Talk:Sustainability/Transformation/Archive 2

Earlier Archives
Archive 1: Earlier drafts/discussion

Post-environmentalism
Haven't included the infobox as it's absolutely fine in my view the way it is

The World Wide Fund for Nature report Weathercocks and Signposts (ref WWF) points to the ineffectiveness of the “small painless step” marketing approach to behavioural change which encourages less consumptive consumerism by turning off appliances, using energy efficient light bulbs, offering financial rewards, appealing to self-interest, social norms, status etc. Small painless steps can bring about small changes, but big changes will also be needed to achieve sustainability. This in turn requires a political strategy that tackles underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on by offering an unequivocal statement of alternative values – an approach referred to as “post-environmentalism”. According to George Lakoff "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." (ref Lakoff) Pro-environmental behaviour is more easily achieved by encouraging ‘intrinsic’ values (personal growth, community, relationships) than ‘extrinsic values’ (material goods, social status, financial reward). The report ends by offering eight practical steps for change:


 * Establish greater clarity on environmental values
 * Emphasise intrinsic goals in environmental communication
 * Use a broader vocabulary of values in policy debates
 * Find common ground between these values and those of development agencies
 * Help business to think beyond “the business case for sustainable development”
 * Highlight the way marketing manipulates behaviour
 * Support public figures who promote intrinsic values
 * Identify and promote ways of making public appreciation of nature more relevant (ref WWF).

Comments
I'm glad TP has proposed taking another look at this subsection. While I like the WWF principles, I've long been bothered that we ended the article on a quote. It makes us seem like a mouthpiece for WWF. I don't disagree with quoting the principles, just that we wouldn't add other views to make the section more balanced and neutral. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, though I've archived the previous subsections (Social ecology and Deep ecology) we need to bear in mind that these three subsections work together. In a way, SE and DE pose a problematic - we are destroying the planet, what do we do about it? This latter section proposes a way to deal with it (post-environmentalism). There is plenty of convergence on this. One aspect of that transformative view is spiritual (I think of Wendell Berry, David Holmgren, Janine Benyus, Wes Jackson, Ken Wilber, Joanna Macy, David Suzuki, Daniel Goleman, and others who posit different aspects of the need for a new consciousness on the part of humans. Sunray (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about avoiding ending the section in a quote. I think in addition to serving as an answer to the problem and question, post-environmentalism also functions as a distinction between the whole 1960's awakening/environmentalism, etc, and the more practical nuts and bolts "how are we going to achive sustainability" era. The transformative era hinges on mass-education and awareness which will result in behavioral change, you can see this beginning to happen on a very small scale in the general population overall, people changing light bulbs, saving money on electricity bills, etc, and businesses buying carbon offset credit "things". But overall, this mass-education must be far more swift than it currently is and far far more encompassing and holistic, not merely 'saving money' or 'looking green', because such tiny percieved changes are distortive and mean little in the long term.


 * I'm not keen on the George Lakoff statement that people vote on their values, etc. People vote based on what information they have at the time, for all sorts of reasons, not just values, but on particular funding policies, big construction projects, etc. Overall, the mainstream comemrcial media has a big say in who people vote for, if the minor parties were treated as equals within the mainstream media, far more people would be aware they exist and would know about their policies, thus, more people would vote for them, as one example. Nick carson (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, all these points seem important. It strikes me that, in a way, the whole of the "implementation" section is pertinent here. At the risk of being repetitious perhaps we could summarise with a brief opening sentence that points out that just as sustainability is multifacteted so too, surely, must be the solution ... and refer to improved direct management of the land, air and water around us; the re-establishment of "spiritual connection" with the natural world (a move towards ecocentrism and away from anthropocentrism) through a more holistic (I agree Nick, it must be in there somewhere) perspective and a deeper ecological awareness; a renewal  of our awareness of the many dependencies on the natural world including food sources, even parks and gardens. That sustainability has found broad acceptance and has now been given a place at all levels of human organisation including action through formal legislation through to the exchange of values by informal networks; that it also constitutes a vast challenge for science and technology through improved management of resources as they pass through production and consumption. … That all sounds a bit weak and needs work. But you get the drift – it is, at least, trying to be neutral by looking at a range of points of view and approaches! We are back to the old problem of the complexity of sustainability. I agree that we need “mass education”, I also agree that we need “spiritual connection” but it is all interconnected – we also need better land management, better legislation and improved technology. It is always easier if there is only one or a few “key” solutions and approaches. It seems to me that some may be a bit “prior” to others (i.e. we wont get change if people don’t want it). However, I think the sustainability juggernaut must move forward on all fronts at once. Perhaps I’m just confused. … .well, yes, no doubt about it … I am confused. TP, you suggested a re-think – what did you have in the back of your mind?


 * On George Lakoff - I think at the back of his  mind was perhaps the view that people always vote out of self-interest and that generally puts paid to any environmental values. He offers a slightly different view. But yes, I take your point - I'm not completely convinced by him either. I suppose it creates a desperately needed sound of hope. Granitethighs (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh most definitely, we should pursue the multi-faceted solution within the text. I don't see the complexity of sustainability a problem, we just have to accommodate the subject matter and we can't let policies, guides and conventions compromise the subject matter, that's rule number one in encyclopedia editing, the subject matter comes first, without it what's the use? Without a doubt, everything must be persued at once. We're having trouble at the moment in the AGV policy working group, with the co-ordination of different working groups (freight relies on rail and ports and public transit relies on rail and transport determines urban form which is also affected by planning and so on and so on...) but as I've been saying, I think if we view this article as the main hub so to speak, then everything else can branch off it. We don't need to include everything all at once right here, this is merely the starting point, the introduction to sustainability, it's history, definition, concepts and touch on everything else slightly, that's all we need do. Then we can tackle transforming other articles to include elements of their inevitable gravitation towards sustainability. Nick carson (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-draft
I'll start with some suggestions.


 * Firstly, I think the "social ecology and deep ecology" will need to be moved, I suggest, to fall after "peace, security, social justice" in the "social concerns" section. Its placement under "transformation" does imply that deep ecology is a basis of society's next great step forward, which is probably not a neutral assessment of the importance of a relatively small minority view.

is I suggest also removed: it's a bit of a mental leap to see why this is the main article for a conclusion about sustainability.
 * The tag


 * Is the heading "Transformation" ? I personally like it, but then I am a greenie.  Does it sound neutral?  Should it?


 * The WWF report recommendations were recommendations to opinion leaders and communicators; ie: we should take their advice on board in terms of how best to communicate sustainability. I think we should apply the list, not quote it


 * Much of what used to be in this section ought not to be lost, but there are other homes elsewhere in the article for it...

Now a very brave, very very draft suggested end section, please disagree with it...

From analysis to action
The earth has a finite capacity to provide resources and to absorb waste, and human demands already exceed that capacity. (ref MEA) Current lifestyles in the developed world, which people in the developing world also aspire to, rely on depleting natural capital, and are not sustainable (ref Sachs).

Yet weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zone (ref Macy).

There is a wealth of advice available to individuals on how to make small reductions in environmental impact by small, easy steps (ref Gore). But big changes will also be needed to achieve sustainability. This in turn requires a political strategy that tackles underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on, strengthens people's connections with the natural world, and establishes community and political structures to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth (ref WWF). Political change has been cited as a barrier to progress on sustainability, but George Lakoff points out that politics is itself an expression of changing social values: "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." (ref Lakoff). Internationally, and in most developed countries, the political debate has moved from questioning the status of sustainability relative to other political priorities, to accepting the need to take action to improve sustainability. The scale of change needed to bring human consumption back within natural limits is daunting, requiring new cultural norms, social structures and behaviours at all levels and contexts of society (ref Macy).

Final inspiring sentence/s needed...

--Travelplanner (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Not good. That may work as a personal essay on the subject but it reads like a political cultural manifesto. It is totally not encyclopedic. Calling for political aspects such as voting? Making the focus a political thing? Not a good ideas except for a personal essay presentation.

A different more neutral version.. with one new link

Transformation... A sustainable future may involve cultural, socio-political, psychological and behavioural change at all levels and contexts of society.[1] Many groups view the present situation as in need of urgent change.[2] Even so, weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.[3]

The antithesis of sustainability is a disregard for limits, which is the concept of being unable to develop sustainability, resulting in the depletion of natural resources. http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nemetz/jibe.pdf Basic Concepts of Sustainable Development for Business Students —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 April 2009


 * Comments such as "not good" are judgments, thus not often helpful in collaborative editing. I would like to stay with what TP is attempting to do here. Skipsievert's comments seem to be directed towards the fact that TP has incorporated the WWF message rather than quoting it. Skip seems to want to throw it out and tinker with the former wording instead. I would like to hear other views about this.


 * Skip, if you are going to edit this article, we are following a consensus-based approach. Decisions are made on the subpages and then, assuming consensus, transferred to the main article page. If you can operate within this process, you will be welcome. However, your accusations and claims in the past — Archives 18 and 19 of the main talk page (approximately 70Kb worth) — have interfered with other editors who are working on the article. I would like to see you agree to the editing terms for the project stated on the talk page, before you re-commence editing the subpages. As to the article page, we need a stable article before we can submit to FA review. So we are only able to accept edits that are agreed to on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed Sunray, the point is to work these things out on the talk page. Skip your suggestion of "Many groups view the present situation as in need of urgent change." is a helpful one but itself needs more work.  How many groups, and what's the balance vis a vis groups that see no need for urgent change.  What about...


 * "Most national governments have adopted policies recognising the need for urgent change, including Australia and the United States where previous policies which blocked international agreement on climate change have been overturned by governments elected in 2008."--Travelplanner (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC


 * Thanks TP for putting this together: crafting this sort of thing is sheer hard slog. Fusing the list is a good idea as FA discourages lists … and IMO what you have written flows very well. I am happy with “Transformation” … “Transition” is perhaps less confronting (happy with this if people prefer it), but a word like “Revolution” wouldn’t do! IMO our basic challenge is creating a summary that is NPOV. We must bear in mind that, on the one hand, there will be people reading this who will feel that our society is healthily focused on the economic growth that is necessary tackle any (exaggerated) environmental and social issues. This POV will be looking out for irrelevant, unrealistic and disruptive greenie propaganda. On the other hand there will be those who feel that either the whole show is over, or that if we have any chance at all then we need drastic, immediate and profound social change (we have a steady stream of disenchanted editors like this who feel the article needs to be really “hard hitting”). Then again, out of this it seems to me we have a majority who are numb and rather apathetic (with good reason). We must give voice to all these elements … What to do? Some thoughts. Firstly I think that, rightly or wrongly, the environmental movement does not have a high standing at present and so I think it is reasonable for the article to implicitly acknowledge this and to approach sustainability “afresh” through the use of the expression “post-environmentalism” (i.e. keep it in) … it suggests putting away old differences. Perhaps we can take an even more “inclusive” tack by mentioning (as it did in the values list) that business is a key component of the “transition”. I agree with Sunray that this final section under transformation should be understood as a unit examining and synthesizing divergent views. What to do with Bookchin? I agree he is one minority voice but think he represents a strong undercurrent of thought. Perhaps, as I have tried to suggest above, we can quote his view fair and square in combination with that of DE  and contrast it directly with more “mainstream” views. That will confront the reader with the two ?extreme cases. Stating these views clearly and succinctly is surely the nearest we can get to NPOV. The reader no doubt will then question his/her alignment. To summarise this diatribe my suggestion is this:


 * Use what you have written as the basis for the following suggestions


 * keep the current headings (except for deep ecology and social ecology)

(sorry about the length of this post) Granitethighs (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * put deep ecology, social ecology, and Bookchin in the text but use them more as a vehicle (got to get transport systems in somewhere …) for comparing and contrasting various other views – which you have essentially done really well already - including the strand of thought relating to “connection” that Sunray has mentioned above and which is, at present, IMO only hinted at. In other words, just a massage of what you have done to make different points of view more apparent.
 * I am happy with Socio-cultural change

Oh dear I have had a go (see below) but I fear I am making things worse, will take a few days break here and see if miracles occur while I am away (again). --Travelplanner (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was in agreement with TP's original recommendations, above. With respect to SE and DE, she suggested moving those sections to the previous section (she said under "Peace, Security and Social Justice, but I assume they could be anywhere in the Social Concerns section). That made sense to me because we are talking about the human-environment interface. That could be done in a new subsection immediately prior to the transformation section. I really did like our former subheading "post environmentalism."
 * That suggests a completely new paradigm, one that automatically accepts that humans are part of nature and moves on from there. Thinkers like Joanna Macy and Ken Wilber posit such a human evolution beyond the environmentalism/social justice phase. That is beyond the scope of our article, but if SE and DE were moved to the end of the "Social concerns" section, we could have a one-liner referring to "post environmentalism" at the end of that section which could serve as a lead-in to this final section. And at the end of the "Transformation" section, we might bring in the spiritual dimension. I'm thinking about NPOV ways to do that. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking again at this I think it would work very well. We could make these moves and major changes and then discuss the final tweaks needed. Lets do it. Granitethighs (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I love all the new age honky tonk and will try to make a contribution after easter with some heavy metal (a french horn and possibly a flute). Granitethighs (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and made some additions/changes/comments. It's very close. Also note that I've changed my colour to orange as red was clashing with broken links. Haha, the flute, very heavy metal, it'll be interesting to hear the end product. Nick carson (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC) What about Jethro Tull?--Travelplanner (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not consider Ken Wilbur a thinker and that would be a really poor addition on this article to have commentary from him. I would consider him a hack money writer and a third or fourth rate intellectual skip sievert (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think TP was suggesting that his 'thoughts' or words would be potential candidates for this article. Nick carson (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Transformation Transition
The earth has a finite capacity to provide resources and to absorb waste, and human demands already exceed that capacity. Current lifestyles in the developed world, to which many people in the developing world also aspire, rely on depleting natural capital and are unsustainable. The United Nations have stated, in the Millennium Declaration, that "current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed".

Yet weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.

There is a wealth of advice available, from a range of groups and sources, on how individuals can reduce their impact on the environment through small, cheap and easily achievable steps. But reducing transitioning human consumption to within natural sustainable limits will require much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society. [This is hardly disputed and does not warrant a fact tag] But it doesn't hurt to include GT's link here, and it's a good fit

The importance of education for sustainability, to instill "respect for the planet and what it provides to us" has been affirmed by the United Nations Environment Programme and is currently embodied in the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on, strengthens people's connections with the natural world, and establishes community and political structures to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth.

[ Deep ecology bit needed here - which I am not the best person to write How about we go with TP's original suggestion that it be in the previous section of the article (see comments above)? ]

[not sure about this bit] A global lack of political change  will  progression has been cited as a barrier to progress on sustainability, but George Lakoff points out that politics is itself an expression of changing social values: "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." [The George Lakoff quote may be adequate in some instances, but not globally, and it doesn't serve the section well enough to allow nice flow into an exiting sentence. It's education and speedy political progression that are key to the timliness of human sustainability. Anywhere else I'd be quoted there, I'm happy to provide the optimistic exiting sentence once we've resolved this paragraph.]

Final inspiring sentence/s needed...In a recent statement (April 2009) Andrew Simms policy director of N.E.F. stated that 'using thresholds for risk identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on current trends, in only 92 months - less than eight years - we will move into a new, more perilous phase of warming. It will then no longer be "likely" that we can prevent some aspects of runaway climate change. We will begin to lose the climatic conditions which, as Nasa scientist James Hansen points out, were those under which civilisation developed. end quoted material, Policy director of the New Economics Foundation (nef), and author of Ecological Debt: Global Warming and the Wealth of Nations