Roshi7

Roshi7 Cover Page

To begin, I do not have a problem with the concept of “sustain-ability”, and it would be foolish to disagree with the idea. Of course we need to renew resources, they will stop being resources if we do not. The highest priority of our time should be the viability of future generations by making sure there are some resources remaining, and not to gobble up our planet in a fit of short sightedness. It is a classic human trait. Don't forget, the planet has a way of responding, and not in ways that are conducive with our survival. Anyone who has experienced tornadoes, heat waves or other massive natural disasters can attest to that. Those who suffered through M. Night Shyamalan's “The Happening” (trust me) can also understand.

My issue is with how Americans treat terminology, and the ease with which words can be hijacked in the name of profit. And by profit I refer to more than money. The words “green” and “organic” are good examples. Those terminologies have became “branded” to nearly iconic levels. We are being bombarded with products, people and places labeled “green.” Saint Petersburg is working very hard to be the “green city,” going as far as being the first town so proclaimed by a group called the Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC). This tag line will be used to bring development and money to St. Pete. From my experience, development and money are the two things that do not fit well with ecological sustain-ability. Development is not a word that “jives” with conservation, sustain-ability or preservation. I saw our Mayor Rick Baker sitting outside the USF Barnes and Noble on Tuesday, and I wanted to give him a piece of my mind. I realized I could not spare any, so I held back.

Development has been one of the mainstays of Western growth, especially in the last 60 years. President Truman began the modern age of development when, on his inauguration day - January 20, 1949 - declared "greater production is the key to prosperity and peace" by declaring most of the world "undeveloped"and "their economic life (as) primitive and stagnant." To label people "savage" and "primitive" gave the West a mandate to "civilize." Assignment of these ideas were essential to give the West a moral obligation to develop those regions, which in short order became a way to profit from raw materials. The post-war era was marked by profiteering, although not completely without precedent. The most egregious violators have been the corporation, where common efforts replace economic profit with morality, and personal responsibility is diluted by group think. Multi-national corporations take this underlying lack of morality and export it world-wide, erasing borders by deifying currency. The rise of the multi-national corporation had been building steadily for centuries, recognized by no less than Abraham Lincoln, who wrote in 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." (http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations)

Lincoln understood this, still reeling from a horrific Civil War, which was as much about the economic viability of a fledgling Union as it was about individual freedoms. The manufacturing interests of the North needed the raw materials supplied by the South, and the future economy of America was threatened by an independent South. It was clear that a divided America would struggle to support itself. The high cost of trading with seceded Confederate states would be a huge hurdle for the continued development of the Industrial North. Not to mention all that \"free\" labor provided by slavery. Imagine if plantation owners paid a fair wage to workers on their farms. The economic toll would have made America a very different place.

It was necessary to present a concept that would provoke Americans to lay down their lives, especially in a brutal war. To justify war for purely economic means is a tough sell to the average American. And the rich would have none of it, exampled by how military service was sold to poor men of the North when conscription was enacted in 1863. There were two ways to get out of the Civil War: a 300 dollar "commutation fee," or provide a substitute. Soon a class of soldier developed known as the "three hundred dollar men." Class inequities and forced military service were factors in the New York Draft Riots (July 1863), a particularly violent episode that claimed 120 lives. The 2002 film Gangs of New York was loosely based on those events.

The Civil War, to most involved, was a fight to preserve a way of life (sound familiar?). The South saw it as an infringement on their culture and their sovereignty. The threat of the Federal government was sufficient reason to fight to protect culture and customs. It was the feeling of encroachment of the North, the hatred of the anti-slavery platform of Lincoln, coupled with a fear of equality for the slaves, that fueled the South's spirit for war. Southerners were branded as “rebels” and stereotyped as uncultured and backwards while supporters of the Union had taken the moral imperative to assert superiority. It would result in the bloodiest conflict in our history, a distinction which continues to this day.

The passion of moral superiority and the comfort of being on the side of right are powerful motives for the decision to act. Control of these emotions, especially for profit, has been the focus of multi-national corporations, governments and religious organizations for millennium. To be comfortable is a basic human need, and the ability to provide comfort and relief, physically and emotionally, becomes an alluring path to power. With power comes profit. The most efficient tactic for keeping a group of disparate individuals in line is to convince them your path is a path to comfort. The path to heaven, to nirvana, to riches, to permanent weight loss - all of these have the benefit of giving some relief to the struggle of existence. As Buddhists realize, all living is suffering, and the way to alleive suffering is to.... wait for it.... live the life they prescribe. Christians have heaven, Hindus and Buddhists have Nirvana (so did Kurt Cobain, rest his soul), Microsoft has Windows Vista (damn you, Gates!). Drug use falls under the same umbrella. Who doesn't want to feel good? Bayer Laboratories developed Heroin in 1898 as a morphine substitute to (you guessed it) make the Western World feel good, and we all know how that turned out.

Making America feel good has made centuries of entrepreneurs rich, fueled the rise of huge corporations with world wide interests, threatening the world with a blanket of "free markets" and turning our little hootenanny we call Earth into one big Wal-Mart. This never ending hunger for comfort, and the structure to provide said comfort, continues to be the holy grail of Western business. Why build a better mousetrap if not to give people the "warm fuzzies" in a home without fear of being overrun by rats.

OK folks... Before you get crazed; I am NOT trying to tie our "sustain-ability" meme to the Civil War, Heroin use, Grunge music, Martin Scorsese films or rodent control. But it does make one think, "why do we do any of these things?" Hmmmmm...

The manipulation of terminology is a linchpin for getting America behind a concept. Key to the success of any campaign of ideas is in making it palatable in as efficient form as possible. The green movement is an excellent example of how a noble effort is pinned onto an economic motive. Of course, we want to save the world for future generations, as I said earlier, it would be foolish to argue the point. Being "green" gives us, if anything, the opportunity to feel good about ourselves, our community and the fate of the planet.

One look at "Love Canal," the neighborhood outside Buffalo, New York, built over an abandoned chemical dumping ground of Hooker Chemical, and one cannot help to be radically pro-environment, or "green." The sight of family homes and an elementary school which at one time oozed toxic cancer-causing waste, with the predictable Stephen King-like illnesses and birth defects, is unsettling at least. Love Canal (some name!) became a focal point of the burgeoning environmental movement, and laid the foundation for the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, known commonly as the "Superfund." It is now encased in a cement coffin, like some strange alien landscape.

When talking about manipulation, we must differentiate between the hijack of ideas and a more classic definition of advertising. Advertising is an attempt to inform a potential customer base to choose a product with features and benefits that will serve a purpose or fill a need. The desire to inform is the basis of legitimate advertising, and the purpose is clear - to sell a product. The path of manipulation is more covert, appealing to emotions that run deep, without really knowing why we feel that way. Soon we stop thinking critically of the motives, and just accept them without question.

The green movement, at one time, had some clear objectives; clean up the mess centuries of short sightedness and greedy industrialism had brought upon our planet. There were concrete goals and a keen understanding of the challenges for achieving definable results. As time progressed, and more people realized the need for improvement, a simple agenda has morphed into a complex blend of emotions, economics and politics. Green parties in several countries have taken root and flourished, especially in Europe in the latter part of the twentieth century. With slow successes, and steady growth, the notion of sustain-ability has woven into the very human desire for self preservation. Like marble in the hands of a master sculptor, being “green” has been chiseled bit by bit into something beautiful. An artful blend of hope and awareness, giving an individual a powerful tool to affect the future. Soon being green gives us a sense of emotional satisfaction. And boy, does it feels good.

The power to make someone feel good has turned into the power to feel good for a price. In the past ten years, a deluge of products have traded in on the good will from decades of dedication and hard work by scores of activists. Home Depot has added over 2500 new products on its green \"Eco-Options\" label, and that is just one company. Products need to be green to be viable in the marketplace. For years, brands of dish detergent have been labeled “phosphate free.” Recent packaging changed to read “certified green” due of the absence of phosphates, with an increase in price commensurate with the new label. The average consumer knows for some reason phosphates are bad, but does not realize that phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant growth. It is the excess of phosphate, a form of phosphorus, which is dangerous, and the distinction gets passed along, without question or explanation.

Sustain-ability is not just recycling and choosing the right brand of soap. It is an awareness of our place in the world, and how we better can fit into the incomprehensible jigsaw puzzle that is existence, and still leave room for the other pieces.

We are constantly told by “experts,” who for some reason are being paid handsomely for their opinions, that “organic” foods are somehow better and healthier. “Organic” has become the new catch word in the battle of the brands. One definition of organic, set in 1995 by the Organic Trade Association is:

Pretty vague, right?

To keep up with the changing concept of "organic" we buy books on organic living (goodbye trees) and watch countless late night infomercials (electric juice does not grow on those trees). Babies-R-Us even carries a book titled "Organic Parenting"(?!?) I hope we are not eating babies, they taste bad. Without understanding the mechanics and definitions behind what is labeled organic, consumers blindly accept the term, and are willing to pay a few cents more for a can of beans. As long as it has the right label. It's as if we have been eating inorganic food all this time. Well... I have a loaf of “green” bread in my kitchen right now, and you can have it all, if you want.

Sustain-ability is more than eating the right foods, buying the right brands and driving the right cars. It is a mindfulness of how we interact with our environment, living a life that takes into account our planet and being a more efficient member of the community. Sustain-ability includes the active knowledge of what it means to be green, a constant condundrum of awareness and education. Understanding how we can treat each with the most essential element of society - respect. Respect for ourselves by eating right, respect for our environment and for our citizens, be it locally, nationally or planetary, all by living right by your own standards. It all starts with mindfulness of a way that is the best for you.

My biggest fear, as I continue in this class, is that the term “sustain-ability” will meet the wrong fate. Use and overuse will bring a certain blandness to a concept that must take priority in our society. The more Americans misuse a phrase, the less gravitas it carries, and the less effective the term becomes. Soon the concept itself will suffer. We quickly grow tired of repetition, even though it is far removed from the original intent. When we grow weary of an idea, it becomes weak and malleable, like clay, making it an easy tool for marketing. In the wrong hands it is a tool that can be dangerous, and overuse makes it negative. Politicians have made an art form of this technique, as history frequently demonstrated.

How can we prevent sustain-ability from the realm of triteness? To sustain "sustain-ability" (ironic?), diligence is the key. We must be vigilant of how we are presenting sustain-ability, and always remember to use it sparingly and with care. My suggestion is that if we must drum a concept into the heads of average, plain-Jane Americans, and run the risk of lessening its impact, that we replace the words “sustain-ability” with a term that we have no problem reducing to banality. Something that deserves to be belittled. I nominate the term “Dick Cheney.” That way if the phrase becomes something that America will grow tired of hearing, and tosses into the dustbin of history, that'll do just fine.

Roshi7 Assignment by Phil Ammann is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.