NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
A VISION STATEMENT -- FINAL PART
Can people agree what a sustainable and desirable U.S. might be like?
Here is part 5 (the final part) of a draft vision statement issued by a group that has tentatively named itself ESDA (Envisioning a Sustainable and Desirable America). The ESDA group says, "We hope you can take the time to read our vision, and offer us your comments. Would you like to live in this world? Are there elements of our vision with which you disagree? Are important pieces missing? Please send your feedback to farley@cbl.umces.edu," the E-mail address of Josh Farley at University of Maryland.
The draft vision statement is organized into five parts: Worldviews, Built Capital, Natural Capital, Human Capital and Social Capital. In our last installment, we began publishing the "Social Capital" section, which continues here:
Thus, for our vision of local production for local markets to work, social capital must be strong. As discussed in the section on built capital, the very physical structure of communities will work to create that social capital. Abundant community spaces, parks, and recreation areas will stimulate social interaction, build friendships, and generate a sense of responsibility towards neighbors and community. With single occupancy vehicles almost gone and people living in smaller communities, just getting from place to place will bring us in close contact with our neighbors. In America 2001, public transportation is primarily found only in large cities, and fellow passengers are strangers, not neighbors. Under these circumstances, public transportation does little to build social capital, but this will not be the case in 2100.
America in 2100 will maintain the ethnic and cultural diversity that currently enriches our nation. Some neighborhoods will coalesce around different ethnicities and cultures, and these too will serve as sources of social capital. However, America will have rid itself of the racism, sexism, regionalism and other prejudices that are all too prevalent today.
Americans will have more time for family, and family life will be characterized by more balanced gender roles.
The process of government will itself create social capital. America in 2100 will no longer be a weak representative democracy, but a strong, participatory one. In a participatory democracy, the people must discuss at length the issues that affect them to decide together how they should be resolved. In today's world of high-pressure jobs, little free time, and large communities of anonymous strangers this approach to government seems impractical, unwieldy and too demanding. In our vision of the future, with smaller communities of neighbors, a far shorter work week, and engaged, active citizens, participatory democracy will be perceived as a privilege of citizenship and not an onerous chore. Of course, for this to work presupposes that civic education forms an essential part of development of human capital from childhood on. This approach to government will be particularly effective at the local level. As citizens come together in regular meetings to discuss the issues and work together to resolve them (even when substantial conflict exists), it will create strong bonds of social capital, and will play an essential role in forging a sense of community. Government of course implies action, and action implies purpose. Purpose must be defined by the people, who in these civic meetings will also forge a shared vision of the future to guide their actions. This vision cannot be static, but must adapt to new information and new conditions as they emerge.
Of course, not all issues can be decided on the local level. Institutions are required at the scale of the problems they address. It is at the local level where people will feel the consequences of ecosystem change, for example, but causes may be distant, perhaps in other countries. On the national level it is not feasible to bring together millions of people to discuss the issues and decide on actions, so some form of representation will be required. But if representatives are chosen through direct participation by people to whom they have strong social ties and obligations, these representatives are far more likely to truly represent their communities and not some large corporation that funds their rise to power.
Conclusion
We hope you share our vision for a sustainable and desirable America. Our goal is to create a shared vision, and if you do not believe this future America would be a desirable place to live, we need your feedback. We would also appreciate your positive feedback. The envisioning process is dynamic, and we have only just begun. [End of draft vision statement.]
RACHEL'S Editor's Comments
So there you have it, a vision statement of what the U.S. might be like 100 years from now. It is only a first draft. Please pull together your thoughtful comments on this vision and E-mail them to farley@cbl.umces.edu, which is the address of Josh Farley at University of Maryland. They will be posted on the web at https://- iee.umces.edu/ESDA/ for others to consider. A vision statement must evolve as time passes, adapting to new circumstances, new perceptions, new possibilities.
Several people have sent us comments already, and the comment I want to address here is this: How can we get there? What could we be doing to promote a U.S. that works for us and our descendents ecologically, economically, morally, culturally, and politically?
Naturally, there are many things that we can each be doing to bring about a different world. But I believe one key idea underpins them all, and has been badly neglected: locally-based democratic decision-making, as discussed briefly in this week's installment of the vision statement.
I believe real democracy is the thing we need the most, and the thing we study and work on the least. Perhaps we work on "democracy" so little because we already live in a democracy. We think of the U.S. as a "democratic" country, but what does democratic participation in the U.S. really mean? It means paying your taxes, occasionally voting for one candidate or another, and the rest of the time minding your own business. This is what Benjamin Barber[1] calls our "thin democracy" -- it was designed by the Founding Fathers to pretty much exclude most people.
But times have changed. We no longer live on a planet that seems infinitely large and mostly uninhabited. Now we are faced with adjusting our lives to new realities -- a planet that is filling up with people, a planet of finite size with finite resources (some renewable and some not), with a finite capacity to absorb wastes. Now the main task we all face is how to arrange our lives so that our communities (and nations) can become sustainable, meaning they can sustain their members into the foreseeable future. (If you don't think the question of finite resources is important, ask yourself if the recent atrocities in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania would have been as likely to occur if the industrialized nations weren't deriving 54% of their energy from the Middle East.)
Because we do not know the limits of ecosystems, we can never define precisely what "sustainable" means. We have to discover -- and invent -- its meaning as time passes. One book seems especially relevant here: THE LOCAL POLITICS OF GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY by Thomas Prugh, Robert Costanza and Herman Daly (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000; ISBN 1-55963-744-7). I'm going to call this book PCD, shorthand for the names of its authors. Everyone who cares about sustainability would benefit by reading this short, meaty book.
PCD points out that the problems we face -- such as overconsumption, overpopulation, fossil fuel use, and destruction of species -- are not mainly technical problems. If they were, we'd be able to solve them within a few years. The systems involved are complex and interconnected in ways that make their behavior inherently unpredictable.
"As a result," says PCD, "the politics of communities' and nations' efforts to address their sustainability problems is much more important than any technical expertise they can muster. There are experts aplenty, but we cannot simply consult them for the 'best' solutions, because nobody can know what those solutions are in any complete or final sense. The solutions must be explored and tested through a process of continuous adaptive learning. Deciding which options to try means making political choices that affect everyone and require wide support and engagement. A generation after its coinage, the slogan Power to the People takes on a new meaning," says PCD (pg. xiv).
PCD goes on: "Because there can be no permanent solutions in a world that is ecologically and culturally dynamic, these choices will have to be made again and again as circumstances evolve. Therefore, moving toward sustainability will require a radically broadened base of participants and a political process that continuously keeps them engaged. The process must encourage the perpetual hearing, testing, working through, and modification of competing visions AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL.... The key seems to be structuring political systems so that people's decisions matter.... We believe communities are the primary locus of responsibility for creating a sustainable world. The admonition to Think Globally, Act Locally retains its wisdom despite years of bumper-sticker overexposure. Directed sustainability[2] will come about in neighborhoods or not at all" (pg. xv).
What does all this mean? It means the most important issue we all face is democratic control of our lives. In a very real sense, all the issues of poverty, environment, justice and community boil down to failures of democratic participation. When we complain about corporate power and the destructive effects of "globalization" we are complaining about the absence of democratic decision-making (decision-making by those who are affected by the decisions).
We all want democracy. But how much time do we devote to studying how to make democracy really work? How much effort do we spend trying to re-arrange our local communities so that we make decisions by talking together? These are good questions.
In sum, how can we turn our vision of a sustainable and desirable world into reality? We can start by learning how to make democracy work -- really work -- in local communities. How can that begin to happen? How can we shift our society from "thin democracy" to "strong democracy"?[1] This is the key question we can all be starting to answer in our own way. Please give us your thoughts, including examples that you know are already working. We'll tell others what's working now. --Peter Montague
VISION STATEMENT--PART 4
Here is part 4 of a draft vision statement issued by a group that has tentatively named itself ESDA -- Envisioning a Sustainable and Desirable America. Having a shared vision of the future -- a goal -- is essential. If we don't know where we are trying to go, how can we tell whether we are getting there or not?
The ESDA group says, "We hope you can take the time to read our vision, and offer us your comments. Would you like to live in this world? Are there elements of our vision with which you disagree? Are important pieces missing? Please send your feedback to farley@cbl.umces.edu," the E-mail address of Josh Farley at University of Maryland.
The draft vision statement is organized into five parts: Worldviews, Built Capital, Natural Capital, Human Capital and Social Capital. In this installment, we begin publishing the "Human Capital" section:
IV. Human Capital
Human capital has been defined as the practical knowledge, acquired skills and learned abilities of an individual that make him or her potentially productive and thus equip him or her to earn income in exchange for labor. In America in the year 2100, the definition of human capital itself will change -- no longer will there be an emphasis solely on productivity in terms of income exchanged for labor. The primary emphasis instead will be on knowledge, skills and abilities that make people productive members of society, that is, that help people contribute to the goals of society. The goals of America in 2100 will be far more than simply earning income.
Education will be integrated into everyday life, not simply something we do for a few hours a day before we grow up. And it will not be always confined to classrooms -- schools will be an institution, not a physical place. Nature offers us an amazing laboratory every time we step outside, and every bit as much in urban settings as in rural. This will be even more true in 2100, when our communities are designed to maximize exposure to healthy ecosystems. Education about civic responsibilities and roles will be heavily stressed, and will be taught by direct exposure to the decision making process or hands-on participation in activities that benefit the community. Youth will be schooled in civic responsibility by actively participating in the community. And what better place to learn skills required for economic production than at the workplace? Apprenticeships will be an integral part of the learning process. Technology will also play an important role in education. Virtual learning environments will be used where appropriate, but will by no means replace direct interaction.
Education and science will no longer focus solely on the reductionist approach, in which students are only taught to analyze problems by breaking them down into their component parts. While the reductionist approach and analysis will still play an important role in education, the real emphasis will be on synthesis, how to rebuild the analyzed components of a problem into a holistic picture again. Synthesis is critical for understanding system processes, and system processes dominate our lives. In natural systems individual trees create a forest and all the services that forest provides. In economic systems production is not simply the transformation of raw materials into products: production exhausts resources, creates pollution, and alternative production processes can make working life pure drudgery, or a chance to participate with others to meet society's needs and to express our own creativity. And social systems are certainly far more than an aggregation of autonomous individuals.
Beyond analysis and synthesis, learning will also emphasize communication. Researchers skilled at communication will be able to more readily share ideas, and ideas grow through sharing. Workers skilled at communication will be able to work together to solve production problems. Citizens skilled at communication will be able to contribute to the ever-evolving vision of a sustainable and desirable future that will be the motivating force behind policy and governance. Citizens will also be able to communicate their knowledge with each other, so that education, livelihood, family and community become a seamless whole of lifelong learning and teaching, everyone simultaneously a student and teacher.
Education will also emphasize much more than just pure scientific understanding of the material world. Critical thinking and research will be important, but so will creative expression and curiosity. Knowledge and science will not be portrayed as value neutral endeavors -- students will learn that the very decision of what to study is a moral choice with broad implications for society. The goal of education will be to cultivate wisdom and discernment, to cultivate the emotional maturity to allow responsible decision making in every type of human endeavor.
The whole notion of work will also change, and the word itself will lose the connotation of an unpleasant chore. People will recognize the absurdity of applying technology to the problem of producing more goods to be consumed during leisure time regardless of the drudgery involved in production itself. Instead, to recruit desired workers, industry will be forced to redirect some of its technological prowess towards making work itself a pleasurable part of our days that engages both mental and physical skills. A typical job will involve far more variety than one of today, not only to make work more exciting and interesting, but also to take advantage of the full range of a person's skills. There will also be less distinction between what today would be considered gainful employment and volunteer work. Everyone will participate in civil society, both in decision making and in maintaining the public space. This will not be an onerous chore, but a pleasurable time for socializing with neighbors and community. Nor will it take time away from our private lives, since the typical work week in traditional 'jobs' will average only fifteen hours.
Education will de-emphasize the existing 'more is better' mindset, and a greater understanding of the linkages between economic production, nature, human development and society will make people more aware of the true costs of excessive consumption. With 100 additional years of technological advance and diminished 'needs,' society will be able to provide a satisfactory living wage to all who work, and meet the basic needs of those who do not. Participation in the various types of work will be expected and supported, but not forced. As work will be more of a fulfilling experience than an onerous necessity, there will be little resentment of those who do not work, but rather a feeling of concern that these people are not developing their potential as humans. Living in more tightly knit communities where social goals are actively discussed, people will understand better the importance of their work, and feel greater obligation to contribute to the common good. Remuneration for work will be restructured to provide the greatest awards to those who provide the greatest amount of service to the community, such as teachers, child care providers, etc.
Human capital is also directly related to human populations. The population in America in 2100 will have stabilized at a level compatible with the carrying capacity of our resources and ecosystems.
V. SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society; it is the glue that holds them together.
Strong social capital plays a critical role in our vision of a Sustainable and Desirable America in 2100, as has been hinted at in the previous discussions of capital. In America in 2001, the dominant form of social capital in the employment and economic sphere is simply the market. The interaction between employer and employee is that of buying and selling labor. For the most part, employer 'loyalty' exists only as long as the continued employment of the employee increases profits. Employee 'loyalty' exists only as long as no other job offers a greater salary or fringe benefits (which may include location, working conditions, etc.).
The interaction between producer and consumer is even more market based. People buy a product only as long as it is perceived to provide the greatest value in monetary terms, though admittedly advertising may play virtually as large a role in shaping perceptions as the actual price and quality of the product. In America in 2100, worker ownership of many industries and local production for local markets will change much of this. Worker owned enterprises will logically pay more attention to worker well-being than enterprises driven by the need to generate shareholder profit. Well-being will of course include profit-shares, but will be increased by working conditions that are healthy, stimulate creativity, and create feelings of participation and identity.
While not all enterprises will be worker owned, when a significant percentage of enterprises offer these conditions, it will put pressure on the others to do so as well. In the absence of strong social capital, local production for local markets could be a disaster.
In many cases, it might be inefficient to have a number of firms providing similar products for a small community. This could lead to monopoly provision of certain goods. If the market remained the dominant form of social capital driving interactions between producers and consumers, high profits and poor quality would result. However, if worker/owners also live in the local community, they will have to answer to their neighbors for both price and quality of what they produce. High quality production will be a source of pride, while low quality and high prices will be perceived as incompetence and laziness, decreasing the individual's social standing in the community, and reducing their social capital.
Local currencies will also contribute to locally based production and consumption. Such systems already exist in many communities, such as Ithaca, New York [see https://lightlink.com/- hours/ithacahours/] . These currencies are backed only by trust that other
NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|