In futures thinking there is an increasing level of conversation around sustainability, and the concepts that surround it.Β It’s worth a closer look, and with this in mind I asked Tim Nichols to weigh in with his view. Tim came recommended by a colleague and as a recent graduate, brings a fresh and informed perspective (in June 2008, he completed a Masters in Strategic Sustainable Development at the Blekinge Institute of Technology in Karlskrona, Sweden).Β Here’s Tim’s view:
What is meant by sustainability? For many people who work to promote the idea, the essence of the concept is centred on cultivating long-term thinking. The goal is to get people to be thinking about the repercussions of the actions beyond their lives. In essence, think about your grandchildren.
This seems easy enough, but it actually goes against human nature. We thrive on immediate satisfaction; feed me when Iβm hungry, sleep when Iβm tired, etc. And we have ingrained this methodology for life into the fabric of existence, with everything at our disposal and disposable. The βtake, make, wasteβ mantra of our culture has put us on a speeding train into an unknown abyss. And currently, actions to try to stop the train has had been the equivalent of throwing marshmallows on the tracks, soft, easy to swallow but doing nothing.
Fortunately, sustainability was the buzzword of 2008, so the seeds have been sown. And it is unlikely that the core targets of sustainability: degradation of the environment, pollution from heavy metals and toxic chemicals, and the destruction of humans ability to meet their basic needs, will not be as easily altered as changing buzzwords. The current economic atmosphere offers the perfect opportunity for society to call on business and government to come together to form a model that has a more long-term view.
Without risking being called an alarmist, or underestimating the brilliantly resilient nature of humans, it seems we have been given another, possibly last, chance. With a plethora of scientists claiming that we are pushing the ecological thresholds of multiple natural systems, as well as the ever-increasing population surviving on constantly decreasing natural resources, thereβs no time like the present.
Sustainable Futures covers an area too wide to fully define. However, it will require the collaboration of business and NGO, Government and 3rd Sector, communities and business, and on and on to ensure full participation. These groups must come together to establish where sustainability needs to be, and understand where itβs at now. They can then develop a plan to move from where they are to where they want to go, always with that clear, collaboratively formed vision of a sustainable future.
Timothy J. Nichols is an independent Sustainability Strategist for the public, private, and third sector. Current partners include Energizer Batteries, Clarks Shoes, Student Partnership Worldwide and the Brixton Pound, a local community currency to be launched in September 2009. The Brixton Pound is part of a greater movement called Transition Town which seeks to engage communities on how they can move towards becoming low-carbon communities. Tim is also affiliated with The Hub, a worldwide organization which provides a space for entrepreneurs focusing on social and sustainable projects.Β In addition to sustainability, Tim is passionate about writing, biking and beer.
Great post, and great site. the multi-sector partnerships are so important, I think, but also often difficult to create. We need new ways of thinking and interacting to help us take a systemic view, and figure out how to better work together to optimize the whole (the whole organization, sector, community, nation… whatever the case may be – but eventually all of global society in the biosphere). I agree the crisis provides a very important window to cultivate these new ways of thinking and interacting. Thx.
Hello,
I am curious about this post and a little more hesitant to suggest we have never been about the long-term. I don’t think we do actually all ‘thrive on immediate satisfaction’, the inverse is evidenced by the popularity of organised religion and self-help books that are often future / long-term oriented (well, on human timescales anyway)…
Exhibit a) I think everyone can, in a few minutes, find a place or part of them that can take a long-term view – whether it be through the eyes of their children or otherwise.
Exhibit b) the thousands upon thousands of monuments that got built over decades and hundreds of years by most significant civilisations in the past – pyramids, walls, churches, massive stone heads. Even those cultures that didn’t build stuff e.g. Austrlaian Aborigines absolutely had a long and deep view of time.
Does that make sense? Rather than dismissing it, perhaps we can just draw more attention to something that has been marginalised in oursleves and our culture?
Thanks for the comment Andrew. I think my word choice could have been better, as I meant more that current social behavior thrives on instant gratification. To the extent that, for many, it will seem like going against human nature, and all that is ingrained in then from birth to think long-term.
However, this view is based on a middle class, mid-western upbringing and I don’t think it representative of all cultures. But it does seem to be pushed the most.
I agree with your examples and would like to add that the Ojibwa tribes, which were natives of the same soil I was raised on, made their decisions with the eye seven generations into the future. Remembering these, and more importantly the examples currently implemented in our own lives, will help engage people in the conversation and bring about the change we need to start seeing.