A Sustainable U.S.

In 100 years, I see a sustainable United States functioning entirely on clean energy. For all of the buildings that we DO have, solar panels will be on top. Wind turbines will provide wind energy, and a multitude of other options will allow us to function completely off the grid. People will feed themselves with food grown within their immediate community. Essentially, while we will have moved forward in ways to provide energy, I see us as reverting back to local, family farm or community agriculture. You won't have to buy oranges from Mexico because, if you live in Florida, they will be grown right in your community.

As Nash mentioned, the population will be infinitely smaller. The economy will be, as well. In fact, just about everything about life will have gotten smaller. You and your extended family will all live in the same area- so there would be no need for most of the population to travel constantly around the globe. The economy will be mostly local, with some exceptions that will allow all of our communities to stay connected. Transportation is the one thing I disagreed with in Nash's writing. Not because I don't think that instantaneous air travel would be the best option, and I am sure that eventually we will get there, or get close. But for now, I think we need an alternative until we get to that point (because telling people that teleporting is our best option is not very convincing). So, until our scientists can figure that out, I do see how air travel between communities is the best option for long-distance travel. But the airplanes will rely on some sort of renewable energy, or fuel that emits no harmful byproducts. Local travel throughout the communities will be mostly on foot, or bicycle, as they will all be small enough for that to be possible and I see no reason to create a more advanced system of local travel (in fear that it will be a gateway back to exactly where we are now).

The communities themselves will be compact, as well, as Nash mentioned. I still see a place for single-family homes, but they will be stacked on top of other single-family homes as to take up less space, and there will be solar panels on top of the homes, as well as rain-water collectors, and any space left over will be for a green roof.

I was also intrigued by Nash's point that technology isn't inherently bad. That we could, in fact, use technology to our advantage. And in many ways, I agree. Especially in small communities, technology would be necessary to help make them run, and to communicate with other communities and spread ideas and data on how to live more efficiently and sustainably.

Essentially, I agreed with most parts of Nash's vision. I think that scaling down (which I found to be his basic point) is the key to sustainability. Yet when I first began reading "Island Civilization," I was reminded of something that was mentioned in our discussion group last week- that man feels as if it needs to conquer nature. This fact makes it difficult to argue that humans should move over and allow nature to have its place as well. Then, as I reached the end of the article, Nash wrote that, with his imagined world, "Humans could take their place along with the other predators"(137). In a world where the wilderness is in our backyard, and humans know how to interact with it instead of solely fearing it, I believe that humans can satisfy these needs while living in a sustainable world.