Recently in sustainability Category

Displacement

| Write Comment | No TrackBacks

The Environmental Justice Foundation estimates that by 2050, 150 million people will have lost their homes as a direct result of climate change, from drought, flooding, desertification, rising sea levels and extreme weather events. How many millions more will become political or economic refugees because of indirect effects—social instability and unsustainable agriculture, military incursions, ethnic and tribal conflicts that arise in conditions of stress and scarcity, among other factors—is difficult to assess. (Not to mention any of the other mundane, ongoing causes of forced migration.[1]) How will the rest of the planet absorb these people?

Since the beginning of industrial development, rural villagers have crowded into cities—sometimes voluntarily, but often as a result of combined environmental, economic and political pressures (in some cases abetted by dubious advertising, sleazy promoters suggesting wonderful opportunities). Not that rural poverty is the best possible life, but concentrating 70 percent of the world’s population in increasingly uninhabitable cities is clearly not the best alternative.

 

At Tule Lake

“The Modocs’ grief was for a whole relationship to the natural world and to a specific place, for their culture and community, while the grief of those who produced and profited from their loss was purely personal.”[2] In this statement, Rebecca Solnit describes both parties to an indigenous displacement in terms of grief—the military conquerors who forced the Modocs from their ancestral homeland (in 1873) suffered both private losses and their own ancient inheritance of exile, a separation from place and connection to land that in some ways enabled—or at least coincided with—European technological advances and colonizing impulses. The trauma of their early, mostly forgotten, displacements survived as the willing suspension of empathy that fueled the engine of conquest.

The Modocs were driven from the land of their birth, the center of the world where they had always lived, the place that had nourished and supported them from the beginnings of time. The place was the heart of their culture and the basis of meaning in their universe. To be pushed even a few miles away was irreconcilable. A complete rupture. Recovering that land someday could, perhaps, repair some of the damage, but so much specific knowledge is lost when this sort of intimacy with a place is destroyed that it seems unlikely ever to be fully restored.

The deepest loss is of that intimacy, which is the core of indigenous experience in a place, of a place. Even if old stories are remembered, even if the language survives (or is revived), without the deep everyday experience of the specific subject of the stories, there’s a degree of understanding that is simply unavailable. Who knows how many dozens or hundreds of generations it takes to develop?

And yet, change is inevitable, and developing strategies of engagement, of honestly learning to meet a place, seems preferable to simply lamenting its demise.




[1] “The number of people forcibly uprooted by conflict and persecution worldwide stood at 42 million at the end of last year amid a sharp slowdown in repatriation and more prolonged conflicts resulting in protracted displacement. The total includes 16 million refugees and asylum seekers and 26 million internally displaced people uprooted within their own countries.” UNHCR press release, 6/16/09.

[2] Rebecca Solnit, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West, pp. 116-117.

When the so-called swine flu threatened Egypt (land of the Pharaohs), the government decreed that all pigs would be destroyed. Of course there was no epidemiological basis for this. It was really just a convenient ploy for further marginalizing an already degraded group of tribal Coptic Christians living in the mountains above Cairo.

It turns out these pig-herders, known as zabaleen (“garbage collectors”), are the recyclers of Cairo—perhaps the noisiest city on earth, now also one of the most putrid. Many of the zabaleen are descendents of poor farmers, displaced from their land for a combination of environmental and political factors, who came to Cairo in the 1950s. They turned to garbage collection because Muslims consider it unclean. By hand-sorting, the zabaleen have successfully recycled up to 85 percent of the garbage they collect.[1] Until recently, the organic waste was fed to their pigs.

But without their pigs to feed, the zabaleen don’t have much incentive to remove food waste from the ubiquitous street-corner piles of it. Without a functioning alternative strategy, the food waste rots in the streets.[2] There seems to be a lot of it.

Everybody loses: the pigs are dead, the zabaleen deprived of a crucial part of their livelihood, the streets of Cairo stink. Of course there’s no impact on the spread of H1N1 or any other infectious disease, except perhaps to worsen conditions that increase their impact and spread them further—so perhaps there is a winner after all, if you consider the pathogens. With respect to the delicate and severely stressed ecology of a human settlement such as Cairo, it seems all of this demands a more rational sort of attention.



[1] “From Cairo's trash, a model of recycling,” Jack Epstein, SF Chronicle, 6/3/06.

[2] “Garbage piles up in Cairo after swine-flu pig slaughter,” Michael Slackman, NY Times, 9/19/09.

An article in the NY Times about builder Dan Phillips ("One Man's Trash ...") cuts to one of the core issues of green architecture and sustainability: if we can't afford it, it won't be sustainable. Isn't this obvious? So in the midst of all sorts of companies producing and marketing innovative products that might even be useful, here's someone using salvaged materials for practically every aspect of the houses he builds. Beyond that, he will only work for people who work on the houses themselves--the sort of investment that keeps people connected to their places, and perhaps provides an experience of the place with an inkling of the sacred. (Here's a direct link to his website The Phoenix Commotion.)

Reuse of building materials has a venerable history. For many centuries, Sardinian builders have appropriated stones from the Neolithic nuraghe structures that dot the countryside. The boomtowns of San Francisco, Sacramento, Benecia and assorted other Gold Rush settlements began with dismantled ships that more often than not had simply been abandoned on arrival. In many parts of the world, the process is simply a given: you use what's accessible. Beyond convenience, it's a matter of necessity. But even where it's not an economic or logistical necessity, at a certain point, it's also a matter of integrity, to use what's at hand instead of generating so much waste.

Let's not forget Gandhi and Laurie Baker. Among Gandhi's dictums was the suggestion to only use materials found within a five-mile radius. (Compare that with the LEED criteria for "local sources"--their certification process recognizes a 500-mile radius as close enough. Of course, we're talking about vastly different infrastructures between India of the mid-1900s and, say, California in the early 2000s. But still, is Winnemucca, Nevada, reasonably local to San Francisco?) The British-born architect Laurie Baker accepted an invitation from Gandhi in the mid-1940s and spent the rest of his life in India designing and building structures that emphasized simplicity, beauty, affordability, appropriateness to local conditions and use of salvaged and local (in Gandhi's sense) materials. He left a legacy of devotion to Right Livelihood that deserves serious consideration.
Right livelihood

As a practice and as an attitude, sustainability can be considered a rough translation of certain quietist tendencies that have always run parallel to the noisier pursuits of most times and places. Simply stated, these perspectives give primary status to nature (while perhaps recognizing that humans are not separate from nature) and secondary status to the ambitions of kings and conquerors, considering the latter to be (full of) so much ... wind. Nature is the source of virtue and beauty, though it may be rough or rustic. Dense aggregations of humans are the source of corruption, pollution, degradation. And yet somehow the festering population centers continue to seduce with their questionable enticements, dominating the argument through sheer bluster. The rejectionist/renunciate factions may generate a sizable following in their own time or afterward, but so far have rarely been able to tip the balance.

These rejectionists see the sloppy excesses of civilization as the basis of an eventual (some say imminent) collapse--the empire overextends itself, the resources cannot meet the demand, habitats are destroyed, living beings can't adapt--and voluntarily submit to material deprivation (more or less) as a modest corrective, as an example, or simply to remove themselves from the filth. Perhaps it's an effective pressure-release for the culture as a whole. Perhaps no more than a personal escape. Either way, it originates in a perception of scarcity--there's not enough food to go around, a situation that will only get worse--but also out of empathy, which shouldn't be dismissed as a motive. 

The Taoists are famous for "non-action"--which doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do anything. More accurately, non-action recommends studying the patterns of nature and acting appropriately according to the conditions of each changing moment, as if you were nature. Buddhists will say "yes, you are nature, but don't be selfish"--in other words, dhamma (nature, law of nature, practice according to the law of nature) gives us the opportunity and obligation to train in a way that relieves the suffering of all beings.

A utopian aspiration to be sure, but nothing really foreign to any sensible child. Without empathy for the suffering of others, humans would never have developed viable groups. In fact, animals of any sort wouldn't bother protecting their offspring. Empathy is the basis of social morality: the Golden Rule, the Hippocratic Oath, the Bodhisattva Vow. If something is distasteful to you, don't impose it on someone else. First do no harm. May I attain wakefulness (consciousness, understanding) for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Ethics is a Branch of Aesthetics

When we talk about ecological sustainability, we're saying exactly this: we want a healthy world, a living planet of interconnected, alive places, populated by beings who are able to at least discover ways to not destroy ourselves, each other or our home. Crucial in this is the health and happiness of the inhabitants, who otherwise, when subjected to misery of any flavor, tend to neglect anything but the most immediate demands of survival. 

When we see or hear something that bothers us, it bothers us for a couple of intertwined reasons: 1. we can relate, 2. it's ugly. 

Pollution is ugly. Torture is ugly. Pain and misery are ugly. I don't mean this lightly, as if calling something ugly diminishes the tragic reality of any of these things. To put it another way: toxic sludge tastes bad. It smells bad. It makes us ill. We want it gone. Not only that, but if we hear about it oozing out in someone else's kitchen, we might experience empathic revulsion. We might want to avoid complicity in its occurrence. We might be inspired to help clean it up, even if (or perhaps particularly if) we bear no direct personal responsibility for the mess. (Psychopaths and autists lack empathy, so might not be bothered in the usual way, but if we can avoid putting such persons in positions of power we'll at least have a hope of reducing the stink.)


About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the sustainability category.

sacred space is the previous category.

wilderness is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID