[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Spimes, Bruce Sterling, sustain vs enhance



Judith Rosen wrote:

Judith, Jack,

Re: this...

snip

I was surprised to find that Bruce was a serious environmentalist and
that two-thirds of the way down the article, he brought sustainability
and other environmental concerns into the mix, stating that Steve Jobs
has "neural endocrinal pancreatic cancer" because he has industrial
chemicals inside his body that ought not to be there. Bruce went on to
say that sustainability isn't enough. We can do better:

Wanting to know, wanting to do it, that's half the struggle right
there. Our capacities are tremendous. Eventually, it is within our
technical ability to create factories that clean the air as they work,
cars that give off drinkable water, industry that creates parks
instead of dumps, or even monitoring systems that allow nature to
thrive in our cities, neighborhoods, lawns and homes. An industry that
is not just "sustainable," but enhances the world. The natural world
should be better for our efforts and our ingenuity. It's not too much
to ask.

We need to leap into another way of life. The technical impetus is
here. We are changing, but to what end? The question we must face is:
what do we want? We should want to abandon that which has no future.
We should blow right through mere sustainability. We should desire a
world of enhancement. That is what should come next. We should want to
expand the options of those who will follow us. We don't need more
dead clutter to entomb in landfills. We need more options.



This is great, but I'd like to point at that 1) our technology so far
does not enhance the environment or expand the options of those
who will follow us, in fact it does the opposit, and 2) the
"technology" of natural ecosystems does enhance the environment
and expand the options of future generations - life systems build
soils, biodiversity, beauty and over time even fossil fuels and leaves
these by-products as gifts or legacy to the future. If we want to do
what this guy suggests, I think the role model is life itself (and to a
large degree the ecosystemic organization of it) that creates what
I call a "bounty of the commons". Life does better than sustaining,
but we and our industrial, mechanical and computer culture do
worse than sustaining. On the route to enhancing, sustaining is a
point we will have to traverse through, so it is a useful milestone
and criterion to help steer by.

2cents,

Dan