Solutions For a Sustainable Society

The impacts of human society on ecosystems are visible and dramatic in our everyday lives. Yet humanity is still an Earth bound organism; our existential dilemma seeks to support our growing population, cities, and military. There are many avenues in which we may govern and limit our impacts to preserve our biodiversity, and there are promising initiatives which lead us to more sustainable solutions and societies. The changes required cannot be localized to any single country, community, or individual, but the vessel must be executed on all planes. Though economic, political, and social stabilility are keystone factors in discerning the sustainable qualities of a group or development; this analysis seeks to expose the relationship between these human needs and our environment. The open exchange of philosophical perspective is imperative to crafting a model for society that meets the needs of those who take part in it, and balances interdependent pillars between humanity and our natural diversity.

Regardless of role within our human societies, individuals and groups have began adopting policies and measures which reduce or eliminate our dependence on harmful materials and pollutants because growing economic incentive. The ideaology of environmental activism demands that everyone is involved, “Corporate executives, investors, conservative Christians, labor unions and others not traditionally associated with the cause have joined the intensifying campaign to save the Earth” (Price). Those who have become involved have also allocated revenue within business and community budgets to address enviromental issues. The single driving force beneath global markets is free enterprise and business, and activists have targeted capital hoarding ventures to impose change on consumers. An entire industry has spawned to help existing companies create programs which limit environmental impacts and offer sustainable solutions to a more eco-conscientious market, “Environmental Defense, a leading advocacy group, hires a director of corporate partnerships and begins helping businesses “go green.” Among the many fruits of these collaborations: fuel-efficient hybrid FedEx delivery trucks, reusable UPS shipping envelopes and measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions at DuPont facilities that saved the company $325 million in one year” (Price). Business executives have realized that turning an eye to green and efficient policies affects their bottom line and are positively rewarded. There is a wealth of economic incentive that exists to groups which seek to amend traditional policy. According to Oklahoma State University sociology Professor Riley Dunlap, who has studied popular opinion regarding environmentalism for 40 years, says “These local government initiatives, state initiatives, corporate initiatives represent a different kind of environmentalism.” This trend has been fueled by broadening awareness to “concerns that global warming poses a real and potentially catastrophic threat to life on Earth but that a conservative federal government refuses to act” (Price). Economic incentive exists to those willing to strive for sustainable solutions and communities.

The legislation required to initiate sweeping change for environmental advocacy and sustainability has been recognized at national and local levels. The United Nations has released a series of texts which illustrate fundamental principles for instilling legislative change to communities and countries. The Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity instituted in 2001 under the U.N. Says “cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. It becomes one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence" (Price). There are billions being spent to convert Amerca's business infrastructure into cleaner, more efficient entities seeking profitiability. Through the Carbon Disclosure Project, for instance, “major global investors each year ask about 2,000 companies — including the world's largest 500 — to reveal their impact on greenhouse-gas emissions. In 2006, 225 investors with $31.5 trillion in assets made the request — up from 143 investors the year before. Nearly three-quarters of the largest 500 companies responded this year, up from just under 50 percent in 2005” (Cooper). Change has also been forced upon companies unwilling to comply by organizations seeking to expose activity that is overly harmful to the environment. Groups like the Rainforest Action Network have pitted companies into realizing the darkest of their environmental woes by “negotiating accords on environmentally friendly lending policies with Citigroup, JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs, and now is running campaigns against Wells Fargo's investments in oil, coal, logging and mining operations. Among RAN's other campaigns to change corporate policies, it's pressing for revisions in Weyerhaeuser's logging practices and for increases in the fuel-efficiency of Ford vehicles” (Price). But beyond the U.N. , larger business and corporations, there are many smaller institutions that have recognized the threat of unsustainable development. For example, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based from Colorado State University, seeks to implement change through education and policy. According to the institution's activity statement, the institute “holds workshops and courses for development practitioners (at project, intermediate, and policy levels of society) to help impart knowledge and skills essential to sustainable development. Courses cover development-based subjects such as planning, motivation, leadership, management, communication, and evaluation. IISD also organizes conferences on community-based development, where participants can exchange ideas and build upon their field experiences ” (IISD).

Sustainable communities have entered the marketplace and have proven to be more efficient economically and socially. Companies and organizations that recognize current trends in environmental catastophes have realized the profitability and necessity of creating a greater biodiversiy on Earth for future generations. The most effective way to bring about change is to work with communities and entities to foster a dialogue.

“IISD Activities.” The International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2007. Colorado State University. 10 April. 2007. <http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/IISD/activities.html>

Cooper, Mary H. "Population and the Environment." CQ Researcher 8.26 (1998): 601-624. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 12 April 2007 .

Price, Tom. "The New Environmentalism." CQ Researcher 16.42 (2006): 985-1008. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 12 April 2007 .

Today I found myself stepping back and wondering. I observed beyond the self, tried to push beyond the globe, and saw that life was beautiful. Each and every 'thing' plays a role in our existence, and every element is a 'thing' of beauty.

I rejoice to hear that we have so much to learn. So much to find out and See. Hear. Feel.

I learned today of Fellowship, and that we are all capable of such good. Can we not find the likeness in our brother and sister, in our enemy? Do we author the power to mediate? Can we find resolve even in a passive heart?

We ask questions of ourselves, our Family, our government, friends, even God. And through the mess we have found that Peace survives and sustains, nourishes and strengthens. Our Fellowships sustain and nourish, our nature is pure and acknowledging.

Fear will swoon, but its true message is a whisper.

Everyday we engage each other, the landscape, the machine, the society, the dollar. And we find ourselves at times in conflict with motivations from our peers, the elements, the participants, the dissenters, the villains, even history's heroes. "Lets talk things out," they say and will propogate, "lets make things right and compromise, lets support meaningful dialogue and debate". From this actuality, many will gain and few will prosper.

Exactly the disconnect. Our current market structure is not willing to compromise when many gain; proof exists in the aristocracy of the United States of America - this obsessive focus on Anna Nicole, this Sanjaya character, the 2008 candidates. We are encouraged to force our motivations upon the destitute - interupted and formulaic. Calculated. Ingenuine. Superficial. Value of the dollar and a deep pocket. Vote with a text message, and that'll be 10 cents please.

I see many inherent flaws in capitalism. The true form of this economic system abandons the relatively new concepts we've conceived: universal health care, campaign finance reform, welfare, the energy crisis. Capitalism doesn't address these new conceptual programs - Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in a capital market has yet to manifest and address the necessary demands of our communities or any feasible solution to these concepts.

We have chased an imperial dragon, only to be burned on the coasts of foreign lands, and in the basket of our Earth's diversity. This is reality - over half of a trillion dollars are lost to the fire.

In ages past, the seas were teaming with opportunity, limitless bounds, the lure of faraway lands, and were threatened by a scurge of thieves that plundered the waves of hidden riches. The romanticized image of pirates that Americans hold today is a conglomeration of Disney's Captain Hook and Captain Jack Sparrow, and perhaps a few other wily characters. But today's riches do not lie in the waves or are marked by a vivid X. These riches are not plundered by a narrow spectrum of individuals with a hook or an eye patch. In the digital milenium, the scoundrels are brilliantly networked in dynamic communities, and steal products protected under copyright in a highly democratized exchange of resources. In recent years these same scoundrels have been romanticized in a similar fashion to their comrades centuries ago. Hackers and multimedia pirates have been sculpted into a form that has been condemned by industry yet embraced and heralded in underground forums.

The current ammunition against individuals obtaining illegal copyright material is called Digital Rights Management, or Digital Restrictions Management depending on the context. These terms encompass the practice of creating technologies that can easily be copied to multimedia, and “protect” the content from being shared that is contrary to current copyright regulation. There is uncertainty regarding the legality of some DRM technologies, and several leading companies have been confronted with choices in protecting their products. One of the first implementations of a DRM system was introduced by the DVD forum, which created a simple encryption algorithm to protect against high quality output copies of material contained on the disc. This format, called a Content Scrambling System, allowed the DVD forum to control and limit copying; device manufacturers were legally obligated to comply with these standards in order to host DVD content. However, the CSS algorithm was hacked by Jon Lech Johansen and made the DVD content accessible to personal computers. This tends to be the pattern in the digital rights arena; content that has been protected by companies through encryption have inevitably fallen to independents working to gain access, or hack the content. This trend was continued when commercialized HD DVD discs became available and utilized a highly more sophisticated encryption standard set under the Advanced Access Content System License Authority. An internet hacker under the alias of Muslix64, cracked the HD DVD encryption by December of 2006, and posted a dramatic YouTube video that detailed the process. The fundamental flaw with encrypting media is the necessity of encryption keys located in the software that plays the encrypted media. The encryption keys can be observed running in memory. Digital Rights Management has significantly curtailed production of pirated content, but it is not impervious to those wishing to open the content freely. This assault on copyright infringement has led the industry “to fight back with lawsuits designed to alert the public that downloading for free violates copyright law and carries real penalties. The heavily publicized suits appear to be slowing traffic at sites like Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which allow illegal file sharing. But millions of people are still obtaining their music in this new-fashioned way” (Greenblatt). Proponents of DRM have won many battles yet have lost the war, as content continues to be exchanged, in most part, without any legal ramifications.

As a consumer of media, I both purchase and steal music, movies, and programs. Like many Americans, I have made conscious decisions to either purchase the content, or download it in opposition to copyright restrictions. I cannot justify breaking the law. I also cannot deny that artists have claims on their copyrights and are employed to defend them. What I can justify is the widening disparity that exists between independent minds and giant corporate interests. Both of these variable entities are interdependent upon each other – but when the middle ground expands, it becomes harder for both interests to be heard. What do I base this opinion on? I can only cite specific examples that I have encountered which lead me to believe that exchange of opinion and information is not as efficient as it could be.

For example, Apple's Quicktime software now comes bundled with iTunes. You cannot choose to either download one or the other. This poses a problem to Quicktime Pro users, which pay $30 in order to unlock the Pro features. Once a user has purchased Quicktime Pro, he cannot install updates to iTunes or Quicktime because it disables the Pro features. Ordinarily, the programs can be downloaded without incurring any fees, but those who upgrade for a premium fee are punished. Apple has recognized this and added a warning as a disclaimer when the user tries to update, yet have done nothing to actually correct the problem. This can be easily solved, simply change the nature of the bundle, and preserve the purchase of serial numbers to extend into updates. This is senseless, and hinders the development of independent minds. Was it not Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak who developed this company in a garage? Rationally, I would assume that Jobs' company would embrace the vibrant wealth of independent minds, but it does not.

Another example: if one were inclined to add independently created videos to a video iPod, the process is extensive and the video compression requirements are hidden in small, gray print at the bottom of an obscure page on Apple's website. Apple's motivations can be easily identified: BUY the latest episode on iTunes Store, BUY that movie, BUY it from us. Or you can BUY Quicktime Pro which has a “Video to iPod” built in compression setting. Millions of users have unconsciously submitted to content that is controlled by a vertically integrated corporation. Apple controls exhibition, distribution, and sponsors production through its editing systems. The level of control is dynamic and widespread, and I fear that Congress has overlooked a behemoth that continues to operate without restriction. Proposed legislation has been thwarted by corporate interests in maximizing profit, “Clinton administration and congressional proposals to thwart copyright infringements have met resistance from academics and librarians concerned about longtime protections for 'fair use' in scholarship and journalism” (Clark). This legislation needs to be revisited, with the intentions and integrity vested in the people.

Perhaps I should stop picking on Apple, but it is not a coincidence that Apple is one of the leading proponents in the integration of DRM technologies. Apple has a strong vested interest in maintaining the copyright protection of its product, yet this will never be successful until the company, and others acknowledge the independent minds who are reliant on their products. This is the widening middle ground that I have described. I oppose DRM protection rights, because their combative nature fail to embrace sweeping, democratized change that will influence the rest of media history. These restrictions are inherently designed to be broken, as this has been proven, and will fail to capture the momentum of an exponentially accelerated industry.

Greenblatt, Alan. "Future of the Music Industry." CQ Researcher 13.41 (2003): 989-1012. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 19 April 2007 .

Clark, Charles S. "Clashing Over Copyright." CQ Researcher 6.42 (1996): 985-1008. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 19 April 2007 .

Is it Utopia that we seek? Is it really an imaginary island where Peace exists? Or can it be that Our society cannot obtain Peace, because we are cruel, fearful, greedy animals? I do not believe in striving for a Utopian society - because the one defined by Thomas Moore cannot exist, and cannot be realized. We are rational, conscientious human beings capable of Communication. What I want to communicate already exists. It exists infinitely all around us. Peace.

You see, We realize more and more about how much of nothing we really are. Everyday our microscopes grow stronger, so that we see infinite space. On the sub-atomic level, is there Peace? Yes. Do you think a proton is concerned with the War in Iraq? The proton acts in order and necessity.

In the park on a sunny day, is there Peace? Does it exist in that moment, in that Space, at that Time? There is Peace.

Now, how about when We look at the Milky Way Galaxy. When we look at the Galaxy, can we see the roar of our tanks, the thunder of our bombs, the cackling of our machine guns? What is it that we See? Some call it Beauty. There is Peace.

And it surrounds us. We must See.

Yesterday, our Nation witnessed a brutal attack on young minds of America- a slaying of victims that were citizens of our country. In the hours when the death toll count was in flux, the number was static and we all deeply knew that a tragedy had occurred. And we lift our Spirit to their families. We send Hope and Mourning. We send our Hearts.

Why do we kill? Is it such an impossibly fundamental question?

These acts are senseless. And they spread like cancer. Violence breeds more Violence. Haven't we seen that the Gun, is just slinging rocks that kill? Has it solved any problems in the best manner? Turn your eye to the Middle East.

Is it fair to call it swinging rocks- guns have liberated peoples from oppression. Guns have been used as tools for centuries since the first spark of flint hit steal. We have a Constitutional right to bear a weapon. But this is not what I question. I do not question the motives of Guns- because Guns serve a human purpose.

What is the American Dream? Ask any scholar and I'm sure they'll give you a winded answer. But what does it include for you? Does it involve safer streets, communities, hospitals, work places?

Do you remember, Violence breeds Violence?

Why do we allow our Sons and Daughters to die on the battlefield of a WAR THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT? Why does American currency, that has been earned on American sweat, fund the deaths of human beings? Brothers and Sisters of this Planet.

Why do we Kill? Have we lost Hope? A Beacon awaits.

It has come to my realization with increasing clarity, that the motivations of common men and the countries which they inhabit are numerous yet simple. Man wishes to own or share property, he works for health, prosperity, progress, and liberty; he has a powerful propensity to love, he wishes to be part of a greater good, and he wishes to worship freely or have the choice not to.

Throughout history, man has fallen into conflict when these motivations are breached. He has paraded weapons through his streets, boasting arsenals and impenetrable shields. He has conquered and exploited by the puppeteer of greed – taking more than his share of life liberties defined by necessity.

Yet these usurpations against the good of man, by man, have been consciously postulated by the very source and receivers of this paradigm; this consciousness in the face of dissent and overwhelming adversity has led to breaks of refreshing reform, but our militaries continue to drain our capital, our borders proliferate with tensions of hostility, our treaties and conventions dissolve into meaningless filibuster.

Perhaps humanity, by design, is biologically ensnared in a vicious cycle of unforgivable imperfections that are doomed to rocket us toward the bitter end. I find my thoughts at times indispensably hopeless; I acknowledge and genuinely despise the formidable temptation of corruption. But, I refuse to stay silent when our vested interest is to stand firmly on the greatest platform that will outlive the voices of humanity, forever. That platform is Peace. At this time and all the times before and after, Peace is within the heart of every man, a disguised yet unanimous desire for the World over. We must realize strength from our deepest fears.

The answer is abundantly elusive and simple, ironically tangible and difficult. That answer is the platform, Peace. A fool will coin Peace as an ambiguous global concept that does not exist, but it resides in any and every moment all around us on scales infinitely fathomable to any being. Within the spectrum of the universe our conflicts are trivial.

I dare to employ a solution. All nations must enter into an accord of Peace. There will be no strings, addendums, supplements, or any other deliciously seductive synonyms that will clutter such a pure agreement. It will be a uniform acknowledgement of a responsibility to ourselves, the planet, and future generations. It will cure meaningless suffering that floats without regard over borders or into the prejudice to the masses.

Let the variable governments exist without imperialism with respect to life liberties. Any form of resourceful wealth is neither a burden to be horded or to withdraw from, it is a tool to better our kind. Invest the capital of governments not in machines that doom us, but prosper us in the humanities - education, health care, infrastructure, technology – the pride of our evolutionary abilities.

To a Generation;

I open my eyes; and I see. You too, open your eyes; you see. But collectively and together, our eyes are without origin. We are scattered marbles on a floor. Do we see?

In this time we are illuminated, each one of us. Each one of us is within the ability to proliferate ideas - of art, of humor, of love, of hate, of expression. With the functions of technology and the abundance of democratized resources, we are voices in new mediums. We are networked together, and cannot be stopped by a single blow. Destroy one point, and the network will sustain and progressively flourish. Communication is vividly more efficient; we are vividly more efficient. I see means to an end.

It is this, that I see. I see consequence. I see a Burden. But what I see, is that We see corrupt governments. We see corrupt governments proliferate nuclear weapons. We see our climate crumble beneath the industrial plow. We see our medical care fail the sick. We see guns in our businesses, our schools, on our streets. It is this, that you see. You see consequence. You see a Burden.

I see the means to the end. Perhaps, you do too. But collectively and together, our eyes are without origin. Do we see?

Is this generation - not defined - without origin? I see that we are not defined. You see that we are not defined. We have yet to accept our wakening responsibility to a global effort. We are marbles scattered on the floor, stars scattered throughout a galaxy. We are without origin.

We are Blue ink stains on a sheet, ink that has spilled without a form. Must we wait to let the ink dry? Is it not time to define? Is it not time to write? Can we change our formless stain into a vividly more efficient network? Do we have the means? Do we see an end?

This generation is without origin. I see that we are the Blue Burden. Do you see the Blue Burden? Do We see the Blue Burden?