Ten more for the  collection.     Breaking my rule of stand-alone images but these seemed quite evocative, even if they do take some explanation.

See also these variations on earlier approaches: Venn diagrams coming together and showing changing dominance of sectors in a static animation, and a nice systems loop.

179. Brown’s 15 elements of Ecovillage living

180. The Barometer of Sustainability (ICUN)

The Barometer of Sustainability is the only performance scale that measures human and ecosystem wellbeing together without submerging one in the other.  The Barometer’s key features are:
• Two axes, one for human wellbeing, the other for ecosystem wellbeing. This enables each set of indicators to be combined independently, keeping them separate to allow analysis of people-ecosystem interactions.
• The axis with the lower score overrides the other axis in the analysis. This prevents a high score for human wellbeing from offsetting a low score for ecosystem wellbeing, or vice versa. This approach reflects the view that people and the ecosystem are equally important and that sustainable development must improve and maintain the wellbeing of both.

181. ‘The Egg of Sustainability’ (Robert Prescott-Allen, in IUCN, 1995)

182. Red triangle/Green Circle (from SustainAbility Gearing Up).

These high friction worlds are represented by the red triangle: low levels of trust increase friction in the system, with different sectors fighting (or ‘scapegoating’) each other.

183.  Mapping environmental problems by management and revsersibility (UNEP Geo4)

184.  Global environmental outlook framework (UNEP Geo4)

Net gains in human well-being facilitated by the social and economic sectors have, however, been at the cost of growing environmental changes, and the  exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people

185. Shrinking Earth (UNEP Geo4)

186.  Sustainability Asymptogram (Onwueme and Borsari – Proquest link)

100 percent sustainability is a perfect state that is practically unattainable by anybody or any system.  No matter how good a person or system is, there is always a sustainability deficit that cannot be overcome, as entropy affects living systems and their physical habitats without exceptions.  This means that there is always room for improvement.  Different persons or systems are located at different levels on the curve, with larger or smaller sustainability deficits, but with deficits all the same.

187.  Meadows’ framework (after Daly). (Balaton Group)

I see the triangle as saying there’s no way human ends can be realized without healthy, functioning natural and economic systems

188.  Ecosphere as a mail sorter (Collins)

Imagine all of Earth’s chemistry as a mail sorter’s wall of letter slots in a post office, with the network of compartments extending toward infinity (see the bottom figure, next page). Each compartment represents a separate chemistry so that, for example, thousands of compartments are associated with stratospheric chemistry or with a human cell. An environmentally mobile persistent pollutant can move from compartment to compartment, sampling a large number and finding those compartments that it can perturb. Many perturbations may be inconsequential, but others can cause unforeseen catastrophes, such as the ozone hole or some of the manifestations of endocrine disruption. Most compartments remain unidentified and even for known compartments, the interactions of the pollutant with the compartment’s contents can usually not be foreseen, giving ample reason for scientific humility when considering the safety of persistent mobile compounds.

STENZ Submission on Tertiary Education Strategy:

1. Status and interest of submitter

This submission is presented on behalf of the Sustainability in Tertiary Education in New Zealand. STENZ is a working group dedicated to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD) across all tertiary education in New Zealand. STENZ aims to provide a whole-of-sector approach to Education for Sustainability.  It is made up of people who have leadership roles in the tertiary education sector, across a variety of institutions and academic disciplines. They are committed to Education for Sustainability rather than any explicit political agenda.

2. Submission summary

In summary, this submission:

• Applauds the inclusion of sustainability in the vision, but argues that it must take an integrated approach to an integrated socio-ecological system; and

• Maintains that Education for Sustainability must be explicit in the directives and mechanisms.

3. Vision for tertiary education

The vision for tertiary education is well-aligned with sustainability and embraces key sustainability related concepts.  STENZ applauds this approach.

The opening line of TES describes the role of tertiary education:

High quality tertiary education is central to helping New Zealand achieve its economic, social and environmental goals, and meeting the development aspirations of Māori and Pasifika peoples.

The above role description does not explicitly mention sustainability, but it could be interpreted to do so because of its mention of the three dimensions of sustainability – economic, social and environmental.  These are central to virtually all definitions of sustainability.

Moreover, the focus on well-being – both personal and economic –is consistent with sustainable development as a process that may lead to sustainability.

Access to high-quality tertiary education enriches people’s lives, increases their employment opportunities and helps to build a productive skills base to drive economic growth.  Government wants relevant and efficient tertiary education provision that meets the needs of students, the labour market and the economy.

So, too, the over-arching education vision that stresses successful citizens, security and opportunity embraces concepts aligned to sustainability:

Government’s vision is for a world-leading education system that equips all New Zealanders with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century.

A world-leading education system is an important first step towards a productive and growing economy that delivers greater prosperity, security and opportunity for all New Zealanders.

4. Focus in the remainder of the strategy

Unfortunately, in the remainder of the strategy, the integrated goals – economic, social and environmental – are split apart and considered separately, with an almost singular focus on the economic.

STENZ sees this separation as contrary to a robust consideration of the integrated nature of the economic, social and ecological system that supports human life and that human life is inescapably part of.  Focussing on these dimensions in isolation will not lead to successful global citizens.  STENZ’s thinking is in line with that promulgated by the UN Millennium Development Goals, the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 (Brundtland Report), The Rio Earth Summit 1992, Agenda 21, and, of course, the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD).

5. Explicit expectation of teaching and learning for every student

The strategy rightly points out the impact of education; it is the biggest lever we have for transforming New Zealand into a more prosperous society which promotes well-being, as noted in the TES vision.

Accordingly, the tertiary education system needs to prepare learners who are capable of meeting future global challenges/changes.  In other words, we need to produce graduates who can operate as sustainable practitioners in their particular fields.  STENZ suggests a focus on the sustainable practitioner would reflect goals already included in the draft TES but it needs to be made explicit.

Sustainability is an explicit goal of research (noted below).   Sustainability should also be explicit in teaching (rather than only implicit in “meet labour market demands”, and “world-class skills and knowledge”) and to complement the existing focus on productivity.

This expectation for research should be complemented by similar statements for teaching and learning (as offered in 5.1):

research…create and share new knowledge that contributes to New Zealand’s economic and social development, and environmental management

5.1 Recommended expectation for all institutions: Produce graduates who each think and act as sustainable practitioners for the benefit of New Zealand’s integrated economic and social development, and environmental management system.

While research is clearly important, the more direct return on government investment in education is manifest in the skills, values and behaviours of our graduates.  Including the above expectation in the TES will motivate institutions to ensure that graduates have the capability to embed sustainability principles, values and practices in their lifestyle and profession.

The prosperous future of New Zealand relies on people from every discipline, hence it is important that we move to an “every graduate” approach to sustainability.  This means that every student is educated to be able to see through a sustainable lens.

6. Recognition of eco-literacy as a core capability

In the achievement of a prosperous New Zealand, eco-literacy is a core capability, much like literacy and numeracy and with similar productivity benefits that are essential for a natural resource based economy.

6.1 Recommendation: Add ecoliteracy to statements describing expectations of core capabilities.

7. Integrated curricula

As a society we have to learn to live in a complex world of interdependent systems with high uncertainties and multiple legitimate interests.  These complex and evolving systems require a new way of thinking about risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance.  They require that we can think simultaneously of drivers and impacts of our actions across scales and barriers of space, time, culture, species and disciplinary boundaries.  This means our graduates need skills in:

• Systems thinking
• Understanding the connected nature of our socio-ecological and economic system
• Global citizenship
• Critical and creative thinking
• Pragmatics of change management

Sustainability should not be seen as an extra subject and should not be confused with green, or with education about the environment.   Instead it provides a context for learning within and across disciplines.  STENZ considers a focus on sustainability will result in improved completion rates as it provides a hook to link academic subjects to the real world.    This relevance will improve the work-ready nature of graduates.   STENZ applauds moves to promote collaborative work and direct relevance to industry and suggests Education for Sustainability as a proven powerful vehicle for its achievement.

8. Promotion of  interdisciplinary study and research

With a discipline-based panel structure, the Performance-Based Research Fund is not good at supporting interdisciplinary research such as sustainability.

8.1 Recommendation:  Add an action plan (to “We will look at whether the Performance-Based Research Fund is working well for all parts of the sector”) to look at ”’how PBRF could better support interdisciplinary initiatives”’.

Associate Prof Samuel Mann on behalf of Sustainability in Tertiary Education in New Zealand.

Otago Polytechnic

smann@tekotago.ac.nz

STENZ is a pivotal initiative within the NZDESD programme of activities.   STENZ is supported by SANZ and the New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO.

Including sleep, there’s 15 hours until we have to be coherent and on show for 350.  Student projects are rapidly emerging and getting hurried testing (hopefully not too hurried!).

If you’re in Dunedin, come and see us at the Spring Festival.  (more Flickr images).

Here’s a challenge to give to folks who start quoting the environmental friendliness of their latest computer.    All new computers and especially laptops come with claims of “green” and most laptop users are pretty smug about their energy use.

This map shows the sources of the components of a typical laptop.  It’s a Sourcemap representation of  PCMag’s What’s inside your laptop.

So here’s the challenge:  click though to the map and see if you can find a source component that isn’t described somewhere as being linked to unsustainable practices.    Pick any of the parts and source area eg “Cobalt Congo”.   Put that phrase in your favorite search engine and see what you find.    For some you don’t have to look very hard,  for others you can speed the search by adding key search phrases such as environmental degradation, human rights injustice, war, pollution and so on.

Let me know if you find a genuinely sustainable component.   I bet you can’t.

The draft Tertiary Education Strategy is out for consultation.      It gives direction to NZ’s tertiary education for the next five years.   The draft is weak on sustainability: it’s alluded to in the higher level statements but missing in the directions for teaching and learning.   As it stands,  institutions will not see sustainability as an imperative, instead they’ll be driven entirely by productivity.

We have until 6th November to send submissions to tertiary.strategy@minedu.govt.nz.    Please write something yourself and prompt your organisations to include sustainability in their submission (folks are usually grateful for help, so send some words for them to use).

Here’s the draft of my submission (any thoughts gratefully received):

1      Key messages:

1. Applaud the inclusion of sustainability in the vision, but that it must take an integrated approach to an integrated socio-ecological system
2. Education for Sustainability must be explicit in the directives and mechanisms
3. Polytechnics must be supported in the delivery of applied degrees.

2      Justification

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Tertiary Education Strategy.

The Tertiary Education Strategy is New Zealand’s chance to deliver on the promise of the United Nations Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014).

The opening line of TES describes the role of tertiary education

High quality tertiary education is central to helping New Zealand achieve its economic, social and environmental goals, and meeting the development aspirations of Māori and Pasifika peoples.

The “Vision for tertiary education” does not explicitly mention sustainability, but it could be interpreted to do so:

Access to high-quality tertiary education enriches people’s lives, increases their employment opportunities and helps to build a productive skills base to drive economic growth.  Government wants relevant and efficient tertiary education provision that meets the needs of students, the labour market and the economy.

So too the Over-arching education vision (1.1).  Successful citizens, world leading, security and opportunity are all concepts conducive to sustainability:

Government’s vision is for a world-leading education system that equips all New Zealanders with the knowledge, skills and values to be successful citizens in the 21st century.

A world-leading education system is an important first step towards a productive and growing economy that delivers greater prosperity, security and opportunity for all New Zealanders.

An integration of the “economic, social and environmental goals” can be considered a in a sustainable future.   Unfortunately, from then on, these integrated goals are split apart and considered separately, with an almost singular focus on the economic.  This is contrary to a robust consideration of an integrated socio-economic system and will not lead to successful global citizens.

The strategy rightly points out the impact of education, it is the biggest lever we have for transforming NZ to a more prosperous society in the long term.  I would like to see the use of this lever go beyond a focus on productivity for personal and societal benefit to include a wider role, that of the sustainable practitioner.

The tertiary education system needs to prepare learners who are capable of meeting future global challenges/changes.   I suggest a focus on the sustainable practitioner would reflect goals already included in the draft TES but it needs to be made explicit.   The expectation for research:

“research…create and share new knowledge that contributes to New Zealand’s economic and social development, and environmental management”.

should be complemented by similar statements for teaching and learning:

Produce graduates who will think and act as sustainable practitioners for the benefit of New Zealand’s integrated economic and social development, and environmental management system.

While research is clearly important, the far bigger levers we have are the skills, values and behaviours of our graduates.  This will ensure graduates have the capability to embed sustainability principles, values and practices in their lifestyle and profession.

The prosperous future of New Zealand relies on people from every discipline, hence it is important that we move to an “every graduate” approach to sustainability.  This means that every student should be able to see through a sustainable lens.

As a society we have to learn to live in a complex world of interdependent systems with high uncertainties and multiple legitimate interests.  These complex and evolving systems require a new way of thinking about risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance (Stagl 2007).  These systems require that we can think simultaneously of drivers and impacts of our actions across scales and barriers of space, time, culture, species and disciplinary boundaries.  This means our graduates need skills in:

-          Systems thinking

-          An understanding of the connected nature of our socio-ecological system

-          Critical and creative thinking

-          Ability to act as change agent

-          Understanding of ethics

-          Sense of participation and action

Sustainability should not be seen as an extra subject and should not be confused with green, or with education about the environment.   Nor should it in any way be seen as anti-business.  Instead it provides a context for learning within and about the student’s discipline.   I believe a focus on sustainability will result in improved completion rates as it provides a hook to link academic subjects to the real world.    This relevance will improve the work-ready nature of graduates.    I applaud moves to promote collaborative work and direct relevance to industry and suggest Education for Sustainability as a proven powerful vehicle for achieving this.

3      Recommendations

3.1    Add education for Sustainability as an expectation for all graduates:

Sustainability is an explicit goal of research.   Sustainability should also be explicit in teaching (rather than only implicit in “meet labour market demands”, and “world-class skills and knowledge”) and to complement the existing focus on productivity.

Produce graduates who will think and act as  sustainable practitioners for the benefit of New Zealand’s integrated economic and social development, and environmental management system.

3.2    Add sustainable practice as a core capability

Acting as a sustainable practitioner is core capability, much like literacy and numeracy (indeed “Eco-literacy” is an often used short hand) and with similar productivity benefits.

• continuing to assist adult learners to gain the literacy, language, numeracy, information literacy and ecoliteracy skills for higher level study or skilled employment

3.3    Promote interdisciplinary study and research

With a discipline-based panel structure, the Performance-Based Research Fund is not good at supporting interdisciplinary research such as sustainability.

Add an action plan (to “We will look at whether the Performance-Based Research Fund is working well for all parts of the sector”) to look at how it could better support interdisciplinary initiatives.

Today is Earth Overshoot Day.  This is not a day to celebrate.
Calculated by the Global Footprint Network, Earth Overshoot Day shows the day on which our total Ecological Footprint (measured in global hectares) is equal to the biocapacity (also measured in global hectares) that nature can regenerate in that year. For the rest of the year, we are accumulating debt by depleting our natural capital and letting waste accumulate.  The  ratio shows that in 2009, in just 268 days (September 25), we demanded the biosphere’s entire capacity for the year.

I like these images from GFN.    This first one, “Running on Empty” uses the familiar speedometer, we are clearly in the red.   But perhaps, I thought, that’s not too bad – only 40% too much – surely we can do that?   But then you look at the next one, showing the relative dates of different countries and you realise that we really are in trouble.    With America living in ecological debt from the 21st of March and much of the world aspiring to the American dream, the future looks grim.

I’m reading about solution focussed counselling and motivational interviewing at the moment so I’m grasping for positives here.    I misinterpreted the country diagram for a bit – the UK seemed only 57% too high but alas at 257%   it is 157% too high.

The Living Planet Report presents scenarios based on this same information (and the detail upon which it is based).    Here,  the GFN, WWF and the  Zoological Society of London discuss the strategies that could reduce the gap between human demand on nature and the availability of ecological capacity.

Each of these strategies can be represented as a sustainability wedge that shifts the business-as-usual path towards one in which, when these wedges are combined,  overshoot is eliminated.

I think this gives some hope.  This shows that what we do, individually and in groups can make a difference:

One way of organizing wedges is to link them to the three factors that determine footprint. Some strategies in the per person consumption and technology wedges, such as insulating buildings, produce quick results for shrinking overshoot. Other strategies, such as those that would reduce and eventually reverse population growth, may have less impact in the short term, but lead to large cumulative declines in overshoot in the longer term.

Within a wedge, many interventions are possible. Individual consumption can be reduced by designing cities in which walking is preferable to driving. Technological innovations can increase the efficiency of resource use, such as meeting communication needs with cellular phones rather than landlines. Rehabilitation of degraded lands can increase agricultural yields while minimizing increases in footprint associated with agricultural expansion.

Alternatively, wedges can also be organized around major consumption categories such as food, shelter, mobility, goods and services, along with population size. The footprint of food, for example, might be reduced by optimizing the relationship between the distance it is transported and the efficiency with which it can be locally produced. The energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings can often be dramatically increased, and utilities supporting them can be integrated so that wastes from one system serve as inputs for another. Individual wedges typically overlap, creating opportunities for synergistic solutions that can bring about even greater reductions in overshoot.

In my getting-so-much-closer book, I examine barriers to integrating Education for Sustainability.   Two of those barriers can be characterised as

“My classroom is value neutral”

and

“Sustainability is too negative, and without vision”

Jeffrey Newman addresses both of these barriers in Values reflection and the Earth Charter in the new Handbook of Sustainable Literacy.

The classroom is value neutral argument is, of course, an old chestnut.   Here’s Fish: “To follow higher noble goals is to abandon pedagogical contract”.   Newman recognises this contention:

Educators are, however, faced with a double edge sword. If values are explicitly incorporated in the curriculum they could be accused of imposing ideologies on learners. But if all mention of values is expunged from education then this leaves little choice but for learners to draw their values from the unsustainable society around them, or from the values latent in the ‘hidden curriculum’ of their educational institution.

This is in the context of an unsustainable world where it is the very values that are important:

Educators are now teaching learners whose prospects seem to be darkening year on year. Presently jobs are scarce, the economic outlook is poor and the timescale for recovery uncertain. In the background looms the shadow of an environmental crisis that threatens to degrade or even destroy the life-supporting and life-enhancing systems of the Earth. This calls for a response at a deep level of values, a rethinking and reorganization of what is valuable, important, and worth sustaining in an uncertain future.

He says values are already there

Values such as intellectualism, competitiveness, rationalism, technical instrumentalism, reductionism, and scientism may well be hidden within the presuppositions of the curricula of learners’ institutions, their textbooks, formal lectures and assessment strategies

Newman’s approach is to engage the students in recognising and reflecting on values:

Values reflection is one way out of this dilemma. Rather than having values imposed on them, learners reflect on the dominant values of society and their institution in the context of the changes that are occurring in the world around them, and ask themselves whether these values  are now outdated, or even dangerous.

he promotes the use of the Earth Charter as a framework for “additional and alternative values”:

If learners do find fault with the dominant values of the society around them, then they will also need to consider additional and alternative values, ones which might help contribute to a more sustainable future. This is where the Earth Charter (2000) is useful, not as a doctrine to be forced on learners, but as one among many places to seek possible alternative values. The alternatives, of course, will need to be subjected to just as deep and critical a process of reflection as the dominant values.

The Earth Charter provides a set of alternative values that learners may never come across in the day to day business of formal education. These include valuing: cooperation (p4); humility (p1); the spiritual potential of humanity (p2); compassion (p2); love (p2); human dignity (p3); the Earth’s beauty (p1); reverence for the mystery of being (p1); traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom (p3); loving nurture of family members (p3); human solidarity (p4); peace (p4); and the sacred (p1).

this he argues, also addresses the second of the integration barriers (“Sustainability is too negative, and without vision”)

It is easy for learners to find nothing but despair as they discover the situation that the world finds itself in, but the Earth Charter provides a framework that offers hope – a way responding to a time of exceptional challenge and opportunity. The Charter’s opening words spell this out succinctly: ‘We live at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future’ and ‘The future at once holds great peril and great promise’.

Newman’s approach is to engage learners in an analysis of the Charter itself:

One area where the charter calls for a deep change in values relates to consumerism. It describes production and consumption, which were once valued as the foundation of human development and economic well-being, as instead being a root cause of unsustainability when taken to excess: ‘the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species’ (p1). Rather than consumerist values of ‘having more’, the charter extols the value of ‘being more’: ‘We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more’

Also, the history of the development of the Charter itself may be a useful teaching point.  He gives examples of the two year diplomatic negotiations around the capitalisation of Earth and of inclusion of the word compassion, not as evidence of bureaucracy gone mad, but of the significance of diversity of values.

The Guide for Using the Earth Charter in Education (April 2009) presents themes of the Charter, aligned with teaching programmes:

The interdependence of social, economic and environmental concerns. The Earth Charter principles are organised into four main interdependent sections: “Respect and Care for the Community of Life”; “Ecological Integrity”; “Social and Economic Justice”; and “Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace.” These define the major spheres of responsibility that must be considered together when assessing critical problems and seeking solutions. For example, poverty is both a cause and consequence of environmental degradation and to solve either problem one must address both as well as many other issues.

The guide concludes that education for sustainability, as informed by the Earth Charter, should help learners:

- To understand the challenges and critical choices that humanity faces and appreciate the interconnections between these challenges and choices;

- To comprehend the meaning of a sustainable way of life and of sustainable development and to create personal goals and values conducive to a sustainable way of living; and,

- To critically evaluate a given situation and identify action goals for bringing about positive change.

Stephen Sterling argues that we need to think ecologically (Ecological intelligence from Handbook of Sustainable Literacy).   He says that this is more than systems thinking, it has an embedded caring:

So ecological thinking – reflected in ecophilosophy – is essentially relational or connective thinking, but it’s also more than that: it is ethical, valuative, and expresses our humanity.

He describes two ways of thinking, characterised by assumptions.    For example, the belief in the power of problem-solving approaches is based on the assumption that “To every problem, there’s a solution”.   Sterling advocates a “positive synergies” approach – a focus on developing  ‘solutions that generate further solutions’.

The assumption that ‘Most processes are linear and characterised by cause and effect’  stems from a belief  that events and phenomena have a identifiable beginning and finishing point.  Instead Sterling argues that “we need to attempt to look at all the influences at the ‘start’, all the knock-on effects at the ‘finish’ and any feedback loops. This complexity is characteristic of most human and environmental systems”.

Similarly, the assumption  ‘It is ethically acceptable to draw your circle of attention or concern quite tightly, as in “that’s not my concern”’ comes from a belief that our system of concern is restricted – we do not need to look beyond our immediate concerns as an individual, a householder, a consumer, a businessman etc.).   These narrow boundaries are inappropriate in the face of complexity that means we need to expand our view of the world and be more aware of the boundaries of concern we set ourselves.

From a list of ten habits of thought and assumptions and his rejoinders, Sterling presents a comparison of two ways of thinking.    Borrowing from the Agile Manifesto (while we value those things on the right – we value those on the left more…),  I’ve flipped this around to make room for the “over” and make readable statements.

It is not a matter of abandoning the right hand side, even if this were possible…but developing an ecological sensibility, an understanding of interconnectivity, and an ability to design and act integratively requires attention to the more systemic set of approaches represented by the left hand side of the diagram.

Appreciation/reframing over Problem Solving
Synthesis over Analysis
Holism over Reductionism
Multiple influences through time and space  over Closed cause-effect
Integrative over Atomistic/segregative
Extension of boundaries over Narrow boundaries
Critical subjectivity over Objectivism
Pluralism / duality over Dualism
Rational / non-rational ways of knowing over Rationalism
Uncertainty, tolerance of ambiguity over Determinism

Quotes from Kate Davies’ A learning society from Handbook of Sustainable Literacy.   The whole book is available online from University of Brighton.

On urgency:

There is not much time. The task of developing a learning society to facilitate humankind’s evolution towards sustainability is urgent. Given current trends, our species will need to learn and change more in the next 50 years than it has in the past 50,000. The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years and the Industrial Revolution took 200. We have so much less time to achieve the massive social changes needed for survival.

On  the need for sustainable literacy skills:

While governments are urging us towards another, even more intensified Industrial Revolution through their skills agendas, it is urgent for us to step back, look at the larger picture, and ask what skills it will take for people to be  able to contribute to thriving, flourishing and, above all, sustainable societies. Let us hope that the urgency of the global situation catalyzes the creation of a learning society where people can gain sustainability literacy skills and dramatically enhance Homo sapiens’ ability both to survive and evolve.

On the need for transformation of the education system:

If learners are to gain the sustainability literacy skills necessary for life in the twenty first century then there will need to be a fundamental reform of the education system. Today’s  schools, colleges and universities serve the needs of the industrial society, fostering consumerism, technicism, competition and individualism. They prepare students to become willing cogs in a vast dysfunctional economic machine. Their approach to learning emphasizes theories over ethics, detachment over relationship, and immediate answers over thoughtful inquiry. Based on a worldview that asserts the superiority of our species above all others, mainstream education perpetuates the patterns of thinking and behaving that cause the ecological crisis.

On systems thinking:

A learning society must be able to think systemically. Based on the belief that the parts of a system can best be understood in the context of their relationships with each other, systemic thinking emphasizes patterns, trends and feedback loops.  Within a learning society, systemic thinking would focus on understanding the interactions between human and ecological systems, and restructuring human systems to be more sustainable. Without systemic thinking, society will continue to apply ineffective band aid solutions that do little to resolve underlying problems.

On whole person learning:

A learning society could foster the development of whole human beings, who can think critically, respond compassionately, and act ethically. Whole person learning enables students to grow as authentic human beings. It develops their personhood. This is very different from contemporary education which focuses on the intellect while ignoring ethical values, emotions, embodied experience and the grounded experience of place.  Contemporary education leaves learners with few practical skills for  sensitive engagement with those around them, for interacting with their local environment, or for navigating the complex world around them. We need a learning society that engages and integrates peoples’ hearts, minds, hands and spirits.

Davies uses Robert Hutchins’ meaning of learning society  – whose primary goals were continuous learning, active citizenship and social well being – “The object of the educational system, taken as a whole, is not to produce hands for industry or to teach the young how to make a living.  It is to produce responsible citizens”.   Davies argues that the term has been misappropriated to mean the continuous updating of workers’ skills.

In talking about what it means to be a sustainable practitioner, we use the example of a chainsaw operator:

We characterise this by asking departments to consider their equivalent to this story: forestry worker attending a hypothetical Level 2 chainsaw maintenance course. As part of that course the future chainsaw operators are taught all about being careful when changing the chainsaw oil, not spilling it and collecting it for recycling. With some modification to the course we could even certify the graduates as “sustainable”. What is going to matter, perhaps more so, is what our graduate does at the first ‘smoko’ when, after a morning of carefully changing oil, he is roundly abused – ‘just chuck it in the stream, you’re holding up the whole gang’. And what do we expect our graduate to do when on the first day on the job our graduate is told to go and chop down the last Kauri tree. The answer isn’t as simple as saying no (he’ll get fired and someone else will chop it down), nor is as simple as saying ‘yes’ (surely unsustainable). Nor is the answer that we’d teach integrated catchment management – such material is perhaps Level 7.  Instead the answer is something about polite questioning and discussing alternatives.

We use this scenario with other disciplines, the very act of translating it to the other discipline is a really engaging way of identifying behaviours expected of their own graduates. The “cut down the last Kauri tree” can be expanded further – of course it is unlikely to be the last Kauri tree, but it might be the 1000th Kauri tree, or the 999th Kauri tree…

This leads to a discussion of commons, especially the tragedy of the commons.  Justin Kenrick has a very useful take on this. His chapter “Commons Thinking“  in the new Handbook of Sustainable Literacy.

Kenrick distinguishes two forms of thinking: a commons approach and a dominance approach.

A Commons approach which assumes that:

we live in a common life-world upon which we all depend,
any problems stem from a breakdown in relationships, and
solutions are primarily about restoring these relationships

and a dominance approach which assumes that:

one’s well-being ultimately depends on controlling the devalued other (whether other life forms, other humans, or other aspects of oneself),
problems are about the lack of such control, and
the solution involves the dominant realm (the mind, the ‘developed’ world, the adult, the expert, or humans in general) imposing control on the supposedly inferior realm.

He argues that the commons have been misrepresented as a tragedy by the dominance thinking approach – it is, he says, it is the open access regime that is the problem:

When the ‘Commons’ is referred to at all in dominant thinking, it is usually in terms of the so called ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, and this term is used to argue that left to ourselves (without the market and government to control our behaviour) we would each choose to exploit our ecological context for our own individual benefit even though this would inevitably lead to the destruction of the ecosystems (the Commons) on which we all depend.
In fact, the opposite is the case. Even Garrett Hardin, the inventor of the term, later admitted that the phrase describes, not a Tragedy of ‘Commons regimes’, but a Tragedy of ‘Open Access regimes’ (Kirby at al 1995).

The irony here is that an excellent example of an ‘Open Access regime’ is that of capitalism, where the only understanding of being ‘rational’ is of acting in one’s own immediate, narrow self-interest. ‘Open access regimes’ describe situations where people are persuaded to act in a way that has no consideration for the longer term of themselves, their children or others. Commons regimes, in sharp contrast, always have unwritten or written rules about who can use what resource when and for how long, in order to ensure everyone’s well-being over the longer term (Kirby at al 1995, Kenrick 2005).

Kenrick celebrates the re-emergence of Commons systems, in land reform, in the Transition movement and other spheres as

people realise that it is more rational to base their well-being on collectively caring about those around them, than to believe they can – over the long term – improve their own lives at the expense of their neighbours. The Transition approach embodies Commons thinking and is a creative, empowering, and immediately gratifying proof that – if we come at problems from a Commons perspective – our solutions will improve life for us all, rather than deal with symptoms in ways that exacerbate the original problem.

This is predicated on the notion that my well-being depends on your well-being, and on the assumption that solving problems involves working to restore relationships of trust rather than seeking to impose solutions on others.