Sustainability

1. Sustainability Class 7: Individualization and FulfillmentPOLS 319P. Brian Fisher

2. Last Class and Agenda • Last Class: Fulfillment Discussion • Today: • Fulfillment Survey Results • Individualization and Enviro Movement

3. Fulfillment = Sustainability ?

4. Can $$ buy Happiness (Sci Am) • American families who make over $300,000 a year donate to charity a mere 4% of their incomes. • People who had won between $50k & $1mil (in 1970s dollars) were less impressed by life’s simple pleasures than people who experienced no such windfall. • although wealth may grant us opportunities to purchase many things, it simultaneously impairs our ability to enjoy those things. • Argument: “having money raises our aspirations about the happiness that we expect in our daily lives, and these raised aspirations can be toxic…Unfortunately, raised aspirations don’t only lead us to take things for granted and impair our savoring abilities. They steer us to consume too much, tax the planet's resources, overspend and undersave, go into debt, gamble, live beyond our means, and purchase mortgages that we can’t afford.

7. Happiness/Income (US) 1956-1998

8. How Fulfilled? • How much do you consume beyond basic needs? • 63% > 25% above needs • 30% > 50 % above needs • World will be a better place than for your parents? • 38% Disagree • 29% Agree

9. Top 3: I derived my happiness from…

10. Affluence and Consumption • "Affluence (financial prosperity) leads to greater fulfillment?” (Mixed) • 42% Disagree • 32% Agree • Consumption beyond our needs has created significant ecological damage.” • 84% Agree • 5% Disagree

11. Cross Tab 1: Fulfillment & Meaning High correlation

12. Cross Tab 2: Income and Basic Needs

13. Cross Tab 3: Income & Politics

14. Cross Tab 4: Religion None: 43% Agree Christians: 56-80% Agree No Signif Diff

15. Data Conclusions • Deeper meaning in life is HIGHLY correlated to fulfillment and happiness • Mixed results on affluence and fulfillment  FINANCIAL SECURITY is more meaningful than money or shopping • Consumption is largely blind – it is NOT tethered to BASIC NEEDS. • The key to deeper meaning is RELATIONSHIPS and PURPOSE (could be religious, spiritual, career, etc) • Vast majority recognize that consumption beyond basic needs leads to ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION • Most acknowledge living FAR beyond their basic needs • Political Ideology plays a role in perception of individual daily life and ecological harm; $$ does not. • Religion generates meaning, and could be an important path toward fulfillment and generating ecological awareness • Sustainability??

16. Ways to be happy from $$ • Spend on • activities that help us grow as a person (guitar lessons), strengthen our connections with others (dinners with colleagues, car trips with friends), and contribute to our communities (catering a fundraiser, donating to the needy) • activities and experiences (e.g., rock climbing expeditions, wine tasting family reunions) rather than material possessions • many small pleasures (e.g., regular massages, weekly delivery of fresh flowers) rather than on one big-ticket item (like a new car or flat-screen TV); and • something that we work extremely hard to get and have to wait for (whether it’s a concert, trip, or gadget) and relish the feeling of hard-won accomplishment and anticipation

17. Sustainability = Fulfillment ? • Can we sustain something without fulfillment? Happiness? Think about an individual activity? • If happier people will facilitate sustainability, then what do we need to generate that? • Q is how can we both address sustainability while also generating a more happy community? • Final Q: Is this an activity or paradigm for the individual? Community? State? Global?

18. Individualization

19. The Lorax • The Lorax

20. 3 Massive Historical Changes Social Triumph at a Price: • Economic Growth • Population Growth • Massive Increase in Energy Use (primarily driven by fossil fuels)

21. 3 Marked Results from 20th Century 1. Econ Growth: Exponential increased economic growth & living stnds (because of ↑ pop, ↑ tech) 2. Environmental Harm: Increases in widespread environmental degradation (from burning of fossil fuels for energy consumption & waste) 3. Inequality: Modern expansion, while liberating to many, brought severe inequality

22. Sachs, Common Wealth, pp. 17-31 Economic Convergence: per capita income in poor countries will continue to converge with rich World Economy will be MUCH bigger by 2050 Avg income for developing countries will be ~$40k, which is the avg income for US in 2005, while in US it will be ~$90k. More People, but higher incomes for more people ** Must stabilize population at 8b; then econ growth can be positive if we can manage environmental side effects. Asian Century: Historic shift in the economic gravity of World Urban Century: Continuing urbanizing trends Means that cities have tremendous potential, but also will be sites for major destruction: pollution, disasters, and disease with higher density Poverty Trap: Poorest billion are not achieving econ growth, which is dangerous: Death from starvation Lack basic needs (food, water, nourishment, shelter) Lack political and economic stability Most population growth Most enviro destructive Most potential for conflict Cycle is self reinforcing, not self-correcting  requires global policies and funding 6 Trends that will Shape the 21st Century

23. Sachs, Common Wealth, pp. 17-31 6. Environmental Challenges: Rapid econ growth (in a linear system) means unprecedented enviro destruction; climate change will intensify many of the challenges I = P*A*T (IPAT equation) By 2050: P = increase 40% (1.4 fold increase) A = increase 4 fold P * A = 6 fold increase I (env harm) = 6 times more destruction, if T is constant Technology works both ways: can protect or destroy If world is already unsustainable, what will a 6 fold increase in the destruction do? Based on this equation, two things must happen if we agree A is necessary, reduce P (population) and make technology sustainable Environmental Challenges in the 21st Century

24. Individualization • Solution (The Lorax), planting tree, understands enviro degradation as the product of individual shortcomings (e.g. the Onceler’s greed). • best countered by action that is staunchly individual and typically consumer-based (buy a tree and plant it!) • Perpetuates idea that: consumption, consumerism, power and responsibility can be resolved neatly and cleanly through enlightened, uncoordinated consumer choice. • Education is a critical ingredient in this view • Values don’t always translate into action (Jamieson) • Need Coordination and Connection

25. Maniates “Going Green Isn’t Easy” • Main Pt: Going Green requires serious sacrifice—not easy one-time solutions. • Support: • If we ALL did ALL the one-time suggested solutions, at most, it would SLOW enviro damage • Need fundamental change in agricultural, energy, and transportation systems • Need leadership to do so • “But we cannot permit our leaders to sell us short. To stop at "easy" is to say that the best we can do is accept an uninspired politics of guilt around a parade of uncoordinated individual action.”

26. Consequence • Indiv of responsibility is “narrowing” • It is undermining our capacity to react effectively to environmental threats to human well-being • This indiv of responsibility calls for people to see themselves as consumers first and citizens second • the individually responsible consumer is encouraged to purchase a vast array of “green” or “eco-friendly” products on the promise that the more such products are purchased and consumed, the healthier the planet’s ecological processes will become. “Living lightly on the planet” and “reducing your environmental impact” becomes, paradoxically, a consumer-product growth industry (p34) • Must be reversed  citizens engaged in participatory democracy