Tag Archives: writing

The Case for Sustainability and the Two Drivers of History


Here is an excerpt from a book i’m writing:

I ask myself what is sustainability?

In our field of work, the term sustainable tourism is used a lot, yet I thought before we can look at what tourism is and how it can be sustainable we need to look at sustainability itself, to explore the relationship we have, as Humans, with some underlying forces that seem to interlace through history, weaving in and out of our evolution.

In the beginning of our journey we, as humans, were hunter gatherers. New evidence keeps coming up changing our timelines and new theories pop up almost everyday now, though it is clear we hunted or gathered for our needs, things were simple, and so were our drives.
We made shelters from natural materials, or lived directly in caves and small structures, living in a sort of natural relationship with everything around us. We hunted where animals roamed, and gathered where there were fruit, berries, nuts and honey.
This was our primal relationship in a natural environment.

Our religion or belief system back then was based on nature itself, animism, we venerated the actual phenomena and animals we lived in. We worshipped the sun and stars under which we lay at night. We noted the forces and their affect on us, yet we lived as a direct part of the natural system in which they occurred.

We then started to manipulate nature in an ever increasing degree following a need to create a sort of safety. In order to achieve a plateau of well being, we started not only to store our food, because in the natural stage we did all of that already, like squirrels do before winter. No, we started to manipulate nature itself, to provide us its substances directly without the need to go around and look for it and we invented farming.

The driving force that I am referring to here is the drive to accumulate. In this, our first stage away from the natural, we started accumulating food through the invention of farming and agriculture, in a way that allowed us to become sedentary, or semi-sedentary to begin with, because I guess we still liked to travel. That as a side note was possibly the beginning of tourism, (I am just joking). What I am saying is that in the start we kept on living as part hunter gatherers, part farmers. The domestication of wheat, the social crop, allowed us to become farmers, some mythologies say the gods themselves gave us agriculture.

Around 11,000 years ago as we were coming out of an unexpected mini Ice age we see the rise of strange settlements, like the one in Göbekli Tepe in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey. I wonder what this sudden cooling of the earth for a relatively short period, ending in another global warming in a relatively short period, would have felt like to the people wandering in it.

There are many theories about what caused it, some argue that a massive comet struck the earth and so bringing the start of the Younger Dryas. But whatever the reason is, in Göbekli Tepe we see a people, thought to be hunter gatherers, in the very same area that wheat and grain domestication had first taken place, yet those people had been building temple complexes with pillars of stone 6m high, hewn into sockets they made into the bedrock itself.

Strange animals adorn those pillars, mostly symbolic for star constellations. I personally love to imagine what it felt like for those people. What did the earth feel like to them? Why did they make those temples? What were the importance of those symbols they worked so hard to erect in the enclosures on that hill? Why did they bury it again, and what made them come together as a large group of people, as it must have taken one to build such a thing?

We see people moving out from one stage of living with nature into another social organisation, bigger groups with a different type of belief systems. They are no longer roaming the earth in smaller groups but are now building settlements and temples, which must have meant they lived in the area for a long enough period, and had enough time and people to build such a temple complex. I guess we can try and imagine what the earth looked like for those people, suddenly cooling, possibly going through a massive destruction event, and then warming up again, into a sort of spring of new hope. But in any case we see the rise of a new type of social order, and another relationship with the natural world emerging, and possibly as a result our first ancient grains.

Why did we even want to live in ever larger groups? This question brings us to the other driver force of history: the power that brings people together, a sort of base urge, a desire of sorts, or maybe it is a power in itself.
Maybe we are pack animals, and like wolves, the power in numbers and the subsequent safety was the reason, because as an animal we compete with some predators only because we are better at manipulating the environment around us. I argue that this need we have to create larger groups of people is something inherent in us, primal, possibly more magical than just relating to our safety, and we can follow it as a thread through history. It is a search for power, the power of people coming together.

Yet this driving force is a little harder to highlight – it’s the actual force we feel together as a group. As it is rarely (if ever), spoken about as a thing of its own I need to borrow a term from the 13th century Scholar Ibn Khaldun again.

Ibn Khaldun speaks about Assabyia, the group feeling, the power of the tribe, and argued that it was the “driver of history”, and that nomads, because they practice a purer form of life that is closer to the natural cycle, always have more of it. They have a stronger group consciousness over sedentary people. As they possess more of it, they also find it much easier to conquer other people, and he argued that with time, that force becomes corrupted because nomads become sedentary too after winning over their neighbours. The easier life they practice in turn, because of the spoils they plunder or inherit, makes them vulnerable to a new group of nomads who have stronger group adhesion and consciousness, and so the cycle goes on.

With the advent of farming a new reality was possible and so we started creating villages, which later turned into towns, then cities, calling for an ever larger scale of farming and domestication, allowing a larger food supply to be made in any given locale. We can raise the question here already – was that a sustainable way to live? Obviously it raised issues, about over-using the land, about the need of grazing for bigger herds of domestic animals, about sanitation, about removing ourself from nature.

We can say that people started as small families, turned into clans and then into tribes, and that group consciousness, the feeling of being together, that power that allowed them to do so, or the feeling of an ever increasing body of family and blood ties has become a sort of commodity they started looking to increase on its own. Ibn Khaldun argued that blood ties are always stronger than anything else, meaning that when a person lives with a certain group but is not related to them by blood, his alliance with them would never be as strong, his was a first ever made research of that group force as thing on its own, highlighting what is social power, and how it is obtained.

In our next mutation away from the natural state, becoming farmers and starting to build larger settlements together, we saw the need to accumulate possessions and store food rising to a new high, and with it the search for an ever increasing grouping. So our settlements have grown into cities, so by definition, larger than 10,000, forming a chain of those into civilisations. Grain storage meant we can keep food for longer times, and social organisation over our farming allowed us to live together in even bigger groups, again I would ask why did we even want to live in such bigger groups. Has the drive to have a bigger pack, bigger group identity got so removed that we felt like we needed to be ever increasingly bigger?, was that sustainable?

Again many theories have been put forth, because it is strange how in seemingly a short period time (relatively speaking) we see humanity moving away from being, supposedly, hunter gatherers that roam around, yet a moment later they are not just building temples, they are building whole cities, and now, pyramids to strange gods.

It has been argued that all of this must have been caused by some interference, that the gods were actually from another planet, or remnants of an older civilisation that survived the impact that brought the Younger Dryas forth. That those more advanced people taught hunter gatherers and brought them together, but for whatever reason, and though personally I like to imagine those scenarios and ponder what the migrations of early man would have felt like, something big has changed in us, or someone bigger than us changed us, as some claim.

Civilisations needing us to come up with complex systems of organisation, to ease sourcing our food and farming in order to make them more efficient, enabling us to feed our cities, also saw the birth of whole social hierarchy and a new system of value that transformed actual commodities into units, or into point system, in other words, money came into being. Things were assigned values, a certain value can be bartered in exchange of commodity.

Our belief systems also changed, we moved away from worshipping natural phenomena like rain, and wind, cave and mountains, the stars and the heavens. A sort of abstraction took place, we started assigning governing forces of natural phenomena, something that possibly originated with the idea that the stars as they move through the sky control or affect the things that happen down on earth. We grouped certain stars into constellations because they looked like things we knew, and we gave them attributes, we believed they controlled the way things happened on earth, we were no longer simply worshipping the power of mountain and cave, or special attributions of animals, we started believing in an abstraction that governed those forces.

So if in Göbekli Tepe we brought down the consolations down to earth,
in some strange need to have heaven near us, so we can be amongst the stars that affected us so much, Civilisation in Sumer, Akkad, Babylon and Egypt saw us dividing the sky into equal portions and giving the heavenly powers the earth itself. The gods were now beings that we can see as people, yet they came from above, the sky was split into the 12 sections with the signs of the zodiac, into areas of influence. Each of those “gods” held a power over an aspect of earth, so heaven was portioned and each portion ruled a part. It was a mirror image of the social organisation that was taking place in order to govern over larger groups of people. It symbolises the birth of government organisations, and our first religions were simply that, systems that facilitated unifying an ever increasing body of people under the same heaven, and not the other way around, someone or something, used belief in order to take us into larger settlements as a way to group us in ever increasing body of people.

In Hamlet’s Mill, Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend argue that our mythologies and belief systems all originated with astrological constellations, that our first legends were actually the movement of stars that we observed, stories of giants and hunters, Orion and Hercules, serpents and dragons.
We started believing in a personification of ruling powers, that controlled and governed natural phenomena, the birth of our first gods and goddesses, brought down to earth like falling stars to live amongst us.
As we can argue about what came first, our belief system or the social order that they facilitated, I am only outlining their relationship here.

Our new gods and goddesses allowed us to not to be reliant on nature, and it meant we can hold the group unifying feeling through a belief that was removed from nature itself, as after all our new system of belief was ruled by higher forces, it helped facilitate a move away from being nomads that travel the earth, worshipping the powers of the places that they travel through. We invented, or possibly inherited, or maybe even got given by someone else, a new system of faith, with a new pantheon of ruling forces that dominated the natural world around us.
Possibly it was part of us being dominated as well, by some more advanced race, but maybe instead of laying the blame elsewhere, we can simply say that we changed it.

The two drivers of history saw us arrange our belief systems to suit. We did not need the natural world to unify us anymore, we could worship through abstraction, powers that were distilled out of the constellations of the night sky into a race of gods. We built them pyramids and ziggurats, stepped temples, because they were in the heaven above us, and we were here down on earth, so even though we brought them to live with us they were still above us, at the end of a long flight of stairs.
In our newly made cities, now storing mountains of grain, and contemplating our first empires, we could do so much more together, but why did we want to? Was it sustainable for us to build a mountain of stones to gods that were no longer natural?

At the same time, this complex social organisation saw us needing a whole order of people to rule over us, to direct us, and the new belief system helped there too: we needed priests to talk on our behalf to the rolling forces that controlled everything. In an ever increasing pantheon every aspect and attribute was simply assigned a new god, a god of its own. Were those gods really descended from heaven, or did we just start inventing them? We even had a god for wine – was this some sort of early attempt at branding?

We can see how the driving force of accumulating in order to have safety out of the fear of scarcity, has become a force of its own now, a spiralling hunger – not only did we manipulate nature now, we also started manipulating the people that manipulated nature on our behalf, with the aim of amassing more.

Now that we were so efficient in satisfying our physical hunger, and we did not need to move like we did before as part of the natural system, the driving force that saw us safe through accumulating turned into a sort of endless need, to have more, but how much more is sustainable, what is the point of having an empire? Was it some strange ruling caste that needed to blindfold us, having us believe that we needed to be bigger and stronger, or was it simply us? And the power of being a people-together has mutated into something so big we wanted to be a nation, we wanted to be an empire, but what for? Were we better off? We seem to have lost our conversation with the natural forces at that point, lost nature itself and were now living in stone prisons, each assigned our own cells with walls all around us, worshipping a mountain that we built. Did that natural driving force, the pride and power we felt as small groups of people sharing a common identity turn too into a hunger that has driven us mad?.

We took to fighting and conquering our neighbours, usually people who were less advanced or closer to nature, still living in some sort of tribal grouping, and so smaller. A new type of relationship developed in which our belief system, and our way of life started being seen as stronger then theirs, our hunger to have more, now losing any proportions, could only be satisfied in the quick gain of taking from others, enslaving them. Who thought about this first?.

Were we ruled by some strange elite of survivors from another place? Were they not satisfied with how many of us they had to serve them, they needed us to go around and find more, how much food can one eat? If you already have a pyramid to sit on, and are dressed in gold, how many more pyramids do you need and how much gold is enough? I guess now that we have manipulated all the natural forces we simply did not know what to do with the drive to accumulate, we mutated nature, and our basic natural drivers and desires have mutated in us. Yet they have always been the same core forces. As if at any given point we can just jump ship, let the pyramid fall and go back to nature.

Because of the natural character of that force Ibn Khaldun called Assabyia, the group feeling was always stronger in smaller groups, in tribes that lived closer to nature, with less, holding a stronger cohesion, bound together by harsher living situations, by desert and mountain. And so although empires now have risen through our cunning and ability to organise and group new criteria together, they also fell, becoming corrupted by the excess, by the easy life that comes with wealth, and so we see that the hunger to accumulate and the need to become more powerful people are also interrelated with each other, and seemingly governed by some sort of fail safe mechanisms that regulates them, as if we too, are in an endless cycle of harvest. Our wheat grows into empires and is cut from the sheath, the fields of civilisation seem to lie empty, just to have new crops shoot up with golden grain rise just to be harvested by another people. It seems that no one civilisation reaped its own harvests, it was always cut by the rise of another, made out of groups of nomads, dying to try their hand at the empire game, the game of thrones.

Ibn Khaldun lived in the 13th century, we can see how at points civilisation brought an amazing wealth of well being, he enjoyed a sort of world peace that has never happened before, allowing new schools of thought to develop, yet still with an element of danger. The Muslim world view was divided between the Dar as-Salam, literally meaning the house of peace, also referred to as the house of Islam, seeing the Islamic world reaching from Morocco to deepest heart of Asia. In contrast with the house of war, Dar al-Harb, the world was divided into countries that held a treaty of peace or of non aggression and countries that did not.

Another famous Arabic scholar travelled that world of peace from side to side, over 30 years Ibn Battuta (a Moroccan scholar) saw himself moving from country to country, as a scholar, travelling without the need of money, treated as the guest of honour in every city or village he came through. It was a world of peace, that allowed thought and sciences to flourish. Yet with that the threat of the nomad in the form of the mongol horde still ever present. So It is easy to see how Ibn Khaldun could underline those two different ends of a process and how he came about to identify the group feeling or force as the driver that moves them. After all not only he was an historian he actually sat and interviewed Timur himself, the golden age of muslim thought combined with the dramas of Turco-Mongol conquest has outlined to him the power that makes and breaks empires and dynasties.

He wrote about it as a natural force of sort, and I tend to agree with him, I think that both those forces – the need to accumulate wealth and power, came out of a natural place in us, but as we lost our natural place in the world, those two have also lost a natural character, leaving us with the same basic hunger, but without a natural way to satisfy it, we started suffering from a social obesity, we ate countries and empires to satisfy something, but what?, was it sustainable for us, what was the benefit of it?. Sure we can do so much more as large groups of people, but who actually wants to do all of that. Was it a sort of experiment in trying to see what we can do?, amazing inventions and horizons have been reached, but was our life more sustainable, was our spirit purer?.

This system of exploitation is a simple basic urge too I guess, to take something from someone else, to work less, to have more. Tribal people’s all over the world were forever engaged in a system of stealing and waging war on their neighbours.

If you read about Native American plain Indians, you can see a whole social system that was built around the fighting of neighbouring tribes, that was how one advanced in his own tribe, constantly engaged in war with one’s neighbours. A question that has been asked, was if at any point in history those elements were actually sustainable?, it is obvious any given people were always engaged under those two driving forces, but did any of them learn to recognise them, did they learn to live sustainably with them?. Or was it always just a question of gathering more, having more power just to lose it to someone else?. Did we ever reach harmony with the forces that rule our fates?.

I have to admit that native Americans had a different sort of relationship with that cycle of power and wealth, maintaining some sort of values inside that system, like honour, like being a warrior, like courage, like generosity. The thing that mattered wasn’t so much what you gained, it was the way you went about fighting for it, it was your spirit and how you carried yourself in the conduct of war, how you managed to deal with those two basic drives within yourself, so although one was always going to take from others, one was also elevated in the social system for giving it all away, as if all that mattered was how it built your character, and not what you gained by taking through war.

So that system strengthened the tribal feeling, and because every tribe was somewhat engaged in the same activity it was much more cyclic, almost as if all the tribes have recognised in an unspoken way that they all will keep on fighting each other, knowing no one will ever win, but as a way to keep their young people brave, and their spirit strong, to keep the group spirit and tribal force always sharp and ready, they did not try to build empires, and it seems that their lives were almost regulated through this never ending tribal war, keeping them forever strong as a people.

Although the basic assumption was still that every tribe wanted to become the most powerful, to have more fighting man, to have more horses. There was a sort of recognition of the powers that ruled and worked through the system, the concept of the “giveaway” for example, it was seen to be more honourable to give away your possessions, so a warrior could come back from a raid with 3000 horses, yet keep two for himself, gifting all the rest.

And although farming was practiced, it was kept in balance with hunting and gathering. I do not know if a system that is built on constant war with all your neighbours is sustainable, yet I need to admit that there is some recognition of the values and how they work through the people’s life. So native Americans seems to keep themselves closer to the natural process, and although driven by that hunger to possess more, they gave it away to their tribe, and accepted without loss of too much that their neighbours would steal it back the next day, it was not just a hunger to have, it was a social system that kept their society fresh and strong, yet forever bloody.

Because this could be an endless field of research, and looking for tribal groups and how they managed to keep those drivers of man through history in check, and because I do not wish to have to defend myself out of lack of accurate information. I will just raise the questions here, did we ever know how to live together as a people? and did we ever live in a sustainable way, why do we always feel like we need more?.

James P. Beckwourth has written one of the best books (in my opinion) about living with the Crow Indians, he has even become one of their chiefs, yet as a modern man, although he has risen through the warrior ranks through his bravery, he also speaks about the constant need that they had for war, the blood in contradiction. It holds an interesting sort of conversation that takes place inside himself, because while he lived as a Crow, he was also engaged as a trader, and so through his work one can read the clash of values, with him swaying back and forth in-between two worlds and belief systems yet somehow strangely balancing them both inside himself.

Before we stray too far and as we just spoke about the golden age of the Arabic world through Islam, I think we should look for a moment at monotheism to explore the last mutation of our belief systems.
The rise of a singular god allowed people to group again in a new way. I am interested in it because I believe that it arose first as a sort of mutation, it was not just a direct progress of social order, it seems to be a special criteria.

Judaism was designed around a god that spoke only to the jews, its a perfect god for a people that travel into the lands of other people, so keeping themselves from mingling. Their god, I would say, is a sort of hybrid of that group feeling itself. Maybe in certain situations a tribe or a people has had such a strong group identity, it gives rise to an entity, a god born of the coming of a certain people, it was the sum total of their tribal feeling, their Assabyia, a tribal god. It is a different sort of god, because it is tailored specifically to them, and as they get stronger, seemingly it does too.

Their god takes them to a holy land, their personal relationship with it allows it to guide them through the desert as a pilar of smoke and fire, descending down on their holy tent, only to rise again and lead them again, to a land they are to take from another people. It was a special kind of criteria, although the obvious need to take and amass, to conquer the land of their neighbours and make it their own, is still the same as in other cases. The second force which is the need to amass a group feeling was kept on a certain kind of rein, because their god is only theirs through blood relation, it seems to ignore other people and so it stops them from growing exponentially, maintaining a sort of common factor that has seen them through history, always living in amongst other people, yet maintaining their identity. So maybe some people throughout history have created more durable self identity, but was theirs more sustainable?, even if they managed to keep themselves as a people, or a group, or a tribe for longer.

Jesus saw Christianity take this one-god-one-people and open it to everyone. Anyone who wished to believe in it could, it was a perfect solution to amassing an ever increasing number or people into one belief, yet it lacked in cohesion and national identity. And the same with Islam. The fall of the tribal systems through empires meant that the criteria that grouped people together has also changed radically. The prophet Muhammad in the Quran introduces a new system of faith to the Arabs, in a systematic call to move away from Jahiliyyah, literally meaning ignorance, a pre-islamic world in which people were divided into tribes worshipping idols, or practicing animism was being wiped clean. It is a good example showing us that religion is a sort of progress of human thought, of organisation into a new social structure, rather than a call for belief.

The Quran, meaning literally “the reading” of Muhammad is like a party manifesto for new society, one that is not aligned to the tribal anymore, so away from the powers that control nature or the power of nature itself into one power that controls everything, away from small or big tribes, away from national identity into something new, and like we said before just before the golden wheat of the Islamic world was cut down by invasion of nomads, it gave birth to a golden age with seeds of thought that still sparkle in each of our modern sciences.

So we have those two main themes interweaving and going through history, the magical ability that people possess to group together and form a bigger body, by group consciousness, and the human trait to horde and store things for later date, and the natural process through which they both seem to corrupt under making us weaker and giving rise to another system that is more powerful.

Our need to have more seems to weaken the ability we have to hold being together. Yet after we lose everything, we again have a strong drive, and a hunger, and that force makes us come together and own more again, in an endless cycle. That is the basic relation between the two.

As humans we horde more than we could ever need, we look for the enlargement and manipulation of natural forces beyond a certain point, and from that point onwards those forces go into decline and social destruction. the question here again will be, what is sustainable?. What is it exactly that we need, what are the values we hold and wish to maintain?. We sail through history in our little boats, so it is hard for each one of us to actually see the ocean, it is hard to figure out how to navigate its water, our immediate occupation with needs or the desire to become more has forever stopped us from figuring out how we can balance all the urges and needs and the powers within us and arrive at some balanced shore.

like in the story of the tower of Babel, god is looking down on us, scared we will reach the heavens, and what did we ever want to do in the heavens?, did we want to go amongst the stars that have become our gods?. Was it not enough that we brought them down to enslave us?.
God has given us too many languages and we can no longer speak to each other, and our towers always fall, can’t we see that every-time we build one of his pyramids or mountains from stone they end up falling down?. Cant we find a way that sustains itself, and lives in a sort of harmony with the powers around us?.

In the Old testament the motive to building the tower of Babel was the flood, the people who survived it gathered and decided to do so in order for them not to perish again or actually, scatter all over the earth, but is building towers better than roaming the earth?.

To drive this timeline to the current stage from the 13th century with its golden age of thought as a sort of zenith, to the current which is no longer tribal, nor even a people living in nations, into its final stage, globalisation.

For a while our famous Human drivers went underground, the devastation that came with the mongol invasion affected both the Islamic world and Europe, although the later was affected more through something else that came with mongols, the rats that carried the fleas that brought the plague. So for a while our social order and its voyage into building forever larger units of accumulation was halted, the house of peace was destroyed, and Europe was decimated, again the powerful nomads ran their sword of tribal unity through the soft lives of the sedentary. Laying to ruin a world of science and thought, and plunging Europe into the dark ages alongside in some sort of afterthought. There is this story of a Russian prince visited by an Eastern sorceress, she comes into his court with two warriors, and said to him “relinquish all your lands to me”, he laughed, the next day the mongol horde descended.

But like always, when destroyed we come back, forever hungry for more. With the building of ships that can cross the oceans and the trade wars between the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and English the world itself (like the heavens before) was divided into hunting grounds so to speak, starting with the spice Islands, South America, and than North America, although at the start nothing of value could be traded or got from the later. The Spanish cashed in the whole of the Inca and mayan world, like a cheque they took to their bank.

And so with our new one-god religions, we simply went and took away everything from everyone, systematically enslaving them for our benefit. We made every indigenous society our serfs, we gave them our gods, and made them work for us. Maybe after all it did take us some 5000 years to come to terms with this amazing business plan, all those years to understand what was done to us by some visitors from another earlier civilisation, or as some claim, an alien species of gods, yet now we got it, we don’t work hard, we get someone else to work.

We have created pockets of wealth under that business plan, a system of organised plunder, pockets that were taken thousands of years to develop, mined from the earth, collected from a million of slaves, all those small units on our barter system put into a cache. Yes it had been happening all along in many different ways, empires have been doing it all along, tribal people were doing it all long, farmers were doing it all along, even hunter gatherers did, just that now we got stupidly good at it.

We ended up with a globalisation system, and a sort of command that we must modernise any people not taking part in it, maybe we are jealous that we lost our contact with nature and our own tribe and they still have both, maybe we see that they live a simpler life, and that they have values, they do not run hungry without the ability to satisfy their hunger. They are hungry but then they eat, we eat endlessly but are never fulfilled so we have become fat.

In our clever barter system if the value of money is one unit, and if we need to each have say, 100 units to live well, what does it mean that we have amassed pockets in which we store a trillion of those units. What can even be done with so much?, sure they are in gold, so they will never rust. But what is sustainable?. The gold was in a pocket in the earth to begin with, and now it is stored in a room that is locked, and no one can go into this room, the person who owns it will never need to use it, so was it not better that we left it in the actual ground to begin with? What is the big difference, between it being inside a mountain where everyone can get it but with effort, and it being inside the belly on the earth in a cellar in which no one can get to it and it is just stored, is that actually so different that we needed to enslave half of the earth for it?.

Did we want to lose any unifying identity, did we want to lose contact with the natural forces that surround us? what is actually going on? are we still angry that we couldn’t reach the stars? That our towers always fall?

In any case I have gone through this timeline in order to highlight the two main forces that seem to have been driving us all along, mutating into their current form as – wealth and political power.
In order for us to think more clearly about what is sustainability I thought I best ask it as a series of questions, because like I said at the start of this timeline, when people speak about sustainability it seems they can only think about curbing carbon emissions, but the whole conversation of what sustains us, and if we can live with it in a sustainable way evades them. Can we find harmony with the cycles and powers that rule our lives?