Until we accept an ecological paradigm as the core principle of sustainability, we will flounder.

Ecology

Ecology is the study of ecosystems. An ecosystem is sort of a community of components. Various "pieces" systematically connected. We normally think in terms of the natural environment, but an atom and a galaxy are both ecosystems. The human body and the human being are both ecosystems, related but not the same.

It's curious that the word ecosystem implies health and sustainability. Perhaps we could discriminate between rich and poor ecosystems, but it's nice to carry that implication of health when we use the term.

Rich ecosystems exhibit a lot of abundance, diversity, resiliency, redundancy and balance. That's why old forests are such a marvel. They're rich. Poor ecosystems are monolithic, temporary and inevitably out of balance.

These days we lack healthy ecosystems, whether we're considering nature, our cities, our families or our communities. Our culture barely allows for the concept. And yet how helpful it could be.

"You're body's ecosystem is challenged by your constant smoking. Your best course is to quit, but at least you chould breathe deeply when not smoking to mitigate the effects."

"Our family's ecosystem sucks. We've been beating on each other and focusing on bullshit instead of seeing how we can work together and manage our deficiencies. And maybe learn how to be happy together."

"The ecosystem of our country is out of balance. We're going to change our focus from one of greed to abundance. We're going to become the world's teacher instead of greedy strong man. War no longer has a place. We're going to initiate new clean technologies to meet our energy needs, and we're going to make sure no child, in this great land of ours, is left without sufficient food, nurturing or education." (This won't be George.)

In poor ecosystems one participant is usually dominant at the expense of other components. In the US for example, ground transportation is monolithic, in that cars dominate the landscape and culture. That causes ripples in how we build neighborhoods and cities. Europe is a bit better at being multi-modal with transportation. We've got to get our thinking, and hence design, on the right track.

The right track is thinking in an ecological context. Our politics and commerce are driven by an economic model with serious flaws. Their victims are legion. Two big ideas need to permeate out thinking to enhance our chances for success. Natural capital and steady-state economics.

Natural capital is the idea that oil, trees, minerals, and other extracted materials have value in their natural state. When we burn that gallon of gas, it's gone. It's fossil fuel. We have to put a value on that knowing it's gone forever. Similarly, we have to integrate the value of a mature, and even virgin, forest. There are plants and animals that may well be lost forever, as evidenced by the current mass distruction of species going on today.

Once natural capital becomes part of the equation, we begin to revalue our throw-away society. We begin to look at secondary and tertiary effects of unsustainable practices. And we begin to rethink how we're doing things.

We also have to consider the effects of production and distribution required for commerce and our cultural health. Our systems have not been designed from an ecological stance. Indeed, that is why World 5.0 is about migrating from an economic to an ecologic model. It's mandatory for a future worth talking about.

Localizing food production and going organic are probably two of the best things we can do to lessen our burden on the planet and enhance our communities. I know that might not sound very "modern," but modern has created quite a mess.

The other key point to an ecological culture is steady-state economics. Our reckless growth, next quarter profits orientation is utterly unhealthy and unsustainable. We wreak havoc on human rights, employment, communities and ecosystems with our current approach.

Steady-state economics dictates that we take a long term approach toward growing a business. Instead of worrying over the next quarter, we look ahead ten or fifty years.

Herman Daly does an excellent job of busting the fallacies the economists of today keep harping on. But just as rain and sunshine are required in moderation, so is growth. It's so obvious and so key it can no longer be ignored.

An ecological context is the only one that offers hope to survive and thrive. Our reliance on a capitalistic model, with the attendant greed, offers little long term benefit. And so it must be replaced.

To go one step further, deep ecology takes the idea of ecology and applies a sacred touch. Its principles include:

1) The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

4) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

6) Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

A Declaration of Interdependence

The right of independence needs to be balanced with the fact of our interdependence. No person is an island, and none of us exist in a vacuum. Hence our "rights of independence" may impact others negatively. American independence wasn't much fun for Native Americans. And a mining company's "right" to blow off mountaintops for coal certainly conflicts with the rights of people living near that mountain.

What happens when independence and interdependence collide? Currently, as in other cultural areas, the powerful win, at least most of the time. Walmart beats local communities almost every time - unless it's an educated, motivated community who won't let local politicians zone for "big box retail," such as recently happened in California.

What we find without exception in these conflicts is that an educated and motivated community is far more effective in balancing needs and risk/reward situations than an impoverished one. The lesson? Teach ourselves to be educated and motivated, and from that build wholesome communities. "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding, our federal government has left people and communities behind long ago, and is not really motivated to address that. For you see, just as an educated and motivated community tend to make quality decisions regarding themselves, an apathetic, prozak-leadened, impoverished community is wide open for further abuse by government and industry.

Now you can't beat that with a stick, from a perspective of health and sustainability. One by one, we'll get there.