Wrestling with sustainability

I published a short essay on medium last week that points out how our modern society distances us by orders of magnitude from the typical intensities of nature, whether in terms of time, energy or use of natural resources. The essay in part is a product of my 2015 deep dive into the world of "materials sustainability", which I will be sharing more about in the near future. 

To many people, the large consumption of energy and natural resources that characterizes modern industrial society is alarming. It appears unsustainable, and from many perspectives that's true, although it can be hard to quantify exactly how much- and this is partly because sustainability is multifaceted and also because we don't seem to have reliable data on the earth's store of accessible geological deposits (estimates from the US Geological Service are constantly changing from year to year, and are a function of exploration, economics and the geopolitical landscape). Yet cutting down on consumption is no simple feat. Whereas some may like to finger point at certain lifestyles that seem excessive, like driving large cars for example or living in big houses, resource consumption is a much more deeply rooted problem. It is intrinsic to the "life support" systems of modern society, whether it be health care, communication infrastructure, food production, transportation and city design, clothing, etc. There is a clear correlation between poverty and resource consumption, that I discuss in my essay, that indicates that freedom from poverty generally leads to higher resource consumption. It is hard to justify cutting back on consumption when it will send more people into poverty. Whereas some may debate this point in advocating "simple living" (and, as a homesteader myself, I largely agree), such large societal transitions would be required (such as transitioning back to an agrarian society) that it is unthinkable to most.

As a materials scientist, I see this correlation between resource consumption and freedom from poverty as a challenge. How can we change the way we develop and use materials in society to provide the services humans want (adequate shelter, sufficient food, social networks, health care) without blowing our "planetary budget" for natural resources and energy? The question quickly turns philosophical, touching upon topics like ageing, population growth, what is an acceptable standard of living, and what is humanity's place in the world. Masanobu Fukuoka, a plant-disease scientist turned 'natural farmer' stated that scientists should first become philosophers, in order to orient their science according to some ethical foundation. As I have taken this journey, I too have seen that this is necessary. Otherwise other forces will direct our research, sometimes contrary to our own personal principles.

What philosophy should shape our research in regards to materials sustainability? Lately, I have been learning about the permaculture movement. Largely based on a vision for "permanent agriculture", permaculture seeks to design ecosystems that can sustainably, and with resilience, provide for the needs of a community (that is "food, fiber and energy" according to one definition). Permaculture has three ethical foundations - fair share, care for earth and care for people - which mirror the three aspects of corporate sustainability - economics, environmental and social. And so I have begun to turn the problem around and ask, can a permaculture approach be developed for the "inorganic" systems of the industrial world?