Jim Merkle's Radically Simple: A Film

Just wanted to give an up date to the postings I have shared in the past regarding the work that Jim Merkle is doing towards finding a way to sustainably live. There is now a film by Bullfrog Films of approximately 35 minutes available. I hear it is available on Netflix and it is worth requesting it from your public library, which may have a copy.

Blessed Be

Joel

Previous Jim Merkle postings with a You Tube preview below:
Questions of Equality
Inter-human Equality
"Inter-species Equality" or "4.7 acres"
1978 or Inter-generational Equality
Self-Imposed Limits

IPAT
Jim Merkle's Sustainability Strategy

“1978” or “Intergenerational Equity”

I was amazed to read that within in my own lifetime, and yet before my younger sisters were born, we as a human species crossed the threshold of the Earth’s sustainable yield by our consumption. The year was 1978. Prior to this date, when humans over consumed, we took away from the other species trying to survive upon the planet. After 1978, we started consuming other humans’ share, at the expense of future human generations. This figure is in part linked to the growth of the human population. However, the World Bank is actually predicting a slowing down of the human doubling rate, the first time this has happened since we humans reached a billion in numbers. Women in less industrialized nations are giving birth to four rather than six children (a drop from thirty years previously). While unsure as to the reasons behind this trend, demographers are now predicting, if all factors remain the same, a peak in the human population between 10 and 11 billion people by 2100.*

The Earth produces a tremendous amount of life each year. When unstressed, and unconsumed this life adds to the bioproductivity that can be used currently, and into future generation. When more is consumed than is produced, we wear down the Earth’s systems, leaving less for future generations. If these growth predictions are true, then in 2050 the earth will contain 9 billion people, and the $980 a year share of the world’s GNP will have shrunk to $650 and humanity will be overshooting the world’s carrying capacity by 88 percent.**

Of course, we humans could decide to address these issues and make the significant changes necessary …

The key to Intergenerational equity is passing down to the next generation (especially the yet unborn generation) the Earth with no degradation, or even more bioproductivity, reversing in the degradation process. To do so, we have to scale back our annual take on an already overworked system.

As Jim Merkel sums up: “In the 150 or so years since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve doubled the population 4 times and doubled the size of the global economy 20 times … Currently, humanity takes 20 percent more than is produced, thus wearing down the Earth’s systems. Might it be wise to scale back our annual take to help the overworked systems rebound? We can either err on the side of caution or gamble with our children’s future.”***

__________
* Jim Merkel Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on the Finite Earth. (New Society Publishers, 2003.) 64.
** Ibid. 63.
***Ibid. 64. 65.

“Interspecies Equity” or “4.7 Acres”

All Creatures of our God and King,
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
O praise ye! Alleluia!
O brother sun with golden beam,
O sister moon with silver gleam!
O praise ye! Allelulia! Alleluia! Allelulia!

(Francis of Assisi, ca. 1225; trans William H. Draper, 1925, 

adapt. 1987)

Francis of Assisi was known for his love of all creation. So was Albert Schweitzer, who apparently had his wooden organ covered with cooper while serving as a doctor in Africa so that he didn’t have to poison, kill or injure the wood bores who were in the process of attacking it. I wonder, how anthropocentric a world view did either Francis or Schweitzer have?

Jim Merkel provides some thought-provoking details, especially if we long to follow in the just as radical today as it was then footsteps of Francis or Schwitzer.

Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy, states that there are 28.2 billion acres of bioproductive land on Earth – the total surface area minus the deep oceans, deserts, icecaps and built-up land. When divided between six billion people, each person gets a 4.7-acre share – we’ll call this area each person’s “personal planetoid.” But this assumes that humanity uses the entire planet’s annual production. The question then becomes “How much of my 4.7-acre share do I want to use for myself and how much do I want to leave for other life forms?” You might think, “I want to share it all.” A generous thought. But the reality is, you need to consume to survive. And what you use is not available for the deer, rabbits, or coyotes. For example, assume I am fenced into a one-acre garden with one deer and we eat the plants almost as fast as they grow, but don’t deplete them. After 60 years, the land is still just as productive as it was when w entered. Generous me then invites a friend inside the fence. Now the plants can’t keep pace with our appetites, and the land becomes depleted. Renewable “resources,” or the planet’s “bioproductivity,” takes time to regenerate. They are only renewable if they’re consumed at a rate slower than their annual growth or yield.
With a mere 1.5 million of the estimated 7 to 25 million species identified worldwide, caution is in order. And, with the current extinction rate estimated at 100 to 1,000 time faster than the natural rate, humanity’s current idea of sharing nature is deeply challenging.*

As I will mention in a later blog, this is in part due to humanities consuming beyond the tipping point. We are no longer just consuming nature, we are consuming ourselves (see 1978 or Intergenerational Equity to come).

Remember too that the 4.7-acres is to deal with our complete footprint (carbon, waste, housing, etc). 

If a visual would help, an acre (4,840 square yards) is slightly smaller than a USA football field (5,330 square yards).

Conservation biology looks at the question of interspecies equity through the needs of entire ecosystems. “Reed F. Noss, a specialist in the field, has outlined four objectives that will maintain native biodiversity in perpetuity:

• Represent, in a system of protected areas, all native ecosystem types and serial stages across their natural range of variation.
• Maintain viable populations of all native species in natural patterns of abundance and distribution.
• Maintain ecological and evolutionary processes, such as disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, and biotic interactions, including predation.
• Design and manage the system to be responsive to short-term and long-term environmental change and to maintain the evolutionary potential of lineages.**

Noss further figures that to create such an arena where biodiversity and viability of species is preserved would require between 25 to 75 percent of the total land area in most regions would need to be put into reserves with buffer zones surrounding them.

To put this into perspective:

To maintain a minimum population of 1,000 animals would require 242 million acres for grizzly bears, 200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves. Even the six-million-acre Adirondack Park, which contains the combined areas of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Olympic, and Grand Canyon National Parks struggled to support a reintroduction of lynx. … If the area outlined … was extensively restored, a 200 million acre (312,000 square mile) core area could be formed in New England and Canada. With a drastic reduction of roads and traffic, and a citizenry ready to co-exist with wildlife, these animals might make their way back down from Canada. Sound impossible? Living in British Columbia for seven years among grizzlies, cougars, and wolverines, I leaned that co-existing is not rocket science, not costly, and not even difficult. But it would take a redesign of the human environment and a willingness to change habits.***

Merkel points out that the real issue is one of Anthropocentrisms, in which we hold that humans are the measure of things. A Biocentric or Deep Ecology viewpoint might be needed if we were to truly change course.

I might also add, from a theological viewpoint, that anthropocentrism can be a hindrance in understanding the Divine.

_________
* Jim Merkel. Radical Simplicity: small footprints on a finite Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2003. 55–6, 56–7 .
** Ibid. 57. Merkel quotes Reed F. Noss. “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy”, Wild Earth Special Issue (1993): pp.10-21.
***Ibid. 57, 58.

Interhuman Equity

Imagine a potluck dinner in which all 6 billion plus people of our planet attend, Jim Merkel invites. You are in line first. How much food do you take? After the meal, you go to gather the supplies you need for the year, again, how much do you take?

Let’s consider two hypothetical scenarios. After you green grass and blue sky dinner, the ten people at your table get a basket of money equal to ten sustainable, equitable shares of the world Gross National Product (GNP). To determine how much is in the basket, we first divide the total world GNP - $29,340 billion – by six billion people for a $4,900 share. But because the total economic activity of humanity overshoots the globe’s carrying capacity by 20 percent we adjust the share to $3,900. At this level of GNP, we still have humanity consuming the entire global bioproductivity. Let’s say we scale back total human impact in terms of GNP by 75 percent to make room for the millions of other species. Each person would now have an annual equitable share of the world GNP equal to $980. You begin to try to imagine living on $980 a year, gulp… and you freeze. Impossible!

The basket has $9,800, or 10 times the $980 equal shares. This money is laid out in bundles of 100 one-dollar bills. Now each draws a number from a hat. You draw first, and can take what you want. Everyone watches in silence. How much to you take?*

Merkel switches scenarios slightly. Now you can approach an ATM machine behind a curtain, with no societal pressures, you could take as much as you want, you’re first after all, and no one will know but you how much you took. Again, how much to you take?*

Merkel again posits these hard questions of global living in a remarkable way. So far we have been touching on the GNP, economics, and later he speaks of how much land is equitable for us humans to use. Not in terms of living on, but in terms of use: CO2 absorption, food production so that we can eat, etc. At the same time, he is asking us hard questions; he also gives us hope from the past. The western understanding of the way of relating to one another and the world hasn’t and isn’t the only way. He also gives inspiration.

Charles Gray, from Eugene, Oregon, author of Toward a Nonviolent Economics, developed the concept of World Equity Wage (WEW) and capped his wage at $3.14 an hour, and worked no more than 20 hours a week. His voluntary “deprivileging” was motivated by a goal of sharing the available work and wealth with humanity and restoring the environment. When we meet in 1995, he had already been living for 17 years on what he calculated to be the World Equity Budget (WEB), and averaged $1,190 in total annual living expenses from 1978 to 1993. He is a delightful, open-minded person and his book is an inspiration.

After 14 years of living on $5,000 per year (placing me amongst the wealthiest 17 percent of humanity), I know it would take a quantum redesign of my life and significantly reduced expectations of services to approach equity. I know it is hard in the context of an unsustainable culture, but every bit of societal level change, be it bike lanes, mixed zoning, or local organic markets will make the whole process easier.**

______
* Jim Merkel Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on the Finite Earth. (New Society Publishers, 2003. 58-60.
**Ibid. 61-2.

Questions of Equity

“You will never understand violence and nonviolence until you understand the violence to the spirit that happens from watching your children die of malnutrition.” ~ a Salvadoran peasant*

This is a rather sobering way to begin a discussion on equity, but an important reminder about the global nature of this topic. As children we are brought up striving for fairness, for equity. Most children understand this topic quite well, and are often the first to point out how unjust a situation is. In growing up, somewhere along the line, we start tampering with this inner guide. Perhaps it is as Matthew Fox has commented that there is no place for the Child or the Mystic or the Elderly in the machine of the modern industrial complex. Perhaps this is so, perhaps this is so.

Yet the prophets of the Judeo-Christian tradition constantly remind us to care for the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, and the sojourner. Jesus reminds us to seek first the Kingdom of God, where justice and compassion kiss (as the psalmist says). Where we live in right relationship with one another. The Wesleys, and others, remind us that it is not enough to seek out personal salvation, but that our very salvation depends upon the salvation of society. The Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven. That works and faith go hand in hand. Liberation theologians remind us, God has a preferential treatment for the poor and the oppressed.

But what does equality look like? Cannot we just raise everyone’s standard of living to our own? How much a say do the “voiceless” of nature: the waterways, the sky, the land have a say? And what about those with voice, but not our own: the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the creatures of the land? Do we really take seriously that the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof?

These next few blogs of the next week or so will be looking at these very questions. At the same time, I want to point out that while my family and I are striving to move into a more sustainable lifestyle, we ourselves are nowhere near where we want to be. I do not submit the following and upcoming blogs from a perspective of expertise, but rather as a starter for conversation around these important issues.

To start, here are some ethical questions Jim Merkel and James Huskins posit, followed by a litany from the United Methodist Hymnal.

Jim Merkel presents some ethical questions for us to ponder:

• Could Earth support all the world’s population at my standard of living?
• Do other species or people suffer because of my lifestyle?
• Do good things come from each dollar I spend?
• Do other species have inherent value?
• Should my race, gender, strength, taxonomy, education, or birthplace allow me to consume more than others?
• Are wars being fought over resources that I use?
• Do I support corporations or industries that damage the environment or exploit workers in sweatshops?
• Is my lifestyle in alignment with my own values?**

James Huskins writes about the questions he ponders when picking out tools, whether they be a hammer or a computer:

For most of that time my guiding principle has been whether these tools are “appropriate.” Appropriateness means more than whether a tool is well made, well suited to the job at hand, not likely to break down in use, and has a long life expectancy, although all these factors are port of the equation.
Also involved are questions such as: Does the manufacture and/or use of this tool seriously degrade the environment? Does owning this tool make me more or less dependent on corporations whose scruples are as readily for sale as their products? Does the use of this tool enhance my ability to think well and my capacity to provide for basic needs? Is the tool obscenely expensive to purchase and/or use? Will the kingdom of God be any closer to existing on earth as it is in heaven if I have this tool?***

And from the United Methodist Hymnal’s collection of Affirmations of Faith (this can be read responsively, one group/person in the lighter text, the other in the italicized/bold faced text):

We believe in God, creator of the world and of all people;
and in Jesus Christ, incarnate among us,
   who died and rose again;
and in the Holy Spirit,
   present with us to guide, strengthen, and comfort.
We believe;
God, help our unbelief.
We rejoice in every sign of God’s kingdom:
   in the upholding of human dignity and community;
   in every expression of love, justice, and reconciliation;
   in each act of self-giving on behalf of others;
   in the abundance of God’s gifts entrusted to us that all may have enough;
   in all responsible use of the earth’s resources.
Glory be to God on high;
and on earth, peace.
We confess our sin, individual and collective,
   by silence or action:
      through the violation of human dignity
         based on race, class, sex, nation, or faith;
      through the exploitation of people
         because of greed and indifference;
      through the misuse of power
         in personal, communal, national and international life;
      through the search for security
         by those military and economic forces that threaten human existence;
      through the abuse of technology
         which endangers the earth and all life upon it.
Lord, have mercy;
Christ, have mercy;
Lord, have mercy.
We commit ourselves individually and as a community
   to the way of Christ:
   to take up the cross;
   to seek abundant life for all humanity;
   to struggle for peace with justice and freedom;
   to risk ourselves in faith, hope, and love,
      praying that God’s kingdom may come.
Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.****

______________

*World Bank. 2000 World Development Indicators CD-ROM. Washington DC: World Bank, 2000.
** Jim Merkel. Radical Simplicity: small footprints on a finite Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2003. 53–4 .
*** James Huskins. “Mix and Match.” The Plain Reader: Essays on Making a Simple Life. Scott Savage, Ed. New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1998. 120–123. 120–1.
****The United Methodist Hymnal. Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1989. 886.