I have created a simple, one-question survey so we can all better understand the sustainability mindsets of this group... so we can get an idea of what percentage of this group comes from a scarcity mindset and what percentage comes from an abundance mindset. Here's the link... http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2HJ5hTgNTrTbw2Y6uywkYg_3d_3d
I haven't created a survey like this before, but I think this link will work. Being just one question long, it will be quick for you all to answer. Thanks in advance for participating in this survey!
Steve
Steven G. Brant
Founder and Principal
Trimtab Management Systems
303 Park Avenue South, Suite 1413
New York, NY 10010
(646) 221-1933
Skype: stevengbrant
[email protected]
http://www.trimtabmanagementsystems.com
Surveying Our Group's Sustainability Mindsets
Sign in or Sign up to comment
Well, it doesn't seem like much of a survey to me, it's more of a sermon in favor of your position. Those who disagree with you are "fearful", those who agree with you are "hopeful". If only the universe were so simple!
Bob Waldrop,
Oklahoma City
Hey Steve,
I can't put myself into one of those two categories...
Gael Entrikin
1508 28th St SW
Rochester MN 55902
507 288 3948
This debate (defined oddly and I think mistakenly by Steve Brant as scarcity/fear-based vs. abundance/hope-based) has been going on for as long as I can remember and probably a long time before that. I doubt that it will ever be resolved; so I think we have to agree to disagree and respect each other's perspective. I'm sure that each of us on this listserv, whatever our perspective, is working to create a sustainable future and each of us has a vision, articulated or not, of the kind of world we want for our children and grandchildren that we are working to achieve. I personally believe in the "Limits to Growth" perspective and don't believe that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world, which I think planet earth is. For me the definition of "resources" extends far beyond energy, minerals and other raw materials and includes the earth's ecosystems (agricultural lands, fresh waters, forests, oceans, the atmosphere, etc.), which all the life forms on earth are dependent upon our for our lives and livelihoods. I believe in the concept of carrying capacity and think, as many scientists do, that many of these biological systems that we are all dependent upon are degraded to such an extent that they are collapsing or are on the verge of collapse. The carrying capacity of environmental resource bases around the world have been exceeded and can't support the flora, fauna, and people trying to meet their basic needs from them. This is resulting in the extinction of thousands of species and the creation of millions of ecological refugees around the world, both of which will more than likely increase in the years ahead since habitats are changing rapidly and 80% of the world's people live in coastal areas which will be impacted by rising sea levels due to global warming. I wonder sometimes if people who believe in abundant and limitless resources understand the concept of carrying capacity and realize that we are dependent upon the earth's biological systems which have limits as to how much they can be exploited and degraded before they collapse. I'm a little sceptical of technological fixes (they tend to address symptoms rather than causes) and have never ascribed to the tenet that bigger or newer is better as a matter of course. I'm not suffering because I have a ten year old land-line phone that still works well and don't have a cell phone, I-phone, blackberry, laptop, or any of the other hand-held technological marvels many people can't seem to live without. I think it's unfortunate that a lot of the world's resources (including financial capital and brainpower) are tied up into planned obsolescence and creating new technologies that don't make people's lives better but result in pollution, illnesses, waste, and negative unanticipated consequences. I'm very concerned about what the unanticipated consequences of nanotechnology will be and wish people were taking a precautionary approach with it. That being said, I've tempered my attitude toward technological "progress" and am extremely grateful that someone developed the MRI (an advanced technology over the X-ray and CT scan) that pinpointed a brain tumor that allowed doctors to save my life and grateful to the people who invented the desk-top computer that gives me access to information from around the world. For me the question we need to be asking ourselves is not one centered on hopeful abundance or fearful scarcity. For me a better question is how can 10 billion people and millions of other species live equitably and peacefully on our small planet earth in ways that restore and protect the earth's biological resource bases and allow everyone to meet their basic needs and fulfill their potentials. What paradigms do we need to change and how can we create the political will to make that happen.
Nancy Adams
Hi Bob,
"My position"? "A sermon?" I haven't heard anyone contradict the concept that people who think there's not enough for everyone the way things are currently organized and who argue we need to worry about running out are "fearful". I didn't invent this short hand way of characterizing the emotional aspect of that mindset. I'm just reporting it. Of course, if you'd like to offer an alternative emotion to use, I'd open to hearing it. I'm a representative of a very well established body of thought... developed by people who are hopeful because they know how much humanity is capable of doing.... people like Amory Lovins and Bill McDonough... and Gunter Pauli (from Belgium). I'm not looking for people to agree with "me". I'm asking people to consider an alternative, well-developed world view that seems to be remarkably under-represented in this discussion group. This is not about "me vs. you".... not "Steve Brant vs. Robert Waldrop" (for example). This is about two mental models being debated... one that is past-knowledge focused and one that is future- knowledge focused. By the way, does anyone know how many people are on the Fostering Sustainable Development list? As of the time when I'm writing this, only 9 people have taken the survey. And the response so far is 67 percent "scarcity" / 33 percent "abundance". I'm curious to know how many potential survey takers we are. But getting back to "hope vs fear", Tom Friedman uses the same either / or reality in his book "The World Is Flat". In the final chapter on Imagination, he talks about how the future is going to be a product of either fear-oriented or hope-oriented people. He sees no middle ground, and neither do I. Do you? In fact, I got to ask Tom Friedman about all this, at an event in Washington DC in April of 2006. The economist Joseph Stiglitz and Ted Koppel were the other people on stage at this NY Times sponsored event. Tom, Joe, and Ted spoke for more than 5 minutes about the points I raised in my question.... ultimately getting into the political dimension of this issue. If you'd like, you can watch me ask my question and their response here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MebIll2VDEA
I hope more of you will take the survey!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2HJ5hTgNTrTbw2Y6uywkYg_3d_3d
Steve
Hi Gael,
Okay. Then I'm curious to know how you would describe yourself. Thanks for letting us know what "other category" you are in!
Steve
Dear Steve and Colleagues--
I haven't followed all of what appears to have been a contentious thread. I have looked at the survey and I agree with the camp that feels that it is impossible to generate a "yes or no" answer. It's much to simplistic and I don't quite understand your motivation. It also seems to be wasting band width.
My $.02.
Tom
If you wanted to have a conversation on this subject, you wouldn't use emotionally laden terms like "fearful" to describe those who disagree with you or have a different position. The fact that many others use this term is simply indicative of the low state of public conversation these days. I would hope that this group would have a bit higher level of conversation. The limited participation of group members in your survey suggests that I may not be the only person who feels this way about your rhetoric. Personally, I invest little time and effort in trying to "convert" people to a particular way of thinking. I tend to invest my time and effort in useful activities that contribute to long-term sustainability.
Bob Waldrop, OKC
www.bettertimesinfo.org
www.energyconservationinfo.org
www.oklahomafood.coop
[email protected]
Hi y'all.
I've been following this debate more or less for this past week. My experience online is that when these kinds of discussions dissolve into ad homina and "my argument is prettier than your argument", the mailing lists tend to erode from their purpose and pretty soon dissolve. Lest we desire to catapult ourselves into internet history, we may want to consider how we are communicating our points of view to others? ... Just an unsolicited side-note on an otherwise stimulating discussion. :-)
Far too simple a question for a simple answer, Steve. There is no way on earth that you can interpret the results except by assumption and projection.
Cheers,
Adam