hit tracker
  • Physical Sciences
  • Culture
  • Earth Sciences
  • Biology
  • Home Page
  • Medicine
  • Neurosciences

Comment Tracker

User login

Columnists

Banner

Screw 'Sustainability' - And I Am Here To Tell You Why

User picture for Howard Bloom

About Howard Bloom

A recent visiting scholar in the Graduate Psychology Department at New York University and a former Core Faculty Member at The Graduate Institute in two fields - Conscious Evolution and Organizational Leadership - Bloom is the author of three books: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History("mesmerizing"—The Washington Post), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century("reassuring and sobering"—The New Yorker) and How I Accidentally Started The Sixties (“a monumental, epic, glorious literary achievement.”  Timothy Leary).  

Bloom is founder of the Space Development Steering Committee and Member Of The Board Of Governors of the National Space Society.

He's also credited by Rolling Stones' Chet Flippo with having founded a new genre — the heavy metal magazine.

Howard Bloom

Future Thought



Why screw sustainability?

Because the word implies merely hanging in there, merely surviving, merely sustaining. It implies a penny-pinching earth, a miserly existence, a nature that punishes change, and a nature that prefers small tribes to large groups of human beings.

This sort of attitude has traditionally led to ignorance and to self-inflicted poverty. It pitched Europe into misery from the fall of Rome in 476 ad to the revival of optimism, technology, and entrepreneurialism in 1100 ad. That 600-year-long slump was the famous dark ages of the West. An attitude of self-denial and an urge to return to the past also led to an age of darkness in the Islamic Empire starting in 1566. For the first time, Islam saw its limitations more clearly than it saw its possibilities. How did it respond? It banned every new technology, shunned every new idea, and withdrew into fantasies of a past mistakenly viewed as a paradise.

This sustainability-style-thinking was responsible for the impoverishment of North Africa and of the Middle East that goes on to this day. Which gives you an idea of the power of worldviews.

How potent is that power? Aztec kings 500 years ago climbed to the sacred rooms at the top of their pyramids, slit their arms, and sacrificed their blood to the sun. Aztec PRIESTS ordered guards to drag up to 8,000 captives a day to the upper steps of their pyramids. The priests sawed open the chest of each victim with an obsidian knife, reached in between the ribs while the victim was still alive, pulled out the heart, held that frantically-beating pump up to the sun, then rolled the victim down the pyramid’s steps as meat for the feasts of the worshippers down below.

Aztec priests and kings didn’t do these things out of cruelty. They did them to save humanity. They did them to guarantee that the sun would rise the next morning. In the Aztec worldview, the sun was skinned alive and went down in blood every single night. You could see that blood in the red that filled the basin of the sky. It would take the blood of human beings to give the sun the strength to rise. For victims and for victors, the Aztec worldview made the difference between death and life.

Then there’s the case of the Tasmanians off the coast of Australia. For roughly 4,000 years, Tasmanian mothers, fathers, and children starved to death every time a famine struck. They starved and died despite the fact that they lived on an island surrounded by seas that were rich in gourmet delicacies, those swimming, diving fillets called fish.

So why did the Tasmanians die without a bite to eat? In the Tasmanian worldview, the creatures of the sea were what cockroaches are to you and me. They weren’t food. They weren’t fit to eat. Once again, life and death depended on how you see.

Sustainability implies a worldview of a kindly and caring nature, a nature that’s easily raped by technology, industry, capitalism, and modernism. It implies a nature that will automatically protect rainforests, whales, and endangered species if we greedy modern humans rein in our consumerist lusts. If we get rid of our SUVs and of our industrial factories, this worldview tells us that nature will go back to the greenery and the reliability of some mythic good old days.

But that view of nature isn’t true. Nature is not the motherly protector. Nature is just the opposite. She tosses us curves and challenges our creativity. The challenge to create is what Mother Nature and her favorite game — evolution — are really all about. Which means we need a major worldview change.

Mother Nature does not build everlasting Edens for the eco-conscious. Mother Nature is the mother of catastrophe. She’s tossed her children a major die off every 26 million years or so, a total of 148 major die offs that we’ve been able to count. She’s shocked this planet with six far bigger mass extinctions, six enormous holocausts of species. Those die-offs haven’t come from smokestack factories, consumerism, and the depredations of capitalism. They’ve come from the natural evolution of the earth that gave us life. And their message has been simple. Ride the waves of change or die.

Mother Nature challenges our ability to surf the waves of change when she slings us through a 240-million-year-long-orbit around the center of our galaxy, an orbit that takes us through interstellar gas clusters called local fluff, interstellar clusters that strip our planet of its protective heliosphere, interstellar clusters that bombard the earth with cosmic radiation and interstellar clusters that trigger giant climate change. Just one of those changes could wipe our civilization … and even the human race … away.

Nature challenges our creativity with a wildly bouncing atmosphere. The CO2 level 1.4 billion years ago was at least ten to 200 times greater than it is today, ten to 200 times greater than it’s projected to be a few decades down the line even if we continue to spew the emissions produced by our hyper-industrial economy.

When CO2 levels shoot that high again — and they will someday with us or without us — they’ll melt this planet’s ice, submerge our cities, turn our grain belts into swamps, and might well poison us with the few last breaths we’re able to take. They’ll do all this despite Kyoto Treaties and despite every reduction of human CO2 output we can make.

Nature challenges our creativity with an outer atmosphere that gathers nearly 30 million kilograms of space dust a year. She challenges us by sending us through a cloud of interplanetary powder that doubles or even triples this tonnage of cosmic dust in our outer atmosphere every 100,000 years. The darkness and cold this dust produces could make the old nightmare of a nuclear winter look like a sunny day in spring.

Nature challenges our adaptability with her taste for far smaller flicks of her weather whip. In the last 120,000 years there were 20 interludes in which the temperature of the planet shot up 10 to 18 degrees within a decade. What’s more, until just 10,000 years ago, the Gulf Stream shifted its route every 1,500 years or so. It stopped heading North to Iceland and instead targeted Europe’s coast, licking the old continent with unaccustomed warmth. Another fickle climate twitch of this sort would melt mega-islands of ice, put out our coastal cities beneath the surface of the sea, and strip our farmlands of the conditions they need to produce the food that feeds us.

Then there’s mother nature’s opposite trick—Ice Ages, roughly 80 of them, from the days 2.2 billion years ago when the planet was an iceball to a mere 12,000 years ago, when Nature quieted briefly and gave our species a short breathing space. But that breathing space is very short indeed!!

Are there any hints about what Mother Nature demands from us if we want to survive? Yes, many of them.

First of all, Mother Nature’s catastrophes and the challenges they’ve tossed us made us what we are today. We were born as one of the most helpless and pathetic species this planet has ever seen. We were hairless and couldn’t handle the cold of winter and the summer heat. Furry species like mastodons, saber-toothed cats, and modern dogs and rabbits could take the winter cold in stride. But when we are naked, we simply can’t.

What’s worse, we have no fangs and no claws — things eagles and lions take for granted. When we first evolved, we were hungry for meat, but we couldn’t tear prey animals apart with our fingernails. And our running is horribly slow. Even cockroaches and mice can sprint faster than we can. So hunting down meat was something we were born WITHOUT the tools to do.

Yet we made it through 20 Ice Ages. And we did it living on the most challenging place of all -- the very edge of the glaciers that were freezing nearly everything in sight. What’s more, we pulled this off while gorging ourselves on meat. How the hell did we manage it? By taking disaster as a challenge, then mastering it. By defying Mother Nature and flinging her capriciousness back in her face.

We made new fangs and new claws out of stone. We flaked axes, choppers, blades, scrapers, spear tips, and much later, arrowheads. We made our own fur coats out of the skins of the beasts we hunted down. Our fingers were too weak to dig dens, so we built tents out of mammoth tusks and mammoth ribs then covered them with mammoth skins.

We did these things because we refused to shut down in the face of disaster.

We did these things because we refused to adopt sustainability’s implied strategy, the strategy of retreat. We took cataclysms as a challenge and as an opportunity. We invented new ways to make tools, new ways to make wealth, and new ways to celebrate.

We invented makeup, art, beads, and fishing hooks. We invented handles for stone tools. We invented calendars and carved them into pieces of deer antler to keep track of the seasons. We invented cave art, sculpture, and music. We did all of these things during an unstoppable Ice Age.

We did all of these things in spite of Mother Nature.

We did all of these things because we chose light over Nature’s darkness. We chose enthusiasm over gloom. We chose to make an exuberant new future rather than to hide in a puritanical past. Thanks to our audacious acts of defiance, Mother Nature’s cruelty and her disasters made us human!

Every article like this needs a take-home message so before I conclude this part I will give you one:

Mother Nature is a vicious bitch.

Catastrophe is her stock in trade and, with our help or without it, Mother Nature will sooner or later yank everything we take for granted away. Unless we lay the foundations for a technology and for a civilization able to harness the energies and surmount the floods and freezes of change.

That's what we're going to talk about next time, in Screw 'Sustainability - And Cheer Up About It.

Technorati Tags:

Sustainability is not about

Sustainability is not about penny pinching or merely surviving. It's about really understanding the way this planet works, which includes both limitations and wonderful possibilities. Sustainability is pro technology. We just need to be wiser about how we're using it and what we're using it for. Any proponent of sustainable living is working towards "the foundations for a technology and for a civilization able to harness the energies and surmount the floods and freezes of change."

Howard you're nailing it on

Howard you're nailing it on the head. It seems that we in the USA are falling into this "sustainability" thinking, unfortunately.

I agree this is a lot more

I agree this is a lot more optimistic than most articles on environmental action I see. Politicians get empowerment by convincing people all hope is lost and only politicians can save them, science says new solutions are better than telling people in the third world they can never own a car.

Misguided. Try thinking

Misguided. Try thinking about it in non-religious terms. Sustainability is not a cult to most folks. Look at www.inhabitat.com, for instance.

I think it's important to

I think it's important to recognize that while the worldview of those who press for "sustainability" may be downright wonky, their objectives are often productive ones, ones that lead to new technologies and opportunities.

However, the image of "Nature" as a "mother" who will comfort and provide is one very worth exposing as false -- unfortunately (or fortunately, really) our society has gotten too far from the forests and savannas of our ancestors to appreciate what a deadly and unforgiving world the natural world really is.

What people think of when they think of "nature" is usually a park that has been laid with trails and cleared of brambles, bugs, and most of the other predators -- our good work, but not nature.

Well first of all,on a

Well first of all,on a geological timescale, humans are newcomers, depending on what evolutionary level you look at, we've been here in less than any other creature on our earth yet we have single handedly messed up the earth than any other creature. You may not agree with sustainability but I'm sure you will agree that like all species, we are destined to become extinct, technology or no technology and, sustainability chooses to conserve the raw materials on our earth, the same raw materials needed for our so-called "technology". If we do not follow a sustainable path then we will only be doing harm to further generations. It's easy to reference human culture and society as a way of talking against sustainability but those same ancient civilizations you mentioned did not really care about the populations that would inhabit the world hundreds of years afterwards. Apparently, some of us also do not care about what would happen to our grandchildren and our future generation. The easy way out is to claim that "the technology will help them" or "the technology will be advanced enough to counter any effects of human induced disasters" This is by far the easiest answer that would appeal to to a utilatarian or better yet a politician. It is not difficult to note that everything in our world is diminishing, every natural resource present. However, we live for a very short time, hence we can bark and shout about the pros and cons of arguements to and for sustainability. But someday, the crap needs to end and everyone needs to realize that things are serious now, and something needs to be done if one cares about the earth 1 million years from now (if there is one).
BTW: Africa most likely became laced with famine because of the physical paramenters present in equatorial regions and other NATURAL influenced factors.
As a result, on your comment on natives and the reason they starved because of the view they held on natural resources; first of all there is a stark difference between viewing fishes without an understanding of them and viewing fishes with an understanding of them. I'm sure if those natives would have relished in their good fortune of their bountiful resources, they'd most likely have used everything up and then died of starvation either way. Rather if they knew about sustainability, they would understand that the best thing was to employ agricultural methods to harness such resources while keeping the natural environment intact. Also on your comment about nature being violent and uncaring, um....the fact that nature is violent and uncaring is the whole reason we exist today. Nature is what shaped the earth, its what shaped the beautiful rainforests and deep oceans and also splendid diversity of creatures we see today. The violent attribute of nature is a fundamental quality that is necessary for the existence of every single creature. If it wasn't for nature's violence, we'd have no estuary, no coastlines, no land, and to a larger extent, no subatomic particles and hence no matter. If nature was so caring and loving, then we'd most likely be drinking water laced with DDTs and polyaromatic hydrocarbons that our predecessors so caringly placed in our oceans while using the so-loved technology.

This is the definition of

This is the definition of sustainability.

"Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. The term, in its environmental usage, refers to the potential longevity of vital human ecological support systems, such as the planet's climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, and fisheries, and human communities in general and the various systems on which they depend.

Humans are just beginning to understand what it truly means to become sustainable. You think the dark ages was humans embracing sustainability? It was religion. You have completely missed the concept of what you most eagerly are trying to denounce.

You're not right in your argument, in fact, you're not even wrong.

You're not right in your

You're not right in your argument, in fact, you're not even wrong.

It's too bad they didn't bury Wolfgang Pauli in a magnetic suit and wrap copper coils around his coffin. The spinning that's sure to result from your egregious misuse of his quote could power a whole city block.

Misuse? ' However, this was

Misuse?

' However, this was not his most severe criticism, which he reserved for theories or theses so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable, and thus not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They were worse than wrong because they could not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: "It is not even wrong." '

I think this applies pretty well to Howard's argument. It's a bunch his opinions. Not scientifically based in the least. I can't prove Howard wrong because his statements can't be supported or refuted. He believes the ice ages were man's finest hour. He believes that sustainability merely implies hanging in there. His argument is a bunch of fluff. Thanks for your wild opinions on sustainability but you're missing the meaning of the word and how important it really is.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
BoldItalicLinkQuote
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <sub> <sup>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.

Category Feeds

Books By Writers Here

Internships

We do offer unpaid internships in programming and science journalism to college students or recent graduates seeking to build up their portfolios.

Development interns will need to be proficient in PHP and CSS and provide samples of work done in a multi-user environment platform and sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Science journalists will need to provide samples from a university newspaper or professional publication and list which semester they want to work.

Please use the contact info available in the footer of the page.