Jonathan Cloud August 15th, 2010
We all know that life has many meanings. We also know that some of the meanings claim to be the meaning, but this is almost entirely implausible, because in many respects they contradict each other, they cancel each other out.
We learn in the Landmark Forum that life has no one overriding meaning, but that we’re not to really make anything of this:
“Life is empty and meaningless, and it’s empty and meaningless that it’s empty and meaningless.”
In other words, life just is. What we make of this (including “nothing”) is entirely up to us. This is, I believe, more or less definitionally true, but it’s not all there is to be said.
Perhaps we need to ask the question differently. Is there a meaning that encompasses all of the other meanings, including their contradictions, and including both meaning and no-meaning?
Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud March 30th, 2010
Things are looking bleak in many parts of the world. Even some of the wealthiest parts are experiencing the consequences of the severity and persistence of the downturn. The chances of a further significant decline, both in the market and in the real economy, are now perhaps 50-50. According to some estimates, up to one-fourth of all commercial properties are in trouble; and 1 in 5 homes remains in danger of foreclosure. The effects of the stimulus program, weak at best, are now being offset by sharp declines in state and local government spending. The need for new economic policies is obvious, and yet such policies are not forthcoming.
In New Jersey, Governor Christie has taken an axe to the state budget, apparently with the approval of many voters; but he has not followed through on his commitment to stimulate the economy at the same time. On the contrary, he is looking to seize funds from the Clean Energy Program (which are ratepayer contributions, not tax revenues), which will cripple that fledgling industry; when he promised during his campaign to support renewable energy as the future engine of NJ’s economy. Is it possible to do both at the same time?
Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud February 26th, 2010
The “Working Group for a Sustainable Future for Haiti,” which was convened at the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise at Fairleigh Dickinson University, has released “Haiti – A Way Forward,” an 8-page discussion paper intended as the basis for a conference call scheduled for Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 6 p.m. EST, and you are invited to join us.
Conference Dial-in number: (507) 726-4253
Participant Passcode: 100039#
For more details see the Haiti page at http://sustainableleadershipforum.com/?page_id=587 and our latest updates athttp://sustainableleadershipforum.org.
Jonathan Cloud February 26th, 2010
The “Working Group for a Sustainable Future for Haiti,” which was convened at the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise at Fairleigh Dickinson University, has released “Haiti – A Way Forward,” an 8-page discussion paper intended as the basis for a conference call scheduled for Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 6 p.m. EST, and you are invited to join us.
Conference Dial-in number: (507) 726-4253
Participant Passcode: 100039#
For more details see the Haiti page at http://sustainableleadershipforum.com/?page_id=587 and our latest updates athttp://sustainableleadershipforum.org.
Jonathan Cloud February 8th, 2010
The earthquake in Haiti has been many things – including both a wakeup call for Americans, and an opportunity to demonstrate our compassion – but it has above all been a human tragedy that has revealed the weaknesses and deficiencies that were there before. A 7.5 magnitude earthquake will no doubt cause some damage no matter where it occurs, but it does not always need to cause the extent of devastation that has occurred in Haiti, or to leave the population as unaided.
Some colleagues of ours at the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise met last week to discuss what we could do to contribute to a longer-term recovery, that would try to address the social, environmental, and economic challenges facing this troubled nation. We talked about a great many things, including the fact that many of us feel powerless in the face of such catastrophes, especially those that afflict human beings in distant places. We are all “overcommitted” to many worthwhile and challenging tasks already, and taking on such a monumental task as helping to chart the way forward in Haiti clearly seems to require that we steal time and energy from other causes. But if we can make even a small difference, while honoring our other commitments, this seems a compelling goal. Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud February 8th, 2010
The earthquake in Haiti has been many things – including both a wakeup call for Americans, and an opportunity to demonstrate our compassion – but it has above all been a human tragedy that has revealed the weaknesses and deficiencies that were there before. A 7.5 magnitude earthquake will no doubt cause some damage no matter where it occurs, but it does not always need to cause the extent of devastation that has occurred in Haiti, or to leave the population as unaided.
Some colleagues of ours at the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise met last week to discuss what we could do to contribute to a longer-term recovery, that would try to address the social, environmental, and economic challenges facing this troubled nation. We talked about a great many things, including the fact that many of us feel powerless in the face of such catastrophes, especially those that afflict human beings in distant places. We are all “overcommitted” to many worthwhile and challenging tasks already, and taking on such a monumental task as helping to chart the way forward in Haiti clearly seems to require that we steal time and energy from other causes. But if we can make even a small difference, while honoring our other commitments, this seems a compelling goal.
And the reality is that we do have a number of resources, ideas, and opportunities to contribute, and after discussing a great many aspects of what’s needed we agreed that as a minimum we would take a couple of small steps: 1) to write up what we had discussed (a forthcoming discussion paper to be published shortly), and 2) to reach out to others and invite them to join the conversation. Our hope is that others will step up to lead this conversation, and will simply be able to use what we have suggested as a basis for their own action.
Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud June 14th, 2009
After all the literature and public policy discussion and decision-making of the past 50+ years, it is hard to believe that there is still an industry – and a lobby – advocating for the expenditure of vast sums of money for the use of “controlled” nuclear reactions anywhere on this planet, let alone in the densely-populated Northeast.
But nuclear advocates have found new hope in the argument that nuclear power is “carbon-free.” New organizations have been formed to promote nuclear as “clean, affordable, and safe.” Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud March 6th, 2009
The Green Economy appears to be gaining ground worldwide, but is already starting to be opposed by some free-market ideologues. The news is full of reports on green jobs and green economy initiatives, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, but spokesmen for some conservative think-tanks are already falling over themselves to warn of dire consequences.
Max Schulz, a senior fellow at the impressive-sounding Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment, warns that “Inefficient eco-friendly technologies destroy more jobs than they create” (The Green-Jobs Engine That Can’t, City Journal Winter 2009). The Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment “advances ideas about the practical application of free-market economic principles to address today’s energy issues.” According to their web site, they are “leading an effort to show how a pro-growth, supply-side energy policy can be harmonized with a concern for the environment.” But others argue this is very much the philosophy that got us into the present crisis. Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud February 7th, 2009
Here are my thoughts on the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference I just attended in Washington, DC. (February 4-6, 2009 – GreenJobsConference.com).
The good news is – the movement is hot and getting hotter; the bad news is, it’s running into plenty of opposition already, and even in its headiest moments it is up against some pretty challenging realities on the ground.
Let me begin with the good news.
Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud February 1st, 2009
There is no doubt that the world faces a daunting prospect in the 21st century, which is to make a transition from an unsustainable to a sustainable way of life. Whether we humans can manage such a transition for our species, and for the web of life on which we depend, is very much an open question.
Let us be very clear about this. The “planet” is not in danger. The natural environment can tolerate an enormous amount of what we are calling “greenhouse gases,” temperatures can soar, oceans can rise, and the weather can become vastly more unstable. This has in fact occurred during the planet’s history. It’s simply that human existence may not be possible under such circumstances, and indeed many of the species that currently exist may become extinct – while others flourish. The age of the dinosaurs was much different from ours, and the ages that preceded it even more so. There was a time when oxygen was merely a trace element in the atmosphere. But what we call – presumptively, it now seems – “intelligent” life, simply did not exist under these circumstances. So the issue is not “saving the planet.” It’s saving ourselves.
The planet, frankly, does not need us. If we prove to be too bellicose to survive, and launch nuclear missiles at each other, we may in fact make the planet “uninhabitable,” but that just means “uninhabitable for us.” If we prove to be indifferent to the welfare of the whole, we will eradicate ourselves by destroying the foundation on which we depend. This may seem extreme, but it is not. The conditions necessary for human existence occur within a very narrow range. Exceeding that range is not just something we might do – as was the case during the era of nuclear confrontation – it is something that is inevitable if we do not change course.
There is almost total scientific consensus around this, and the “global warming skeptics” have now become an increasingly irrelevant fringe. But we hardly need science to prove that human development is on course to exceed the planet’s carrying capacity; it is simply a matter of recognizing that our way of life cannot be continued indefinitely, and indeed parts of it must change now if human development is to continue and to come into balance with nature. This seems so obvious that it almost goes without saying. But it needs to be our starting point in every serious conversation going forward: virtually everything in our economy and our society needs to be reexamined in the light of whether it contributes to a sustainable (and indeed restorative) way of life – or not.
