Hello Readers,
In this final post of the series, I will draw some
(In)Conclusions about the need for an Institution of
Global Sustainability based on the discussions and explanations from earlier in the series. (If you are starting with this post, I recommend that you scroll to the bottom and click the link to go back to the beginning.)
If (as we have discussed) the answer to more people in an increasingly denser modern society was to build Economy upon Government upon Religion upon Family, what is the answer to the problems caused by all of these compound disconnections that allow our global society to not-fail and even succeed? How do we deal with all of the complications from these disconnections that are engineered to prevent us from killing each other (without losing our basic democratic freedoms)? How do we take it a step further to avoid the indirect, unintentional ways of killing each other (e.g. pollution, waste, and climate change)?
Will it be sufficient to modify our current Institutions, such as early society did by encouraging inter-marriage as a means of extending the Family? Or do we instead need one or more additional Institutions to evolve or be created?
For example, many attempts have already been made to utilize bodies such as the United Nations (an extended form of Government) and concepts such as Renewable Energy Credits (an extended form of Economy) to address pressing issues of Global Sustainability. However, in most of these cases the impacts seem to be smaller and the response times seem to be slower than what may actually be required to allow society to survive with an acceptable level of comfort and quality of life.
Thus, it may be necessary, or at least advantageous, to create an entirely new Institution and/or develop an Institution out of a current institution (e.g. one based on some aspect of the internet). Along this line of thought, it has already been suggested that crowd-sourced Video Games may even be an excellent tool for solving critical survival issues.
Consider the example of:
Fold It, an online video game that allows players to help medical researchers determine possible amino-acid configurations in order to develop cures and study diseases. Conceivably, Video Games could also be used to develop solutions to issues of global sustainability. Admittedly, it is tough to conceive of a way in which online, crowd-sourced video games could meet the full definition of an Institution (let alone become more dominant than our current Institutions). It just helps to illustrate the type of innovation or creativity that may be required in order to develop an entirely new Institution.
On the other hand, it may also be advantageous to look to older institutions that have simply never been predominant in society. While I was thinking about what to include in my (In)Conclusion post, I got into a discussion about the validity of whether some version of the internet could really ever stand alone as a global Institution.
During the discussion, it was pointed out to me that one of the major impediments to the internet as an Institution (at least today) is the limits of internet access. In particular, that many poorer nations (and indeed many poorer citizens in wealthy nations) have limited access to the internet, which made its utility as an Institution potentially a source of class division. That is not to say that other Institutions are not; however, insofar as I am trying to develop an effective Institution, let us try to conceive of an ideal one.
After thinking about the limits of internet access, I decided that perhaps the internet alone would not be sufficient (or would encourage a sci-fi horror scenario where everyone is trying to become evermore connected to the internet as a means of becoming more powerful). Instead, I thought about what the internet really accomplishes. It allows everyone that has access to share information (both as learners and teachers), and it allows for that same information to be collected and saved for later. What else has done this through history? Books were my first thought. Libraries were my second.
Of course, the modern day public library is perhaps not the perfect model, but let us expand the concept a bit beyond just 'that place that stores books for free.' Let us think about what it could be - and to a certain extent what it may have been at certain times in the past. As you may have noticed, many modern libraries are already making an effort (as funding permits) to offer internet and computer access, but what could they also offer? A place to meet and discuss ideas? This does already happen in some university library study rooms. Why not make it a primary function of the library? Replace the classic "shhh... this is a library" mentality with a "speak up!" mentality.
Additionally, what would happen if libraries started storing more than just books and information? It seems very conceivable that public libraries could become repositories of tools as well.
There is a fairly ubiquitous example in sustainability academic circles about the life cycle of an electric drill. Many (if not most) households at one point or another require the use of an electric drill, so at some point someone in the house goes out to buy one. The electric drill gets used to put the bed frame together or fix the door hinge or whatever, but then it sits idly by in a closet or tool box for years. In fact, most such domestic power tools only get used for less than an hour before being thrown away or replaced. (Someone please remind me of the source of this.)
What would happen if libraries started checking out power tools or offering commercial-grade kitchen space for home bakers? Could a library designed to share stuff as well as information become a model Institution - a Library?
Despite all of my musings, there is another possibility, other than adding a new Institution. It is entirely possible that (now that society is 'all grown up' and reaching a global scale) we need to reconsider the purpose and utility of Institutions. To a certain extent, Institutions function largely in a Darwinian capacity, i.e. societies that did not develop sufficient Institutions were gobbled up or overrun by those that did. However, as individual societies now merge and clash with truly global impacts, it may be necessary to put aside this survival of the fittest mentality - to realize that pure competition may be more detrimental than useful. Should we instead try to reconnect some of the society-saving disconnections? Or would that in itself precipitate the collapse of society?
I will give one final example, the concept raised by the
Transition Town movement. The transition ideal is to make towns and local communities more self-reliant and resilient. It is not to ignore the fact that the rest of the world exists (not to encourage the town to act as a hermit), but to be prepared to function as if it did not. In transition towns, the local population ideally would be able to grow enough food to support itself and maintain a local infrastructure and economy that would allow the town to survive without global inputs. In this way, the ideal transition town would not need to compete per se with surrounding towns in order to exist or prosper - hence reducing the likelihood and severity of conflicts and thereby lessening the Institutional burden of society. Thus, the Transition Town movement is perhaps best represented by the mantra, "Think globally, act locally."
As I suggested in the Introduction, I do not have a single, correct solution to offer. However, I hope that, in this series on
Global Sustainability, I have been able to re-pose or re-frame questions of sustainability in a way that allows myself and others to re-conceive not only the issues but also the potential solutions.
Cheers,
Sean
Table of Contents for the
Global Sustainability series:
- Introduction
- Societal Survival
- Institutionality
- Democratic Necessity
- Economic Disconnect
- (In)Conclusion <-- you are here
