[SustainableTompkins] "Solidarity, Sustainability, and Religious Violence"

[Joel and Sarah Gagnon]

Thanks for responding, Gay. You make some excellent points. I agree that 
the model implies something entirely different than the text, and your 
additional feedback loops make a lot of sense. I think how these factors 
will play out is pretty unpredictable, but that doesn't make the 
contemplation of the process less worthwhile. It makes it all the more 
necessary, and careful thinking is important. Your additions are not minor 
fixes, but pretty fundamental changes. Did you share them with the author?

Joel

At 01:08 AM 9/9/06 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hello Joel,
>
>I'm just back online, after a week of chasing internet connection
>problems....
>
>Actually, I wasn't trying to say that I thought  " Merely
>managing/containing the violence keeps in place the intensifying spiral 
>of   consumerism."
>When I wrote that, I was trying to summarize/report  what I felt the author's
>system dynamics model was concluding.  And that  was why my next statement 
>was to
>suggest that he needs to refine his model  because I feel that our social
>reality includes efforts toward sustainability,  such as those that our 
>community
>is taking, even in the absence of  radically desperate conditions.  This
>requires the addition of several more  feedback loops to his model, 
>working in
>opposite directions.  On the one  hand, when conditions are in crisis and 
>people
>feel at risk, more people may be  likely to finally take steps toward
>redesigning their lives to cope with a  changing energy environment 
>or  climatic
>conditions.  A  countervailing force is that people may finally become 
>motivated to
>  change only to find that there are fewer resources available for the
>redesign of our infrastructures of living.  Under stable conditions, 
>fewer  people
>feel motivated to make great changes, but those who are making 
>changes  can do
>so with greater financial, social, and natural resources available to  their
>efforts.  I didn't have time to read the article carefully, but  I  wondered
>about his apparent conclusion that sustainability would arise  out of the 
>ashes
>of consumerism.  He seemed to think that a violent  societal collapse 
>would be
>necessary to end the spiral of consumerism, but I  hardly see how that
>results in sustainability rather than chaos, poverty, and  various forms of
>feudalism under warlords.  He probably was not concluding  the above, but 
>his model
>diagram was pointing at that.
>
>Gay
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 9/5/2006 11:11:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>joel.and.sarah.gagnon at lightlink.com writes:
>
>I'd like  to come back to this thread, because I think it is important.
>
>"  Merely  managing/containing the violence keeps in
>place the  intensifying spiral of  consumerism."
>
>Did you really mean that,  Gay? It seems to me that a stable environment is
>a minimum essential for  developing and maintaining any sustainable system.
>While it is true that  stability enables the usual economic relationships, I
>think it is also  true that it enables the alternatives as well. It is hard
>to imagine any  real progress  in an atmosphere of war/conflict or
>revolution.  Investment, both human and economic, is discouraged in such
>environments.  Much of the most intractable misery in the world is so
>difficult to  address precisely because it is associated with social
>instability.
>
>The original article that you referenced was very  interesting. As a
>Christian myself, I found it encouraging that someone  was trying to make
>the case for nonviolence being at the core of  sustainability. The
>fundamental rejection of force as the way to "settle"  differences is at the
>heart of the gospel message, despite the unfortunate  historical efforts to
>accommodate reality by justifying its use. Jesus'  core message is radically
>nonviolent, and he validated it by demonstrating  its application in his own
>life by enduring an unjust and brutal death at  the hands of a imperialistic
>empire. That said, it remains true today that  the Christian community is
>divided on the situations in which force is  justified in response to
>violence and injustice. The author of the article  attempted to posit a
>middle ground where we can agree that if violence is  resorted to, its use
>should be minimized. In doing so, he joins the ranks  of those who (like the
>developers of the "just war" principles) have  labored to make Christianity
>relevant to the realities of a violent world.  I'm not convinced that
>measured responses to violence are manageable,  especially when it comes
>down to war. Once we are into it, the principles  seem to be forgotten in
>the effort to win. Witness the disproportionate  response of Israel to the
>Hezbollah provocation.
>
>I'm glad we had  the posts about keeping these discussions focused on
>sustainability. As  others pointed out, the topic is broader than the nitty
>gritty of energy  efficiency and localization of the  economy.
>
>Joel
> >
> >
> >Yes, I understand your  hesitancy.  I had only looked at the part of  his
> >newsletter  about system dynamics and religious anthropology before  I
> >forwarded
> >this site, because that's my particular  interest.  Later I  scanned over
>more
> >sections and saw that  it was primarily written from a  Christian 
> perspective
> >that is  trying to integrate the new/ancient values of  justice and
> >compassionate
> >community with the emergent paradigm  surrounding  sustainability.  It's an
> >interesting exercise to  see what systems modeling  adds to that 
> effort.  His
> >first  attempt at the modeling seemed to indicate  that we will only be
> >inspired to
> >the "solidarity and sustainability ethos"  when  things dramatically fall
> >apart and violence is  rampant.   Merely  managing/containing the violence
> >keeps in
> >place the intensifying spiral of   consumerism.  I think he needs to refine
> >the model because it  isn't  accounting for activities such as our own 
> at the
> >local  level, where we are  inspired both by concern for what is going on
> >and by
> >the benefits of trying  something new.  I  don't know the author, except
> >through
> >cyberspace and an   earlier global email conference on integrative sciences
>--
> >but I  remember he did  have an interesting blend of a researcher's rigor
>and
> >a humanist's pragmatic  understanding of how people  behave.
> >
> >But your point is a good one.  There always seems  to be someone who is
> >willing to grab power, even through a theme like  solidarity.
> >
> >Gay
> >
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SustainableTompkins mailing list
>SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
>http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
>free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org