To a Sustainable Civilization in 3 Steps or less

In response to Roderick Nash’s article Island Civilization, I will take my own quick look at the United States 100 years from now. While I Nash may come off as a bit idealistic in his piece, I strongly agree with him on the need to find a sustainable solution to human civilization.

In my first step towards a sustainably civilization, I agree with Nash on where people need to live to keep the Earth alive - cities. I am a big proponent of moving people to cities in to make our planet healthier. We can build apartments housing hundreds of families on the same plot of land that one or two families take up in the suburbs. Thanks to the high density of services and employment that cities provide, people don’t need cars, but can rely on bikes, public transit or their own two feet to get around. Moving people to cities would be the first step in my plan to make human civilization a bit more sustainable.

The second step in my vision would be finding the cleanest source of energy possible. No matter what we do, we have to pollute to get energy. Whether it’s mining silicon for solar panels or setting up wind turbines in sensitive areas, we should admit to the fact that even clean energy comes with costs. In my sustainable vision, these clean sources as well as nuclear energy would be the only forms of energy production allowed. And likewise, society itself would become much more efficient in its energy use. When Thomas Edison opened one of the first coal power stations in Manhattan in 1882, it converted 3% of the heat energy into electricity. Today’s natural gas power plants have an efficiency of 60%. Likewise, I think that we are just starting to scratch the surface in terms of improving the efficiency of today’s societies, whether it’s in the realm of transportation, buildings, food production, or anything else vital to us.

My third and final step would be a cultural revolution of sorts. People would learn to live with less. Smaller living spaces, less consumption and less long-distance traveling would all be on the table. Being asked to travel less or downsize one’s home may seem harsh, but I think it’s possible with a kind of philosophical approach. I’ve come to realize that when I don’t have as much of something I appreciate it a lot more. Whether it’s eating a steak every few months instead of every week or visiting my family back home for a limited time, scarcity makes us value objects for what they are really worth. Likewise I think if people traveled less and consumed less, they would better appreciate the times of indulgence, and a life of less wouldn’t be as bad as many proclaim.

I may come off as a bit idealistic in my vision – it’s true, it’ll be a tough road to go down. But coming from a civilization that builds towers into the sky and sends men to the moon, I think we can accomplish anything we set our hearts and minds to.