Ian Story ARCH 499 Independent Study Advisor: Rob Pea June 10, 2011 A Mental Model for

Sustainability If modern societies are to find a way to live sustainably on this planet, we will need to make significant changes both in our actions and in the way we think about the world. Of the two, changing the way we think is the more critical, because the necessary changes in action will flow from it. There is more than one possible strategy for a sustainable human presence on this planet, and the issue isnt so much what this strategy looks like as whether it is sought at all. The purpose of this paper is not to lay out the reasons for creating a sustainable world, but rather to discuss how we might muster the will to achieve it. There are many brilliant individuals from a variety of professions thinking about the problem, and between them, we have a variety of good ideas about what we need to change in our behavior in order to sustain human life on Earth. However, to most people, these changes are radical, uncomfortable, or unacceptable, because they involve giving up long-held notions of what it means to be prosperous. People look instead for technical solutions, defined by Garrett Hardin as solutions that [require] a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. But sustainability does not have a technical solution, and without a change in the way we understand our relationship to the world, we will continue to make the problems worse. It is only by adopting a new mental model that we will be able to make the transition to a sustainable way of living. When I talk about a model in this paper, I am referring to the simplified abstraction each person holds in their head about how the world works and their place in it. A mental model can be likened to a belief system or a value system, and it certainly encompasses both of those, but it also includes more mundane aspects, such as an individuals understanding of the natural sciences. A model is an individuals interpretation of reality, and no two models are identical. But within a culture there are certain socially conditioned and accepted norms that people internalize as part of their own model. Individuals use their mental model of the world to make predictions and decisions based on fundamental assumptions and understandings that shape the way they judge the implications (positive and negative) and morality of their actions. Individuals models are constantly evolving based on new experiences and understandings. Across history and culture, humans have held many different mental models. An example very different from our own would be the model held by the earliest civilizations, who believed that natural disasters such as flooding and regular events such as rain were caused by the actions of the gods. This model said that if you made proper sacrifices and respected the gods rules, the rains would come on time and you would be protected from harm. This is a cause and effect relationship

inherent in the model that had a significant influence on the way people behaved and structured their societies. But a model does not have to involve religious beliefs, and today many would claim that the broad strokes of societys mental models are far more rational. Yet they are still shaped by certain assumptions that may be more or less in accordance with reality. Without a more ecological mental model, modern societies simply wont be able to make any meaningful strides toward sustainability within the timeframe required. In fact, despite growing attention to the major issues, all metrics indicate that humans are damaging the world at a faster rate with each passing day. Concerning mankinds destruction of the oceans, Jeremy Jackson asks How are we all going to respond to this? And we can do all sorts of things to fix it, but in the final analysis, the thing we really need to fix is ourselves. Its not about the fish; its not about the pollution; its not about climate change. Its about us, and our greed and our need for growth and our inability to imagine a world which is different from the selfish world we live in today. It is true that mans genius can create amazing technical solutions, but sustainability is, ultimately, a problem without a technical solution. Changing mankinds impact on the world is about far more than changing the tools we useit has to involve a change in awareness about how and why we use these tools. The first step in creating this awareness is the promotion of a new mental model that establishes a healthy relationship between mans purpose and the environment that sustains him. The strength of encouraging a new model is that it changes the way that people see the world. When people dont question their model, certain external concerns simply dont enter into their thought process without some extraordinary effort. In fact, the typical response to evidence contradicting a strongly-held mental model is denial. This is why appeals to conserve, as well as warnings about environmental crises like climate change, are so often rejected by society at large. Such concerns run counter to their current model of the world, and until this model is fundamentally challenged, gaining consensus on any environmental issues will be like pulling teeth. Because of the values inherent in the industrial system, it takes little to convince people to endorse a policy with a goal such as increasing GDPthis is something that their model teaches them is a good thing. Similarly, when society adapts a new model that values intact ecosystems and abhors waste, it should take little convincing to curtail carbon emissions, because doing so supports the inherent values of an ecological model. We cant know all of the problems that humans will have to deal with in the next century or two, and we cant count on solving them individually, one by one. It will be far more productive to cultivate a mindset that provides the framework for addressing these problems holistically. Our current mental model is one of unlimited growth that we have inherited from the centuries of prosperity and rapid development following the industrial revolution, and it is tenacious because it served us well in its time. As Garret Hardin claims in The Tragedy of the Commons, the morality of an act is a function of the state of the

system at the time it is performed. So long as the state of the system was such that the assumption of unlimited resources was essentially valid, it was moral and even sustainable for industry to harvest resources as quickly as possible. But now that this assumption no longer holds, the original mindset that served humanity so well has become unsustainable and, according to Hardin, immoral. Numerous authors have heralded the beginnings of an ecological revolution, marking the necessary shift from the unrelenting growth of industrial processes to a selfsustaining system focused on maintenance and using what we have more effectively. In an age of limited resources, continued growth entails sacrifices and costs that begin to outweigh the benefits that growth brings. Economist Herman Daly addresses this point with what he calls uneconomic growthgrowth where the costs to society outweigh the benefits to societyand further lays out his belief that we have already passed the point where further growth is uneconomic. The alternative path, a steadystate economy, abandons the goal of quantitative growth in favor of qualitative development, focusing on doing more with less, both in terms of materials and in terms of human welfare. (Steady-State Economics) Our mental model must embrace this same concept, abandoning the idea that our purpose is perpetual expansion, and focusing instead on living the best lives we can in a world with limited resources. Equipped with such a model, the individual technical and policy solutions will fall easily into place, and the world will be ready to begin an ecological era in accordance with nature. A sustainable mental model will be based on the belief that humans are intimately tied with the ecosystems that sustain them; that these ecosystems are valuable to human society and should not be degraded; that resources are finite and should be used efficiently; that the concept of waste is abnormal and materials always cycle in closed loops; that we will never know all of the complexities of nature or be able to replicate it; and that sometimes protecting the common good requires restricting individual behavior. Humans are Part of the Ecosystem Perhaps the most important tenet of this new model is the idea that humans are part of an ecosystem, and that human health and success cannot continue independent of the health of the ecosystem. We hold an anthropocentric, analytical view of the world that sees humans as distinct from nature. But in reality, the two cannot be separated. When humans harm the environment, they inevitably harm themselves. We are dependent on ecosystems for a huge variety of essential functionsproviding oxygen, food, decomposition, and natural resources, as well as protection from flooding, extremes of weather, and other disastersand without nature to provide these services, we could no longer exist as a species. By acknowledging that human concerns cannot be separated from ecosystem concerns, we must become better stewards of the environment, not just for natures sake, but in pursuit of our own best interests.

Acknowledge Limits Once we acknowledge the importance of healthy ecosystems, the next step is to realize that there is only so far we can push them without creating permanent damage. Humans have only a single planet to sustain us, with limited resources and limited ability to absorb waste. Our Ecological Footprint states that we are currently consuming resources and producing waste at a rate that would require 1.3 planets to sustain, and this number is only growing. (Wackernagel) Our industrial model, which states that resources are limited only by the rate at which we can harvest them, is getting us into trouble now that our ability to harvest has exceeded the earths ability to furnish useful resources. A sustainable society must learn to make do with a limited set of resources, and once these limits are acknowledged, we can turn our attention from simply harvesting more of them to using what we do harvest in an increasingly efficient manner to produce increasingly meaningful results. We currently put off the issue of limits by borrowing from the future, by digging deep into the earths stocks of natural capital and depleting future generations right to the interest of those stocks. Nondegradation Once we recognize that the ecosystems we depend on are limited and essentially irreplaceable, it follows that we must do whatever we can to keep them intact. Humans routinely modify the environment to serve their purposes, but all too often this leaves the land poorer than when it started. Even if it does some good for humans, the new environment destroys valuable natural capital worth more than the human environment that took their place. Humans obviously need space to live and work, and this requires the appropriation of land, but we must be selective in how we use that land. The most productive land, especially that capable of supporting agriculture, should never be used for lesser functions, and in all of our projects, we should take care to preserve the existing value of the land by minimizing our impact. Where possible, the most barren and degraded land should be developed first, preserving the productivity of ecosystems for maximum benefit to society. Like all the concepts of the mental model, this notion must become central and intuitive to the way we think, such that any action that degrades the land, even the cutting of a tree, gives us pause. Value Natural Capital Natural capital is an economic term that describes the ecosystems and stocks of material that provide us with resources. Historically, they have been so vast that they were assigned no value in our economic system, and even today, they still arent figured into economic calculations. But as natural capital is increasingly sacrificed to the industrial machine, the services it provides, both in resources and as part of an interrelated web of systems, are proving to be more valuable than previously imagined to humanitys prosperity. Productive natural capital, if utilized sustainably, provides a continuous supply of utility dependent on the size and quality of the stock, much like a bank account generating interest. By destroying natural capital, we are

whittling away at the principle rather than living off of current income, leaving less for ourselves and for future generations year after year, a recipe that can only impoverish the future. But the environmental costs of destroying these ecosystems, drawing down this capital, are rarely paid by the party responsible, instead being externalized to society at large. If these costs were actually counted and reflected in the price paid for goods, our economy would change drastically, and current wasteful practices like industrial farming and deforestation would skyrocket in price, revealing that sustainably harvested materials are not only better for our future, but also the cheapest form of production as well. Understand Materials and Waste as part of a closed loop Accounting for natural capital involves accepting that the human economy is part of a larger web of interactions that together make up an ecosystem. In an ecosystem, the concept of waste does not existrather, everything not needed by one organism becomes food for another, and materials are continually cycled in a closed loop where nothing leaves the system. Understanding humanity as part of an ecosystem requires abolishing the current industrial model of linear production, and acknowledging that there no longer exists an away to which to send our waste. Acting on this belief means reusing and recycling our own used materials within the industrial ecosystem, and ensuring that any materials that cannot find use in the industrial system become food for some process in the larger ecosystem. Realize That Our Understanding of Nature will Always be Incomplete Yet for all our good intentions, humans always have and will always continue to interfere with the balance of nature. The simple reason is that we do not know in advance what the consequences of our actions will be, and a healthy resolution requires that we accept that we will never know all of the complexities of the world around us. Accepting this means that there will be unintended results and new problems arising from any new technology or policy, and we must be willing to seek out the facts and be honest with ourselves regarding the costs and benefits of our technology and actions. Technology may be able to do wonderful things, but we will never be able to match the complexity of natural systems or replace the services that nature provides. Accept Restrains in Order to Protect our Common Interests All of these related points are essential elements of a mental model for sustainability, and once they are taken to heart, we as a society can get to the business of fixing our problems. But even with a new model to guide us, there will still be one human trait that will threaten to hold us back, and that is greed. Even when we realize the price of degradation and bear in mind the values of a healthy ecosystem, there will still be those who see opportunities to get ahead by setting the health of the environment aside and liquidating natural capital without concern for its contribution to society as a whole, both today and in the future. In order to protect the social gains of a new sustainable society, we will have to be vigilant against the force of greed, by bringing

social judgment on those who sacrifice others wellbeing to further their own. This will require establishing social and legal structures to prevent what is known as the tragedy of the commons, defined simplistically as humanitys tendency to abuse any resource that is shared in common by individuals free to act according to their own best interests. Addressing this tendency is central to any discussion about sustainability, but preventing the tragedy means changing the rules of the commons to restrict how individuals act. In a large community, these restrictions are an unfortunate necessity for maintaining the common good. Because open access leads to misuse and ruin, restricting the commons will continue to be an essential policy of a sustainable world. Individuals must come to understand this concept and accept that, so long as the method is fair, the commons must be regulated in such a way that they can be used optimally, avoiding cases like the collapsed cod fisheries of the Atlantic due to overfishing. Under the new mental model, citizens must not only accept these conditions, but demand them for their own protection. These are the basic assumptions of a sustainable mental model, but it will require significant effort for them to enter into the mental models of society at large. Sustainability is a global problem that will require a response from the global society. A change in mindset of such a large group will be no small task, but it is not an impossible one. Momentum is beginning to build among concerned individuals who have educated themselves about mans relationship to the environment, and todays sustainability movement is a manifestation of this growing concern. Eventually, we will reach a tipping point, where enough concerned people are able to challenge societys established views and initiate broader change. This change will likely be precipitated by an event that forces people to realize the consequences of inaction. We saw a sample of this with the 1974 oil embargo. While this event wasnt enough to transform the way we see the world in the long run, it did get us to look more closely at the issue of energy. Fortunately, there isnt any doubt that such an event will come along (if there were, we wouldnt need to be concerned about sustainability), given that humanity is already operating beyond the carrying capacity of the earth. But when the models that we hold about the world and our place in it are fundamentally challenged, where will people turn for guidance? Those who understand the issues can prepare the ground, so to speak, by setting an example and providing education for others. Education is a critical strategy for promoting a new mental model. A model is a product of an individuals experiences, mentors, peers, and understanding of the world around them, and many simply dont realize there are other viable ways to think about the world. A thorough understanding of how ecosystems work provides a good base for this new model. By challenging the assumptions behind an individuals model and providing alternatives for consideration, the educator can plant the seeds for future change. When new information and experiences contradict that individuals model in the future, this gives them an opportunity to reconsider their assumptions

rather than resorting to a denial response. But in addition to intellectual understanding, the decision to change mental models is driven by social factors. People are often more willing to believe viewpoints that are already held by their peers, because this helps them to fit in and feel accepted. Here too concerned individuals can help, by standing up for what they believe and setting a visible example for others. By creating the impression that an ecological model is accepted and becoming more common, they can help to encourage others to make the switch. This second strategy, creating the conditions for social acceptance of ideas, is something that has long been the domain of designers and artists. Architects and related professionals shape the environment we inhabit and give form to the values of an age, but the question must be whether those values will be those of an industrial model or an ecological model. To quote Sauerbruch and Hutton, Architecture, whose presence is everywhere, is more suitable than any other discipline as a medium to express a change in the antagonistic relationship between nature and civilization in a visually comprehensible way. Architecture could become an agent of a changed attitude and practice in dealing with nature and natural resources. (275) Because of this potential, the decisions we make as architects influence peoples sense of their society. If architects works stand up for the values of a new age, they will provide a constant reminder that a new way of thinking about the world is both acceptable and desirable. Before any of this can make an impact however, it is critical for the concerned designer to critically examine his own mental model, then to stick to his values and not let them be compromised in his work. For all the damage already done, and all the concern that humans wont be able to change quickly enough, the last decade or two have shown that there are people increasingly willing to look at issues of sustainability. After listening to the most forward-thinking individuals speak and write on the subject, it is clear that each has developed a way of thinking about the world more akin to the one described in this paper than to the industrial mental model prevalent in society today. This awareness, and their willingness to dedicate themselves fully to raising concerns and educating others, are inspiring, and provide evidence that society is beginning to turn ever so slowly in a better direction. Speakers like Willie Smits for the World Wildlife Fund have shown that the knowledge exists today to restore damaged ecosystems and rebuild the natural capital that will be the source of our future prosperity. Architects and designers like Malcolm Wells have shown dedication to the idea of nondegradation, taking this new mental model to heart to drive their design decisions and applying these values in their work. Every one of these individuals has a different way to contribute to a sustainable world, but what they have in common is a commitment to a new mental model, and a desire to share their beliefs with the rest of the world. There is hope for a bright, sustainable future. Change may come slowly, but there is good reason to believe it will come. We wont see a sustainable future as a result of technical solutions or policies designed to address issues one at a timechange will require a more meaningful, holistic

approach brought about by a broader understanding of the issues and a wide adoption of a new mental model that accounts for the environment and mans role in it. Only equipped with such a model can we face the challenges of the future in a coherent and successful way.

Works Cited Daly, Herman. "Steady-State Economics (excerpt from Chapter 5). Web. http://dieoff.org/page88.htm Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons (excerpt from Science. 1968: 12431248). Web. Ibid Jackson, Jeremy. "Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean." TED. May 2010. Speech.

Sauerbruch, Matthias, and Louisa Hutton. Sauerbruch Hutton Archive. German and English edition. Baden: Lars Muller, 2006. 274-278. Print. Smits, Willie. "Willie Smits restores a rainforest." TED. Mar 2009. Speech. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E. Rees. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996. Print.

Additional References Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print. Alexander, Christopher. The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Print. Berry, Wendell. Various essays: A Nation Rich in Natural Resources A Practical Harmony An Argument for Diversity Conservation is Good Work Conserving Forest Communities Contempt for Small Places Economy and Pleasure Faustian Economics Major in Homecoming Money Versus Goods Rugged Individualism Secrecy vs. Rights Simple Solutions, Package Deals, and a 50-Year Farm Bill Solving for Pattern The Futility of Global Thinking The Love of Farming The Work of Local Culture The Total Economy Two Economies Waste What Are People For? Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer Carson, Rachel, Lois Darling, and Louis Darling. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Print. Daly, Herman. "Economics in a Full World." Scientific American. Sep 2005: Vol. 293, Issue 3. Print.

Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins, and L H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1999. Print. Hawken, Paul. A Declaration of Sustainability: 12 steps society can take to save the whole enchilada. Print. Keohane, Nathaniel O, and Sheila M. Olmstead. Markets and the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007. Print. Kunstler, James H. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Print. Loveland, Joel. Personal Interview. 26 May 2011. Meadows, Donella H, Jrgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows. The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. Co, 2004. Print. Merlino, Kathryn. Personal Interview. 26 May 2011. Murcutt, Glenn, Haig Beck, and Jackie Cooper. Glenn Murcutt: A Singular Architectural Practice. Mulgrave, Vic., Australia: Images Pub. Group, 2002. Print. Murcutt, Glenn. Glenn Murcutt, Architect. Rozelle, NSW: 01 Editions, 2006. Print. Olkowski, Helga, William Olkowski, and Tom Javits. The Integral Urban House: Selfreliant Living in the City. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1979. Print. Orr, David W. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Van, der R. S, and Stuart Cowan. Ecological Design. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1995. Print. Wells, Malcolm. Gentle Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981. Print.