A skeptic waxing poetic

I have been exchanging some rather interesting emails with a new friend of late and, in the course of them, wrote the following. It is really my answer to the common charge that atheists and rational skeptics lack any sort of awe or wonder in their relationship to the world; far, far from it.

I would love to be proven wrong and to experience the sort of transcendent, spiritual connection between things that is posited in most indigenous / pagan / new-age systems of belief; it fits incredibly well with how I see the world, with the vast complexities and interconnectedness / interdependence of life, and with my environmentalist / sustainable mindset.

But that, in a lot of ways, is exactly the problem- if I just accept that because it fits well, because it harmonizes with my feelings and how I view the world, I am in no more tenable a position than someone who does the same thing with their deity of choice. Being rational about it, I can only accept such things as I have seen sufficient evidence to support, and I have seen no evidence to support the idea that there is that spiritual, transcendent level to reality that would tie things up so neatly. I haven't ruled out the fact that someday, I might have that sort of revelatory experience and all of the sudden realize that, holy shit, I am connected to everything in the world not only in terms of energy and matter moving through states in this partial closed-loop system but something utterly transcendent, but until I see evidence of that for myself, I can't make that assumption.

In the meantime, though, my biggest point is that while that additional connection to the world would be nice, it isn't necessary to provoke the sort of awe that most religious types think rational reductionists lack. Even without the assumption of another layer of reality, I am connected to All That Is. We are both in the stream and of it, and what we do to the whole we do eventually to ourselves. It sounds incredibly new-age and hippy dippy, but strictly in terms of
physics, chemistry, and biology, it is all absolutely true.

Look at water as a simple example... We drink it in. We breathe, sweat, piss, and otherwise excrete it out for every moment we are alive on this planet. It doesn't disappear. It is taken back up into the stream, absorbed and used by myriad forms life, from trees to bacteria, swept up into clouds and rained back down to begin anew. Molecules of water that were once a part of me have passed through and been a part of billions of other organisms- maybe even you. The same is true of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, all manner of other things; energy to fuel all of this comes from the sun and powers this organization until it is lost to entropy, but perpetually replaced.

With that sort of connection just in what we can see, touch, measure, and truly understand, what need is there truly for another ineffable layer to reality?

Sustainability defined

A high school buddy of mine asked this morning that I write a little bit about sustainability as a concept- apparently I am more credible than the average raving tree huggers he has encountered, so he hoped I'd give a more balanced view.

At its most basic, sustainability as a concept really boils down to two things:

- Understanding and acknowledgement of the fact that both renewable and nonrenewable resources on this planet are not inexhaustible, and
- A desire to make the most efficient use possible of those resources, and in such a way as they will always be accessible for continued use

From that perspective, it really has a lot in common with the output maximization equations you might see in an industrial plant, figuring out the most efficient way to use limited or costly resources to extract the maximum possible benefit from those resources, doing as much as possible to cut down on waste and redundancy and to use less costly and / or more durable materials to the greatest degree possible.

Where they diverge is in the intent. In the industrial example, the goal is to extract the maximum value from the material inputs to deliver the greatest possible profit to the company. Sustainability from an environmentalist perspective, though, is all about reducing the amount of impact our economic activities have, most notably through reducing the amount of consumption (be it materials or energy) required to operate in a given industry. (Carbon and other emissions, while often set up as or misunderstood to be the goal of sustainability, are in many ways just a stand-in for this idea of reducing consumption.)

The part that is most interesting and exciting for me in all of this, though, is the fact that both the industrial and the environmentalist goals in this equation are the same- it's the same maximization equation either way, maximizing output while minimizing inputs.

A classic example of this in sustainability-oriented academia is Ikea; while I have my own issues with them (I don't believe that it is sustainable to manufacture a cheaply-made durable good designed to be commoditized and perpetually replaced, regardless of the recycling and sourcing policies associated with its manufacture), they were a relatively early adopter (due, notably, to a PR nightmare associated with their early policies relating to pollution and toxins) of recycling and waste reduction; by systematically analyzing their operations they were able to positively impact both their financial and environmental bottom line through a few different means:

- Reducing the amount of waste generated in the course of production
- Increasing the amount of material reclaimed as recyclables and reused within products
- Consequently reducing the amount of material consigned to landfills, thereby reducing that substantial cost

Now, obviously, the interests of industry and those of environmentalists aren't always going to be aligned, especially while the costs of polluting continue to be so easily externalized (to say nothing of the artificially deflated cost of energy as we burn through eons upon eons of stored energy in the form of fossil fuels in the course of a scant few centuries). But, to me, the idea that they can be aligned is very exciting- it is a win-win solution in an arena that has been characterized for decades by confrontational, unproductive bickering.

I genuinely believe that, as the costs of unsustainable practices mount over time and as industry is held more and more accountable for the total costs of their operations, these two divergent interests will find themselves more and more in line with one another. It may not- truth be told, probably will not- happen in my lifetime, but I believe that we are laying some very important groundwork now. This is not greenwashing, this has nothing to do with PR, but everything to do with the linked environmental and economic bottom line for a company.

(The idea of the linked environmental and economic bottom lines is not mine, I should note, but is a part of the larger concept of the triple bottom line; for a process to be sustainable, it must not only be environmentally sustainable, but economically and socially as well. In short, it is no more sustainable to operate in such a way as you are going out of business (in which case someone else will step in and do it however they see fit) or degrading your workforce (in which case you will chew through them eventually and be unable to continue operating) than if you were tearing through all available resources at an unsustainable rate.)

In any case, to return to the basic premise and reword it slightly, the idea of sustainability is to live within our means, whether we accomplish that by way of reducing our consumption or making smarter decisions on what and how to consume, such that we will continue to be able to live into the future and won't have to deal with any of the ugly consequences of running out. It's a concept that any business owner, manager, or person with a checkbook should be able to grasp very readily.