Giving Up Tuna

The world's overall population of large "food" fish has dwindled tremendously over the past 50 years.

As just one example (per the website of the ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), the seafood-loving country of Spain's trolling catch of albacore tuna has dropped from approximately 25,000 tons in 1950 to approximately 5,000 tons in 2008, a decrease of 80%! And that's just one, rather small country in a world of fish-hungry human beings.

But chickens certainly aren't endangered (although there may be questions about "factory farming" of them). And canned chicken tastes much like canned tuna.

So why not eat canned chicken instead of tuna? It may not be as high in omega-3 fatty acids, but it also lacks the mercury often found in large ocean fishes.

In short, it seems to me that if the price of canned chicken is acceptable to you, you can be eco-affluent by choosing to eat chicken rather than tuna. It seems to be a fairly painless way to be eco-conscious.

Becoming Generalists

In the urban and suburban sectors of modern societies worldwide, most people have become specialists of some sort.

We go to our places of employment and focus on a fairly narrow range of tasks. We usually don't make or repair our own possessions, hunt or grow our own food, or produce our own electricity.

But maybe we should.

In his novel Time Enough for Love, the late science fiction writer and former naval officer Robert Heinlein wrote that a human being should be able to "change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly." He added that specialization "is for insects."

In a future world without the benefit of cheap, abundant fossil fuels, we may all benefit from the possession of a wide range of practical skills. Indeed, such skills may become necessary for our individual survival.

So perhaps instead of looking down on those members of society who provide (in exchange for money) our food, shelter, protection and other necessities, we should learn to do what they have done for us, even if we can't do it as well as they have. It may come in handy.

Smaller Can Be Better

Bigger isn't always better. And smaller isn't always worse.

You can have a relatively small (even jewel-like) home, or car, that satisfies all of your personal needs. Being smaller, it will then be easier to clean and maintain. And it may even cost you less to buy in the first place. But even if it doesn't, it may still be a good idea.

Think of the BMW-made MINI Cooper S. It's a small yet high-quality vehicle and is quite fuel-efficient. Its not a cheap "economy car," but a moderately-priced performance vehicle. For those of us who like to own automobiles, it may be one of the more eco-friendly choices available.

                                                          My wife, Donna, and our MINI Cooper S MC40

And when it comes to houses and other dwellings, how much space does one really need? Just because many television programs depict people living in palatial dwellings, is that really a desirable thing for most of us? However, if that is what you want, then just realize what else you may be giving up to have it.

The houses and vehicles that many U.S. residents possess are often substantially larger than those owned by residents of other countries. Yet most people in those countries aren't pining away for larger homes and cars.

Perhaps it's time to come to grips with the concept of "enough." After all, while there's nothing wrong with working hard and being rewarded with nice possessions, there's also nothing wrong with choosing to live with less (even if you can afford more).

And by making a decision to not follow the hungry trends of consumerism, you may give yourself more choices in other areas of your life. Because if you don't need a large income to get by, you can then choose your life's work based solely on your interests, and not the amount of money you'll be papaid.

Re-Ruralization

Although the worldwide trend for many generations has been for people to move from rural to urban areas, that may have to change in the near future. Even mid-sized cities, let alone the "megacities" (such as Tokyo, New York, Delhi, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and others) may not be sustainable in a world which has effectively run out of fossil fuels and the amazing levels of energy they contain.

In the 21st century, re-ruralization may have to be the trend for many people. Small and efficient multi-level "forest gardens" may be necessary to grow food without fossil fuels, combining cutting-edge techniques like permaculture design with others that have been around for millenia.

Also, it will probably become common for each house to collect its own water (in the form of rain hitting the roof), generate its own electricity (via solar panels, and perhaps wind turbines of some sort) and utilize virtually all of its "waste" in productive ways.

Buckminster Fuller proposed this decades ago. And now, with the ubiquity of the Internet, and the ability for more and more people to work and communicate from wherever they are, many people may find that they prefer living in more rural areas, while still having access to much of what they formerly had in the city.

Personal preferences aside, a failure of the "green revolution" (which has provided cheap, plentiful food for the First World through the massive agricultural use of fossil fuels) could easily cause a planetary "population adjustment" to more sustainable levels.

If that does happen, we'll have to come up with a new way of feeding ourselves, and re-ruralization may be our best option.

Transhumanism and Gaia

At some point in the future, evolution on Earth will move to a new level. That new level, which some have called "transhumanism," will integrate machines with living beings like us.

Humans will think nothing of having electronic devices implanted in their bodies, much like people who live with pacemakers, cochlear hearing implants and other internal machinery today. But in the future, devices will be far, far smaller and will be used not just to correct medical problems, but to actually enhance human performance in myriad ways.

As computer technology, genetic and brain mapping, nanotechnology and other miniaturization techniques improve, evolution (at least of the human species, and of potential new "electronic species") will no longer depend on millions of years of random mutations. It will greatly accelerate, directed by human (and later, robotized) engineers.

Exactly how long it will take for this to happen is certainly in question. But it undoubtedly will happen, at least to some degree.

Perhaps ironic, though, is the fact that unless we stop damaging the finite biosphere we call home, our survival as even a machine-enhanced species is extremely doubtful. As James Martin has warned, we could easily be thrown into another "Dark Ages," losing most of the scientific progress we've made.

Processes we have already set into motion may be unstoppable, even if drastic worldwide steps are taken immediately (which of course is not going to happen). In other words, in even the best scenario, there may still be huge ecological catastrophes in front of us, regardless of what we now do.

But if we make the right decisions, we can hopefully get past the future events we've set into motion and create a future that is both "green" and technologically advanced.

Going back to living in the environmentally-sustainable way of our Stone Age ancestors is neither possible nor desirable. But we must learn to stop destroying vital planetary life-support systems like rain forests and to stop creating such tremendous amounts of waste.

Perhaps a good way to start is at the individual level, at home.

Definitions of "Eco-Affluence"

James Martin, founder of the 21st Century School (now the Martin School) at Oxford University, has said that if we make the right choices in the present and future, we can live well in a sustainable and essentially environmentally-harmless way. We will then be "eco-affluent." We'll still have the luxuries we've come to take for granted (or their equivalent), but damage to the environment will have ceased.

Jack Hollander of the University of California at Berkeley believes that an affluent society is more interested in, and more likely to protect, the environment than poor societies (who are struggling to get by in any way possible). In this usage, "eco-affluence" apparently occurs when wealthy societies finally decide they care about the environment.

Both opinions seem correct to me. I've seen a food-processing plant in the hills of Panama discharging smelly yellowish effluent into a beautiful mountain stream which flowed to the city below. I doubt that such a thing would be tolerated today in the United States or other First World countries.

With countries like China and India beginning to adopt widespread use of First World technologies like the automobile, eco-affluence seems to be the only way to prevent dire consequences for our entire planet.

Sustainable Enjoyment of Nature

The global population is spiraling ever higher. We're guzzling our limited fossil fuels, dumping ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and extirpating species at a breakneck pace.

But by adapting sustainable practices of the past, and inventing some new ones, we can both live well AND stop defiling the beautiful planet we call home.

This blog is an examination of how we can do it.





(Photo courtesy of Donna Owens)