How distributing Question of Direction cards
can help raise the issue.

Sustainability cards are 'business card' size pieces of recycled
card stock that have the outline of sustainability on one side,
and an introduction to the issue on the other. They come in two
generic formats. (We also customize them for individuals and groups.)

One of the formats encourages readers to pick the outline apart:

Is this what we mean by sustainability?
If it is not, upon what point or points do we disagree?
For what reasons?
Is there anything missing?

The other version takes it a step further and asks:

Is it proper, now that our biggest problems result from our size,
to hold growth as a goal?
Would the guidelines on the back of this card make a better goal?

Distributing such cards can enable us to raise the Question of
Direction in an official environment that says there is no choice.

Concentrating our Power

If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going.

Anon

Knowing what we are trying to accomplish makes a big difference when it
comes to making decisions. A clear answer to the Question of Direction
would affect decisions made about where tax money is raised, how that
money is used, what is done with public lands and even the nature of the
monetary system. All this on top of giving the population a green light
for basing its own decisions on the new goal.

To establish the new goal, there are advantages to condensing the emerging
world-view down to a word or a phrase. Because this book has been about
the two perspectives, I can present the Question of Direction as the
choice between "growth" and "sustainability". Both words refer to entire
world-views. As words, standing alone, however, both can be spun into
meaninglessness. While the words themselves are used in many ways, the
Question of Direction is not about the words. It is about the world-views
that the words can represent. That said, one cannot describe a whole
world-view while asking a question about it. In order to question the
underlying goal of society, we have first to clearly identify the vision
and establish labels with which we can easily refer to it. Establishing
such a frame of reference will require a lot of communication.

While the mainstream media will occasionally produce stories that advance
understanding of citizens, issues, they are unlikely to help question the
underlying goal of society. Reaching the population through citizens'
networks will take more imagination than passing $10 million to an
advertising firm and telling them to sell the issue; it will take personal
involvement. Fortunately, personal contact and information flowing through
peer groups enjoys far greater credibility than any other means of
communications. The Seventh Generation Initiative exists to collect and
pass along suggestions and materials for raising the Question of Direction
through personal contacts and citizens, networks. Together we can press
the question forward for public reckoning.

Enormous progress has been made in understanding the issues affecting
long-term well-being. People, organizations and networks abound who,
together, can explain the full spectrum of social and environmental
problems and how we might solve them. If we can concentrate this wisdom
into a sound bite, we can offer it as a clear and appealing choice.

By linking the word, "sustainability, or the phrase, "long-term
well-being, to the outline inside the front cover of this book, we can
anchor the word or phrase for our purpose. Recall that this outline
emerged from a study of the inspirations and concerns of citizens. The
outline provides criteria by which the world-view can be clearly
identified, and by which plans and actions can be assessed for
compatibility with the goal.

Where the reference is distributed, we can ask: "Is this where we want to
head as a society?" While the word "this" doesn't mean anything by itself,
with the reference in hand, that one small word can bring to mind the entire
world-view. We can then ask the Question of Direction in a sound bite.
Where circumstances make it impractical to relate the outline above and
ask a question about it, providing the reference in advance is a necessary
step.

Noam Chomsky describes the problems that distributing the reference
overcomes. "Concision" is the word he uses to explain how the media can
avoid new ideas without appearing exclusive. Chomsky is most widely known,
not so much for his expertise in linguistics and how language is used, but
for his outspoken views about peace, justice and the environment. (He's
for them.) In the 1992 National Film Board's production, Manufacturing
Consent, Chomsky describes concision as a format in which he can be
invited to present his ideas on talk shows without the sponsors having to
worry that he might convert people to his way of thinking. Typically, a
guest is given three or four minutes to comment on some matter of public
interest. As long as what a person has to say supports the perspective
that the media has been broadcasting, three or four minutes is enough time
to add a detail or two. However, if what one has to say contradicts the
established view, the time limit makes sure that one cannot provide enough
background information to back up an alternate perspective. Without the
relevant background, divergent views look foolish, or don't make sense to
an audience steeped in the perspective of the status quo. So too, the
Question of Direction makes little sense without an explanation of the
alternative goal "sustainability." With the reference for sustainability
in the hands of an audience, however, the Question of Direction can be
asked concisely.

We will have to be creative to move the Question of Direction forward. The
potential of the approach is in its ability to maneuver around concision
when the sustainability reference has been distributed. Delivering the
sustainability reference to the public, in advance, is a means to the end
of reviewing the underlying goal of society and choosing the new
direction.

The opportunity has presented itself at a number of gatherings to
distribute business size cards bearing the sustainability outline, found
at the beginning of this book, on one side. The other side can advance the
issue in different ways.

One such gathering was a government sponsored event with the word
"sustainability" in the conference name. There were close to 400 people
present. At an early plenary, I stood up and mentioned that the word
sustainability was being used frequently and questioned whether the
meaning outlined on the cards was the same meaning understood by the
organizers or, if their understanding differed, in what way was it
different? [The basic formats of the cards described in this section can
be seen here] A copy of the first card shown on the web site with the
reference facing up was present at every place at each table in the
auditorium. While my question was evaded by those in control, I'm
sure that most of the 400 people present were considering their own
position and listening for answers that were conspicuous by their absence.
Most of the cards left the room with participants. I collected the rest
for future use.

The Fine Line Between the Goals

An understanding of where conventional practices become unsustainable is
necessary so that we avoid having our efforts buried under the illusion
that the present order can continue through non-material growth. [Picture
here of the second card on the website, above. The text has been changed
slightly to read: "Is it proper, now that our biggest problems result from
our size, to hold growth as a goal? Would the guidelines on the back of t
his card make a better goal?"]

In the Question of Direction, "growth" refers to material expansion, that
is, increasing the throughput of material and/or energy flowing through
the economy. This differs from increasing the amount of service derived
from a consistent, or reduced, amount of materials and energy. In some
cases, non-material activity can make the GDP "grow." Educational
activities can generate revenue without requiring much material
throughput. Cultural events, music, sports, theatre and the like can make
a lot of money without increasing material consumption. Patent drug sales
and other enterprises that are able to charge substantial prices, thanks
to intellectual property rights, can also add to the GDP with minimal
resource consumption. Why then, can we not maintain the economic growth
system by concentrating on non-material commerce?

While there is a huge amount of value that people can get from
non-material activities, such activities do not lend themselves well to
making the huge volumes of money needed by an advanced growth-based
system. It is hard to charge for "things" that have no material form. In
addition, because little or no material is required, such "things" can be
reproduced often with little or no expense, a recipe for abundance, low
price or even free exchange. While such abundance is good for people and
for sustainability, low prices don't help much with economic expansion,
and free exchange is the content of nightmares for those dedicated to GDP
growth.

There has been some progress over the years in that the amount of value
derived from a given volume of materials and energy has increased. Such
developments are generally in the right direction and ought to be
applauded and encouraged. Unfortunately, the movement toward more wealth
generation from reduced material consumption peaked following the oil
crisis in the early 1970s and has diminished since then. While the trend
looked promising, it only slowed the rate at which material throughput
increased. There is little reason to believe that such increased
efficiency could bring material expansion to a halt while perpetuating
economic expansion. In the meantime, the argument is effectively used to
deflect scrutiny away from the growth ideology and the need for a new
goal. Wishful thinking and applied denial are necessary to imagine an
economy growing for seven generations without increasing material
consumption and waste.

When the smokescreen of growth without material expansion is presented,
the fine line of validity can be identified by asking about planned
obsolescence. For much of the last century, to meet the expectations of
expanding production, many producers have depended on designing products
to be thrown away and on promoting the accompanying values that enable
people to feel okay about such waste. Disposable products are produced
because durable goods would stifle growth. From the sustainability
perspective planning obsolescence is a dangerously wasteful practice that
has to be phased out to secure the future.

Whenever someone argues that we can have perpetual economic expansion and
sustainability, point to planned obsolescence and ask them where they
stand. To make the world work over the long-term, we not only have to stop
planning waste, we have to find appropriate ways to serve the needs that
are presently met by such waste. While every person needs the ingredients
for healthy life, and opportunities to contribute to mutual provision,
making garbage in exchange for a wage is not appropriate. A sustainable
civilization shares the goal of maximizing resource efficiency, but is
fundamentally different when it comes to designing for and promoting
durability.

The above exert from "Life, Money & Illusion; Living on Earth as if we want to stay"