We are not programmed for growth. We are programmed to attempt to survive. We attempt survival by addressing problems. The problems we address are limited by our own human perceptions.

But our vast social system contains myriad specific complexities that exceed the capability of the human brain to manage them properly in real-time. Instead, we are forced to wait until problems become crises. When the crisis hits, we address the problems on the back end. This ends up requiring growth because we don't do away with the broken components of the failing system on the front end, we instead add new components by acquiring and usurping more resources. The new system components then cause new levels of complexity and problems of their own.

Wash, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.

Take for example the problem of air pollution from cars. We first addressed this by switching from regular to unleaded fuel. Then smaller cars, vapor recovery, and additives. Now, hybrids and electric cars. While all along the way, adding more cars to the roads and adding more roads.

Without ever asking the questions, "why do we need so many cars at all" or "why do we need to travel such long distances at all". Which are where the problems originate, at the front end.

The complex answers to these questions are also not "easy", and being already overwhelmed by information overload, overwork, media saturation, and general disconnection from other humans, other living things, and our environments, we tend to find "difficult" answers to be wholly unpalatable.

It's ironic that sustainability, in the truest sense, is about the end of growth (or equivalently, the continuation of some kind of growth starting with a much smaller population) ...

We don't realize how true this is. It is, in fact, the life-cycle of the human body. We start as a single fertilized cell, which divides several trillion times, specializing along the way, until we reach maturity where growth slows. As a mature adult, we repeat the process through having wild sex, which hopefully after several attempts results in another fertilized cell. Then the mature adult usually gradually declines in energy requirements and body mass (losing many individual living cells in the process). Then the systemic interaction of cells that make up and support the body as a whole abruptly ceases, in what we call "death".

Our civilization (1) has no renewal process for the eventual decline and crash of its complex system and (2) is so incredibly poorly designed as to continually require vastly larger amounts of matter and energy inputs to avoid collapse.

Fast crash.

It seems we discussed that a while back too. "Sustainable" being an overused word that suggests you are a lefty treehugging libberul. It's just a word, though.

I suspect in about another decade, the watchword will be "survivable". (what with multiple crises coming alont)

I agree. One person who is exploring this is William McDonough. He seems to think that celebratory is a more apt description of the aspect of nature that we want to emulate. He points out that life grows and is fecund and it does not get into trouble the way we do because its growth promotes other growth. Where we make waste, other forms of life make food. Where we tear up ecosystems, other predators improve the stock of the prey. "Sustainability" is an outcome of a celebratory attitude towards nature, not a goal in itself. And, ecosystems are not really sustained, the evolve in their balance, growing more diverse and robust.

Chris

Absolutely, re the Nate quote, and the post.

In the popular imagination, sustainable in its genuine sense, not as a commercial or duplicitous, politically touted, buzzword, is assimilated to, equalled to (as far as I have been able to figure out), renewable, as in a natural cycle that with ‘natural’ inputs, just spins on and on, a simple system with guaranteed, immutable, input (most often sunlight but not only), which steadily produces desired outputs, without any feed back loops. The metaphoric image appears to be an idealized vision of Nature itself: soil, rain, sun, pollination, non man-made events, *natural*, with minimal proper, decent, conventional, human work, like weeding by hand, will lead to germination and all those lovely flowers in the garden, grain in the fields, chirpy birds, and plump boars or deer waiting to be killed, etc.

The vision is both historic, resting on reliance on land, its control, management, usurpation (colonialism..), the self sufficient homestead, those rough and ready times, etc. An archaic paradise. Supplemented, sneakily, and mysteriously, by the idea of 'capital' in monetary terms (as pointed out by Nate.)

We are coming up to 7 billion ppl. Those who eat and survive are dependent on mechanized, fertilized, water-pumped, global-traded, agriculture.

in general I would say you have a valid point, however I did NOT make piles of money on wall st (or rather, I did make alot, but spent it all in profligate ways). I do have a small warchest, and somehow manage to make more money each year than I spend because I've drastically reduced expenses, but I am not wealthy by any (U.S.)standards.

Perhaps I have a mutation -things like truth and discovery have always been more valuable to me, even in MBA graduate school. Of course, this assumes I have food on table and roof over head and next years food and roof paid for etc.. If I had unlimited funds, I would write much more often here - you are right about that. Oh, that is if I had finished my phd, finished my speeches, planted my garden, read the 30+ books I have sitting here, spent time with friends, exercised, etc. etc. Dunbars number applies to the human cognitive limitations of how many people we can realistically have relationships with, I don't know if theres a name for how many activities a 1400 cubic centimeter brain can physically handle...but whatever the name/number is, I'm close to it. (Schizophrenia to follow...)

Matt- I'm no saint and don't claim to be. If I really wanted to make money doing peak oil/resource depletion research, I'd do it privately with a hedge fund, etc. To me this is more socially rewarding, (except for the BS administrative side...) But its not all a one way street - I have learned tons from the commenters in this community, things that would be difficult to find elsewhere all in one place.

Then again, this all may be my own self-deception, which will be the subject of my next post as it relates to Peak Oil, Climate Change and resource depletion.