Seeking Manna for All
by Ronald Wasowski, CSC

Some say that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. However, hunger seems to be far more insistent and persistent. We can hardly go a few hours before feeling physical hunger, a few days before experiencing emotional want. For most people in industrialized societies, these hungers are not critical; waiting a few hours or even days will not kill. However, for many people in developing nations, the situation is literally a matter of life or death; a few hours might well mean death.

Granted that food is a life-critical need for more than one billion people, it is a need for all people that will exist as long a life on Earth persists. One crucial question for society generally-and for Christian communities specifically-is how to insure that all people have sufficient food. Manna for the moment is not enough. Society’s task is seeking manna for all, and for all time.

In its infancy, every scientific concept can be defined in different ways. Sustainability is no exception. According to Our Common Future (often called the Brundtland Report):

“Sustainable development…meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

And according to the 1994 Oslo Symposium on Sustainable Consumption:

“[Sustainable production and consumption is] the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better qualify of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations.”

Considering other definitions as well, two common themes emerge. First, sustained satisfaction of the basic needs of all future generations must be assured. This is the concept of inter-generational equity. Second, there should be minimum resource withdrawal combined with minimal waste disposal.

Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring is a seminal work for the concept of sustainable development. Writing during her battle with terminal cancer, Carson outlines the complex and largely unknown relationships between environment, economy and quality of life. Following the lead of Silent Spring, one early and continuing focus of sustainable development is the control and remediation of pollution. Although this effort remains essential, there is a growing realization that pollution is by no means the only area of concern. More recently, proponents of sustainable development have begun to critically analyze two closely related phenomena: production and consumption.

Science and technology have enabled the industrialized world to increase labor productivity about twenty-fold since 1850. Even so, wasteful practices in the production of goods and services must be considered. In modern market economics, decisions are made primarily on the basis of short-term costs. As a result, the lowest paid workers and the lowest quality materials are often chosen. This tends to result in minimal living standards for production workers and minimal product quality for end users. One concept that is gaining momentum is “Green Chemistry.” The basic idea is to minimize (1) the amount of matter and energy required to produce chemicals, (2) the amount of waste matter and energy released into the environment, and (3) the potential hazards to the environment. Green Chemistry is finding favor not so much because of environmental idealism as because of lower costs.

By some estimates, the per capita resource consumption rates of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations are about five times higher than developing nations and ten times higher than necessary. This conclusion led Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek to the Factor Ten philosophy. The objective is to reduce the resource consumption rate of developed nations by a factor of ten and then distribute that resource wealth to all people. The latter is the principle of intra-generational equity.

To achieve Factor Ten, both mindsets and economies would need to change radically, a highly unlikely prospect. For that reason, some have concluded that a more realistic Factor Four philosophy should be targeted. Proponents claim that resource productivity (the amount of wealth produced per ton of resources consumed) can be quadrupled using existing technology. That would allow the world to double wealth yet halve resource consumption.

Even implementing Factor Four would require a significant change in attitudes. It is idealistic-and probably unrealistic-to expect that developing nations will somehow leapfrog the “extravagant resource consumption” stage of economic growth. A brutally honest example from an industrialized nation is a 1989 statement by S. S. Shatalin, chief economic advisor to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We cannot afford the western kind of environmental protection at this time. We will first establish a market economy and then, when we are as rich as you are, we will take care of the environment.”

Indeed, poverty in any nation will make sustainability virtually impossible to attain.

One important question is “Where might we begin implementing the ideals of sustainable development?” Should it be at the grassroots, the national, or the international level? Much like a military battle, it may be best to work on all fronts simultaneously.

One grassroots vision that may be very helpful is “voluntary simplicity”. The goal is becoming “outwardly poor yet inwardly rich.” One assumption of voluntary simplicity is that most of what we consider “needs” are only “desires”. A second assumption is that we accumulate goods under the mistaken presumption that they will bring us joy. This idea goes back to Old Testament times when material wealth and comforts were seen as signs of God’s special favor. However, the kenosis (self-emptying) that characterized Christ’s life (cf. Philippians 2:6) presents a very different ideal, as does the Acts of the Apostles in which believers pooled their material wealth and distributed it according to need (Acts 4:35-37). In the language of sustainable development, this is “distributive equity”. It is possible to simplify our lives in many ways, among them by greatly reducing unnecessary resource consumption for the dual purposes of achieving greater inner joy and of making those resources available for the genuine needs of others.

At the national level, policies that result in increased efficiency in both extracting and reusing materials will be essential. The present ideal is to extract as much as possible, as inexpensively as possible. As a result, the full cost of environmental degradation is displaced in both space and time. The poorest people, who also earn the lowest wages, often bear the worst consequences of environmental destruction, while the richest people defer the true environmental debt, perhaps to future generations. Policies that implement a “reduce, reuse, recycle” model would focus far more on consumption than production. Reusing most materials many times before recycling would be an important step toward sustainability.

At the international level, conferences like the 1992 Rio and 1997 Kyoto meetings should continue. Special efforts should be made to hear the voices of those at the grassroots level. As experience shows, production line workers often have excellent ideas for increasing efficiency and reducing waste. Despite many failures, there have been several successes following Rio. Among these are the partial recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, the development of more accurate indicators of environmental impacts, and the improved understanding of natural systems.

There is a growing awareness that sustainability will be best understood and achieved under the umbrella of the systems concept. Within the natural sciences, a system is any set of interacting material and energy components that may be defined in any way that makes sense for an intended purpose.

Almost all systems are complex, i.e., are composed of two or more interacting subsystems. The Earth as a planet may be considered a system. Major Earth subsystems include the geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. Sustainability necessarily takes into account all these as well as the many sub-subsystems imbedded within each one.

All systems are characterized by feedback: some form of matter or energy produced within the system that affects activity within that system. Feedback can be positive or negative. Fire is an example of positive feedback. Even a small flame heats air, causing it to rise and draw in more air with essential oxygen. As long as there is sufficient fuel, the fire will continue or even grow. A fire sprinkler is an example of negative feedback. As soon as heat triggers the mechanism, water sprays onto the fire, cooling and extinguishing it.

As systems become increasingly complex, so does feedback. Even presuming that all Earth’s feedback mechanisms are identified, learning both their intensities and interactions is extremely difficult. This lack of understanding is largely responsible for what scientists call the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Tinkering with poorly understood systems almost always leads to surprises, usually unpleasant ones. In many ways, this characterizes our present unsustainable environmental situation. From a scientific and engineering perspective, sustainability can never be achieved until Earth’s feedback mechanisms and their interactions are extremely well understood.

As our technology improves, there is a growing temptation to conclude that sustainability might be achieved by improved scientific understanding alone. However, values necessarily come into play as well, and this is justifiably the realm of religion and faith. Many critics point to the Christian Bible as a major source of justification for the profligate use of material resources: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. …” (Genesis 1:28). Other critics are more generous in dispensing blame to all the world’s major religions.

While religions have been used as justification, so too can they be used for amelioration. In Christianity, there are two particularly relevant faith tenets. First, all creation comes from God and therefore deserves respect. Second, all humanity has fallen from God and therefore needs redemption. The former emphasizes that we are only transient citizens living in an amazingly complex system, every component of which deserves profound respect. The latter reveals that as sinful people, we are called to change for the better.

Understanding that looking far into the future is difficult, there are several things that might characterize a mature sustainable economy.

From a conceptual perspective:

— People rather than things will be seen as the most important sources of joy.

— The intra-generational and inter-generational equity principles will be strongly embraced by all people, both personally and politically.

— The material quality of life for all the world’s people will be substantively equal and comparable to that of industrialized nations today.

— The Earth and all its resources will be recognized as a common patrimony inherited from God and therefore treated with greatest reverence.

— The best scientific talent will be devoted to improved understanding of the environment and how to make use of resources as efficiently as possible.

From a practical perspective:

— A detailed understanding of systems science and the science of complexity will be well understood and applied in practical ways to reduce our negative ecological impacts.

— Tax and other economic incentives will heavily favor minimizing the use of virgin materials and maximizing the reuse and recycling of materials.

— All material goods will be “durable” rather than “disposable” and, as such, will last a minimum of five times longer than comparable items today.

— Solar heating and windmills, technologies that produce electricity almost 50 times less resource-intensive than energy produced from coal, will replace more wasteful forms of energy production.

— All environmental costs will be paid up-front rather than being either spatially or temporally displaced.

It is often said that the only people we can change are ourselves. To move effectively move toward sustainable development, perhaps the most important thing we can do is develop:

“…visions of the good life that are not consumer-dominated… . The good life…could include providing the basic necessities for all, universal medical care and education, opportunities for creativity and meaningful work, time for family and friends, green spaces in cities, and wilderness for other creatures.” (McFague, Daedalus, Fall 2001)

With increased awareness and generous faith, we can begin one person at a time to simplify life, making resources available not only to fellow humans but also to all fellow creatures. As we proclaim our ideals with actions more than words, others will surely fall in step with us in seeking manna for all.

Burch, Mark A. Simplicity: Notes, stories and exercises for developing unimaginable wealth. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 1995. 130 p.

Clarkson, Linda, Vern Morrissette, and Gabriel Regallet. Our responsibility to the seventh generation: Indigenous peoples and sustainable development. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1992. 87 p.

Clayton, Anthony, and Nicholas J. Radcliffe. Sustainability: A systems approach. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1996.

Davidson, Joan, Dorothy Myers and Manab Chakraborty. No time to waste: Poverty and the global environment. London: Oxfam, 1992. 217 p.

Elgin, Duane. Voluntary simplicity: Toward a way of life that is outwardly simple, inwardly rich. New York: Quill, 1993. 240 p.

United Nations Environment Programme. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Cf. http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.