Robert Riddell
catch21@ihug.co.nz

INTRODUCTION

FUTURE PROOFING

This writing brings ‘sustainability’ the ideal, and ‘adaptation’ the action, together.

The environmental change that is upon us arises from a chilling gradualism; ppm-by-ppm (parts per million) carbon gas increase, degree-by-degree temperature increase, centimetre-by-centimetre ice melt, sea level rise millimetre-by-millimetre. These erosions and accretions are now undeniable, the new normal. Melted permafrost will not refreeze, savannah extensions will not reforest, sea level rises will not recede, exterminated species will not re-evolve, and displaced populations will not repatriate. We have seen this coming and have a fairly clear idea where it is all going.
 
Within the remainder of this century cumulative degradation of the biosphere will be of such magnitude, and become a matter of such immediacy, that adaptation will shift from a premise to a fact. This situates humankind ‘between a rock and a hard place’. That is the ‘rock’ horror of consumption and discard laying waste to our living space, and the ‘hard place’ sacrifices associated with sustaining a liveable future.
What is essentially a social challenge comes down to slowing, arresting and reversing the violation of our biosphere. It is a course of action worthy of, but currently beyond, our collective intelligence. What it calls for is a move from hedonism to contentment, from exploitation to conservation, from self-interest to common good, from outside dependency to local sufficiency; ‘less’ working through eventually as ‘more’. The difficulty with these truisms is that most of us, myself included, doubt whether such ‘aspirational’ recommendations can be effective while the counter-intuitive workings of market fundamentalism and print money supply prevail.
 
Because this process is at an early stage of overload and misunder-standing it is not rational to expect a fulsome uptake of the soft-pathway advocacy any time soon. But, eventually, humanly driven biospheric change will induce severe systemic shock. At that future date societies and communities will hopefully, surely, look for ways to adapt.

The surround-objective is to assist people with a wrong-right conscience to better comprehend the limits of biospheric resilience and the function of adaptation; and to tender a roadmap (in Part B) for those who seek furtherance of a sustainable culture as our children’s legitimate inheritance.

The story of damage to the biosphere over the last century identifies the enemy. It is us, and those we entrust with political power. Thereby, the logical way to work out what is wrong with the environment is to first work out what is wrong with our institutions and ourselves. We can start with the ideology of growth, the culpability that fosters consumer profligacy and induces apathy around waste discard. What is now apparent is that print money and faux credit feeds the torpor that produces the waste that is killing the environment.

Humanly driven biospheric change induces ‘future shock’ and at some point — again, within the remainder of this century — this will manifest as a massive global shift in environmental stasis, jolting humanity away from descending deeper and deeper into dystopia.

IN TERMS OF MORAL INTEGRITY (CONSCIENTIOUSNESS):Deliver to the ideal of habitable wholesomeness, economic stability, responsible ‘green consensus’ politics, socially sensitive fertility equilibrium, and compassionate environmental justice. Not only for ourselves. Mainly for our children’s children.

IN TERMS OF MORAL ACTION (COMMONSENSE):Adapt to a socially-proactive, institutionally prescriptive and baseline-pragmatic resource management advisory. Put an end to made-up money; embed fiscal stability. Sensitively edge fertility rates below death rates. Eke fossil carbons out of the ground slowly, use them efficiently, tax them heavily, and punish their misuse mightily. Obtain bulk energy supplies from free-flow sources. Curtail nitrogen fixing. Extend permanent forest cover. Avoid, reduce and recycle waste.

CONTENTS