A post on another blog had me pondering the difference between self-sufficiency with a survivalist outlook, versus the independence and self-realization of sustainability. The first is of the “save our own” mindset, presuming that society is going to completely crash and we want our own family to survive.

But Sustainability implies that we can guide all (or a preponderance) of society toward a lifestyle where what we use/harvest/extract from the planet is in balance with what we can grow/create/compost/put back. In other words, we’re striking out on a path where our behavior is that of leader to others, and we coax a community to come along. We’re working with others, rather than in defense of our personal little niche.

In Santa Barbara last August, David Holmgren (co-founder of Permaculture concept) drew an energy curve (based on page xxix of his book Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability), showing energy use and population climbing at a steep rate from about the year 1500 to now. In his book, he then shows a steep crash. But in the Santa Barbara lecture, David Holmgren explained how in departing from this crest there really are 4 options.

One option he described as the “techno-fantasy” - what I think of as the Star Wars / Star Trek future - with energy consumption (from fantasy sources) continuing to rise steeply from here into the future.

The second option he called “green-tech stability” which is what many mainstream environmentalists visualize, which would basically be a plateau at our current rate of energy consumption. Man-made machines and contraptions would be the saving grace - hydrogen cars, solar panels, etc. Holmgren described this as “least likely”. Realize that this scenario attempts to merely substitute “green” tech for our conventional, with the ultimate goal being to perpetuate our current (extreme) level of consumption.

In another option he described the massive crash, which begins with the techno fantasy, then crumbles into chaos, with very little salvaged out of global civilization. This is the version the survivalists are banking on.

The last option he called “earth stewardship.” The future well-being of people will depend upon a renewable resource base (water, soil), with less and less energy required as we move into future generations. Permaculture would be the “technology” for this descent culture - a gentle decline “like a balloon.” He said the symbol of this solar age would be a tree (Permaculture) rather than a solar panel (green stability version).

Only through reaching out to others, and bringing along the entire broader community, can we hope to achieve the “earth stewardship” scenario. In order for “earth stewardship” to work, we must find a Place for all within the framework.

It is possible. Realize that thousands of people are working on the issue, each from their own angle. Some work urban sustainability, including issues of inner city toxins and social marginalization. These issues too, are part of Sustainability. In fact, they are part of Permaculture, the bigger picture of Permaculture, a Permanent-culture.

Look at Holmgren’s Permaculture flower in his book, or on his website at the bottom of http://www.holmgren.com.au/html/About/aboutpermaculture.html We must bring along each petal of the flower in order to achieve societal sustainability. It’s a big job, but it is not impossible, with so many thousands worldwide working on each petal.

I created a vision of Holmgren’s gradual energy descent, an illustration of what the transition of our whole society toward Sustainability could be like. In Legacy, I work with Holmgren’s Permaculture Flower, projecting positive change in each petal. I did this by researching what environmental and social change is already under way, in each of these petals, or realms of society. The result is so possible; we only need to create it.

More about Survivalism versus Sustainability at “‘Surviving’ Peak Oil“, Oct. 2006

More about Holmgren’s ideas of energy futures: