There is much analysis aboutissues; over-stocking, over-invest-
ing, over-depending, over-producing, under-processing and
under-employing, but there is little explication of much in the
way of remedies. This has given rise to patronizing rhetoric along
the lines that first some unpalatable ‘medicine’ will have to be
taken in order for the environment to regain good health! Rela-
tive to this simplification it is important to hold in view the
general proposition that human optimism is always bound to
eclipse here-and-now pessimism. It is helpful to be also aware of
the prospects for continuous growth and profitability which can
be obtained from the invention and profit-taking of environmen-
tally benign technologies.^23
The overall rate and scale of within-nation landscape change
over the last one hundred years has been particularly awesome.
The box 3.4 construct, Soft pathways, provides a representation
of several technologies as ‘soft’ (benign? helpful? good?) and indi-
cates others as ‘hard’ (mostly unhelpful! alien! bad!). In fact many
a ‘soft’ technology has gone wrong (as with the introduction of
alien weed plants and animal species to the New World); and
sometimes a ‘hard’ technology is often helpful (as with the use of
GPS technology).
The prognosis given here and elaborated later involves, in large part, a slowing-
down of finite (irreplaceable) resource consumption. What is called for isa con-
servative approach to the utilization of finite resources, the husbandry of renewable
resources, a moderation of the rate of population added change; an endorsement of ‘soft’
production; and culturally linking the pursuit of an ecological balance with the environ-
ment.These strictures involve social deflections and social actions. They implicate
agricultural production and an inventory basis of control for the utilization of
finite resources, along with reduced reliance upon imported fossil fuels, fertiliz-
ers and bulk foodstuffs. Also at particular urban issue are socially appropriate
steady-state technological uptakes, energy-efficient building, and the retrofitting
of sites and buildings for compact and energy-efficient (bio-harmonic) construc-
tion and maintenance. Above all, toxins – those residues which degrade the
ecology because nature cannot assimilate them – must not be produced at all or
be tracked through to their neutralization.
An extension from the New-age pragmatics (box 1.2) is given in box 3.5, Sus-
tainable co-dependency. This construct provides the rationale for incorporating
sustainability into cyclical (seasonal) patterns. It also harbours concern for the
wellbeing of people, and a reverence for historical precedent – all placed above
short-term consumption and discard. Reinforcing the birth–life–death cycle, and
traditional rural and urban values, is inherently worthy, as is the consolidation of
a mainly natural growth of population. Co-dependency is a matter of putting
power and decisions out to local levels of government (subsidiarity); to fostering
less fiscal input from offshore borrowings, and advancing the utilization of within-
nation renewable resources and finite resources. Co-dependency brings to closure
Charter for Conservation with Development 97In my circle a few
people strive to live as
‘sustainably’ as practical.
Gold and Webster
(1990: 44) asserted that
for the New Zealand
case ‘It is clear that the
overwhelming majority
(85 percent) are
convinced of the urgent
necessity for
environmental
protection.’ Yet very few
within this hefty
proportion would be
prepared, as a minimum,
to junk their cars as a
first serious move in the
direction of
‘sustainability’!
Sustainability is an often
misapplied and
frequently
misunderstood concept!