Category: Blog

Posted on

CSF101 Defining sustainability and sustainable development (session 4)

CSF101 (session 1) – the inspiring challenge.
CSF101 (session 2) – understanding systems.
CSF101 (session 3) – how the earth works.

OK. I’m on the home run with session 4. We are thinking about defining sustainability again, and Steven Henry in his opening video says part of the problem is we’ve put man at the centre of the problem. In reality, nature is at the centre of the problem and we are a component of that. Steve’s most important message to me is that this is where we’ve gone wrong by putting ourselves and our needs first, rather than thinking of ourselves as part of the system.

For me sustainability means?

We think about it in terms of achieving one big shiney goal. What we need to do is think about the sustainability of all the component parts, that then as a whole, can offer something of a viable future. I guess that is how the body works. Some body systems might be healthier than others – I wouldn’t want to vouch for my liver these days. But the sum of the parts, is still something that is overall healthy. I’ve a hernia and diverticulitis, but the systems are acting all around to create health. I’ve suggested this with sustaining open educational resources – bung them out on at least two platforms at a time, and when one dies, you can repopulate from the other.

Steve Henry Sustainability Models

Steve suggests the most realistically accepted model is that on the right. Financial decisions drive all of our considerations. I think this absolutely must be part of the challenge – now that sustainability has become a business, approaches will be guided by those with a vested interest, and wrong choices might be being made by those clearly in for making a profit. Perhaps this is the sacrifice if we want to be making big changes, but are we really making big enough changes?

A bit like open educational resources (OER) again. Nobody wants to pay for them, but if we all share the cost, then that is almost negligible. If we share our knowledge and outputs of our teaching as ‘part of what we do’, then that five minutes a week is negligible. The same with sustainability. As a society we all need to know what to do to ‘do our bit’. I hate sorting out the rubbish each week into elaborate piles for recycling. It couldn’t be more confusing. But if this is making a difference then it is essential.

Henry Sustainability Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do we just accept this model?

Dr Robert (Founder of the Natural Step) talks about the ‘triple bottom line’ – that is, social, ecological and financial basis. The economics drives the approach, and is the means for everything else. The solutions are about the design of products and services.

What do I think?

I have worked in a global blue-chip company. If we think businesses and business people will ALL share the same ethical values for the good of society and ecology, then I we will be very much disappointed. There are a number of genuinely ethical companies out there, but how can the economic goals place nature and society as a priority above profit? It won’t happen. Are pharmaceutical companies really concerned about curing disease? Are food manufacturers really concerned about our health? I’m not talking about individuals in those companies who will be highly motivated toward the common good, but the overall business objectives will be to make money.

What is missing from the models above is an ethical or moral component. I also think tackling sustainability through business will never be big enough. We need each and every person on the planet to champion the cause.

Meeting basic human needs and building communities

Manfred Max-Neef, Antonio Elizalde and Martin Hopenhayn have listed 9 basic human needs to survive and to integrate as a society: things like food/water, freedom, culture and education is in there. I do think though that some people are driven by the very need to make money, or to achieve positions of power. For the model to work, we’d have to integrate this also. More can be found on Wikipedia – fundamental human needs. The glue that sticks individuals together is the need for trust, that is how we form friendships, groups, communities and society.

Definitions and frameworks

The Brundtland Commission, dissolved in 1987 and defined sustainable development in their report of that same year:

Sustainable development is the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

(Our Common Future, Report 1987).

Karl-Henrik Robèrt, an oncologist, took up the reigns around that time and thought about the components / stuff that were unsustainable in society:

  1. substances extracted from the Earth’s crust
  2. substances produced by society
  3. degradation by physical means
  4. in that society, people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their needs

These can be applied to any situation to formulate a sustainability plan, so for education, well, let’s have a go.

  1. eliminate the use of precious resources – e.g. teaching materials that are not share, or work discarded from people who retire (paper / electronic = trees / chemicals); time wasted by not sharing (staff productivity = energy and natural resources).
  2. eliminate the build up of toxic substances – e.g. imagine the scale of schools / education institutions around the world and the waste therein; laboratory waste material; physical materials from arts classes; discarded old computers and technology; discarded old furniture and materials.
  3. degradation of local environments by campus building.
  4. meet the basic needs – including a right and access to education.

There is much work to be done there. That is the topic for future research, workshops and brainstorms. I can’t possibly paint such an intricate picture on my own. I do like Robèrt’s model though, that works for me.

Working toward a summary of my learning on this course.

This course has been fantastic. I can’t recall being so gripped by something – and yes, the time commitment is quite significant. I’ve only given things a superficial and quick think over, but there is so much work to be done here. One of the final questions asks us to think about trends:

  1. Analyse trends, issues and opportunities that will influence future activity and generations in a chosen sector.

I suppose for education, there might be winners and losers here:

  1. Globally, education is expanding – so this will bring the need to address all of the points above, reducing the use of precious resources and minimising waste and the environmental impact.
  2. Growth of online learning – that must be a winner, reducing the need to physically travel to campuses and institutions, but there is again an energy cost, and impact on natural resources required to build our digital capability.
  3. In the UK, certainly growth in numbers of education providers and move to bring new private providers into the market. Business and profits might not mean thinking about sustainability here.
  4. As time goes on, the repeat production of learning materials / resources / lecture slides becomes incalculable.

OH NO. AND THAT IS THE END OF THE COURSE.

 

Posted on

CSF101 How the earth works (session 3)

CSF101 (session 1) – the inspiring challenge.
CSF101 (session 2) – understanding systems.

In this session (session 3) we consider the relationship between man and the planet. This is an awesome video that provokes us to think about the impact mankind has had on Earth.

(https://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU)

I have no doubt that we hold a major responsibility for the health of our planet, and that we have been abusing, deforesting and polluting it for centuries. I’m just not entirely convinced that within the last decade man has been responsible for the directional and causal relationship between the changes in weather etc that we now see. That seems a tad arrogant to me, that man can be so mighty as to change mother nature itself. I also think that thinking in this diverts funding and activity from the really important issues – like deforestation. Remove the lungs of the world, and it is hardly surprising that CO2 levels will rise.

When I was growing up there were two very harsh winters in the UK. That was good for my family because my dad was a coal merchant! The talk at the time was about entering the next ice age. I don’t quite understand how within 40 years the scientific community could entirely change its opinion regarding the climate.

So overall I think, some of the arguments don’t stack up for me, but that shouldn’t dissuade us from our responsibility.

The video is amazing and thought provoking:

  • Microbes were the first organisms to utilise the resources on the planets, harnessing the energy from the sun, growing, and aggregating the carbon sources.
  • There is always the same quantity of water on earth. It is staggering to think of the millennia of recycling that has gone on. We are drinking water that dinosaurs must have drunk.
  • In nature, sharing is everything.
  • 70% of the oxygen comes from the algae within the oceans. Isn’t that a solution? We can’t quickly replace rain forests, but we can grow algae?
  • The earth counts time in billions of years – it took 4 billion years to make trees. That confuses me even more when we think of the last decade and I am concerned that we are not thinking in a broad enough context or time frame.
  • The trees are the vital lifeline – water, vegetable, mineral and matter. The formation of soil. So is that not part of a solution also? And further proof of how awesome trees are.

What do we know about the bonds that link the species on earth? I agree that the earth is a miracle and a mystery. I’m worried that placing the future of it in the hands of politicians, corrupted by money and their own interests, is not going to create a healthy abundant planet for future generations.

So how is current human activity changing the organisation and location of chemicals (and life) on the planet?

As noted above, I’m a little concerned that we are looking within the wrong timeframe. We can learn from physiology again. We are now all familiar with the signs and symptoms of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. So here are some questions.

  1. Where do you think in the body that these diseases originate?
  2. If someone develops the disorder, do you think the disease process started within the previous month, year, or twenty years?
  3. What would be a single biological marker you might measure to diagnose these diseases?

What we know increasingly from scientific research – populations studies, animal studies that provide clues to mechanisms, and human clinical studies, is that these are problems that build up over a long time frame. As with heart disease or blocked arteries, these processes can begin in early life but manifest much later.

Science also tells us quite clearly now that these are end-stage manifestations of processes that start in other areas of the body. The links between gut dysfunction and brain dysfunction almost appear in the scientific journals on a daily basis, and even more fascinating is the role that our body bacteria may play in these processes. We are more bacteria than human after all! But see how easy it has been for science to look in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

And what about science focused on looking for a single biological marker? We now hear how people are studying the eye, looking at our sense of smell as early indicators of neurological disorders? It is a lot more complicated than we thought.

So what about the planet?

Again, I know I am a little sceptical of the politicians and decision makers with regards to solving our planet’s problems. I know how research funding, politically decided, can direct researchers off in set directions. Medical research works in the same way. We have to work out the impact that our research will have before we have conducted any studies these days. That should in theory be impossible. We need funding that is allocated in an unbiased manner, and that shouldn’t be linked to vested interests and career progressions for those conducting it.

I do hope that to understand our natural ecosystems and its relationships with mankind, we are looking holistically, and at wider time scales. What can we learn from more controlled events such as the industrial revolution, or World War I and II? Levels of pollution you might assume to peak during these times, so what was the impact? What about volcanic eruptions? That must have a devastating effect on the atmosphere and cause clouds that disrupts access to the sun’s energy.

The earth is an open and closed system

The session today really makes you think how there is a finite amount of water, amount of chemicals and amount of energy. Everything needs to be in balance – homeostasis – otherwise things go wrong, get destroyed or die. It is like a balloon dog – if you wanted a poodle but squeeze in the wrong place you’ll end up with a dachshund. (OK wiener dog if you are in the US). With a  wrong squeeze, we could redistribute valuable earth resources to the wrong place.

Balloon Dog Magenta

Image by F Delventhal, Flickr, CC By 2.0.

So ultimately for the planet we want the eternal conversion of stuff into more useful stuff. We don’t want it stuck as un-useful stuff. Resources that end up on the scrap heap. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere that isn’t recycled back to our trees, plants and algae. So it is important that we understand our natural biological processes – photosynthesis, and also our geological processes.

Might we be moving to a new epoch?

The course asks us to read this article in the Independent news paper – Anthropocene-we-might-be-about-to-move-from-the-holocene-to-a-new-epoch?

I guess that makes me nervous, because all other epochs have come to an end, and so might this one? Also I’m not sure about the definition of anthropocene , first coined in the 1960s, which focuses on human activities but not our inactivities. The definition doesn’t mobilise us into action. Again it seems a tad arrogant to me that in the billenia of our wonderful planets existence, mankind should take its place on the timeline of geological epochs. It also troubles me slightly that of the working group of 13 mentioned in the article, there were two women and a distinct lack of diversity. But if having a new epoch focuses humans and lifts them from their level of inactivity, that must be a really good thing.

Session tasks – considering how humans have effected natural ecosystems?

  • Lack of recycling of energy
  • Lack of recycling of water and chemicals back into the system
  • Disruption of the valuable ecosystems (woodlands in particular) that maintain our planetary homeostasis
  • Building and urbanisation that disrupts the natural flow of water
  • Lots of other physical disruptions
  • The never-heard of impact of nuclear testing that must surely cause massive disruption of the earth?
  • Lack of social cohesion and shared goals for the planet
  • Political corruption and vested interests
  • Inequality in the distribution of global wealth
  • Research narrow-mindedness and bias

WOW! I’ve got to link this all back to my quest of understanding EDUCATION in a more sustainable context? I guess this session has made me think about the OUTPUTS or STUFF that is ultimately valuable and is needed to be sustained. It has also made me see the difficulties in good quality / fair / unbiased / open EVALUATION and assimilation of knowledge surrounding these issues. It has made me think about the impossible POLITICAL challenge at any level, whether governmental or within an institution or group of people, that it is necessary to influence to provoke change.

Meanwhile, let’s have another balloon dog.

Balloon Dog

Image by Andy Wright, Balloon Dog, Flickr, CC BY 2.0.