Cutting Plans

“One man’s waste is another’s treasure. Not countin’ pollution, of course.” Al Menzies and I stood on a knoll overlooking the Colorado Holistic University campus. He had just finished work on a plan for cutting the ecological impact of the physics complex by half over the next 13 years. His suggestions will be integrated into a larger plan with a similar target for the university as a whole. “I hate knockin’ down buildings,” he continued, “but the offices have gotta go.”

I imagined native plants occupying the area after the demolition. “I’m surprised that efficiency doesn’t get you at least that much,” I said, fully aware that he must have tackled that low-hanging fruit at the beginning of the effort.

“Efficiency!” he spat. “With current tech, that keeps ya from losin’ about a sixth of what’s added, energy and so-on. If ya take out the need for addin’ then you’re gettin’ real savings. Nature knows how: reuse everything, includin’ the consumers. That’s the example we gotta follow.”

“That seems like overkill,” I insisted. “Is it because we need the labs to support the stop-and-clean?” Yes, I used the new lingo for stopping self-sustained impacts and getting rid of pollution.

“It’s simpler than that. Remember Menzies’ Rule? Do everything ya can, as soon as ya can, ‘cause it might not be possible later.”

A block to our right, I saw Maura exit the history department where I now work. She waved, and I waved back. “Have you heard what they’ll be doing with history?” I asked Al.

“Nah,” he said, “but I’m guessin’ it’ll be less ‘cause of their lack of labs. Also, the alumni love the history of the place a lot more, pun intended. Like I said, another’s treasure.”

Stories of similar decisions are appearing more frequently in the news as promises made during the negotiation of the global strategy now have the force of law. Most cities have already announced that they will be literally breaking ground in less than two weeks, putting plans into action so they have a defensible chance of meeting the strategy’s targets.

Reality Check

The following graph shows the distribution of world resources as projected over time for the simulated world. Ratios discussed in the post apply to the sum of wants and waste. Note that waste must be totally gone two years after the deadline.

End State

TIME TO STRATEGY EXECUTION: 77 DAYS

Sally’s version of a successful strategy at the end of this century has the population and ecological footprint that humanity had in the early 1950s, in a world with half the resources that existed then. The destruction of life due to our myriad assaults and the physical feedback loops they created has been stopped with the aid of the species we spared and helped grow to sustainable levels. People’s experience with each other and the rest of nature is similar to what it was in the early 1990s, spread between the growth and peak stages with nowhere safe to go next.

Despite these superficial similarities with our past, the world looks much different from anything most people then or today would recognize. Technological progress has shifted from taking and transforming more resources to increasing and nurturing what remains. People live in what Sally calls “cached habitats,” prefabricated homes and infrastructure that supports their needs and are available for anyone’s use as long as they commit to maintenance, sharing with others, and avoiding negative impacts on all surrounding life. Everything built is designed to be reusable and biodegradable within no more than two decades, which allows for changes in local conditions and requirements for ecosystem health to influence both its decommissioning and reconstruction as needed.

Even more important than the sharing and design of places and things in service of healthy and diverse life supporting systems is the sharing and joint development of knowledge, understanding, and values that enables it. Common acceptance of basic facts, concepts, and values is absolutely critical to long-term survival, and is never allowed to be compromised; although new opinions and approaches are welcome as potential modifications and subject to rigorous test by those affected as a condition of adoption. In addition, forms and content of communication will be different, having adapted to changing survival requirements resulting from variable environmental conditions, forced mobility, and intensity of interaction between people.

What happens between now and then will determine the details of this scenario at the scale of people’s daily lives. The means and success of stopping and then reversing the degradation of planetary life support are expected to have the greatest impact, especially in setting the ratio of people to ecological resources, which affects the size and behavior distribution of the population.

“That last part is particularly problematic,” Maura said as we shared our reactions to Sally’s presentation. “She’s got some good reasons for holding onto that lower population figure, and I’ve got some of my own.”

“I was actually surprised that the number was so high, after she listed all the climate feedbacks already in progress, not to mention the accelerating extinction rates at the bottom of the food chain.” I had been reading a lot. “What are your reasons for believing it’s so high?”

“I’ve seen some ‘projections’ that indicate up to three billion of us could cease to be people, but they won’t cease to exist.”

“What the heck does that mean?” I asked, but she refused to answer.

Reality Check

Sally’s description is my own, based my latest simulations and some educated guesswork.