Yesenia Marquetti

May 8th 2009

Professor Charles Zerner

New Nature: Environmental Design in the 21st Century

Deconstructing Babylon: Environmental Justice & Self-Reflection In A Post-Modern World

In the capitalist, industrialist, and ultimately patriarchal society in which humans have designed around
themselves, there is an increasing urgency to address and remedy the state of environmental
degradation. The way in which knowledge is valued in such a society presupposes academic and
governing agencies that carry weight and legitimacy over the control of our common resources. These
institutions in which we trust for our education, livelihoods and sense of self, orders the functioning of
the day-to-day economy: centralized for each group of people, in each town or village in every country
of the world. As humans we have come to understand our surroundings and ourselves furthermore by
the classifications and categories that unite and separate us; race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity,
education, class. If we are to shift our current consumerist culture of wasteful production and pollution,
we must first consider the paradigms under which we operate and the assumptions inherent and
unconsidered that accompany them. While it is possible to reform our capitalist economy towards a
more sustainable practice by providing incentives for clean energy and entrepreneurship and the
promotion of social and environmental activism--there remains several key components to consider.
Capitalism as an economic structure is born of indentured slavery, through the division of labor and the
domination of nature for work and production. This inherent flaw prevents a truly egalitarian or
sustainable society from emerging because it requires an infinite loop of resources and labor for the
creation of individual as opposed to collective profit. Since the rise of New Deal politics established a
courtship romance between government and business, there is no way to address one without
implicating the other: a critical environmental justice movement must be personal as well as political.
Yet, the political structures under which all of society functions are based upon the enslavement and
conquest of people and of nature. Though perhaps initially unintentional, a violent separation between
the freedom to control oneself and one's environment and the right to live in a balanced coexistence
with all life is increasingly jeopardized. There can be no future for humanity that seeks to move beyond
it's past mistakes while operating under the same paradigm in which those errors occurred. At best, we
risk the loss of civilization as a condition or pathology that like the concept of a self-regulating free
market, is merely a social construction designed to benefit some while disadvantaging most. At worst,
we risk self-destruction in the complete chaotic disruption of functional living for the redesign of
society. I am hopeful for a rebirth of culture and humanity instead.

Consider this procession:

... the opposite of eden

we are penned in this narrow strip of land,

sutured by train tracks and high voltage wire,

where these piss and dank stankin alleys

embrace and tear us from our vigilance ----

without so much as a sustainable gospel.

in our collisions, we learn to make new:

from our lacerated and fracture selves,

appendages resembling tails, horns.

and, siempre, wings to capture breath.1

Have you seen it yet? I've heard there are a pair of invisible hands that cushion our bubble of reality
and mold our daily lives from cradle to grave. Some say we are taught to believe in its existence,
indoctrinated to operate under and trust its guiding principles—a coexistence with a conception of time
one can always trust to resolve any conflict. These hands are in everything we sense and do: from the
lenses with which we view the world to the tea we drink. I know of no one who has seen the hands, but
it seems our salvation by this mythical creature presupposes a blind faith in its workings. Some call
them the Creator, yet others I've met have increasingly been referring to it by its apocryphal name:
Capitalism.

Scientific discoveries of the past two decades have pronounced Capitalism as an environmentally
and socially unsustainable economic paradigm (2). Under neoliberal economics, the accumulation of
wealth is based on the continuous growth of profit, which is infinite, while the consumption of natural
resources, is only a finite availability. A contradiction arises when one begins to consume more
resources than are essentially replenished by the Earth's natural systems. Since the American Industrial
Revolution and the rise of other 'developed' nations, we have been exceeding the maximum amount of
pollution and waste products, such as carbon dioxide emissions, that the planet can absorb and process
without negative consequence. Much of the world is ruled by economics; therefore domestic and
international agreements to fight global problems, like the thinning of the atmosphere's ozone layer and
climate change, have used market principles to achieve compliance by the private sector.
Unsurprisingly, "we are consuming 25 percent more than the Earth can give us each year," says
William Rees, of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British
Columbia (2). Scientists have calculated that annual human consumption of natural resources surpasses
the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate them by 25 percent (2). This proportion has been growing
since 1984, the first year calculated as breaking the capacity threshold. Obviously the survival of our
planet requires these natural resources to provide an ecosystem of services like clean air, water, and
food cycles.

Yet, economists call pollution and its consequences "externalities", rarely factoring them into
economic models, almost as if their impact was invisible. Although continuous growth can be
environmentally compatible when clean and efficient technologies are adopted, a prerequisite factor
demands a redesign of economic production from material goods towards a services industry—known
as sustainable prosperity. Sustainable prosperity is defined as the "global use of resources and
generation of wastes that does not exceed the planet's capacity to regenerate and absorb"(2). More
importantly, although the consequences of environmental degradation affect us all, they tend to affect
disproportionately those most economically and socially disadvantaged. There is no such thing as true
prosperity until the income disparity between the rich and poor becomes nonexistent, after all, it is no
secret that "U.S. executives are paid 500 to 1,000 times more than their workers, and this inequity
continues to worsen,"(2).

This is especially true in a profit-driven society that prioritizes continuous economic growth over
social welfare—we may be very technologically advanced, but it is evident our social evolution hasn't
escaped the rhetoric and action of domination. If everyone devoured the world as much as the U.S.
population, we would need five planets to provide the necessary natural resources, according to the
World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2006. Despite being widely peddled as the path to
sustainability, cleaner or more efficient technology is the equivalent of putting a band-aid on an
amputee. Modern industrialized societies may utilize resources more efficiently than current
developing nations following the path to mechanization, but rich countries consume far more material
goods and end up using more of the planet's limited natural resources. The new mantras of "responsible
consumption—buying organic or sustainably-made goods—and dematerialization of economies—
producing services rather than products—do not solve the problem. The only solution is to reduce
pollution and consumption of resources. All this sustainability talk implies that we don't really want to
change what we are doing,"(2). I would go even further to suggest that the language of reduction and
improvement is a systemic characterization of seeking to ameliorate vast ideological issues through
patchwork, short-term solutions which seek to maintain the economy running on full blast. In this era
of dynamic political and environmental justice fervor, company to the largest generation of youth since
the baby boomers, a global shift in our male-dominated hegemony is the first thing that goes out with
the bathwater—or better yet, the toxic sludge.

Responsible shopping or corporate social responsibility is a curious thing, for on the one hand
through divestment consumers can advocate their support of companies that are fair trade, organic, and
socially responsible, which encourages the rest of the market to adapt. Yet, on the other hand, this
active green washing still encourages mass consumption of goods that although recycled, are only
taking a detour before the eventually end in a landfill. Not to mention that without everyone
participating in unified divestment strategies, the potential power consumer advocacy can yield against
companies and their litany of investors and brokers is effectively dwarfed when only minorities
participate. What results instead is green consumerism, which preoccupies citizens with the feeling of
doing something good for the planet by spending money instead of participating in their society
through activism. As McDonough & Braungart argue in Cradle to Cradle, the down cycling of impure
products mixed together through re-production, is often more toxic given that exposed surfaces leach
nanoparticles aerated through the gentle abrasion of even holding a recycled book (3). McDonough et
al. propose a redesign of industry that reintroduces waste disposal into the production process, so the
consumer and the producer maintain an ongoing relationship of exchange. They also discuss at length
the aesthetic, holistic design of infrastructure that utilizes the environmental to heat, cool, ventilate and
illuminate the building creating a pleasant work environment (3). Their genial little design models
seem novel until one looks at the design of many ancestral Adobe houses in the American Southwest,
or the ingenuity of Middle Eastern houses built deep into the cool ground.

My critiques of Braungart et al, are thus: first, the book is inundated with the symptomatic language
of reduction, advocating for the burning of less trash and curbing of smoke stack emission, without
necessarily advocating for a redevelopment of landfill issues or wasteful, dirty manufacturing. Second,
given that the authors are an architect and a chemist (two men), is it their responsibility to provide a
sociopolitical critique of what they call our current system of consumption--the cradle to grave
method? Is it beyond the scope of their book to include such an analysis, and would it be considered
legitimate since it is "outside their field"? I conclude the book is incomplete without doing so. The
world is comprised of many dimensions and any book that deals with the topic of sustainable
development necessitates a critique of the myriad interrelated dynamics that affect it: I realize this an
unreal or unfair demand, but consider this--the authors can at least make a statement of
acknowledgement, in which they recognize the scope of the topic but perhaps can't speak on it at the
time. The failure to even recognize such a monumental omission, let alone utter a politically
progressive phrase is telling of their priorities. We're back to the invisible hands: McDonough &
Braungart want to change the environmental and architectural design of our society, but don’t know
how to get around a Capitalist paradigm. The authors argue for a "positive" or "preferred" list of
considerations instead. With no discussion about the inefficacy of political, regulatory enforcement
they present a list of things products should not contain or at least be wary of, "acute oral or inhalative
toxicity, chronic toxicity, whether the substance is a strong sensitizer, whether the substance is a known
or suspected carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen, or endocrine disruptor, whether the substance is known or
suspected to be bioaccumulative, toxicity to water organisms (fish, daphnia, algae, bacteria) or soil
organisms, biodegradability, potential for ozone-layer depletion, whether all by-products meet the same
criteria"2 .

What McDonough et al fail to address is the fact that increased deregulation introduced by the
Reagan-era political agenda is what prevents environmental justice movements from reaching any
semblance of legitimacy. Since the incidence of counterculture environmentalism that didn't gain steam
until the early to mid-80s (even two decades after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring!), increased subsidies,
tax breaks, and deregulatory neo-liberalism has helped spawn a monstrous breed of multinational
corporations that essentially have free reign over the global economy with impunity and disregard to
federal, local or state environmental regulations, largely absent from the legislative discourse. Given
such a framework, it is improbable that companies would voluntarily spend millions of dollars
investing in redesigning initiatives by their own good grace, as McDonough et al seem to naively
suspect, even if it saves them money in the long-term. It is too easy to race to the bottom of the hill and
only a minority of companies will either convert or operate under a sustainable agenda, while the rest
of the economy chugs along.

What bad manners, all this talk of sustainability and no working definition! The term sustainability
has become a buzzword in the last decade, its full meaning complex and prone to evading a concrete
classification, emerging from a range of different sectors. Pragmatically, it has become the springboard
for millions of individuals throughout the world who are forging a fast and profound social
transformation, much like the 1960s counterculture and civil rights movement. In The Sustainability
Revolution, Andrés R. Edwards3, paints a picture of this largely unrecognized phenomenon from the
point of view of five major sectors of society: community (government and international institutions),
commerce (business), resource extraction (forestry, farming, fisheries etc.), ecological design
(architecture, technology), and biosphere (conservation, biodiversity etc.). The book analyzes
sustainability as defined by each of these sectors in terms of the principles, declarations and intentions
that have emerged from an endless litany of coalitions, conferences, taskforces, committees and
publications, serving as guidelines for policy decisions and future activities.

The seven common themes Edwards advocates for a modern environmental movement, ascribes cute
categorizations of principles that all responsible citizens and entrepreneurs should follow. Everyone
knows their ABCs, but do they know the all-important 3Es? Ecology, economy, and equity,
emphasized to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual or businesses level of
commitment4. The current sustainability revolution apparently encompasses: stewardship,
respect for limits, interdependence, economic restructuring, fair distribution, an
intergenerational perspective, and nature as a model and teacher. It is yet to be determined
whether this book really adds anything new to the environmental justice movement literature, other
than a convenient summary of the past 200 years of ineffectual bureaucracy and longing.

Stewardship emphasizes the significance of founding an ecological ethic for managing and
preserving the biological integrity of ecosystems5. Including the health of resources such as water, air,
soil and species biodiversity, stewardship also incorporates promoting the use of natural building
materials and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. The respect for limits advocates
living within nature's means through the prevention of waste, pollution and unsustainable resource
depletion (4). The limits represent the threshold of living systems and violating these limits has
devastating effects ranging from species extinction to global warming, which we have been witnessing
since the climactic fall of the dodo. Interdependence covers not only the ecological relationships
between species and nature but also economic and cultural ties at the local, regional and international
levels. Our elaborate transportation and communication systems, food and energy production, financial
transactions and manufacturing capabilities rely on a vast interconnected and interdependent network,
the heart of which depend on natural interdependent network providing such resources as air, water and
soils, which coincidentally support our survival (4)!

Economic restructuring and the need for expanding employment opportunities while safeguarding
ecosystems is an outlook that has the potential to both foster sustainable practices and build a new
economic model based on cooperation and optimal efficiency rather than competition and waste (4). Of
course this would also call for government and commercial ventures to support the needs of local
communities. Fair distribution speaks to the importance of social justice and equity in areas such as
employment, education and health care6. A fair and equitable distribution of resources involves a shift
in social values applied through government policies such a tax changes and through socially
responsible corporate practices that address issues faced by low-income communities. Does this sound
familiar? Inter-generational perspective emphasizes the need for a long term rather than short-term
views to guide social development. Who knew thinking about the impact of our actions on subsequent
generations as far out as 150-500 years, would better prioritize our decisions? Finally, looking to nature
as a model and teacher acknowledges the 3.5 billion years of evolution that legitimize living systems
and nature as a reservoir of expertise. In the field of ecological design, this view of nature advocates the
creation of designs in accordance with the needs and cycles of the landscape as well as other species
(4). This book further describes the innovative sustainable projects and policies in Colombia, Brazil,
India and the Netherlands, looking towards future trends: a bland manual devoid of any original
critique or opinion that will surely appeal to business and government policymakers, armchair
academics and moderate, self-proclaimed environmentalists.

Onward we go towards the next environmental capitalist: Paul Hawken, entrepreneur behind the
Smith & Hawken gardening supplies empire! This one-man crusade to reform our economic system, is
vying for the position of First World business snake charmer, proclaiming that they reduce their
consumption of energy and resources by 80 percent in the next 50 years, or else (5)! Hawken proposes
a culture of business in which the real world and the natural world, whatever that distinction means, are
allowed to coexist. Little does he know that before the rise of colonial imperialism, Mayan and
Egyptian civilizations had already figured this out! Hawken characterizes the problem with wonderful
efficiency:

We have operated our world for the past few centuries on the bias that we could manage it, if not
dominate it, without respect to living systems. We have sacrificed the harmonious development of our
own cultures for enormous short-term gains, ad now we face the invoice for that kind of thinking: an
ecological and social crisis whose origins lie deep with the assumptions of our commercial and
economic systems. Politically feasible solutions tend to be half-measures that bring up the rear in
terms of innovation and imagination. Historically, the only kind of dramatic action we expect or accept
from a national government is the waging of war, yet the ultimate threats to human welfare posed by
the environment may someday equal or exceed that presented by any previous conflict.

Because we perceive the environment to be only one of many 'important' issues, and because there is
not a shared or universal perception of peril, our government is a s yet unprepared to face up to the
forced of environmental degradation.7

Hawken clearly identifies one issue of radical environmentalist practice that alienates much of the
population in their tactics, and is in the end ineffectual since, "for every problem presented by
environmentalists, optimists have an answer" not surprisingly and unquestionably, "desalinization,
fusion, deep-sea mining, space, and bio-engineering."8 So then solutions that are coincidentally
pragmatic and probabilistic within this paradigm are prized, the econ-effective over the ecol-effective.
Unfortunately, I have to say, Hawken's pristine argument is muddled with man-made contrivances. He
cites population growth as a significant problem in the fight for sustainability. Firstly, this assumption
presupposes there isn't enough land mass, natural disaster, disease or violence to reduce said
populations. Second, this is the popular argument touted by the World Bank and other sinister causes as
a justification for neo-colonialist practices masquerading as structural development projects. If
anything, the issue is not populations at large, which generally tend to live sustainably in order to
preserve their local resources, the problem is the growth of 'civilized' or 'developed' populations that
consume 25% of the Earth's resources.

Hawken's argument tends to derail even further when considering the validity of environmental cries
to action equated as merely alarmist pleas, "...we need to create an economy and way of relating to our
material world that is not an either/or argument, but a means to create the best life for the greatest
number of people precisely because we do not know the eventual outcome or impact of our current
industrial practices...an economy based on more humility."9 What then follows is a business report on
the current loses and the way redesigning our method of consumption can maintain within breach of the
apocalyptic threshold: deceleration by design. He then identifies his class and representative group by
saying, "we in the rich industrial nations are under the impression that we are experiencing an
ingenious outfoxing of carrying capacity..."9, a give away of where his priorities lean. Curiously, he
then makes some strange analogy to a basketball and a spray can representative of the relative lack of
resources to maintain our present rate of exponential growth that seems to say, like algae blooms we
too are doomed. Finally, Hawken advocates for a restorative economy, one in which "growth and
profitability will be increasingly derived from the abatement of environmental degradation, the
furthering of ecological restoration, and the mimicking of natural systems of production and
consumption."10 It is not a coincidence that all of the aforementioned authors are typically male-
centered and shortsighted: none of their analyses even dare mention there is a giant, pink elephant in
the room called feminism waiting to do its tricks.

Is production without possession and development without domination possible? In Ecocritique,

Timothy Luke examines various strains of environmentalism arguing that “after becoming completely
ensnared within the mega-machinic grids of global production and consumption...Nature is turning into
"Denature"...Much of the earth is a 'built environment,' a 'planned habitat,' or 'managed range' as
pollution modifies atmospheric chemistry, urbanization restructures weather events, architecture
encloses whole biomes in sprawling megacities, and biotechnology reengineers the base codes of
existing biomass."i It is no stretch to say that society’s conception of nature has oscillated between
wonder and fascination with an increasing consciousness towards its preservation. Yet, there remains a
the difficult task of "...challenging the ways in which the governmentality of the current economic and
social regime enforces its destructive disposition of things and people in the environment.”ii How is one
to confront capitalist economies in societies with high technologies, that in the past prioritize the
restructuring of Nature because they “concretize abstract technological potentialities in concrete
economic structures that make meanings, concentrate energies, from matter, or transform information
as ‘environments’ “ii, meaning, nature and society are constructed around the viability of ‘urbanizing
productivism’ or ‘suburban consumerism’. How do we begin to justify the reorganization of society
around a sustainable framework without immediately collapsing such complex economic structures? It
seems communities could be united by new narratives of their own historical consciousness, beyond
the nationalist myths of new class bureaucracy or the green-washing discourses of corporate public
relations. By more concretely articulated social, ecological, and cultural interests grounded in
immediate environmental and political conditions, each community might seek its own locally and
ecologically appropriate ways of living (6). Redefining one’s own self-created standards of life and
morally responsible methods of providing a sustainable living to each and every one of its community
members begins with awareness. This awareness is afforded in our society through higher education,
the fabric of which crumbles under the weight of inaccessibility due to the decline post-Reagan, of
government grants matching secondary educational costs. The decentralization of power structures
towards a “localistic ecological populism, as a transformative social project, seeks the technological
and organizational means to rebuild this global corporate order along much different institutional lines:
small-scale, energy-sensible, locally managed, labor intensive, bio-regional structures of communities
of economic autonomy."iii

Civilization is not sustainable and will not undergo a voluntary transformation, therefore activists
should change the ways they think about and work toward social change. Every living thing is
inextricably dependent upon the rest of the natural world for survival, sustaining the natural world is
good. Civilization depends on widespread violence; all civilized people are complicit in violence
simply by their own participation in the industrial economy. Because civilization is not sustainable and
sustaining the natural world is good, an act is good insofar as it decreases the ability of civilization to
do violence. Because the global economy is killing the planet before our eyes and because it is not
redeemable, it is wrong to think that personal lifestyle changes we make within the current system can
save the planet. While we are not responsible for existing in the current system because we did not
create it, we are responsible for doing our part to destroy the system, as this is the only way to stop the
destruction of the planet. 11

In Twilight of the Machines, John Zerzan, states "civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of
the domination of nature and of women. Patriarchy means rule over women and nature. Are the two
institutions at base synonymous?"iv He argues that global warming is a function of industrial
civilization that will kill the biosphere well before the end of the century. Species all over the planet are
forced into extinction at an ever-accelerating rate, while dead zones in the oceans grow in number.
While much of the book is a radical polemic that seeks to blame all ills on civilization, Zerzan is
correct in outlining that the creation of such a construct has its roots in male-dominated occupation.
Whether all of civilization is bad is a point of contention, since it has produced art and culture in its
many forms. "A panoply of shocking and horrifying phenomena emanate from the disintegrating core
of society. We inhabit a landscape of emptiness, grief, stress, boredom, anxiety in which our 'human
nature' is as steadily degraded as is what is left of the natural world."v What exactly this human nature
is defies definition, but it seems that we have somehow been corrupted by our own egos, something I
think, representative of our complete disregard for our environment as a society. This discourse is
largely about control, whom over what, which has historically played out as white male colonialism
over darker skinned minorities and women.

"As the life-world's vital signs worsen on every level, the best minds should be paying close attention
and seeking solutions. Instead, most have found an infinitude of ways to ponder the paralyzing
dichotomy of civilization versus nature, unable to reach an increasingly unavoidable conclusion."vi
Perhaps it is our pretentious occupation with modernity, much of which is shaped by the powerful role
technology and entertainment plays in mainstream culture. After about thirty years without any
significant, unified social movements, we are seeing the rebirth of the largest population of youth since
the baby boomers, driven and informed by the growing crisis in every sphere, seeking in many ways a
more profound understanding and critique of societal ills, than did the movement of the 1960s. Zerzan
dubs this new movement as anarchist, for lack of a better word.

Ever since the anti-World Trade Organization militancy in the streets of Seattle in November 1999, the
orientation of anti-globalization has become steadily more evident in young left movements. A CIA
report leaked in spring 2000 called "Global Trends 2015," predicted that the biggest obstacle to
globalization in the coming centuries would be the possible joining together of the "First World"
protest movement with the struggles of indigenous people to maintain their integrity against
encroaching capital and technologyvii. This movement is a chimera of new activism and left politics,
where before, every modern anti-capitalist movement had at its core an acceptance of the expansion of
the means of production and the continuing development of technology. Yet, now there is an explicit
refusal of this productionist orientation, which takes root in the sexual division of labor and
domestication that drastically bifurcated not only the world of men and women, but created
subdivisions in class according to wage (8).

The new anarcho-primitivist movement recognizes that to account for today's grim realities, there
needs to be a deeper look at institutions at the local, state and federal level as a systemic condition of
corrupt order. The use of technology has transformed from a liberating tool, into a system of economic
subjugation by means of increased profit-driven production, consumption and exploitation of labor and
resources. Whereas the domestication of animals and plants was once assumed as necessary as a means
of survival, this logic has spread into all spheres of society as the comodification of every day life
through privatization. To see the meaning of genetic engineering and human cloning, for example, is to
grasp themes implicit in the basic move to domination of nature, which is domesticationviii. The old,
failed, sexist left that usually doesn't incorporate a feminist analysis of socialization and subjection of
women and minorities cannot bring forth a new era of social and environmental justice movements.

Civilization appeared only some 9,000 years ago, its duration dwarfed by the thousands of human
generations who enjoyed what might be called a state of natural anarchy by comparisonix. The general
orthodoxy in the anthropological literature, even including textbooks, portrays life outside of
civilization as one of ample leisure time; an egalitarian, food-sharing mode of life; relative autonomy or
equality of the sexes; and the absence of organized violence. Of course one of the many ironies arising
from the gifts of civilization is the fact that animal rights activists can now eat vegan, meat substitutes
while they protest cruelty to animals! Humans used fire to cook fibrous vegetables almost two million
years ago—a discovery that is reported to have helped increase brain size—and navigated on the open
seas at leas 800,000 years ago (8). Our ancestors had an intelligence relatively equal to ours, and
enjoyed by far the most successful, non-destructive human adaptation to the natural world that has ever
existed. Green or primitivist anarchy prefers the vista of radically decentralized, face-to-face
community, based on what nature can give rather than on how complete a domination of nature can
become. Like the use of permaculture, it must be adapted to the genius loci of the environment and
cannot sustain the massive amounts of trade conducted today.

Zerzan’s critique of technology and society is contentious, mainly because the issue is more
complicated than just a complete dismantling of social structures, which is highly unlikely at the
present moment. Civilization and technology are implements that have historically been male-
dominated, but the potential for a holistic, organic reconceptualization of these constructs that is in
harmony with the rest of the world should not be completely disregarded. On the one hand, bombs and
guns may never become peaceful tools, but a guitar is technology too, and I’m not sure I’m willing to
give that up! Zerzan acknowledges this, but it seems like he is unsure of how to proceed with
civilization and technology both in hand. Given that technology is now at the foundation of our
methods of production and the products that result, the discourse has intentionally steered itself toward
a re-conceptualization of human boundaries with the rest of the world. The language has become
necessarily abstract, esoteric and inaccessible because it seeks to isolate the population of those who
can discuss it—namely, academia. Zerzan is great at dismantling many of our unquestioned
assumptions about the way in which we live and are conditioned to function within society, but leaves
the question of a post-civilization open to discussion. Perhaps as a humble declaration that he doesn’t
indeed have all the answers to the meaning of life, his argument leaves much to be desired.

What I find problematic in many discourses on sustainable development is the assertion that
economic growth under capitalism is the only means to live a comfortable, content existence. It seems
like we aren’t utilizing our imaginations properly if the best we can come up with is a rehash of a
dysfunctional system, that even John Maynard Keynes predicted as problematic earlier in the century.
Yet, neoclassical economists at the World Bank, USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development)
and elsewhere continue to believe there are no limits to growth, and that the invisible hand will come
down when cities are drowned in water to pick up the wealthy and take them to never-never land. Is it
just me, or are capitalists crazy? One possibility is to somehow redefine economic success by
measuring well-being instead of wealth—don’t ask me how that would happen! Apparently the British
government (ex-imperialist?) has recognized that the economy has to exist within the reality that there
is only one planet and we are living well beyond its means. Yet these propositions still contend politics
as usual must survive along with economic growth, fair distribution and sustainability—contradictions
abound. Another possibility in reforming capitalism comes from U.S. entrepreneur Peter Barnes, who
says the way forward is for capitalism to shift from exploiting natural resources like air and water to
protecting them, as common wealth trusts of humanity. “They would belong to everyone on the planet
and would have the power to limit use of scarce resources, charge rent, and pay dividends to
everyone”(2); his new book is called Capitalism 3.0. Barnes envisions a large number of ecosystem
trusts around the world, administered by trustees who are legally obligated to act solely on behalf of
beneficiaries—all citizens and future generations equally. "Neither government nor corporations
represent the needs of future generations, ecosystems, and nonhuman species. Commons trusts can do
this," (2).

It seems the road ahead is long and arduous, but the reality of global warming and the further
destruction of delicate ecosystems is already in motion. Government based regulations are obviously
flawed because in most cases they’ve been auctioned to the highest bidder, serving special interest
groups that have the money to lobby and pressure politicians over the citizens that elected them. More
civil accountability is required, because participatory politics is the only way to ensure that the voices
of minority causes are heard as well. Whether that means the dismantling of our political system
altogether is another question, but it is obvious we have grown complacent. As citizens of the world,
we cannot rely on government regulation, like we cannot rely on the market to fix itself because in a
way, both of these methods abrogate civil responsibility to their surroundings and relegates the task to
someone else, where it is everyone's concern. Market-based solutions, as described above are not only
narrow-minded, but also myopic in scope. When addressing a problem, which is more beneficial: to
generate a solution based on one perspective, or to generate a solution that is synergistic and attempts
to take into account all of the factors and variables that affect the problem and solution? A market-
based solution is not only illogical and inconsiderate, but lacking the myriad of perspectives provided
by social, cultural, psychological, political, environmental, feminist, or LGBT factors (etc.). Einstein
said long ago, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that
created them" and we can no longer be ruled under “one interdependent McWorld, kept alive by the
standardized sadness of a draining consumerism."x

Eric Vogelin stated, "the death of the spirit is the price of progress"xi and it seems that the insatiable
hunger of modernity has deprived society of a unified recognition of our interdependence and
collective consciousness as beings coevolving on one planet. Replaced by a culture where buying,
working, anxiety, stress, and depression are inherent, it is no surprise that this recent vision of a
disembodied life-world has erased our realization of coexistence within the webs and cycles of nature.
The loss of a direct relationship to the world terminates a once universal human understanding of our
oneness with the natural world. The principle of relatedness is at the heart of much indigenous wisdom,
where traditional intimacy with the world is the basis of spirituality. This understanding is an essential
and irreplaceable foundation of human health and meaningfulness. A conception of nature as a pristine
landscape is obviously out of the question in our modern era, but the connection and respect once
present in our biological exchange is always possible. Religion is only a projection of our quest to
dominate all life, a substitute for peace of mind that is purchased along with a silver rosary or a golden
Twinkie. Tom porter, resident Mohawk, whom I was fortunate enough to meet on an activist retreat in
upstate New York, said it beautifully, "Now we have religion whereas before we had a way of life."
Like the Tower of Babel, modern culture has lost touch with itself and its surroundings, prioritizing the
quick fix over the long run. I do not seek to make general prescriptions that homogenize culture or
tradition, but only hope for the emergence of unified dialogue, where all members of society have an
equal voice and can help us rebuild this crumbling monolith into a deep root system, a canopy for all
creatures to sing.

[diwata taga ilog at dagat]

regarding the turbulent south seas, the sultan stages elaborate

ceremony. as if one man could wed a goddess, part woman, part ocean.

elders say when she walked on earth, her skin's sores and scales a

jealous woman's curse upon her, a maiden who escaped betrothal to

a wicked deity. a rice farmer's daughter who found death before her

time, she found river dolphins kindred.

elder say she loves moonstone, polished jade. elders say her penchant

for mischief, elders say she preys.

elders say when ships, when the nailed god came, his hairy men

christened her demon. they forbade her offerings. they erected bamboo

fences in the shallows. still the elders whisper, sometimes sing.

when undertow captures foolish boy,

lotus flower petals in monsoon.

when she finds he is not to her liking,

lotus flower feast for typhoon.12

Bibliography: In Order of Appearance

1.) Barbara Jane Reyes, Poeta en San Francisco (Tinfish, June 30, 2005)

2.) Stephen Leahy, Can Capitalism Be Green? (May 12, 2007 Inter Press Service)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/12/1153

3.) William McDonough & Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
(North Point Press, 2002)

4.) Andrés R. Edwards, The Sustainability Revolution (New Society Publishers, June 1, 2005)

5.) Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce (Collins Business, June 3, 1994)

6.) Timothy W. Luke, Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture
(University of Minnesota Press, September 1997)

7.) Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Vol. 1: The Problem of Civilization (Seven Stories Press, June 1, 2006)

8.) John Zerzan, The Twilight of the Machines (Feral House, April 1, 2008)

(1) p. 19
(3) p. 175
A.R. Edwards is an educator, author, media designer and environmental systems consultant. Founder
and president of EduTracks, an exhibit design and fabrication firm specializing in green building and
sustainable education programs for parks, towns and companies
(4) p. 128
Ibid p. 128
Ibid p. 128
(5) p. 201
(5) p. 204
(5) p. 206
(5) p. 210
(7) opening premise
(1) p. 30

i (6) p. 195

ii (6) p. 198

iii (6) p. 201

iv (8) p. 11

v (8) p. 16

vi (8) p. 61

vii (8) p. 62

viii (8) p. 62

ix (8) p. 63

x (8) p. 88

xi (8) p. 102