- Email: [email protected]
Infoglut and competing problems
Futures
1994 26(2)
246-256
INFOCLUT PROBLEMS
AND
COMPETING
Key barriers suggesting a new strategy for sustainabi I ity
Michael Marien
Hope for a sustainable society is encouraged by many recent gains in understanding environmental problems and by a wide variety of positive actions undertaken in the past few years. Yet it is uncertain as to whether much, if any, overall net progress is being made. More attention should be given to key barriers, two of which are discussed here. Information overload, or infoglut, brought on by the burgeoning information society, creates a plethora of entertaining and commercial distractions from our and often makes our problems more difficult to many problemscomprehend. Other competing problems, more immediate in their demands and/or more readily grasped, serve to displace interest in pursuing sustainability. These barriers are likely to persist, as suggested by three scenarios: ‘False success’, ‘Mini-success/regress’, and ‘Evident regress’. Any substantial reduction in the likelihood of these scenarios will require a new strategy for sustainability that copes with infoglut by a major investment in effective outreach, and acknowledges competing problems by linking sustainability to these concerns.
Good thinking about the future should embrace probable, possible and preferable futures-all based on a broad appreciation of present realities. The other articles in this special issue of Futures have dealt with the preferred future of sustainability-what it might be, why it is needed, and how we might attain it. I applaud this general evolutionary direction as highly desirable. If we are to have a future at all, it must be sustainable in many respects. But is this probable? In the next few decades, it does not seem likely that most societies (especially
Michael 13084,
Marien is Editor of Future Survey and can be contacted USA (Tel: + 1 315 677 9278; fax: + 1 315 677 9248).
0016-3287/94/020246-l
1 @ 1994
Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
at 5413
Webster
Road, LaFayette,
FUTURES
NY
March 1994
lnfoglut and competing
problems
247
the so-called ‘developing’ societies) will have evolved in any substantial manner towards any reasonable definition of sustainability. Thus, in contrarian counterbalance to the other authors in this special issue, the probable near-term future of sustainability is discussed. By doing so, I hope to illuminate two important barriers-infoglut and competing problems.’ To my knowledge, these barriers have not been identified nor discussed by any advocate of a sustainable society. If they are key problems, or even if they are merely major blockages, it is hoped that some thought and action might be invested in their direction. This, of course, is the perennial author’s hope that people are listening. In an age of infoglut, as suggested here, the chances are small. More likely than not, I fear that the unpleasant problems of infoglut and competing issues will continue to be ignored. This will lead to further wasted effort and postponing the transition to sustainability-perhaps beyond the point where an adequate number of sensible measures can be undertaken to create a lasting relationship between nature and humankind.
Information
society v sustainable
society
Hundreds of images and labels have been proposed over the past three decades, describing what our society is, what it is becoming, and what it ought to be.2 At present, there are three major competing survivors-‘information society’, ‘sustainable society’, and ‘post-modern society’. Remarkably, none of these three survivors was mentioned before the mid-l 970s. Even more remarkable is that these three images are seldom, if ever, considered together. Those who write about the information society (which is very probable and possibly desirable) do not consider sustainable society or post-modernism. Those who write about sustainability (which is desirable and possibly achievable) do not consider information society or post-modernism. And those who write about post-modernism (which, according to many observers, is the emerging cultural zeitgeist) do not consider information society or the need for a sustainable society.3 Post-modernism is not considered here, however, so as to focus on the relationship between information society and sustainability.4 The label of ‘sustainable society’ was first mentioned in a 1977 book title by Dennis Pirages. In the next few years, several other books and reports mentioned sustainability, notably those from the Worldwatch Institute and the 1979 Woodlands Conference.6 The concept received a great boost by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its 1987 report, Our Common Future.’ From that point, use of ‘sustainability’ spread rapidly, up to and past the landmark 1992 UNCED meeting in Rio.’ The widespread sharing of this term, at least among those concerned with environmental issues, is remarkable. Equally remarkable is the absence of any controversy over ‘sustainability’. People are either fervently for sustainability, or they ignore it. By contrast, the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth report sparked a decade of heated intellectual controversy about growth and scarcity. In hindsight, it might well be argued that this debate impeded action and was needlessly divisive. By contrast, ‘sustainability’ is a broad umbrella, albeit with several definitions, under which many can unite. More important, it suggests a path of action. The notion of an information society is equally non-controversial and action-evoking. It was apparently first used in Japan in the late 1 960s,9 and was the focus of The Plan for an Information Society submitted to the Japanese government in
FUTURES
March
1994
248
Info&t
and competing problems
1971. The project manager for this ambitious national plan, Yoneji Masuda, described information society for Western readers in his highly idealized book, published in 1980.” A US-based journal, The information Society, began publication in 1982. Forerunners to the ‘information society’ tabel include the ‘age of cybernation (widely used in various forms during the 196Os), ‘electronic age’ and ‘age of information’ (both proposed by Marshall McLuhan in 1964), ‘knowledge society’ described by Peter Drucker in 1969, and the ungainly ‘technetronic society’ suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. Why should advocates of a sustainable society be concerned with the emergence of an ever expanding cornucopia of information and information technology (IT), together constituting ‘information society’? Several years ago, I listed 60 actual or potential impacts of computers and other forms of IT, assessing them as positive, negative or mixed.” The quantity of positive impacts (such as mass storage of information, mind extension through expert systems, computers as tutors, and automatic language translation) slightly outnumbered the negative impacts. But if one looks at the quality of impacts, the negatives (such as unemployment, privacy invasion, accelerated sense of time, destroyed sense of place, aggravated rich-poor Tom Forester of Griffith University ably differences) outweigh the positives. summarizes the many negative arguments, suggesting that the information society is a multifaceted megamistake.” This early warning may well be followed by many more, but few people are disposed to listen now. The information society is will be computerized, proceeding at a rapid pace, with little to stop it-we networked and flooded with ever more information once the new ‘superhighways’ are in place. One of the greatest negative impacts of the emerging information society is the pervasive problem of information overload, or ‘infoglut’, which arises from more people sending more communications in more variegated ways than ever before. China has a serious problem of human overpopulation which it tries to address; we in the West have a serious problem of information overpopulation which we generally ignore. But examine your own life and ask anyone around you, and the response is unanimous: we are busier and busier trying to keep up, yet falling more and more behind in initiating, digesting and responding to e-mail, fax messages, letters, phone calls, print-outs, journals, magazines, newsletters, newspapers, books, audiotapes, CD-ROMs, memos, fliers, advertisements, catalogues, Post-itT” notes, signs, and the expanding world of cable television and videocassettes. In general, are we happier and wiser from this infoabundance? Or besieged and confused? If the latter, is it simply a matter of cultural lag, before we adapt to this evolutionary jump? Or are we creating a monster-a megamistake? The advocates are blissfully acritical. And the early critics have yet to be answered-Donald N. Michael’s assertion that information leads to increasing complexity,‘3 Orrin Klapp’s charge that more information leads to boredom and noise,14 and Neil Postman’s fears that we are amusing ourselves to death and succumbing to ‘technopoly’.‘5 Regardless of whether we think of IT as boon or bane, the IT revolution is not only unfolding, but accelerating. Two recent commentators make a persuasive argument that, despite the many impacts of IT over the past two or three decades, the major impacts are still to come in the next decade or ~0.‘~ The impact of IT on the quest for sustainability, similar to impacts on society in general, must be viewed as a complex mix of positives and negatives. On the plus side, data on various environmental problems, satellite photos from outer space, and a burgeoning literature on environmental issues and sustainable futures, can
FUTURES
March 1994
lnfoglut and competing problems
249
illuminate many facets of a complex realm. On the minus side, there is already a glut of information on saving the planet and remedying a wide variety of environmental problems. My brief overview of this literature in the October 1992 issue of Futures cites 312 items in 255 notes, with an appendix listing 68 futures-relevant environmental periodicals, both scholarly and popular. A recent bibliography of environmental literature briefly describes 3084 items, including dozens of periodicals not on my preliminary list.” And the World Directory of Environmental Organizations, now in its 4th edition, describes the activities of some 2200 environmental groups worldwide.‘8 All these books, journals, and organizations may be necessary and useful. But there is also much duplication and competition. The haunting verse of Edna St Vincent Millay, from over 50 years ago, seems as timely as ever: Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour, Falls from the sky a meteoric shower Of facts they lie unquestioned, uncombined Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill Is daily spun; but there exists no loom To weave it into fabric “)
shower of facts continues unabated, but there are now many looms that bring environmental information together in reports, annuals, yearbooks, almanacs and agendas. Still, most of them are not widely known, some are superficial, and none stands out above the others.20 Similarly, none of the 100 or so environmental journals stands out over the rest. There is no single person or organization, or even a small leadership cluster, to speak for sustainability. The number of people and organizations involved in the pursuit of sustainability is beyond any easy comprehension. Efforts at coordination are weak and scattered.2’ With hundreds of generals each going their own way, can ‘the battle to save the planet’ ever be effective? Lester R. Brown, who supplied this military metaphor,22 does not elaborate on how ‘the battle’ should be fought. The metaphor might be rejected by some as overly militaristic and hierarchical, but even if one chooses a metaphor of a large scientific project,23 some degree of coordination and overall strategy would probably produce much greater effectiveness. The ‘environmental movement’ is a large and variegated entity, so much so that few, if any, can grasp its dimensions. A further problem is in understanding those outside ‘the movement’ or, ironically, the environment of environmentalism. This broad category of non-environmentalists includes a small but active and growing anti-environmentalist opposition,24 and a larger mass of uninvolved people who may be sympathetic, neutral, or simply uninformed. Although the anti-environmentalists are relatively small in number, many are politically sophisticated and well funded by corporations and conservative foundations. Should environmentalists engage them in the mass media? To date, the hostiles have been ignored.15 Yet their ideas were empowered in the USA during the Reagan and Bush administrations, and could well return to the White House if the Clinton administration stumbles in its first term. Perhaps of greater immediacy is the large group of people who ignore or undervalue environmental issues. One can only speculate as to why, and the answer is likely to be complex. Many are probably distracted by the vast feast of information, much of it entertaining escapism. Many are citizens who are not involved in politics in any way. Many who are involved in politics place higher or exclusive priority on a The
FUTURES
March 1994
250
lnfoglut and competing
problems
vast range of social and economic issues. Many professionals should be incorporating green perspectives into their thinking but persist in their ‘environmental blindspots’. Ideology seems to supply the blinders, or, at least, low intellectual standards. Perhaps the blinkered professionals are sympathetic but don’t know how to adopt a green perspective. Perhaps they don’t know enough about the issues to bring them into their work. Or, quite possibly, a green perspective is beyond the presently accepted boundaries of their specialism. Research on this question promises many rewards for advancing sustainability.27 If the multifaceted transition to sustainability is to succeed in the next few decades, it will probably be necessary to cope with infoglut in society and within the environmental movement, while recruiting more citizens to the environmentalist perspective and greening the worldviews of many more professionals. In this latter regard, there has been a recent greening to some degree among professionals in the social sciences (notably, in economics), religion, architecture, education, health, criminal justice, urban affairs, engineering and business. With psychology, appropriate pressures, these intellectual beachheads could very well be expanded. The strategic goal should be to mainstream the marginal. But infoglut means greater competition to be heard. Those in the advertising industry well understand this emerging situation, and are motivated to make their commercial messages into winners, which, of course, adds to our infoglut. Some possible strategies for improved social marketing of ‘sustainability’: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Aim crisp messages at broad audiences, eg publishing in the op-ed pages of major newspapers.‘8 The conservatives understand this strategy very well,29 environmentalists seem to be more comfortable (as most of us are) in addressing like-minded colleagues in narrow-circulation journals. Tilt with the anti-environmentalists. It is doubtful that they will be converted, but many neutral bystanders might be-or at least kept from being converted to the opposition. Debate can be educational; as a result, environmentalists could tailor their messages to be more immune from intellectual attack.30 Boost a nationally syndicated green columnist. Indicative of how far the environmentalists have to go is the fact that, in the USA, there is still no nationally syndicated columnist-a green George Will who is read by millions daily. (In Canada, however, David Suzuki is widely known for his weekly syndicated column and his weekly TV show, ‘The Nature of Things’.) Donella Meadows, who writes a weekly column for a local newspaper in New Hampshire,3’ has tried to get US syndication, but with no success. Promote an annual ‘Top Ten Greenlist of Books’ selected by an authoritative group or individual for consideration by schools, colleges and libraries. This could be contrasted to much of the escapism and triviality in the widely circulated fiction and non-fiction bestseller lists. Promote green Nobel prizes. The Nobel prizes, established early in this century, are irrelevant to an emerging age of sustainability. They munificently reward thinking that contributes to traditional disciplines (and in many instances the global problematique), rather than thinking aimed at the multidisciplinary problems of promoting sustainability. Realizing this, the Right Livelihood Awards were begun in 1980 as an Alternative Nobel Prize.32 But they are not well known. They should be given much more publicity, the Nobel prizes should be radically changed, or a new set of prizes should be developed that has the media appeal of the Nobels to broadcast a message worldwide as to what kind of thinking is important.
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut
(6)
(7)
and competing problems
25 1
Support widespread, multi-age civic education in general, including a large portion of sustainability-related thinking. Many educators should be arguing for better ‘intellectual nutrition’ in our information-glutted society, the same way that nutritionists urge us to eat more vegetables and whole grains, rather than fat, sugar and empty calories. Promote a new, sustainability-related labelling scheme for the nations of the world, to replace the obsolete and misleading Cold War labels (First World, Third World) and economic labels (developed, developing). Five possible somewhat progressing nations, categories: strongly progressing nations, non-progressing nations, somewhat regressing nations, and strongly regressing nations (eg Haiti, Ethiopia). These labels would force attention to sustainability and encourage periodic global assessments of the transition to sustainability.33
Sustainability
v competing
issues
Even with extensive efforts to cope with infoglut, there are other issues that, rightly or not, compete for the attention of policy makers and the public. Some are specific to certain countries and times. Much political energy in the USA is invested in the abortion issue, which seems likely to continue. Also in the USA, much attention is presently directed to legislating a new healthcare system. In Canada, there is perennial concern over the question of Quebec’s secession. Many other issues seem to be more or less present in all countries, having to do with government deficits, jobs and the economy, education, health, crime, illegal drugs, corruption, violence, infrastructure, transportation, homelessness, poverty, immigration, human rights, and-increasingly-issues of race, gender and ethnicity. Perhaps the best current illustration of competition from other problems is the present preoccupation of Al Gore, author of the remarkably thoughtful and far-sighted Earth in the Balance. In his first year as Vice President of the USA, however, he has not visibly pursued any of the elements of his proposed Global Marshall Plan, making ‘the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization’.34 Rather, he has been spearheading a major effort to ‘reinvent government’ and reduce unnecessary spending. The transition to sustainability is arguably the key long-term trend, but it is not the only transition taking place. We literally live in what I call an ‘era of multiple transformations’, with many momentous changes taking place simultaneously. As noted by Donald N. Michael, this leads to increasing incoherence. ‘Because of the incoherences, the sought-after products and processes are unlikely to be either fruitful or enduring. The pressures for short-term responses to critical issues will also increase and, given the incoherences, dominate social action’.35 Or, as memorably stated by David Rejeski of the US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘the immediate always drives out the important’.36 Yet another way to articulate this problem of sustainability not receiving its due is to consider the widespread tendency to discount the future. This is a longstanding concern of Harold T. Linstone, who observes that occurrences appearing to be far removed from one’s immediate neighbourhood in space and time are heavily disc0unted.j’ Alternatively, Linstone describes how the individual looks at the future as if through the wrong end of the telescope,38 thus affecting many decisions. In the absence of a widespread eco-catastrophe, or a widely touted Earth Summit such as the UNCED meeting in Rio, the long-term cause of sustainability is handicapped when considered along with other issues of greater immediacy and
FUTURES
March
1994
252
Info&t
and competing problems
palpability. The general remedy is for environmentalists to get involved with other issues and to link them to sustainability.‘9 In doing so, as argued by Robert C. Paehlke, environmentalism can gain a mass following, evolve into the new wave of progressivism, and become fully developed into a coherent ideology for our timesthe first to be deeply rooted in the natural sciences.40 Stated alternatively by Martin W. Lewis, a ‘Promethean environmentalism’ would strive for a broader coalition (and, in doing so, reject the romantic views of ‘eco-extremists’).4’ But this is not easy. Many environmentalists are not disposed to expand their horizons to incorporate other sectors of society-to prod the greening of cities, business, education, agriculture, foreign policy etc. And many embrace a utopian idealism that inhibits effective action in the real world.
Three scenarios of a non-sustainable
future
As of the early 199Os, there are no ‘sustainable societies’ by any definition. All societies are still heavily under the influence of obsolete industrial-era thinking, reinforced by outdated industrial-era institutions of higher learning and their restricting academic disciplines. Yet many individuals, corporations, NGOs and nations are breaking loose and initiating promising measures in the direction of a sustainable future.42 Over the next few decades a few societies (probably Japan and nations in Northern Europe; possibly the USA, Canada and other OECD nations), may approach what today is thought to be ‘sustainability’, although the definition of the desired end is likely to change.43 In contrast, most countries, especially today’s poor ones and tomorrow’s new ones hastily born from ethnic splintering, will probably fall far short of any reasonable ideal. Three scenarios suggest how a non-sustainable future can happen in the next few decades: (1)
(2)
False success. Compelling arguments for sustainability are widespread, and it appears that the transition to sustainability is well under way, due to improved environmental protection and some degree of technological and/or social international environmental transformation.44 Progress is apparent in agreements, contraceptive techniques and usage, recycling, reduction of pollution and toxic waste, full costing of motor vehicle usage, new energy technologies such as fusion or hydrogen, and cost-effective improvements in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. The 169 national reports on environment and development, prepared for the 1992 UNCED meeting, have led to regular reporting by most nations on progress towards sustainable development.45 The feeling of widespread activity and progress is enhanced by ignoring or downplaying negative indicators such as declining per capita fish catch, rising Third World debt, and spreading scarcity of fresh water.4” Politicians proclaim a premature victory, and other goals take on a higher priority. Environmentalists are better organized than in the past, but their protests that much more is needed are ignored. Mini-success/regress (or more-ohhe-same). A variety of UN agencies, NGOs, and intellectuals continue to advocate sustainability of some sort, but without much if any coordination. National governments pay lip-service to the notion of sustainability, or ignore it, due to the press of other issues such as deficits, crime, healthcare costs, education, inadequate infrastructure and other nations in crisis. Environmental progress is made on a few fronts, but offset by
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut and competing
(3)
problems
253
worsening conditions in other areas, similar to the mixed news depicted by 42 global indicators reported in the early editions of the Worldwatch Institute’s Vital Signs annua1.47 There is no widely held sense of marked success or regress. Evident regress. Consciousness of environmental problems and the idea of sustainability lose their prominence due to economic, political, and/or cultural reasons, eg a widespread and prolonged economic depression, a major war or sustained terrorist activity, success of conservative regimes that downplay the extent of environmental problems and exaggerate the extent of environmental progress, a widespread plague that dwarfs the already considerable impact of AIDS, new information and biomedical technologies that give the illusion of general progress, ever more quantities of trivial and escapist information drowning out essential messages, a public increasingly weary of doom and gloom from environmentalists and futurists, and/or ever more intense cultural conflict over issues of race, gender, ethnicity, birth and death.48 In addition to these distracting and displacing forces, the fragmentation and incoherence of those who advocate sustainability and desirable futures continues to worsen.
In sober conclusion The common themes of these scenarios have to do with political priorities and the strength and incidence of other competing concerns. Political priorities are established by the quantity and quality of argument for and against the issues, and by perceptions and dispositions of the public and their elected leaders (what is commonly referred to as ‘political will’). In the emerging information-rich societies, it is by no means clear that political priorities are more rationally determined. Conversely, there may be reason to suspect that the information society is the enemy of sustainable society. Despite many recent gains in understanding environmental problems and in taking actions in the direction of a sustainable society, it is doubtful that progress is being made. Nor is there any shared image of what ‘winning the war’ entails. Any of the three scenarios sketched above-false success, mini-success/regress, or evident regress-seems more likely than any of the scenarios for genuine success.4q There are many barriers to attaining sustainability.” Two of them are explored here. Infoglut, brought on by the burgeoning information society, creates a plethora of entertaining and commercial distractions from our many problems, and often makes our problems more difficult to comprehend, for those few who are willing and able to fully understand them. Other major problems, more immediate in their demands or more readily grasped, serve to displace interest in pursuing sustainability. Any substantial reduction in the likelihood of these scenarios will require a new strategy for sustainability that involves a considerably greater investment in outreach to cope with infoglut, and a much greater effort to integrate sustainability concerns into other issue areas. But who will pursue this strategy? The required scale of the sustainability effort is that of a world war, but the organization of the effort is quite unlike that of the military, which has centralized planning and rapid disposition of ample resources to areas where they are needed. The environmental movement is vast, non-hierarchical and fragmented. It is good at tackling specific grassroots issues, at holding conferences, and at writing high-minded books, reports, papers, almanacs, guidelines and lists of 101 ways to save the Earth right in your own home. The
FUTURES March 1994
254
lnfoglut
and competing
problems
movement is not good at conceiving and implementing a broad, overall strategy to reposition itself for greater success. It is possible, but unlikely, that some major eco-catastrophe such as widely evident global warming will soon occur, and that it will supply a galvanizing force for good works. In contrast to this secular Armageddon, we are far more likely to face more of the same, or dynamic stagnation.5’ I encourage any argument as to why this is not our very probable future.
Notes and references See essay by Walter Corson in this special issue for a list of other barriers. Michael Marien, Societal Directions and Alternatives: A Critical Guide to the Literature (LaFayette, NY, Information for Policy Design, 1976). [Out of print.1 A rare exception to this generalization is David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk (editors), Postmodern Politics for a Planet in Crisis (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1993). There are scores of books on post-modernism, mostly from writers in the humanities. For a social science point of view, see Pauline Marie Rosenau, Postmodernism and the So&/Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and intrusions (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992). 5.
6.
7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
12. 13. 14.
15.
16.
17.
Dennis Pirages (editor), The Sustainable Society (New York, Praeger, 1977). The focus of this book was strongly on the growth debate which permeated the 1970s. Today’s focus on ‘sustainability’ sidesteps the issue. Denis Hayes, Repairs, Reuse, Recycling-first Steps Toward a Sustainable Society (Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 23, September 1978); Lester R. Brown, Building a Sustainable Society (New York, W. W. Norton, 1981); James C. Coomer (editor), Quest for a Sustainable Society (Elmsford, NY, Pergamon, 1981); Harlan Cleveland (editor), The Management of Sustainable Growth (Elmsford, NY, Pergamon, 1981). World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common future (New York, Oxford University Press, 1987). Michael Marien, ‘Environmental problems and sustainable futures: major literature from WCED to UNCED’, Futures, 24(8), October 1992, pages 731-757. Kenichi Kohyama, ‘introduction to information society theory’, Chuo Koron, Winter 1968. Cited by Yoneji Masuda in Yoshihiro Kogame (editor), Changing Value Patterns and Their impact on Economic Structure (Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press, 1982, distributed in USA by Columbia University Press), page 174. Yoneji Masuda, The information Society as Post-industrial Society (Bethesda, MD, World Future Society, 1981), page 3. As a historical note, it is illuminating to recognize ‘information society’ and ‘sustainable society’ are the contemporary counterparts of the two diametrically opposed usages of ‘post-industrial society’. See Michael Marien, ‘The two visions of post-industrial society’, Futures, g(3), October 1977, pages 415-431. The essay concluded that ‘there is no evidence that any writer holding either of the two visions of post-industrial society has any appreciable understanding of the opposing vrsion’. Michael Marien, ‘IT: you ain’t seen nothing yet’, in Tom Forester (editor), Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity, and People (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 19891, pages 41-47. Tom Forester, ‘Megatrends or megamistakes? What ever happened to the information society?’ The Information Society, 8(3), July-September 1992, pages 133-146. Donald N. Michael, ‘Governing by learning: boundaries, myths, and metaphors’, Futures, 25(l), January-February, 1993, pages 81-89. Orrin E. Klapp, Overload and Boredom: Essays on the Quality of Life in the information Society (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1986); Orrrn E. Klapp, Opening and Closing: Strategies of Information Adaptation in Society (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1978). Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1992); Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York, Viking, 1985). William E. Halal, ‘The information technology revolution: computer hardware, software, and Forecasting and Social Change, 44(l), August 1993, services into the 2 1st century’, Technological The Information Society, 8(4), pages 69986; David Ronfeldt, ‘Cyberocracy is coming’, October-December 1992, pages 243-296. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, The /s/and Press Bibliography of Environmental Literature (Washington, DC, Island Press, 1993).
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut
and competing problems
255
18.
Thaddeus C. Trzyna and Roberta Childers (editors), World Directory Organizations (Sacramento, CA, California Institute of Public Affairs, 1992).
19. 20.
Edna St Vincent Millay, Huntsman, What Quarry! (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1939), page 92. For example, Choosing a Sustainable Future: The Report of the National Commission on the Environment (Washington, DC, Island Press, January 1993).
21.
The Global Tomorrow Coalition in Washington, DC, makes a modest attempt to coordinate major US environmental groups. Lester R. Brown et a/, State of the World 1997 (New York, W. W. Norton, 1991), page 3. See paper by Dennis Pirages in this special issue, proposing a ‘sociocultural genome project’. See six items in Future Survey, 15(7), July 1993, pages 14-15; especially Carl Deal, The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations (Berkeley, CA, Odonian Press, March 1993). For many years I have pondered a phrase from John Steinbeck’s Sea of Corlez (New York, Viking Press, 1941, page 31), wherein he muses that ‘Men really need sea-monsters in their personal oceans’. Is this characteristic of men, or of women, too? In any event, there seems to be a very strong correlation between ideology and sea-monster need: the right wing has an obsessive need for monsters (first communism; now, perhaps, environmentalists and Muslims), while the left wing includes many environmentalists), seems to have little need to create a (which, loosely, larger-than-life enemy. Thus, while conservatives actively attack environmentalists, especially those on the radical fringe who make easy targets, the environmentalists seem inclined to ignore any opposition. As an illustration of the ‘environmental blindspot’, consider Samuel P. Huntington, ‘The clash of civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, 73(j), Summer 1993, pages 22-49, in which it is stated that world politics is entering a new phase in which the fundamental source of conflict will be cultural. Alternative possibilities, such as conflict over scarce resources and environment-related policies, are not considered. Some clues are provided by Lester W. Milbrath, Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1989). Doug McKenzie-Mohr and others are investigating this matter for Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, created in 1988 to reach across institutional lines to identify paths to sustainable development. Contact National Round Table Secretariat, 1 Nicolas Street, Ottawa Kl N 7B7. David Shenk, ‘Why liberals still can’t compete with conservatives in the TV talk show war’, The Washington Post, 8 August 1993, page Cl, describes how well conservatives do on TV with their absolute, aggressive and confrontational style. The conservatives are also very skilled at commanding their share of op-ed essays in major newspapers. One of the rare public confrontations between an environmentalist and an anti-environmentalist involved a bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon on the prices of five metals over the course of the 1980s. Simon bet that they would fall; Ehrlich, assuming scarcity, thought they would rise. The prices of all five wagered metals declined-an embarrassment for the environmentalist forces. See John Tierney, ‘Betting the planet’, The New York Times Magazine, 2 December 1990, pages 52ff.
22. 23. 24.
25.
26.
27. 28.
29.
30.
31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
38. 39.
40. 41.
of
Environmental
Donella H. Meadows, The Global Citizen (Washington, DC, Island Press, 1991). A collection of her newspaper columns. Paul Ekins, A New World Order: Crassrools Movements for Global Change (London and New York, Routledge, 1992) describes the recipients of the Right Livelihood Award and their projects. See essay by Hazel Henderson in this special issue, on the importance of indicators and reporting. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin, 1992), page 273. Donald N. Michael, ‘Forecasting and planning in an incoherent context’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 36(1-21, August 1989, page 79. Comment by David Rejeski at World Future Society Seventh General Assembly in Washington, Wednesday, 30 June 1993. Harold A. Linstone, ‘Communications in futures research’, in Wayne I. Boucher (editor), The Study ofthe Future: An Agenda for Research (Washington, DC, National Science Foundation, 1977), page 203. Harold A. Linstone, Mu/tip/e Perspectives for Decision Making (New York, North-Holland, 1984), page 21. See essay by Sally Lerner in this special issue, on employment and sustainability. Also see L. S. Nemiroff and Doug McKenzie-Mohr, ‘Determinants and distinguishing variables of responsible environmental behavior’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(l), 1992, pages l-24, on how to make connections between global issues. Robert C. Paehlke, Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1989). Martin W. Lewis, Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism (Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1992).
FUTURES
March 1994
256
lnfoglut and competing problems
42. 43. 44. 45.
See paper by Walter Corson in this specral issue, and Future Survey, 75(1 I), November 1993. See paper by Dennis Pirages rn this special issue. See the scenarios of Robert L. Olson in this special issue. Nations oithe Earth Report (Geneva, UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 and 1993, three volumes). Lester R. Brown, Hal Kane, and Ed Ayres, \/its/ Signs 7993: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future (New York, W. W. Norton, June 1993). Ibid. Elsewhere, in State ofthe World 7993 (New York, W. W. Norton, 19931, Brown eta/state that despite many local gains, ‘the broad indicators showed a continuing wholesale deterioration in the earth’s physical condition’ (page 4). Michael Marien, ‘Cultural trends, troubles, and transformations: a guide to recent literature’, Futures, 25(4), May 1993, pages 414-430. See essay by Robert L. Olson in this special issue. See essay by Walter Corson in this special issue. See scenarios in essay by Duane Elgin in this special Issue.
46. 47.
48. 49. 50. 51.
FUTURES
March 1994
1994 26(2)
246-256
INFOCLUT PROBLEMS
AND
COMPETING
Key barriers suggesting a new strategy for sustainabi I ity
Michael Marien
Hope for a sustainable society is encouraged by many recent gains in understanding environmental problems and by a wide variety of positive actions undertaken in the past few years. Yet it is uncertain as to whether much, if any, overall net progress is being made. More attention should be given to key barriers, two of which are discussed here. Information overload, or infoglut, brought on by the burgeoning information society, creates a plethora of entertaining and commercial distractions from our and often makes our problems more difficult to many problemscomprehend. Other competing problems, more immediate in their demands and/or more readily grasped, serve to displace interest in pursuing sustainability. These barriers are likely to persist, as suggested by three scenarios: ‘False success’, ‘Mini-success/regress’, and ‘Evident regress’. Any substantial reduction in the likelihood of these scenarios will require a new strategy for sustainability that copes with infoglut by a major investment in effective outreach, and acknowledges competing problems by linking sustainability to these concerns.
Good thinking about the future should embrace probable, possible and preferable futures-all based on a broad appreciation of present realities. The other articles in this special issue of Futures have dealt with the preferred future of sustainability-what it might be, why it is needed, and how we might attain it. I applaud this general evolutionary direction as highly desirable. If we are to have a future at all, it must be sustainable in many respects. But is this probable? In the next few decades, it does not seem likely that most societies (especially
Michael 13084,
Marien is Editor of Future Survey and can be contacted USA (Tel: + 1 315 677 9278; fax: + 1 315 677 9248).
0016-3287/94/020246-l
1 @ 1994
Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
at 5413
Webster
Road, LaFayette,
FUTURES
NY
March 1994
lnfoglut and competing
problems
247
the so-called ‘developing’ societies) will have evolved in any substantial manner towards any reasonable definition of sustainability. Thus, in contrarian counterbalance to the other authors in this special issue, the probable near-term future of sustainability is discussed. By doing so, I hope to illuminate two important barriers-infoglut and competing problems.’ To my knowledge, these barriers have not been identified nor discussed by any advocate of a sustainable society. If they are key problems, or even if they are merely major blockages, it is hoped that some thought and action might be invested in their direction. This, of course, is the perennial author’s hope that people are listening. In an age of infoglut, as suggested here, the chances are small. More likely than not, I fear that the unpleasant problems of infoglut and competing issues will continue to be ignored. This will lead to further wasted effort and postponing the transition to sustainability-perhaps beyond the point where an adequate number of sensible measures can be undertaken to create a lasting relationship between nature and humankind.
Information
society v sustainable
society
Hundreds of images and labels have been proposed over the past three decades, describing what our society is, what it is becoming, and what it ought to be.2 At present, there are three major competing survivors-‘information society’, ‘sustainable society’, and ‘post-modern society’. Remarkably, none of these three survivors was mentioned before the mid-l 970s. Even more remarkable is that these three images are seldom, if ever, considered together. Those who write about the information society (which is very probable and possibly desirable) do not consider sustainable society or post-modernism. Those who write about sustainability (which is desirable and possibly achievable) do not consider information society or post-modernism. And those who write about post-modernism (which, according to many observers, is the emerging cultural zeitgeist) do not consider information society or the need for a sustainable society.3 Post-modernism is not considered here, however, so as to focus on the relationship between information society and sustainability.4 The label of ‘sustainable society’ was first mentioned in a 1977 book title by Dennis Pirages. In the next few years, several other books and reports mentioned sustainability, notably those from the Worldwatch Institute and the 1979 Woodlands Conference.6 The concept received a great boost by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its 1987 report, Our Common Future.’ From that point, use of ‘sustainability’ spread rapidly, up to and past the landmark 1992 UNCED meeting in Rio.’ The widespread sharing of this term, at least among those concerned with environmental issues, is remarkable. Equally remarkable is the absence of any controversy over ‘sustainability’. People are either fervently for sustainability, or they ignore it. By contrast, the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth report sparked a decade of heated intellectual controversy about growth and scarcity. In hindsight, it might well be argued that this debate impeded action and was needlessly divisive. By contrast, ‘sustainability’ is a broad umbrella, albeit with several definitions, under which many can unite. More important, it suggests a path of action. The notion of an information society is equally non-controversial and action-evoking. It was apparently first used in Japan in the late 1 960s,9 and was the focus of The Plan for an Information Society submitted to the Japanese government in
FUTURES
March
1994
248
Info&t
and competing problems
1971. The project manager for this ambitious national plan, Yoneji Masuda, described information society for Western readers in his highly idealized book, published in 1980.” A US-based journal, The information Society, began publication in 1982. Forerunners to the ‘information society’ tabel include the ‘age of cybernation (widely used in various forms during the 196Os), ‘electronic age’ and ‘age of information’ (both proposed by Marshall McLuhan in 1964), ‘knowledge society’ described by Peter Drucker in 1969, and the ungainly ‘technetronic society’ suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. Why should advocates of a sustainable society be concerned with the emergence of an ever expanding cornucopia of information and information technology (IT), together constituting ‘information society’? Several years ago, I listed 60 actual or potential impacts of computers and other forms of IT, assessing them as positive, negative or mixed.” The quantity of positive impacts (such as mass storage of information, mind extension through expert systems, computers as tutors, and automatic language translation) slightly outnumbered the negative impacts. But if one looks at the quality of impacts, the negatives (such as unemployment, privacy invasion, accelerated sense of time, destroyed sense of place, aggravated rich-poor Tom Forester of Griffith University ably differences) outweigh the positives. summarizes the many negative arguments, suggesting that the information society is a multifaceted megamistake.” This early warning may well be followed by many more, but few people are disposed to listen now. The information society is will be computerized, proceeding at a rapid pace, with little to stop it-we networked and flooded with ever more information once the new ‘superhighways’ are in place. One of the greatest negative impacts of the emerging information society is the pervasive problem of information overload, or ‘infoglut’, which arises from more people sending more communications in more variegated ways than ever before. China has a serious problem of human overpopulation which it tries to address; we in the West have a serious problem of information overpopulation which we generally ignore. But examine your own life and ask anyone around you, and the response is unanimous: we are busier and busier trying to keep up, yet falling more and more behind in initiating, digesting and responding to e-mail, fax messages, letters, phone calls, print-outs, journals, magazines, newsletters, newspapers, books, audiotapes, CD-ROMs, memos, fliers, advertisements, catalogues, Post-itT” notes, signs, and the expanding world of cable television and videocassettes. In general, are we happier and wiser from this infoabundance? Or besieged and confused? If the latter, is it simply a matter of cultural lag, before we adapt to this evolutionary jump? Or are we creating a monster-a megamistake? The advocates are blissfully acritical. And the early critics have yet to be answered-Donald N. Michael’s assertion that information leads to increasing complexity,‘3 Orrin Klapp’s charge that more information leads to boredom and noise,14 and Neil Postman’s fears that we are amusing ourselves to death and succumbing to ‘technopoly’.‘5 Regardless of whether we think of IT as boon or bane, the IT revolution is not only unfolding, but accelerating. Two recent commentators make a persuasive argument that, despite the many impacts of IT over the past two or three decades, the major impacts are still to come in the next decade or ~0.‘~ The impact of IT on the quest for sustainability, similar to impacts on society in general, must be viewed as a complex mix of positives and negatives. On the plus side, data on various environmental problems, satellite photos from outer space, and a burgeoning literature on environmental issues and sustainable futures, can
FUTURES
March 1994
lnfoglut and competing problems
249
illuminate many facets of a complex realm. On the minus side, there is already a glut of information on saving the planet and remedying a wide variety of environmental problems. My brief overview of this literature in the October 1992 issue of Futures cites 312 items in 255 notes, with an appendix listing 68 futures-relevant environmental periodicals, both scholarly and popular. A recent bibliography of environmental literature briefly describes 3084 items, including dozens of periodicals not on my preliminary list.” And the World Directory of Environmental Organizations, now in its 4th edition, describes the activities of some 2200 environmental groups worldwide.‘8 All these books, journals, and organizations may be necessary and useful. But there is also much duplication and competition. The haunting verse of Edna St Vincent Millay, from over 50 years ago, seems as timely as ever: Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour, Falls from the sky a meteoric shower Of facts they lie unquestioned, uncombined Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill Is daily spun; but there exists no loom To weave it into fabric “)
shower of facts continues unabated, but there are now many looms that bring environmental information together in reports, annuals, yearbooks, almanacs and agendas. Still, most of them are not widely known, some are superficial, and none stands out above the others.20 Similarly, none of the 100 or so environmental journals stands out over the rest. There is no single person or organization, or even a small leadership cluster, to speak for sustainability. The number of people and organizations involved in the pursuit of sustainability is beyond any easy comprehension. Efforts at coordination are weak and scattered.2’ With hundreds of generals each going their own way, can ‘the battle to save the planet’ ever be effective? Lester R. Brown, who supplied this military metaphor,22 does not elaborate on how ‘the battle’ should be fought. The metaphor might be rejected by some as overly militaristic and hierarchical, but even if one chooses a metaphor of a large scientific project,23 some degree of coordination and overall strategy would probably produce much greater effectiveness. The ‘environmental movement’ is a large and variegated entity, so much so that few, if any, can grasp its dimensions. A further problem is in understanding those outside ‘the movement’ or, ironically, the environment of environmentalism. This broad category of non-environmentalists includes a small but active and growing anti-environmentalist opposition,24 and a larger mass of uninvolved people who may be sympathetic, neutral, or simply uninformed. Although the anti-environmentalists are relatively small in number, many are politically sophisticated and well funded by corporations and conservative foundations. Should environmentalists engage them in the mass media? To date, the hostiles have been ignored.15 Yet their ideas were empowered in the USA during the Reagan and Bush administrations, and could well return to the White House if the Clinton administration stumbles in its first term. Perhaps of greater immediacy is the large group of people who ignore or undervalue environmental issues. One can only speculate as to why, and the answer is likely to be complex. Many are probably distracted by the vast feast of information, much of it entertaining escapism. Many are citizens who are not involved in politics in any way. Many who are involved in politics place higher or exclusive priority on a The
FUTURES
March 1994
250
lnfoglut and competing
problems
vast range of social and economic issues. Many professionals should be incorporating green perspectives into their thinking but persist in their ‘environmental blindspots’. Ideology seems to supply the blinders, or, at least, low intellectual standards. Perhaps the blinkered professionals are sympathetic but don’t know how to adopt a green perspective. Perhaps they don’t know enough about the issues to bring them into their work. Or, quite possibly, a green perspective is beyond the presently accepted boundaries of their specialism. Research on this question promises many rewards for advancing sustainability.27 If the multifaceted transition to sustainability is to succeed in the next few decades, it will probably be necessary to cope with infoglut in society and within the environmental movement, while recruiting more citizens to the environmentalist perspective and greening the worldviews of many more professionals. In this latter regard, there has been a recent greening to some degree among professionals in the social sciences (notably, in economics), religion, architecture, education, health, criminal justice, urban affairs, engineering and business. With psychology, appropriate pressures, these intellectual beachheads could very well be expanded. The strategic goal should be to mainstream the marginal. But infoglut means greater competition to be heard. Those in the advertising industry well understand this emerging situation, and are motivated to make their commercial messages into winners, which, of course, adds to our infoglut. Some possible strategies for improved social marketing of ‘sustainability’: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Aim crisp messages at broad audiences, eg publishing in the op-ed pages of major newspapers.‘8 The conservatives understand this strategy very well,29 environmentalists seem to be more comfortable (as most of us are) in addressing like-minded colleagues in narrow-circulation journals. Tilt with the anti-environmentalists. It is doubtful that they will be converted, but many neutral bystanders might be-or at least kept from being converted to the opposition. Debate can be educational; as a result, environmentalists could tailor their messages to be more immune from intellectual attack.30 Boost a nationally syndicated green columnist. Indicative of how far the environmentalists have to go is the fact that, in the USA, there is still no nationally syndicated columnist-a green George Will who is read by millions daily. (In Canada, however, David Suzuki is widely known for his weekly syndicated column and his weekly TV show, ‘The Nature of Things’.) Donella Meadows, who writes a weekly column for a local newspaper in New Hampshire,3’ has tried to get US syndication, but with no success. Promote an annual ‘Top Ten Greenlist of Books’ selected by an authoritative group or individual for consideration by schools, colleges and libraries. This could be contrasted to much of the escapism and triviality in the widely circulated fiction and non-fiction bestseller lists. Promote green Nobel prizes. The Nobel prizes, established early in this century, are irrelevant to an emerging age of sustainability. They munificently reward thinking that contributes to traditional disciplines (and in many instances the global problematique), rather than thinking aimed at the multidisciplinary problems of promoting sustainability. Realizing this, the Right Livelihood Awards were begun in 1980 as an Alternative Nobel Prize.32 But they are not well known. They should be given much more publicity, the Nobel prizes should be radically changed, or a new set of prizes should be developed that has the media appeal of the Nobels to broadcast a message worldwide as to what kind of thinking is important.
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut
(6)
(7)
and competing problems
25 1
Support widespread, multi-age civic education in general, including a large portion of sustainability-related thinking. Many educators should be arguing for better ‘intellectual nutrition’ in our information-glutted society, the same way that nutritionists urge us to eat more vegetables and whole grains, rather than fat, sugar and empty calories. Promote a new, sustainability-related labelling scheme for the nations of the world, to replace the obsolete and misleading Cold War labels (First World, Third World) and economic labels (developed, developing). Five possible somewhat progressing nations, categories: strongly progressing nations, non-progressing nations, somewhat regressing nations, and strongly regressing nations (eg Haiti, Ethiopia). These labels would force attention to sustainability and encourage periodic global assessments of the transition to sustainability.33
Sustainability
v competing
issues
Even with extensive efforts to cope with infoglut, there are other issues that, rightly or not, compete for the attention of policy makers and the public. Some are specific to certain countries and times. Much political energy in the USA is invested in the abortion issue, which seems likely to continue. Also in the USA, much attention is presently directed to legislating a new healthcare system. In Canada, there is perennial concern over the question of Quebec’s secession. Many other issues seem to be more or less present in all countries, having to do with government deficits, jobs and the economy, education, health, crime, illegal drugs, corruption, violence, infrastructure, transportation, homelessness, poverty, immigration, human rights, and-increasingly-issues of race, gender and ethnicity. Perhaps the best current illustration of competition from other problems is the present preoccupation of Al Gore, author of the remarkably thoughtful and far-sighted Earth in the Balance. In his first year as Vice President of the USA, however, he has not visibly pursued any of the elements of his proposed Global Marshall Plan, making ‘the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization’.34 Rather, he has been spearheading a major effort to ‘reinvent government’ and reduce unnecessary spending. The transition to sustainability is arguably the key long-term trend, but it is not the only transition taking place. We literally live in what I call an ‘era of multiple transformations’, with many momentous changes taking place simultaneously. As noted by Donald N. Michael, this leads to increasing incoherence. ‘Because of the incoherences, the sought-after products and processes are unlikely to be either fruitful or enduring. The pressures for short-term responses to critical issues will also increase and, given the incoherences, dominate social action’.35 Or, as memorably stated by David Rejeski of the US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘the immediate always drives out the important’.36 Yet another way to articulate this problem of sustainability not receiving its due is to consider the widespread tendency to discount the future. This is a longstanding concern of Harold T. Linstone, who observes that occurrences appearing to be far removed from one’s immediate neighbourhood in space and time are heavily disc0unted.j’ Alternatively, Linstone describes how the individual looks at the future as if through the wrong end of the telescope,38 thus affecting many decisions. In the absence of a widespread eco-catastrophe, or a widely touted Earth Summit such as the UNCED meeting in Rio, the long-term cause of sustainability is handicapped when considered along with other issues of greater immediacy and
FUTURES
March
1994
252
Info&t
and competing problems
palpability. The general remedy is for environmentalists to get involved with other issues and to link them to sustainability.‘9 In doing so, as argued by Robert C. Paehlke, environmentalism can gain a mass following, evolve into the new wave of progressivism, and become fully developed into a coherent ideology for our timesthe first to be deeply rooted in the natural sciences.40 Stated alternatively by Martin W. Lewis, a ‘Promethean environmentalism’ would strive for a broader coalition (and, in doing so, reject the romantic views of ‘eco-extremists’).4’ But this is not easy. Many environmentalists are not disposed to expand their horizons to incorporate other sectors of society-to prod the greening of cities, business, education, agriculture, foreign policy etc. And many embrace a utopian idealism that inhibits effective action in the real world.
Three scenarios of a non-sustainable
future
As of the early 199Os, there are no ‘sustainable societies’ by any definition. All societies are still heavily under the influence of obsolete industrial-era thinking, reinforced by outdated industrial-era institutions of higher learning and their restricting academic disciplines. Yet many individuals, corporations, NGOs and nations are breaking loose and initiating promising measures in the direction of a sustainable future.42 Over the next few decades a few societies (probably Japan and nations in Northern Europe; possibly the USA, Canada and other OECD nations), may approach what today is thought to be ‘sustainability’, although the definition of the desired end is likely to change.43 In contrast, most countries, especially today’s poor ones and tomorrow’s new ones hastily born from ethnic splintering, will probably fall far short of any reasonable ideal. Three scenarios suggest how a non-sustainable future can happen in the next few decades: (1)
(2)
False success. Compelling arguments for sustainability are widespread, and it appears that the transition to sustainability is well under way, due to improved environmental protection and some degree of technological and/or social international environmental transformation.44 Progress is apparent in agreements, contraceptive techniques and usage, recycling, reduction of pollution and toxic waste, full costing of motor vehicle usage, new energy technologies such as fusion or hydrogen, and cost-effective improvements in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. The 169 national reports on environment and development, prepared for the 1992 UNCED meeting, have led to regular reporting by most nations on progress towards sustainable development.45 The feeling of widespread activity and progress is enhanced by ignoring or downplaying negative indicators such as declining per capita fish catch, rising Third World debt, and spreading scarcity of fresh water.4” Politicians proclaim a premature victory, and other goals take on a higher priority. Environmentalists are better organized than in the past, but their protests that much more is needed are ignored. Mini-success/regress (or more-ohhe-same). A variety of UN agencies, NGOs, and intellectuals continue to advocate sustainability of some sort, but without much if any coordination. National governments pay lip-service to the notion of sustainability, or ignore it, due to the press of other issues such as deficits, crime, healthcare costs, education, inadequate infrastructure and other nations in crisis. Environmental progress is made on a few fronts, but offset by
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut and competing
(3)
problems
253
worsening conditions in other areas, similar to the mixed news depicted by 42 global indicators reported in the early editions of the Worldwatch Institute’s Vital Signs annua1.47 There is no widely held sense of marked success or regress. Evident regress. Consciousness of environmental problems and the idea of sustainability lose their prominence due to economic, political, and/or cultural reasons, eg a widespread and prolonged economic depression, a major war or sustained terrorist activity, success of conservative regimes that downplay the extent of environmental problems and exaggerate the extent of environmental progress, a widespread plague that dwarfs the already considerable impact of AIDS, new information and biomedical technologies that give the illusion of general progress, ever more quantities of trivial and escapist information drowning out essential messages, a public increasingly weary of doom and gloom from environmentalists and futurists, and/or ever more intense cultural conflict over issues of race, gender, ethnicity, birth and death.48 In addition to these distracting and displacing forces, the fragmentation and incoherence of those who advocate sustainability and desirable futures continues to worsen.
In sober conclusion The common themes of these scenarios have to do with political priorities and the strength and incidence of other competing concerns. Political priorities are established by the quantity and quality of argument for and against the issues, and by perceptions and dispositions of the public and their elected leaders (what is commonly referred to as ‘political will’). In the emerging information-rich societies, it is by no means clear that political priorities are more rationally determined. Conversely, there may be reason to suspect that the information society is the enemy of sustainable society. Despite many recent gains in understanding environmental problems and in taking actions in the direction of a sustainable society, it is doubtful that progress is being made. Nor is there any shared image of what ‘winning the war’ entails. Any of the three scenarios sketched above-false success, mini-success/regress, or evident regress-seems more likely than any of the scenarios for genuine success.4q There are many barriers to attaining sustainability.” Two of them are explored here. Infoglut, brought on by the burgeoning information society, creates a plethora of entertaining and commercial distractions from our many problems, and often makes our problems more difficult to comprehend, for those few who are willing and able to fully understand them. Other major problems, more immediate in their demands or more readily grasped, serve to displace interest in pursuing sustainability. Any substantial reduction in the likelihood of these scenarios will require a new strategy for sustainability that involves a considerably greater investment in outreach to cope with infoglut, and a much greater effort to integrate sustainability concerns into other issue areas. But who will pursue this strategy? The required scale of the sustainability effort is that of a world war, but the organization of the effort is quite unlike that of the military, which has centralized planning and rapid disposition of ample resources to areas where they are needed. The environmental movement is vast, non-hierarchical and fragmented. It is good at tackling specific grassroots issues, at holding conferences, and at writing high-minded books, reports, papers, almanacs, guidelines and lists of 101 ways to save the Earth right in your own home. The
FUTURES March 1994
254
lnfoglut
and competing
problems
movement is not good at conceiving and implementing a broad, overall strategy to reposition itself for greater success. It is possible, but unlikely, that some major eco-catastrophe such as widely evident global warming will soon occur, and that it will supply a galvanizing force for good works. In contrast to this secular Armageddon, we are far more likely to face more of the same, or dynamic stagnation.5’ I encourage any argument as to why this is not our very probable future.
Notes and references See essay by Walter Corson in this special issue for a list of other barriers. Michael Marien, Societal Directions and Alternatives: A Critical Guide to the Literature (LaFayette, NY, Information for Policy Design, 1976). [Out of print.1 A rare exception to this generalization is David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk (editors), Postmodern Politics for a Planet in Crisis (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1993). There are scores of books on post-modernism, mostly from writers in the humanities. For a social science point of view, see Pauline Marie Rosenau, Postmodernism and the So&/Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and intrusions (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992). 5.
6.
7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
12. 13. 14.
15.
16.
17.
Dennis Pirages (editor), The Sustainable Society (New York, Praeger, 1977). The focus of this book was strongly on the growth debate which permeated the 1970s. Today’s focus on ‘sustainability’ sidesteps the issue. Denis Hayes, Repairs, Reuse, Recycling-first Steps Toward a Sustainable Society (Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 23, September 1978); Lester R. Brown, Building a Sustainable Society (New York, W. W. Norton, 1981); James C. Coomer (editor), Quest for a Sustainable Society (Elmsford, NY, Pergamon, 1981); Harlan Cleveland (editor), The Management of Sustainable Growth (Elmsford, NY, Pergamon, 1981). World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common future (New York, Oxford University Press, 1987). Michael Marien, ‘Environmental problems and sustainable futures: major literature from WCED to UNCED’, Futures, 24(8), October 1992, pages 731-757. Kenichi Kohyama, ‘introduction to information society theory’, Chuo Koron, Winter 1968. Cited by Yoneji Masuda in Yoshihiro Kogame (editor), Changing Value Patterns and Their impact on Economic Structure (Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press, 1982, distributed in USA by Columbia University Press), page 174. Yoneji Masuda, The information Society as Post-industrial Society (Bethesda, MD, World Future Society, 1981), page 3. As a historical note, it is illuminating to recognize ‘information society’ and ‘sustainable society’ are the contemporary counterparts of the two diametrically opposed usages of ‘post-industrial society’. See Michael Marien, ‘The two visions of post-industrial society’, Futures, g(3), October 1977, pages 415-431. The essay concluded that ‘there is no evidence that any writer holding either of the two visions of post-industrial society has any appreciable understanding of the opposing vrsion’. Michael Marien, ‘IT: you ain’t seen nothing yet’, in Tom Forester (editor), Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity, and People (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 19891, pages 41-47. Tom Forester, ‘Megatrends or megamistakes? What ever happened to the information society?’ The Information Society, 8(3), July-September 1992, pages 133-146. Donald N. Michael, ‘Governing by learning: boundaries, myths, and metaphors’, Futures, 25(l), January-February, 1993, pages 81-89. Orrin E. Klapp, Overload and Boredom: Essays on the Quality of Life in the information Society (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1986); Orrrn E. Klapp, Opening and Closing: Strategies of Information Adaptation in Society (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1978). Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1992); Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York, Viking, 1985). William E. Halal, ‘The information technology revolution: computer hardware, software, and Forecasting and Social Change, 44(l), August 1993, services into the 2 1st century’, Technological The Information Society, 8(4), pages 69986; David Ronfeldt, ‘Cyberocracy is coming’, October-December 1992, pages 243-296. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, The /s/and Press Bibliography of Environmental Literature (Washington, DC, Island Press, 1993).
FUTURES
March
1994
lnfoglut
and competing problems
255
18.
Thaddeus C. Trzyna and Roberta Childers (editors), World Directory Organizations (Sacramento, CA, California Institute of Public Affairs, 1992).
19. 20.
Edna St Vincent Millay, Huntsman, What Quarry! (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1939), page 92. For example, Choosing a Sustainable Future: The Report of the National Commission on the Environment (Washington, DC, Island Press, January 1993).
21.
The Global Tomorrow Coalition in Washington, DC, makes a modest attempt to coordinate major US environmental groups. Lester R. Brown et a/, State of the World 1997 (New York, W. W. Norton, 1991), page 3. See paper by Dennis Pirages in this special issue, proposing a ‘sociocultural genome project’. See six items in Future Survey, 15(7), July 1993, pages 14-15; especially Carl Deal, The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations (Berkeley, CA, Odonian Press, March 1993). For many years I have pondered a phrase from John Steinbeck’s Sea of Corlez (New York, Viking Press, 1941, page 31), wherein he muses that ‘Men really need sea-monsters in their personal oceans’. Is this characteristic of men, or of women, too? In any event, there seems to be a very strong correlation between ideology and sea-monster need: the right wing has an obsessive need for monsters (first communism; now, perhaps, environmentalists and Muslims), while the left wing includes many environmentalists), seems to have little need to create a (which, loosely, larger-than-life enemy. Thus, while conservatives actively attack environmentalists, especially those on the radical fringe who make easy targets, the environmentalists seem inclined to ignore any opposition. As an illustration of the ‘environmental blindspot’, consider Samuel P. Huntington, ‘The clash of civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, 73(j), Summer 1993, pages 22-49, in which it is stated that world politics is entering a new phase in which the fundamental source of conflict will be cultural. Alternative possibilities, such as conflict over scarce resources and environment-related policies, are not considered. Some clues are provided by Lester W. Milbrath, Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1989). Doug McKenzie-Mohr and others are investigating this matter for Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, created in 1988 to reach across institutional lines to identify paths to sustainable development. Contact National Round Table Secretariat, 1 Nicolas Street, Ottawa Kl N 7B7. David Shenk, ‘Why liberals still can’t compete with conservatives in the TV talk show war’, The Washington Post, 8 August 1993, page Cl, describes how well conservatives do on TV with their absolute, aggressive and confrontational style. The conservatives are also very skilled at commanding their share of op-ed essays in major newspapers. One of the rare public confrontations between an environmentalist and an anti-environmentalist involved a bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon on the prices of five metals over the course of the 1980s. Simon bet that they would fall; Ehrlich, assuming scarcity, thought they would rise. The prices of all five wagered metals declined-an embarrassment for the environmentalist forces. See John Tierney, ‘Betting the planet’, The New York Times Magazine, 2 December 1990, pages 52ff.
22. 23. 24.
25.
26.
27. 28.
29.
30.
31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
38. 39.
40. 41.
of
Environmental
Donella H. Meadows, The Global Citizen (Washington, DC, Island Press, 1991). A collection of her newspaper columns. Paul Ekins, A New World Order: Crassrools Movements for Global Change (London and New York, Routledge, 1992) describes the recipients of the Right Livelihood Award and their projects. See essay by Hazel Henderson in this special issue, on the importance of indicators and reporting. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin, 1992), page 273. Donald N. Michael, ‘Forecasting and planning in an incoherent context’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 36(1-21, August 1989, page 79. Comment by David Rejeski at World Future Society Seventh General Assembly in Washington, Wednesday, 30 June 1993. Harold A. Linstone, ‘Communications in futures research’, in Wayne I. Boucher (editor), The Study ofthe Future: An Agenda for Research (Washington, DC, National Science Foundation, 1977), page 203. Harold A. Linstone, Mu/tip/e Perspectives for Decision Making (New York, North-Holland, 1984), page 21. See essay by Sally Lerner in this special issue, on employment and sustainability. Also see L. S. Nemiroff and Doug McKenzie-Mohr, ‘Determinants and distinguishing variables of responsible environmental behavior’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(l), 1992, pages l-24, on how to make connections between global issues. Robert C. Paehlke, Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1989). Martin W. Lewis, Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism (Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1992).
FUTURES
March 1994
256
lnfoglut and competing problems
42. 43. 44. 45.
See paper by Walter Corson in this specral issue, and Future Survey, 75(1 I), November 1993. See paper by Dennis Pirages rn this special issue. See the scenarios of Robert L. Olson in this special issue. Nations oithe Earth Report (Geneva, UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 and 1993, three volumes). Lester R. Brown, Hal Kane, and Ed Ayres, \/its/ Signs 7993: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future (New York, W. W. Norton, June 1993). Ibid. Elsewhere, in State ofthe World 7993 (New York, W. W. Norton, 19931, Brown eta/state that despite many local gains, ‘the broad indicators showed a continuing wholesale deterioration in the earth’s physical condition’ (page 4). Michael Marien, ‘Cultural trends, troubles, and transformations: a guide to recent literature’, Futures, 25(4), May 1993, pages 414-430. See essay by Robert L. Olson in this special issue. See essay by Walter Corson in this special issue. See scenarios in essay by Duane Elgin in this special Issue.
46. 47.
48. 49. 50. 51.
FUTURES
March 1994