View - ResearchGate

Article 30263porting them a considerable distance from the stone quarry, it is astonishing that there is no evidenceof an attempt to live sustainably. The decline appears to have been precipitous, and its worstfeature was cannibalism. Surely Easter Island’s isolation obviated any chance for help from outside.However, Earth cannot expect help from elsewhere in the universe either.Diamond (1997) describes an even more interesting situation involving three islands with a modestcommerce between them, but which was essential to optimal use of all three. This interdependenceis a small-scale model of the present global marketplace. Again, observant people shouldhave realized they were not living sustainably. Still, the system collapsed. The spatial and temporalscales are much larger for the entire planet, but the basic problem remains unchanged — how doesone use numeracy and eco-ethics to achieve sustainability?THE LIMITS OF NUMERACYThe ‘ancient’ societies presumably did not have as much quantitative information as is availabletoday, but each generally had fewer people per unit of area. They were probably as intelligent andmay have been better informed about the entire system upon which they depended than modernpeople. They probably had a sense of the quantitative changes in the system upon which theydepended. Today, food, fiber, and other resources come from a much larger area with which mostindividuals have minimal contact.Situations involving complex natural systems require damage control without full proof of theconsequences of doing nothing. Some individuals resist action until it can be based on objectiveevidence obtained by the scientific method. However, no single scientific method will suffice. Anarray of methods are available from which selections can be made, based on the nature of theproblem, the amount of evidence already available, the complexity and variability of the systembeing studied, the consequences of an error in judgment, and the degree to which the chosencourse of action is congruent with other established practices. The scientific method was developedto avoid mistakes that might lead to erroneous conclusions. However, biases exist at both theindividual and collective levels. Given these circumstances, surprises will always be possible, soboth science and public policy must be adaptive. Any monitoring system designed to detect errormust provide early warnings in time for corrective action to be taken.The comparative analysis of alternative courses of action should use quantitative data wheneverit is available in a suitable form. The selection of the most suitable alternative should include the criteriaused for the analysis and the realistic options that survived the process. It is also very importantto state how the selected alternative will be implemented. Special interests will attempt toskew the selection process and will use every available political pressure to ensure an outcomethat favors them. Furthermore, in the US (and presumably other countries as well), neither governmentalnor non-governmental agencies/organizations have sufficient flexibility to cope with thecomplex problems of either sustainable use of the planet or the precautionary principle. To achievethis will require a much higher level of environmental literacy and a heightened sense of eco-ethics.NUMERACY AND PREVENTATIVE ACTIONSustainable use of the planet will require action to prevent significant damage to both naturalcapital and ecosystem services. In short, with the planet’s huge human population, which is stillgrowing, and equally rapid depletion of natural resources, mistakes and ecological ‘surprises’could cost millions, even billions, of lives. Preventative action to avoid damage to natural capitaland ecosystem services is essential. Not only should further damage be prevented, but lost natural