On FIRE!

In October 2013 I attended a FIRE workshop in Ghent, Belgium. FIRE is an acronym that stands for Future Internet Research and Experimentation which is one of the research areas in the European Commission’s Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) research programme, which is part of what is called Horizon 2020, a seven year framework of research programmes that began operation in 2014. One can also find FIRE activities elsewhere in the world, for example in the United States.

I participated in this workshop because I am interested in experimentation with the internet in connection with the work I am undertaking on the development of an author-centric business model, which is designed to make life difficult for established interests such as publishers, who are already making life difficult for themselves through their outdated perspectives about the future of book publishing. They are a good example of how an established industry is being creatively destroyed by people and companies from outside the sector – this is what the internet helps to enable, and this creative destruction can happen at a ferocious pace, and it is also what free market economics is about (the internal process of creative destruction by which capitalism continually destroys itself by reinventing itself – otherwise called innovation by those not familiar with the jargon of macro economics).

I came to the workshop knowing that some of the FIRE projects have funds available for those external to the projects, to undertake experimentation using the FIRE facilities. I also knew that that the demand for these funds far exceeds their supply. What I did not know was that most of these funds are being taken by academia and research institutes and that industry demand for them is very low. I also learned that there is now an open access policy, whereby application can be made to use the FIRE facilities on a self-funded basis. Yet still it is necessary to make the application and to state what experiments are to be performed. This is an interesting assumption, for it implies that those wanting to undertake experiments have discovered the truth, that is to say that they know what it is that they want to do – the hallmark of those who inhabit a linear sequential world. The trademark also of European civilisation and a most peculiar way of thinking!

But the world I live in is one where the truth is not known, where problem finding and problem solving are deeply intertwined, where one comes to know the world by a complex integrated process of thinking and doing, which are also deeply intertwined, and where there are interactions taking place with what is happening elsewhere. This is the world of networked non-linear innovation which is a characteristic of the internet, and it is a way of operating that linear sequential minds find difficult to handle, even if they have realised that this is how innovation in the internet comes about. But have they realised this?

Life is a journey of discovery, where experiments are a way of helping to discovery some of the truth! The world on internet innovation is like this as well. And I note that, to use Amazon Web Services (AWS), which is also positioned as a place for internet experimentation, all that is necessary to provide are contact details and a credit card number, which is one of the reasons I will be exploring AWS in the near future and steering clear of FIRE, for it seems also they have decided that they are the ones who will decide who will experiment and who will not. I have no time for such nonsense.

The workshop can be summarised as a lot of conventional thinking and taken for granted assumptions, which only a few, those close to the real world of internet innovation, appeared to recognise as being largely inappropriate. FIRE as it was presented at the workshop assumes a linear process starting from Research and Experimentation, followed by innovation. This is only relevant in certain circumstances, which is something that is not widely understood. One of the speakers clearly understood this, when he referred to what he called the ICT mind-set, and I spoke to him afterwards and then had an exchange of emails after the event. The text of the email follows:

“About what we discussed at the end of the day - the ICT mind-set. It is actually an engineering one from the 19th century, applicable to building bridges but not internet based innovation. What we saw on Thursday were people building FIRE facilities as though they are building bridges; they design it, erect the steel and concrete, and only when it is finished do they allow people to use it. Users are generally not part of this process, for the bridge builders are also experts, and that is another paradigm (experts know best) that is also failing. This is a manifestation of what I call the Prometheus Syndrome and it is destroying Europe economically. This is the sort of thing I write about in my blog. If I were starting a FIRE project I would sign-up to Amazon Web Services (AWS) using my credit card and ask people to use it and start a dialogue with these people about how to improve it, what needs to be added, and so forth, and this is how the Future Internet would emerge.”

Being aware of the existence of another out-dated mind-set, the either/or one, I mention here that obviously such an approach is not relevant to all aspects of the Future Internet development, especially those that users are not interested in, but which they would probably notice in the future if they were not addressed.

What is most interesting is that Amazon is enabling internet innovation through AWS and all one needs is a credit card! This gives both individuals (by which I mean ordinary people who are not part of the ICT research community) and companies (micro, small and large) access to facilities that were once only available to large corporations (and European Commission funded research projects).  This is the sort of discontinuity that renders what Charles Handy wrote about in the 1990s, highly relevant. Handy said that “in the presence of discontinuities, the models of the past serve as no guide to the future, in fact they can be very dangerous; in such circumstances one has to reinvent the world.” He also noted that the people most likely to do this are the ones saying unreasonable things. If you read my blog on a regular basis, you may have noticed that I say a lot of – what seems to those who are trapped in the past – unreasonable things.

Back in 1994 I discussed in a book, many aspects relating to that which is covered above. I noted that it is not new technology that delivers competitive advantage, but the ability to manage, adapt, use and deploy technologies, as part of an approach that also takes into account all the non-technical elements. An ability to be able to adopt different design approaches, the ones that others find difficult to use, which include design strategy switches when these are necessary, is also important. The comment still applies. We are drowning in technology. There will always be more of it. Yet most of it can be imitated, or accessed via licenses. It is not generally a source of differentiation, unless it can be kept hidden, and its presence is not seen. But that in itself is an outdated approach.

The problem is that most people think that technology is at the core of competitiveness, which is an illusion. This mind-set is a techno-centric one. When people look at the world through the lens of technology, all they see is the technology and this leads to people to believe that technology is the most important dimension. This however is an impoverished reductionist view, and only works if everyone else looks at the world through the same lens. But there are new players in the game that do not share these particular European ways of behaving. Europe is no longer able to force the world to be European, so perhaps it is time for Europe to stop being European!

I have had to take to story telling and using metaphors to explain such matters, because few people seem to understand anymore what I and others are talking about. This is also why new perspectives are needed and why artists and writers need to move centre stage, to bring what is called culture-based creativity into the research and innovation process, for it is becoming increasingly evident that those who currently reside in this position – scientists, engineers and technologists – are, on the whole, not going to do very much different from what they have done in the past. As one of them said to me about 4 years ago when we were preparing a proposal that would address user-driven innovation, “it’s a good idea, so long as we do not have to do anything differently.” And I have quotes in my book from 1994 of people saying exactly the same thing, even when confronted with the evidence that shows that new ways of doing things work.

This, whatever you do never ask me to do anything differently mind-set, one can say, summarises the problems that Europe now faces – most of those to whom politicians look to for innovation, do not want to do anything differently. Europe has indeed become like Prometheus. DG CONNECT’s new initiative known as ICT-ART CONNECT, offers the hope of changing this circumstance, of exposing the invisible chains that keep Europe tied to the past, and of smashing them to set Europe free. But this involves doing research and innovation differently, which is why I suppose we will be looking mostly at replacing those who currently undertake this type of work, by developing a new breed of engineers and technologists, for the evidence suggests that the present incumbents will not change and do not want to change, which is the hallmark of something else – a paradigm shift.

So we are back once more to my forthcoming book Moments in Time, a novel about time, set in two times, which explores that which is timeless and that which is not – particularly the values and beliefs of scientists, engineers and technologists, for central character is an engineer, along with his industrial era values, beliefs and mind-set! And from this stems all the troubles that he creates for himself.

The Prometheus Syndrome Explained

In several blog entries I have in the past referred to what I term the Prometheus Syndrome, a condition where people are blind to why they do what they do, being, metaphorically speaking, bound by invisible chains to the rock of the past, which then leads them to create a future that is just the past with all its problems, but usually with a bit more new science, engineering or technology added. This theme and its consequences are explored in my new novel, Moments in Time. Here in this blog I want to explain what the Prometheus Syndrome is in terms of concepts taken from the business and philosophy of science literature.

When I speak of the Prometheus Syndrome I am referring to what is called a paradigm.

Everyone involved in science, technology, engineering, business, economics, and so forth, carries around in their head the paradigm to which they adhere. These consist of a set of core beliefs and assumptions specific and relevant to the activities that people are involved with, and these are shared in common with others. This is the essence of a paradigm: it is taken for granted and not seen as problematic by those who adhere to it. The paradigm defines how things are done and what is acceptable.

A paradigm, however, is a double edged sword, because it is both helpful and unhelpful, depending on the circumstances. Associated with a paradigm is a mind-set, a way of thinking which means that people become over-sensitised to some particular aspect of their domain or available information, at the expense of other parts. This over-sensitising is useful, because it helps people to become sensitised to important things, and to patterns that remind people of problems successfully solved, and this often serves very well.

The problem with paradigms however, is that they blind people to discontinuities that render past approaches and solutions inappropriate. Discontinuities are defined as non-linearities that either render aspects of prevailing practices inappropriate, or which provide new opportunities, or open up entirely new ways of working. These discontinuities can render assumptions and practices invalid and inappropriate. This makes extrapolating into the future based on the past, an exercise of little value. When discontinuities occur, the success stories of yesterday can have little relevance to the problems of tomorrow. In fact, according to Charles Handy, a leading business thinker from the 1990s, these success stories might even be damaging since the world, at every level, has to be reinvented to some extent.

The failure to recognise discontinuities often leads to the adoption of incorrect change strategies. The assumption is that whatever needs to change is just a matter of evolution in approaches. The evolutionary view is based on the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things are being done, and that all that is required are some slight adjustments to compensate for the changed circumstances.

The belief that only slight adjustments are needed to a paradigm in order to bring the way things are done into line with new requirements has a technical name. In terms of change this view corresponds to model known as morphostatic change. This simply means that the type of change people face is incremental. The established order is maintained by treating disturbances as external noise requiring minor adjustments.

What the modern world faces at this moment in time, are a massive discontinuities in the form of structural changes that render morphostatic change inappropriate. In circumstances such as those now challenging us to act, what is needed is a major change to the existing paradigms. In terms of the theory of change, what I am advocating is called morphogenic change. This simply means a type of change that produces a different order to that which existed previously. Disturbances are now treated as information about the inappropriateness of established practices, and this leads to fundamental changes in methods and principles.

Incidentally what is written above is not new. Much of the above text is taken from one of my books, published in 1994! This is the measure of how far behind, in terms of thinking, concepts and understandings, the worlds of science, engineering and technology are. One might say that these people work with 21^st century technologies, 21^st century knowledge, but with stone-age minds. This is also partly the answer to the question posed many blogs back, when I asked concerning scientists: why simultaneously so smart yet so stupid? A case of  relatively Advanced Knowledge, coupled with stupid beliefs!

The problem with paradigms is that they blind people, but the problem is compounded by a tendency towards collective denial and delusion, which is another story, more familiar to modern people than Prometheus, and that is the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. And thus is happens, as the challenges grow, the problems worsen, people will retreat even more into the familiar, seeking to use and apply that which has worked in the past – that which is actually part of the problem.

And what of the consequences for human civilisation, for future generations? Probably you will not live to see the consequences. You will not want to! But our children’s children will encounter these consequences, and they will curse you for not having the vision, the imagination and the courage to confront and stop the lunacy that is driving humanity towards … what I call a future that must not be.

Moments in Time, and my even newer work called Enigma, were both written to help people to understand, as were my other books, Encounter with a Wise Man, and A Tale of Two Deserts. These are part of what I call This is the Journey… But the time for action has now arrived, thus in the coming months I will start to explain about exciting work that is still in its embryonic stages, that will help us to start building a new path for humanity.

It seems that when I say that scientists, engineers and technologist are no longer fit for purpose, others too are arriving at similar conclusions, and that we need now to reinvent these activities by developing new types of scientific, engineering and technological people and processes. I have coined a name for them – Life Systems Architects, although that might change in due course. And what I am saying is that we can no longer afford to have people who live in boxes messing-up the world because of their limited, micro level, blinkered views, and that the time has come to develop trans-disciplinary people who can also call time on the delusion that somehow, all this science and technology is neutral and is not at all a manifestation of the desire of large corporations to make as much money as possible regardless. Dealing with what Steinbeck, in his novel The Grapes of Wrath, called the monster, is necessary if we are to achieve sustainability. And science, engineering and technology have become part of the monster. But it does not have to be like this, but we should be under no illusion – breaking the invisible chains that bind these people to the rock of the past will be a Herculean task.

Farming Fantasies!

Prometheus’ chains were heard clanking once more on BBC1’s Countryfile programme, which is becoming quite a regular feature of the programme. I am referring here to the edition transmitted on Sunday January 26 (2014) and the person bound to the rock of the past and whose chains were clanking, was Rory Stewart, a Member of Parliament, whose constituency is in the Lake District, which includes many sheep farms. And it was sheep farming that was being discussed, and the damage that the current dominant method is causing to the eco-system – the usual story of a system developed long ago without regard for the environment and nature, based on mono-culture, resulting in a desert with respect to bio-diversity, as well as many unforeseen damaging impacts for life, including human life. Discussed in the report were some of these damaging impacts, and what some organisations (in this case the RSPB) – those aware of the importance of the eco-system to our own survival – are doing to re-invent sheep farming, which includes elements of re-wilding, to find a way of undertaking this important activity in a way that co-exists with nature. The approach is to move towards diversity and not to have a single dominant activity.

Here now I will report verbatim, the derisory words spoken by this Member of Parliament about these efforts: clank, clank, clank ...

“Look at the entire fell-side behind me. You’re not going to be able to see a single sheep. This is a sheep farming area, but what’s happening is something really weird – essentially a group of intellectuals are imposing their fantasies on the landscape, and their fantasy is that they’re living in a wilderness, and they’re trying to create a landscape that hasn’t existed here for 3000 years. I think it’s a tragedy. I think there’s a place for bits of forestry, there’s a place for bits of bird sanctuary, but we have to protect the human.”

Clank, clank, clank ...

I observe here that this is a mis-representation of what the RSPB are trying to do, but this matter aside, what is interesting here are the fantasies underlying these comments.

The fantasies are clear: we can live without nature, and that nature’s place is in reservations and by implication, nature can continue to exist if we turn the planet into mono-cultures, with islands of bio-diversity where nature can continue as before. Moreover, we have a right to do this, and it is our place to decide. We can control nature, we can dominate nature. What is most important is human economic activity and if nature has to die to enable this, then so be it. When you sow the wind, you do NOT reap the whirlwind. Clank, clank, clank ...

These are more than fantasies, they are dangerous delusions, but at least he did not pretend, as many do, that somehow, in ways most mysterious, this mono-culture approach to farming can be made sustainable by implementing small changes.

Now perhaps, if you had not yet realised this, you see the scale of the challenge that we face and how people, not knowing, not understanding, not wanting to, will condemn future generations to live in a world that no sane person would want to live in. This will be our legacy to future generations if we do not now act to ensure that this does not happen. And there are ways in which we can all peacefully act that will ensure that this unwanted future does not materialise, and about this I will have more to say during 2014.

For the moment I limit my comments to this: it time to begin to understand, to make that journey of discovery that will lead to a realisation that alternatives are possible, which can result to a world and a way of life far better than the one we have now. And this is why I write and I am just on the verge of publishing a story about a person who thinks along the familiar lines that we are in control and that the risks can be managed. The book is called Moments in Time. This is a story about time, and that which is timeless and that which is not, which explores the delusions of one man, an icon of the modern world, an engineer, who, believing these things, ends up destroying everything of value in his life because of these beliefs. In the first chapter the central character observes that he has become like Prometheus!

The book will be published at the end of February and will be available open access so that people can read it on-line, for free. It will also be available in paperback and in eBook formats. I also have another book in preparation called Enigma. This deals with certain type of lunacy of the type found in the minds of people such as the Member of Parliament interviewed on Countryfile; a madness which can be found in many aspects of the modern world – in religion, and also in the religions known as science, engineering, technology and free market economics – which is, as I observe in my book called Encounter with a Wise Man, leading humanity to the creation of a hell on earth from which there will be no escape, where delusion will be the only way of living and coping with what humanity will have created.

To Question is not to Reject but to Seek to Make Better

To question is not to reject, but to seek to make better, thus I question science, engineering, technology, religion and free market capitalism, noting that:

• Science on the one hand helps us, while at the same time, destroys us; we have not yet acquired the knowledge, the sophistication, and the wisdom to achieve the former without the latter.

• Technology on the one hand helps us, while at the same time, destroys us; we have not yet acquired the knowledge, the sophistication, and the wisdom to achieve the former without the latter.

• Engineering on the one hand helps us, while at the same time, destroys us; we have not yet acquired the knowledge, the sophistication, and the wisdom to achieve the former without the latter.

• Religion on the one hand helps us, while at the same time, destroys us; we have not yet acquired the knowledge, the sophistication, and the wisdom to achieve the former without the latter.

• Free market capitalism on the one hand helps us, while at the same time, destroys us; we have not yet acquired the knowledge, the sophistication, and the wisdom to achieve the former without the latter.

A typical counterargument against all these statements, that would be put forward by those who adhere to the particular dogmas that each of the above gives rise to, is that: “No alternatives are possible for these are the way they are because … and only minor improvements are possible. Therefore I will not discuss this further, as you are obviously lacking in right-mindedness, for mine is the truth.” Or put another way, my mind has closed in on a fixed opinion, and whatever happens, whatever you say, I have no intention of changing this, regardless of the madness that comes forth as a result.

This, I am sure, you will all find of great comfort when you sit among the ruins of your civilisation.

Time to begin to understand the reasons for choosing a mind that has closed in on fixed opinions, and the collective denial that is necessary to maintain this perspective, and to discuss what to do to change science, technology, engineering, religion, and free market capitalism; this is what I call the journey. And all this questioning is relevant to the matter of sustainability, for if you have not yet realised this, sustainability does not begin and end with climate change. This is just the cherry on the cake, the final piece of lunacy, which just exacerbates existing challenges and problems. And yet few want to see it like this. Denial and delusion are to the found everywhere, and as so it will be that our children will be overwhelmed by the legacy that we leave them.

We have therefore, here and now, at this moment in our history, to choose whether to let this happen, and when I say we, I mean you! This is a matter for all and must not be left in the hands of politicians, for most of them have no intention of doing anything significant to address the challenging circumstances that we now face. For many of them, the scenario is business as usual. And many of those to be found operating in the worlds of science, technology, engineering, business, and religion also think that it will be business as usual.

So I here ask a question: are we here and now, at this moment in time, perpetrating a crime against the unborn; engaging in a criminal act that speaks of a folly never before witnessed in the history of our species? You should take note of this, for what today might seem unreasonable could quickly become a lament along the lines “why did we not listen when it was possible to change our trajectory?” And this is a theme that has found its way into a short story that I have just written. It is called Enigma and is a sequel to A Tale of Two Deserts. And it is also an underlying theme in my forthcoming book, Moments in Time.

To question is not to reject, but to seek to make better. This is the journey …

More about the Meaning of Sustainability

Following on from my previous two blogs, both of which dealt with sustainability, a central concept that I have not yet mentioned is the one that states that we should not do today, that which leaves for future generations an unwanted legacy. It is a fundamental principle which is rarely to be found in those things one sees presented as being sustainable.

In the case of the Scottish Farmed Salmon industry (the subject of my previous blog entry) and their counterparts in other parts of the world, the extinction of wild salmon would be such an unwanted legacy. But honestly, do you really think that when confronted with the issue of economic development and the expansion and growth of the farmed salmon industry and the extinction of wild salmon, the wild fish stand any chance? Another example of an unsustainable activity is what is called fracking (the extraction of shale gas). It is unsustainable because we as a society have already taken more than our fair share of oil and natural gas deposits and taking the shale gas is robbing future generations of what rightly belongs to them. This they will not thank us for – another unwanted legacy. But honestly, do you really think that when confronted with the issue of economic development and the expansion and growth of the oil and gas industry and the matter leaving deposits for future generations, our children’s children stand any chance?

I believe, based on observations of what has happened over the past few decades, that all we are going to witness in the future is a lot of talk about sustainability, but no substantial actions to deal with what is at the core of the problem - us and our collective delusion that we can go one doing that which we do now, and that only minor changes are needed to become sustainable. It is now evident that governments, and most politicians and businesses, have no intention of dealing with this issue in a way that correctly represents the enormous dimension of the challenge that we now face. Therefore, we the people must now act, peacefully, to bring about a massive transformation. This is why we need to use our wallets, lifestyle choices and our votes, to apply the pressure that will change the climate of thought. It is time to build a new civilisation and to begin the gradual transition away from our present one, and to do that one must simultaneously start to disengage from the old and build the new. An interestingly this is already happening, because people are beginning to understand that if they do not act, then there will be no change, for the establishment has no intention of acting, and politicians are starting to become worried about this quiet revolution, for it involves people turning away from existing institutions and processes. The reasons for this are clear – these are failing and becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Now the scene is set for what will follow in my blogs over the course of 2014.

Why Do Industry Body Representatives Tend to Make Fools of Themselves?

You will have seen this many times on television, the person who is speaking for an industry, typically someone appointed by the industry’s trade body to answer questions from the media. There he or she stands and faced with profound questions about damage to people, society, or the environment, resulting from the actions of companies in the industry concerned, come the stupid responses. Usually there are only two variants on the stupid answers offered: denial that there is any problem, or, that the industry is only offering what customers want.

On the BBC’s programme Countryfile, broadcast on Sunday December 1st 2013, it was the turn of the Scottish Salmon Industry to engage in making stupid remarks and on quite a grand scale, coupled also with a chilling arrogance that highlights why we need to change the global free market economic system.

The interview began with some bragging on the part of the industry – lots of information about its economic importance in terms of people employed in the industry and also those working in sectors such as fish processing, agriculture, and logistics that provide products and services to the salmon farming industry. Later we were to learn also, that people in the chemical industry are also partly dependent on the salmon industry as well, as you will discover as you read on. We were told how impressively big the industry has become, and about the large number of countries to which Scottish farmed salmon is exported. We were also informed that fresh salmon can be on someone’s plate in New York within three days!

Those readers with insights into sustainability will recognise here an industry demonstrating all the signs of being unsustainable and in need of significant restructuring and a different business model. Interestingly, sustainability was mentioned during the interview, but the industry representative did not provide a rational explanation of how an industry using large amounts of chemicals, consuming significant amounts of energy, and no doubt also with a carbon footprint to match, could be made sustainable in its present form. Is this not always the case?

The interview became disturbingly interesting when the question was addressed of farmed salmon being responsible for the increase in sea lice that are believed to be responsible for the drastic reduction in populations of wild salmon. When asked about this, the industry representative said, “there is no empirical evidence that this is the case (that sea lice from farms are killing wild salmon).” What we did learn however is that sea lice have become a serious issue for the industry and large amounts of chemicals are being used to kill the sea lice, so much chemicals in fact, that there are now concerns that the presence of these chemicals in the environment around some fish farms is excessive. That there is a problem with sea lice is unquestionable, but this was downplayed by the industry representative – was this because he had no sound and rational answers to the questions raised?

The BBC did not enlighten viewers about whether there is any evidence that the problems of sea lice created by having large concentrations of farmed salmon in relatively small spaces is in fact causing problems for wild salmon. But we quickly learned that we were not going to hear from anybody about this, for the Scottish Salmon industry representative had refused to appear in the programme if a representative from an organisation called Protect Wild Scotland was interviewed. When the Scottish Salmon industry representative was asked why he had taken this stance, given that he was so confident about his case, his response was “I am not prepared to discuss (this)”.

But the arrogance and contempt on display was to continue, when the representative said, “I am willing to discuss anything on a rational basis with anyone with a rational argument.” The implication was clear – Protect Wild Scotland do not have a rational argument, so therefore they are to be ignored and this from a person who has no rational basis for believing that the Scottish Salmon industry as currently structured and with its current business models, can be made sustainable.

I describe what was on display in this programme as arrogance and contempt, chillingly so, and it is reminiscent of bees and neonicotinoids. The attitude in the latter case was let the bees die, for we are making lots of money out of neonicotinoids. This attitude also seems to apply to wild salmon as well – let the wild salmon die for we are making lots of money! And if you think about it carefully, this is often the attitude for money comes before environment, which is not what sustainability is about.

Here now is my (ir)rational response to this. I expect people to show more concern about the environment and the natural world and to adopt a more responsible position and to be willing to accept that there might be problems that point to the need for changes in industry practices and structure. This I did not see in the person. In fact I found the person’s attitude, as I have mentioned, not only arrogant and contemptuous, but chillingly so.  To this I felt a need to respond.  Normally over Christmas in my household, smoked Scottish Salmon is consumed – none was over the Christmas 2013 period. I will in future not be buying Scottish farmed salmon, unless I can find fish that comes from a farm with a responsible approach. And this is an example of what I have previously referred to as using the wallet to bring about changes. Mine may seem to be an insignificant gesture, but if enough people do this, then change will happen for there are few things more powerful than the market, which is why we must use it to change the way that businesses behave.

I also here provide for you the web link to Protect Wild Scotland (http://www.protectwildscotland.org/) so that you can assess for yourself whether they do have a rational case for concern about the affects of salmon farming on wild salmon populations.

In my previous blog about the meaning of sustainability, I mentioned the matter of the need to change the economic system. The Scottish Salmon industry well illustrates the problems of vested interests, of people chained to the rock of the past, who will fight to maintain the status quo, and who are looking, at best, only for incremental improvements, while what is really needed is a massive change to the way the industry operates. This focus on defending what is, what exists, when all the indicators suggest that this is inappropriate is one of the reasons industry body representatives tend to make themselves look foolish when interviewed. Whether they realise this I do not know, but the value of them doing so is that it provides that can be used to stimulate a consumer revolution that can help bring about a significant step forward towards a sustainable civilisation.

I look forward to the day when one of these industry people just openly admits that their industry needs to change and in a significant way. We will not see such a massive change however, until we start thinking about and experimenting with radical alternatives that offer the prospects of real sustainability. This is why individuals need to start using their votes, wallets and lifestyle choices to create the circumstances whereby politicians and business people realise that business as usual is no longer an option.

The Meaning of Sustainability

Over the Christmas period I saw a Tweet from Oxfam. It stated that the richest 1% hold more than 46% of the world’s wealth, and the poorest 90% have just 14%. This is not only unjust, but unsustainable, for the suffering inherent to this circumstance will surely lead to strife and conflict and provide further justification to the misguided and dangerous people who wage war on the western world through terrorism. And how does the west respond to this gratuitous violence? Answer: with more gratuitous violence as they seek to protect their vested interests and to maintain the status quo.

It is evident that our current economic system is failing in the sense that it has not provided the means of resolving global inequalities in the distribution of wealth. Socialist economic thinking has faired no better. Therefore we need to start considering how to change free market economies to achieve a global economy that does not perpetuate, as the present system does, these inequalities. And now is a good time to start thinking about this matter, given also that I have yet to encounter anyone who can rationally explain how the present growth and consumption driven free market system can be made environmentally sustainable. And the present economic system is also contribution to the fracturing of society, as it constantly seeks to encourage our animalistic tendencies to focus on material matters, often at the expense of that which truly matters: our inner wellbeing; relationships with the people in our lives that should matter most; and our wider sense of being part of a community.

Sustainability you see is about social, economic and environmental matters taken together as a whole, not in isolation. And how to do this in a world that works on the basis of fragmentation and reductionism is one of the greatest challenges of our time. And we are back once more to the great flaw in scientific, engineering and technological thinking, all of which are founded on fragmentation and reductionism. Here also, once more, is that thing I referred to in my 2013 blog entries – the Prometheus Syndrome which I will soon explain in more detail.