Stoicism is not Resilience

For those of us who have long been arguing that the global supermarket has led to resource insecurity and social vulnerability the situation in Japan presents itself as an unwelcome object lesson. The complex and intertwined system of a modern society, where electricity, internet, money, food and transport systems are interdependent and highly demanding of energy appears impressive until one part of the chain breaks, and then the others rapidly follow.

A natural disaster like this looks quite different in a technologically sophisticated society like Japan, from the very similar tsunami that hit the less developed areas of Indonesia and the Indian Ocean in 2004. The energy embodied in the airports, highways and rail networks in Japan is immense; while economists argue about whether Japan can afford to borrow enough to replace them, it is the energy cost of rebuilding so much complex infrastructure that is more troubling to a green economist.

The thoughtful coverage on Newsnight last night included economists suggesting that the natural catastrophes affecting Japan may be just the stimulus it needs to get back to the sort of growth path neoliberal economics expects. A new twist on the 'disaster capitalism' idea. There was no consideration of the embodied energy that has been lost in the earthquake and tsunami and the climate cost of replacing this infrastructure.

It seems exquisitely unfair that the Japanese, having been the only nation to suffer the effects of nuclear bombs, are now to become major victims of civilian nuclear power. From the forced ending of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate in 1868, through its use as a testing-ground for US nuclear aggression, through the forced imposition of the American dream during a 7-year occupation after World War II, Japan has not fared well at the hands of Western 'civilisation'.

The dignity, grace and stoicism of the people has impressed Western journalists. But stoicism is not reslience, and these people are the victims of scientific hubris as well as of natural disaster. Rather than rejoining us on the self-destructive high-energy path of consumer capitalism, is it too much to hope that these natural disasters might lead to a return by the Japanese to a path more in keeping with their indigenous Shinto way of living in balance with nature?
. Tweet

Rethinking Resilience

The word resilience is going the way of sustainability - becoming so over-imbued with meaning that it becomes meaningless. I recently heard a presentation by somebody who was basing a whole research project around meanings of sustainability. It seems to me the time would have been better spent organising a Potato Day like the one we have coming up in Stroud.

For surely, resilience is about getting down and dirty in your local environment. It seems to me a contradiction in terms to travel away from home, as I do, to conduct academic research into what resilience or sustainability might mean. For the record we should be clear that these two are not the same. Sustainability is an approach to life that is respectful of the planet and all the species who enjoy it today and may enjoy it into the future. Resilience is a much more limited concept, which seeks to elucidate our relationship with natural systems.

The reason resilience is useful as a concept is that it has a fixed, physical definition, which we can use by analogy to explore what we are doing in planning our transition to sustainable living. Wikipedia defines resilience as 'the property of a material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically and then, upon unloading to have this energy recovered.' This strikes me as a wonderfully inspiring definition if we apply it to our human communities. When they are challenged by environmental or social change, rather than fracturing, they can adapt to the stress temporarily and then unleash creative energy in response.

In these days of unexpectedly harsh weather, the word resilience has crept into many journalistic reports as an expression of what has limited our response. The suggestions for change focus around the expenditure of more energy and money, much as the proposed response to the environmental crisis apparently needs more technology.

But true resilience lies in the design of systems, not their technological sophistication. Because there will always be situations where the road between Glasgow and Edinburgh is likely to become impassable on some days of the year, an economy which requires large numbers of people to travel between these cities is not resilient by design. The large distances we travel for work and to acquire provisions are examples of poorly designed, non-resilient systems. Building resilient communities can enable sustainable living precisely because it will mean embedding deeper into your local environment, a key feature of the bioregional economy that will offer a resilient and a sustainable future. Tweet

Down to Earth

The Politics Show West made an interesting film about global growth vs. local sustainability as responses to the economic crisis. I then got to debate the film in the studio with an investment specialist. It is on iPlayer here (after 29 minutes)

. Tweet