Its been a long break. Sustainability is about the long-term. It must take a view withhout the normal constraints of time based deadlines. Sustainability must think generations ahead, making choices in the here and now aware of the potential consequences generation after generation into the future. My not being around has had no great consequence in the grand scheme of things. So more anon. I'm back!
Apparently, single-celled animals do not edit sense impressions. Donald E. Carr notes that "This is philosophically interesting in a rather mournful way, since it means that only the simplest animals perceive the universe as it is".
We, being complex of structure and mind, have to make do with our own interpretations. Where our senses fail us our minds attempt to plug the gaps. Perhaps it could be otherwise..
The joy of letting go and simply accepting nature and our world as it is without edits or add-ons, or even subtractions. The joy of a world where all is taken for what it is, has been, or could become. The joy of the whole, where reduction is a temptation resisted. The joy.
Last year the ongoing decline in bees was highlighted when a study looking at the UK and Dutch bee populations found that wildflowers that rely on specialist species of bees for pollination have declined in step with the reduction in bee numbers. Together they seemed to be in a joint cycle of decline.
Now we have even more worrying indications that all is not well with bee populations. Studies in the US, where in some states the numbers of bees have been suddenly, perhaps catastrophically, decimated have talked of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). This happens when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear. According to a report in 15th April edition of The Independent "The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives."
This strange and worrying tale takes another turn when CCD is linked to mobile phones and electronic equipment. So far the CCD Working Group in the US is playing down this connection, noting that it has occurred in areas where there are no phone masts or reception. Other potential causes of CCD have been identified as harmful pesticides, increased solar radiation, falling queen fertility, and use of unauthorised bee treatments.
Who knows? However, yet again the fragility of our small planet is emphasised. We mess with our ecosystems at our peril and can initiate responses and changes that we can neither understand nor easily stop. One day we will view our world holistically - hopefully that day is not too far in the future, for all our sakes.
Yesterday's Observer Woman supplement carried an article entitled "Is green the new black?". First I had to get past my wondering how many more articles, exhibitions and events mildly related to eco-fashion could carry this tediously overused cliche of a title. Then I tried to come to terms with what was actually being said.
"...as with all matters of consumer choice, this growing phenomenon comes with a whole new, and sometimes subtle, set of rules. Falling foul of the ever-expanding green agenda - by, perhaps, serving air miles for supper or driving empty bottles of Cloudy Bay to the recycling centre in the back of the 4x4 - is this year's social obstacle course. Get it wrong and you may as well whack kids, drop litter and chain-smoke Lambert & Butler in public." This was an amusing comment on our greenwash world and, in many ways, took us to the heart of the issue.
A bit of recycling, a bit of slightly shifted consumerism, more organic food and off you go bathing in the delights of greenwash. To my mind the article would have been better called "Carry on consuming and convince yourself you're not". Ultimately fashion and sustainability are irreconcilable bedmates. All the heart wrenching guilt and greenwash posing of the vast majority of fashion designers, producers, and retailers cannot hide that fact. The "social obstacle course" of the "green agenda" was precisely what the Observer article and the numerous others of its ilk are zig zagging their way through. The new black always has to be found in fashion and so will the green that temporarily replaces it. That is not a sustainable position.
I recently encountered a new eco-friendly fashion brand. No real news there you might think, and their clothes were hardly the stuff of revolutionary design. What really grabbed my attention was their name. We were introduced to THE NEW TIMELESS COLLECTION BY g=9.8 That's right the brand is g=9.8 Most companies would be content with a catchy strap line, but not g=9.8 They have to explain their name....
g=9.8 is the figure for earth's gravitational acceleration,which varies from 9.78 m/s2 (at the equator) to 9.83 m/s2 (at the poles).
Its a catchy and educational strap line I'm sure you'll agree!
Perhaps we should just be pleased that they didn't choose Newton's law of universal gravitation as their brand name.
I cannot resist returning to the strange tale of the "I'm not a plastic bag" story that is getting so much publicity.
OK so it is not a plastic bag but is it very sustainable? What precisely is it made from? Is it organic cotton, is it fair traded? I don't know the answers, although I fear that at least the answer to the first question is no. It would be great to hear more from the designer and the retailers about the provenance of the bag.
Then there's the colour. If you wanted to make something with a life of shopping and lumping around in stores and on buses then you would not make it cream. I think that this has much more to do with appearance and the fashionability of it than sustainability.
I've said it before but I'll say it again. It has caused another consumer craze - not sustainable. It has a hundred alternatives that are more fit for purpose - not sustainable.
It looks fine to me. It kind of sends a message. That's no big deal. Let's stop going on about it and discuss some real issues of sustainability. Its a fad, a craze, a PR stunt. I won't mention it again (probably!).
The quote that I have used to title today's blog is from G.H. Hardy, mathematician and 
"discoverer" of Ramanujan, the brilliant young Indian mathematician, early in the 20th century. Last night I was able to see the new work emerging from Simon McBurney and Complicite - the theatre company formed in 1983. Complicite is a constantly evolving ensemble of performers and collaborators, now led by McBurney. The first performances were produced at the Theatre Royal in Plymouth.
Conceived and Directed by Simon McBurney, Complicite's A Disappearing Number is a new devised piece meditating on mathematics, cultural identity, creativity and the imagination. Yet it is so much more AND hugely enjoyable, funny, deeply sad, inspiring, and a delight to the eye, ear and mind.
Ostensibly the work explores Ramanujan and Hardy, their work and relationship while simultaneously giving us a window on a number of other relationships divided/linked by space and time. One day on from the production and I still cannot say what it is exactly about, primarily because it is about nothing and everything, associating it all with series theory, string theory, infinity, the past, the present, the future.
It is wonderful stuff that I wholeheartedly recommend. For me it spoke also of sustainability and holism in the way it refused to compartmentalise people, events, time but rather saw that there was more to connect us than we could ever understand.
"An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God." (Ramanujan)
The Gap, at least in North America, is going to be selling a white, organic, unbleached, non-chemical dyed t-shirt. Good news - sort of. It will be interesting to learn about the equity in the supply chain - it does not claim to be a fairtrade item.
Where are we headed with ethical consuming? Of course many would say that consuming can never be truly ethical and that it is all a way for monster retailers and brands to help us conveniently forget the REDUCE that comes at the beginning of the reduce, re-use, recycle mantra. Others will point out that we do need clothing, although not in the large quantity that we currently purchase, and that what we buy should comply to the highest ethical standards.
The internet is full of ethical, organic, sustainable, eco, green, conscious fashion. Maybe it is time that the big retailers started to jump on the bandwagon - and Gap are certainly not the first by a long stretch. For me the question remains - is this a response to customer demand or actually a greenwash PR initiative that actually results in greater consumption, more money for retail giants, and another passing fashion?
I hope that the cynical interpretation is proved wrong. Time will tell. For the meantime a weather eye needs to be maintained that ethical fashion doesn't prove to be an oxymoron.
