oxford.

Maddox, G.,1985, Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice, Melbourne:

Marcuse, H., 1975, One-Dimensional Man, Boston: Beacon Press.

Marcuse, H., 1964, Studies in Critical Philosophy, Trans. by Joris de Bres, London: NLB.

Marx, K., 1973, Grundrisse, New York: Vintage.

Meadows, D. et al., 1972, The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club Of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New York: Universe Books.

Merchant, C., 1980, The Death of Nature, New York: Harper and Row.

McColl, M., 1985, “The Mass Media and Political Behaviour” in Woodward, D., et al., Government, Politics and Power in Australia, 3rd. Edn., Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

McNall, S., 1979, Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Moriarty, P., and Beed, C., 1989, ‘Technology: The Paradoxes of Progress’ in Arena, No. 87, Melbourne: Arena Publishing.

Naess, A., 1973, The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary in Inquiry, Vol 16, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Najman, J. and Western, J., 1988, A Sociology of Australian Society, Sth. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Offe, C., 1985, Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Painter, S., April 1992, ‘Earth Summit: Who Pays for Survival?’ in Green Left Weekly, No. 53, Melbourne: Green Left Publishing.

Pearce, D. (ed.), 1989, Blueprint for a Green Economy, London: Earthscan.

Pearce, D. (ed.), 1991, Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy, London: Earthscan.

Polanyi, K., 1957, The Great Transformation, Boston, Beacon Press.

Prins, G., Top Guns and Toxic Waste: The Environment and Global Security, London: BBC.


Pusey, M., 1991, Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A Nation Building State Changes its Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reece, R., 1979, The Sun Betrayed: A Report on the Corporate Seizure of U.S. Solar Energy Development, Boston: South End Press.

Riechel, A. (ed.), 1990, ‘Out of the Crucible’ Conference Proceedings, New South Wales: Centre for Human Aspects of Science and Technology.

Roberts, A., 1989, ‘Wesley Vale and the Uneconomic Man’ in Arena, No. 87, Melbourne: Arena Publishing Group.

Robertson, J., 1978, The Sane Alternative, Minnesota: River Basin Publishing.

Rose, P., 1979, Socialisation and the Life Cycle, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Rousseau, J., 1972, The Social Contract, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Russell, 1969, Authority and the Individual, London, Allen and Unwin.

Sargent, M., 1988, Sociology for Australians, 2nd. Edn., Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Schumacher, E., 1973, Small is Beautiful; Economics as if People Mattered, London: Blond and Briggs.

Schumpeter, J., 1987, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Allen and Unwin.

Sharp, G., 1989, ‘After Development’ in Arena, No. 87, Melbourne: Arena Publishing.

Smith, R., and Watson, L., 1990, Politics in Australia, Wellington: Allen and Unwin.

Smythe, D., 1980, ‘The Role of the Mass Media and Popular Culture in Defining Development’ in Voigt, M., (Ed.), Communication and Information Science, San Diego, The Rand Corp.

Stretton, H., 1975, Capitalism, Socialism and the Environment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talbot, D., and Morgan, R., 1981, Power & Light: Political Strategies for the Solar Transition, New York: Pilgrim Press.

Theophanous, A., 1980, Australian Democracy in Crisis, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Toyne, P., 1989, ‘No Cause For Celebration’, Arena, no. 87, Melbourne: Arena Publishing Group.

Trainer, F., 1985, Abandon Affluence!, London: Zed Books.

Trainer, F., 1982, Dimensions of Moral Thought, Sydney: NSW University Press.

Trainer, F., 1990, Paper: If You Really Want to Save the Planet…, Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Turner, K., in Pearce, D. (ed.), 1991, Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy, London: Earthscan Publications.

Tyler Miller Jr., G., 1979, Living in the Environment, 2nd Edn., California: Wadsworth.

Voigt, M.,(Ed.),1980, Communications and Information Science, San Diego: The Rand Corporation.


Vout, P., Feb 1991, Polemic: Australia’s Consuming Environment, Sydney: Sydney University Law School.

Weber, M., 1968, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Translated by Parsons, T., London: University Books.

Western, J., 1983, Social Inequality in Australian Society, Sth. Melbourne, Macmillan.

White, L., 1975, ‘The historical roots of our ecological crisis’ in Notes for the Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, H.(Ed.), 1989, Australian Communication and the Public Sphere, Sth. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Woodcock, G., 1980, The Anarchist Reader, Glasgow: Fontana.

Woodward, D., et al.(eds.), 1985, Government, Politics and Power in Australia, 3rd. Edn., Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, J., 1991, Sustaining the Earth, Kensington: NSW University Press.


THE POLITICS OF AN ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETYWHAT THIS ESSAY IS AND WHAT IT ISN’TGAIA AND US - TAKING THE TIME TO THINKPOLITICS AND SNAILS.IRRATIONAL RATIONALISM AND THE ROLE OF OUR EGOS.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSHOULD THE NOTION OF ‘THE ENVIRONMENT’ BE A SEPARATE HEADING?

THE ECONOMIC MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORYGROWTH INTO WHAT?TO BE OR BECOME? THAT IS THE QUESTION.LAW, LEGALITY AND MORALITY

CENTRALISED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: THE ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAUCRATIC WAR.

CAPITALISMCAPITALIST LIBERAL DEMOCRACYAUSTRALIAN POLITICSPOWER AND SOCIAL CHANGE???THE NEXUS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC

ACTIVITY.THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY

PROGRESSMAN AND NATURE

THE POLITICS OF A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETYA THOUGHT TO BEGIN WITH

The increasing establishment of industrial capitalism made the categories of liberal political theory inadequate and the hopes of the liberal revolutionaries unrealistic.

The prospect for social reform or progress to be easier to maintain the status quo whilst the flow of resources allows the trickle down effect to operate top a seemingly adequate extent.

What is possible is that the human condition be celebrate in an ongoing struggle for expression.


Documents

The Politics of an Ecologically Sustainable Societydavidrisstrom.org/Articles/SustainableSocietyPolitics.doc · Web viewAs Lynn White said, “What we do about ecology depends on