Trip, Rog, All
Trip, welcome to the site. I discovered the forerunner of this site in
1997 and have been involved in the discussions off and on since then. I
have been involved in the construction industry all my life, educated in
the late 60's as an architect, and have been working in that profession
since the energy crisis of the 70's. For the last 30 years I have been
exposed to and interested in what in the building industry has been
variously called, "alternate energy ", "solar ", "environmental "
design. The most recent label is "sustainable design."
(Note: this type of work is not how I put the turkey on the table)
As an small business owner, that I am actively engaged in capitalism
is a
given. So the emergence of these two issues "sustainablity" and
"capitalism" in your initial postings I find too tempting to pass up.
I checked out the Redefining Progress you suggested. What I find
disconcerting about 'ecological' or 'environmental' sites like these is
threefold.
First most, like this one, paint very bleak pictures which often flies
in the face of common sense. For example if you look at this
site's evaluation of the Ecological Footprint of Nations based on 1996
data we find that if we compare two nations currently in the world
spotlight, the US and Afghanistan, we find that while neither has a
ecologically "sustainable" system the Afghan system appears much closer to
ideal. According to this analysis roughly 28 time better than the US !
Even though in 1996 the Afgans were in the midst of a 20 year long civil
war, had no GNP, were surviving primarily on aid, and most of the
inhabitants had lifestyle which at best resembled the Dark Ages. If
Afganistan represents an "almost" sustainable nation and a majority of
the Western nations needs to move in that direction, is it any wonder we
are not all rushing there? (Except with heavy artillery ;-) )
Second, most eco groups play fast and loose with the numbers. We read
from the top of their the 1996 EF of nations chart.
"all areas are expressed in hectares (or square kilometers) of
bioproductive space with world average productivity"
What this assumes is that all bioproductive space is created equal. And
all farmers, in the broadest sense, given whatever space they have,
produce equally or could produce equally. And the all products,
whatever they are, are all of equal value.
Experience shows that none of these assumptions are currently true and
nor are they ever likely to be. But what this does do is skew the whole
perspective so that, by and large, "Third World" or lesser developed countries
appear to be on a more "sustainable" path than more developed countries.
The position of the majority of the nations in Africa as on a
"sustainable" path should indicate that something is vastly amok with
their data manipulation.
Third, what they suggest as solutions, by and large. either don't
address the problem or may well make them worse. Many agree
that the GNP is a flawed measure. But if we were to switch tommorrow to
the GIP that these people propose nothing would magically change for the
"sustainable" better. In fact it just paints an even bleaker picture.
Because the GIP in all cases is lower that the GNP making the perceived
climb to sustainablity even more drastic, less doable.
But on the home page of the website disguised behind the "market based" adjectives
is the common and preferred "eco" solution to sustainablity . More
taxes, more regulations, MORE government intervention into a "free" &
"efficient" market which they are convinced is neither.
Which leads back around to "capitalism". My experience has been that an
overwhelming majority of the people active in the environmental,
ecological, green, sustainable movements live in and are supported by
capitalistic nations which are front runners the sustainable deficit
column. And live, if they honestly answered there own questionaire,
"non-sustainable" lives. To use the phrase from this site's media
presentation they "talk the talk" BUT DO NOT "walk, the walk" Their
common answer is that it is the "system's" or "the other's" fault. And
the gubment can and should make it all better.
Given this diatribe you might conclude I'm "anti-green". Actually I
agree with Rog when he says,
> I agree we need to shift quickly (50 years or so) to renewable non
> greenhouse-causing energy sources, and that we need to discourage the
> population explosion (currently due primarily to lower death statistics, not
> higher birth btw), that we should shift to renewable resources where
> possible, that we should incent clean practices and disincent pollution, etc
> etc etc. I see these things as very doable with proper focus and care. This
> is Quality. This is one aspect of life that the MOQ can help us to see with
> better clarity.
But after 30 years in the building industry developing the skills to do
just what the sustainable crowd wants; Why is it I find these skills, by
and large, unmarketable?
What I've conclude is that the old capitalistic saw of "creating
markets", at least when talking about the built environment, is by and
large a myth. The building industry is not a "leading indicator" of
social and cultural values, but a "trailing" one. In other words, the
values of a society must change and be very stable prior to significant
changes being manifest in the built environment. The reason for this is
that building ties up a large portion, often the majority, of ones
assets for long periods of time. So the risk of being wrong can have not
only short term but significant long term consequences.
But as Desoto's book highlights, the ability of capitalistic systems to
value, maintain liquidity, and leverage real property assets is one of
the primary keys to the success of Western nations. The downside,
however, is that to do this there must be stable patterns of commonly
agreed upon social and cultural values of what the basic "good" inherent
in these assets are. Buildings, in a word, must become commodities with
qualities and quality commonly agreed upon. Currently the values
espoused by the "sustainable" groups are either not a part of the
agreed upon qualities or so far down on the priority list as to be
inconsequential when asset deployment decisions are made.
Phew, this is getting so long and convoluted I'm not sure what the point was.
Oh yah, the focus of the environmental and sustainable movements on
limiting the food, energy, resource consumption of Western nations won't
get them where they think they want to be. And these "over consumptions"
are not currently, nor will they in the future be, the cause of Third
World poverty or suffering.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST