Chronicles of Asu: Establishing a connection with our Environment

Seidita, Miller, Moritz, Hughes

The consistency between the articles we’ve been reading over the past two weeks parallel in astounding ways; astounding because the gaps in time between the publishing of these thoughts and arguments are so great, yet the main ideas have been extremely consistent over the centuries. However, the reality is that things have changed, and with new advancements comes new conditions for survival and ability to thrive as a collective race. These new advancements bring about new questions.

There are kinds of questions, thoughts and experiences that can ‘open the door of expansion’ in our universe. Asking a question, having a thought or living an experience that helps to ‘realize’ the immensity of our world, the limitless energy of the universe, inevitably establishes a connection to the source of energy for that individual. Our world of limitless energy is otherwise known as the ‘environment.’ Essentially, the environment that we live in- the universe of limitless energy (or, Earth)- is the key component of what facilitates the success of humans. It is the role of the environment to be utilized for human benefit. As early as the 5th Century BCE, the concept that nature is at the disposal of man is well exemplified by The Book of Genesis, which justifies this concept through the use of religion. “God created humankind… God blessed them.” This is truly fundamental bottom line of our existence! A higher power, of which we can only name ‘God’ for lack of knowledge on ‘who’ it is, created a whole system for us to thrive in. The system itself is energy, which is code word for our being and the ‘thing’ that every single object is created out of. There is nothing that exists or does not exist that is not made of energy. That being said, God gave us the go-ahead to use this energy and “Be fruitful and multiply.” God gave us the ability to dominate “every living thing that moves upon the earth” and utilize “everything that has the breath of life.” “It was so” that God provided man with earth- with all of its natural glory- so that we can “fill the earth” with economic growth and technological advancement and “subdue [the natural world] for human benefit. Nature’s role is to be at man’s beck and call. This consumable quality of the environment makes human progress feasible.

The Enlightenment and The Scientific Revolutions—both evolutions in the way people think and analyze our environment; they have brought about new questions of importance in terms of our role of ‘beings’, thus perpetuating the role of the environment in relation to the lives of humans. Ideas like the ecological footprint, Global Warming and pollutions emerged from questions of our impact on resources, rather than simply the resources impact on our lives. Our prior argument, supported by many thinkers, says that Earth- the surrounding environment- is specifically our provider. It is here in existence for us. In order for that to be true in the future, we are now faced with the challenge of ensuring that nature’s role remains prominent in the lives of future humans. The best way to do that is to conserve the planet.

And sometimes it feels like a tug-of-war! We strive for ‘this’ but we need to use ‘that’ to make it. There is some sort of limited number on ‘that’ and it makes us stressed that we might not get to make ‘this.’ All over the place, we try to gain and produce and “it creates webs of consumption, as when people clear land to produce corn to feed cattle to turn out beef and leather to make car seats for Cadillac Escalades” (Steven Stoll). So we have an ever rotating circle of production and the means for these resources come Earth. In fact, everything we get is from Earth. We speak of conservation in this section and what we are really getting at is the conservation of energy. There is an unlimited amount of energy in our universe, this much we can rely on. But energy changes form of course- on this planet, at least- and this gives us a couple limitations especially if something like gas cannot be turned back into its original form for second-, third- or even fourth-time use. The idea that we are able to manipulate these forms of energy- the fact that energy is flexible and adjustable- and that energy is here for us to do so to, suggests that it is really here for us.

This is a different thought that we encounter than ever before considered in class. With energy at our hand for use, we see that we have everything we need and want right here, somewhere on this planet. If the world is made for ‘us’, that means something more specific: it is made for me. Just as it is made for everyone individually. The road of thought that we can go down here is easy, a natural belief and the truth of existence on this planet. If Earth is made for me, it therefore gives me everything I could possibly imagine to churn out the most joy possible. It almost seems to be glossed over, perhaps because it is so obvious, or perhaps because we have not reached this stage of realization as a society, yet. In that case, we are moving toward the tipping point of this realization.  

This brings us back to the current process that we are in now. If we are using too many energy, does it matter since this is all apart of the ‘process’ of moving toward a new realization? Well, no. It is all apart of the ‘process’ of getting there- of learning inside the experience of living and being.

Throughout history it can be stated that Earth was created for human enjoyment. Simply put, it’s all based on your point of view. For instance, “the intuition of Columbus and his age that the world was a sphere has become a photograph” (Worster, Vunerable Earth). As a result of that, “what the photograph says to us is elusive and contradictory” (Ewbank). One perspective would suggest that the Earth is ours to do with what we please. In every aspect the Earth was created for man and he for it, as if to say the energy of Earth runs through us, just as we run through it. In a sense, man was the manufacturer and “the Earth was to be a manufactory” (Ewbank) of the ‘energy men desire. With this being stated, it could be deduced that man's role in nature was at one point about equivalence. Man can take resources from nature and make phenomenal things with it. However, we have to ask ourselves one big question, does the cost outweigh the results and effects?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to what we have explored in this post, we want to be clear with one association. It is this: that realizing the true energy of the environment is a perspective-changing event that people go through individually. Perspective, mindfulness and awareness seem to be three of what could many different ways to connect ourselves and understand the energy and resources given to us from the universe and Earth. But to assume that we can simply 'change our perspectives' is rather narrow-minded, so we'd like to present you with one trusted, secular method to practice mindfulness and experience its benefits of understanding the energy that surrounds us- each other- in our environment. It's called Headspace.

Chronicles of Asu: Let's use a magnifying glass

Hughes, Moritz, Miller, Seidita 

When we look through the magnifying glass of our country,
we see smaller parts moving that could be outrageously improved

Any economist will tell you that economic growth is a young concept in terms of its place and existence in societies across the globe. Furthermore, they’ll tell you that an “invention” of economic growth was spurred by the Industrial Revolution, during which changes in industry were made for the sake of efficiency. At the time, the solution to efficiency, the idea that bred so many new technologies, concepts and processes, is the idea of making things smaller. Take a look at Taylor’s assembly line (the breaking down of a process into smaller steps); take a look at cell phone progression from clunky bricks of with antennas to sleek, slim iPhones, and take a look at nanotechnologies and microtechnologies. Smaller was the solution then, smaller is the solution now. Making big things smaller. To increase efficiency- to create faster economic growth (the American goal at the time)- people simply made things smaller. In his article “Deep Economy,” Bill McKibben cites President Roosevelt’s remarks during the Great Depression: “Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand . . . of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people." Both McKibben and Roosevelt have the same idea, and that last part of the quote is essential, so I’ll repeat it again and make my point: “adapting economic organizations to service the people.” It is time to readapt the entities that control the growth of the economy to service the people. I say readapt because the previous American goal of making economic growth bigger is not (or rather, should not be) the current goal of America society to improve its standings. The goal should be to enhance the quality of results that economic growth (of any size) yields. Parts of this new America goal include improvements to the environment, the creation of jobs, and improved quality of life. These conditions can all be tackled by following the age-old principle of making things smaller. Furthermore, if efficiency is “the best way to obtain success,” we need to change the way we look at effective ways to obtain these results, as the desired results is no longer the finding the best way to get bigger. . Luckily for Americans, these means do not have to change completely; the goals have changed but the means by which to obtain them are the same in a sense. The optimal societal conditions will be yielded from the simplification and reduction of large entities into smaller entities. Efficiency should now be defined as finding the best way to accomplish these new optimum societal conditions for the current America.

Our country has a one-track minded approach to economic growth. We focus on increasing efficiency, and not the consequences. In terms of the environment, we completely neglect and disregard sustainability. Daly describes the economy as “a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it.” The problem exists in that resources that we use to fuel our so called growth are finite. Thus, “The economic status quo cannot be maintained long into the future. If radical changes are not made, we face loss of well-being and possible ecological catastrophe.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) If this “ecological catastrophe” were to occur, our standards of living would be forced to be dramatically lowered. Simply, “an ever growing economy, is biophysically impossible.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) The solution is to not rush to optimize all of our resources as quickly as possible, but to “[determine] the environment’s capacity for supplying each raw resource and…  [absorb] the end waste products.” (Daly, Economics in a Full World) This is how Daly defines sustainability. A powerful image that exemplifies this system is presented by Daly: “Strong sustainability recognizes that more fishing boats are useless if there are too few fish in the ocean and insists that catches must be limited to ensure maintenance of adequate fish populations for tomorrow’s fishers.” So, how can we got a move on respecting the limited resources and ensuring a sustainable economy? The plan is to stay small and limit resource consumption to promote a healthy society. The cap-and-trade system is doing so, already. The Environmental Protection Agency is one institution in our society that is trying to reign in economic growth for the well-being of our society. Daly offers a solution: “[One could] tax the throughput flow, preferably at the point  where resources are taken from the biosphere.” As well, pollution is another important aspect of how uncontrolled economic growth and resource depletion can negatively impact the society. Lawrence summers states that our country “cannot and will not accept any ‘speed limit’ on American economic growth.” But, this being said, the fact of the matter is that “we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going” and in the same breathe, “we [can’t] deal with the pollution it creates.” (McKibben, Deep Economy) “Fossil fuel is [essentially] a slave at our beck and call” and with every inch our economy grows, we get “closer [and closer] to the bottom of the bucket.” (McKibben, Deep Economy) Thus, according to McKibben, we must “[change] our habits and… [change] to new energy sources.]” We must shift away from a “growth-centered, efficiency-obsessed economy” to a smaller- scaled, sustainable economic system. McKibben states, “Growth is no longer making us happy” and it sure isn’t being helpful to the environment. We, as a society, must change our ways before, “scarcity wreaks havoc on our economies.” (McKibben, Deep Economy)  

For years we have grown on a pace that “is likely to surpass the wildest estimates” (Deep Economy), a quote shared with President Roosevelt back in 1943 by the National Resources Planning board. And today, the growth continues into an area not seen ever, by anyone. The area of growth that we have reached is too big to succeed, too big to complete our country’s goals and too big to operate. Where we have seen power in unstoppable growth, for a while, we failed to see the wholesome effects of smaller, more compact approaches. But today, we move in that direction, with confidence. The achievement of compact approaches to our countries operation centers around “bringing everything back” to ourselves- a reassessment, if you will, to observe the incredible improvements we are able to make, in effect immediately.

In our country, everything is just massive and we have a huge emphasis on ‘efficiency’ where we believe the secret to this is grow bigger, faster. What would our country look like if we followed the true meaning of efficiency? Well, first off, everything in our country would run together, through each other and with each other. Each of our systems would be compatible with one another. When we work with one another, as a team, a level of chemistry is created and this gives a support system for the communities that we live in. In Manifesto for a Post-Growth Economy, we read, “Psychologists have pointed out, for example, that while economic output per person in the US rose sharply in recent decades, there has been no increase in life satisfaction. Meanwhile, levels of distrust and depression have increased substantially.” (Manifesto) Well that seems a little bit off, if you ask me! Progression that breeds negativity is not efficient. However, progression that breeds positive reactions- that is good. Here’s how we move to a compact progression that brings about positivity: cut back on international interaction, bring our focus to our homeland and encourage local growth. This action can be known as “deglobalization”. With a focus on local growth on the inside and pull the attention that we have on the outside that spreads us too thin, we improve our “team initiative” and grow a community that bounces energy within ourselves. “The surest, and also the most cost-effective, way to that end is direct government spending, investments and incentives targeted at creating jobs in areas where is high social benefit, such as:

• …
• environmental and community restoration
• local banking
• and public works and childhood education”

(Manifesto)

Where we feel like we get power from spreading our influences internationally, it turns out we get power and energy from solving these patches on the inside first. This is as if to say that we have made progress very fast and have missed important, smaller parts that give the foundation for the success of a country of our magnitude. Of course we have the ability to go back and fill in these patches. It is a holistic improvement that we are seeking and moving toward, with emphasis on efficiency the right way. Bringing together a community that bounces energy off each other coupled with local business and local money-making, local advertising getting across messages of education and benefits of a wholesome community, this is where we can experience true power, if that is what the U.S. so desires. Power in growth and power in locality, the balance brings true efficiency. It is a movement we have already put in motion- let’s make sure we get it right this time around. I believe we are. 

The quote “ Bigger is not alway better” resonates with the article Manifesto for a Post-Growth Economy. Throughout the entire article, James Gustave Speth talks about the path that America should head towards. He had a similar perspective on economic growth as Robert Reich. Invest in our own country, “We’ve had tons of growth in recent decades”,  but there has also been repercussions as well. Here we are: "wages have stagnated, employment rates have declined and life satisfaction flatlined." (Manifesto) This is all due to our societies urge to keep improving in bigger and better ways. But if we invest in the issues that matter, many things would improve. Of these improvements a big one would be our nation's standard of living. However with every action, there is a reaction. The manner in which taxation is handled would drastically change. There would be booms in education, the number of good jobs available to poor income families would move these families away from this notion- they might be able to move themselves into a higher social class, finally.

To make the various improvements McKibben, Speth and Worster all emphasized on, they proposed similar courses of action. If we change the way we look at what it means to be successful from “bigger/ more is better” to “quality over quantity” the results will be just that: less of what we have, but what we have will improve the lives of more people than what the current is meeting. The only way to improve our lives is to realize that we no longer have the same needs that we did when economic growth was born. Our needs have changed, but the means by which to meet them don’t have to.

Welcome to Asu, Volume I

Moritz, Hughes, Seidita, Miller

10/8/15

*The title and several words of reference in the quotation of this article have been altered to fit the style of the commentary in this blog. You can read John Gertner’s article correctly titled “The Rise and Fall of GDP” at the following link to understand his commentary on the inefficiency of GDP measurement. We held inspiration as well from Christopher Ketchem and The Curse of Bigness.

Please enjoy our satire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume I

I came here on a field mission. A true investigation of the truest of our realities hidden deep in the recesses of Asu, the leading company that is held in such esteem of its industry- of which is among 195 others. I’ve gone head-deep into the layers of arguably the most complicated system of work in the world and have seen the directions of the company that are run by the leaders here, those of few and picked carefully. The brass of Asu bring together a prime focus: increase the PDG. Some recall they know PDG as the “measurement of Asu’s growth”, however many are rather stumped when I asked them to move forward with an explanation. Product Dependant Growth is the only scale of which the brass of Asu refers to when looking into the progress of this international boomer. Believe me, I have wandered the halls of this maze for many a months, there is no other grip of certainty than mine when speaking of the truth of Asu, if I do say so myself. In my unparalleled experience, I have conjured three notions that tell us solely why the following of PDG is a skewed perspective. PDG tells us that bigger is better, where the more spread of one's influence being everywhere is strong. Second, PDG and its scale doesn’t measure the return on output that goes into the work- we remember basic human expectations, a notion almost constantly lost in the strength of Asu. My third source are all the conversations I have stumbled across- my most valuable asset; the man in the office with a high PDG, the man whose office space is cramped and limited- he holds the opposite. The differences are astonishing. Today, I officially begin my process of unveiling my findings of Asu and its misled beliefs of progress based on my gatherings of interactions with the colleagues from the bottom to the top. The stories that follow are true to the core- the sad, slow pace of the colleague who doesn’t gain his output. My question is: does high PDG mean that Asu is a good company? The answer is no: buying into PDG as the only measure of progress within this complex company is the wrong measure to buy into.

It’s clear through my extensive investigation that PDG is, without a doubt, a fool’s paradise. PDG directs me to believe that the higher the number, the more Asu is flourishing. But, in fact, all that PDG really tells us is the sum of Asu’s production with regards to establishing competition between itself and other companies. PDG reinforces that bigger is better, but there are truly downsides to that. PDG does not encompass what goes on behind the scenes. Let’s take the owner of Asu - We’ll refer to him as ‘High PDG Man’ - and one of his employees - who we’ll refer to as ‘Low PDG Man.’ High PDG Man drives his Cadillac Escalade for about one and a half hours every morning and evening during his commute to and from Asu. Now, we all know that his car guzzles gas like it’s water, thus, he spends an exorbitant amount of money on gas. During his ride, he goes through a whole pack of cigarettes, which causes him to take pricey visits to the doctor’s office. His ownership, though, of Asu puts him at the top, regarding wealth. He makes a lot of money and spends a lot of money. He enjoys all of the luxuries of his lavish lifestyle. Though, High PDG man is creating a job for Low PDG Man, a massive gap between them and their wealth still exists. Therefore, not only does PDG have a destructive nature, but it has an invalidity associated with it. The deteriorating aspect of PDG is that the benefits of the sum of economic output are distributed very limitedly. So yes, High PDG Man makes and spends more money, but what PDG doesn’t measure is the quality of life these two individuals are leading. High PDG Man smokes his cigarettes as he passes Low PDG man on the side of the road walking to work with wrinkled pants on, every single day. High PDG man is polluting the air with the exhaust from his large, lavish car and is dealing with major health concerns as result of his poor habits. How’s that for a game changer! Low PDG Man is getting in his daily exercise during his walk and gets to go home to watch a movie, his favorite thing to do with his entire family, that night. Clearly, PDG can’t measure happiness. It can’t measure well being. Thus, this idea that bigger is better isn’t always the case. PDG is flawed! These two men are a breathing example of that. PDG skews the outside perception of the factions of Asu that make it produce. Let’s set you straight. High and Low PDG man are suffering, though it may be in different ways, even though PDG is astronomically high. The limitations are present in that equal distribution of wealth and equal prosperity doesn’t coexist at Asu; It’s not in its nature.

Another problem I identified with Asu’s sole objective of raising PDG is that PDG only measures quantitative data regarding the status of the company. What about the qualitative entities that comprise a “successful” or a “good” company? The goal of raising PDG fails to recognize the problems within the company that decrease its value as an institution. These problems are the low quality lives of its workers brought about by their earning of wages lower than the livable amount and the lack of access to health care that is included in the low-level package of living; Asu does not provide health care for every worker within its factories. In fact, when the Head of the Board began the idea of providing healthcare for all, there was much opposition from half of the Board. The health care policy is shaky at best, and very difficult to understand. How can Asu be recognized as the leading company in its industry if a substantial majority of its workers are are receiving such little in return for their work? In other words, PDG is an inadequate means to measure Asu’s success as a company because it fails to value the return on that output the workers are receiving. In this case, that return on output for a majority of workers is low, and the measurement of PDG as the only valuable measurement for success perpetuates those low quality standards of working for Asu’s workers. Until Asu measures those entities as a part of its growth or a part of its quality as a country, these poor standards of living for the workers in Asu will continue.  

John Gertner said it best in his article “The Rise and Fall of PDG”*  in quoting Stiglitz’s analogy to the dashboard and the functionality of a car:

Suppose you’re driving, Stiglitz told me. You would like to know how the vehicle is functioning, but when you check the dashboard there is only one gauge. (It’s a peculiar car.) That single dial conveys one piece of important information: how fast you’re moving. It’s not a bad comparison to the current PDG, but it doesn’t tell you many other things: How much fuel do you have left? How far can you go? How many miles have you gone already? So what you want is a car, or a company, with a big dashboard — but not so big that you can’t take in all of its information.

The question is: How many measures beyond PDG. — how many dials on a new dashboard — will you need? (Gertner)

So my question is: Is Asu ‘progressing’ in its status or is it just getting faster? How can we increase the dials on the dashboard of Asu? One potential measurement devised for this function is the HDI, or the Hospitality Developing Information, “a ranking that incorporates a company’s PDG, and two other modifying factors: its workers’ education, based on adult literacy and [children of workers] school-enrollment data, and its workers’ health, based on life-expectancy statistics.” (Gertner) While incorporating these factors into measuring the quality of benefits of employment at Asu seems like a logical and accurate way to measure progress of Asu, it is met with much reluctance to its adoption, and not just at Asu. Other companies in the same industry feel as if HDI would not accurately reflect progress because literacy rates are so low within some companies and this incorporated factor would drag down the company’s reputation and place in rank comparatively with other companies. However, if you do not measure the problem, how can motivation to fix the problem (i.e. literacy) be generated? In the case of Asu, if PDG is high and wages are too low for workers to survive how will management know to raise them? If workers are not receiving health benefits but PDG is high, how will management know they need those benefits? If these problems exist and there are trends that increase these problems while PDG is rising, how can Asu be considered progressing?

During my investigation I met a few employees. There were two individuals in particular that struck me. They both worked for Asu, however, through monetary income were not considered equals. The one question that witnessing this brought up was the idea of whose life was any better. To give a sense of what kind of people within Asu we are dealing with, I refer back to the names used before: High PDG Man and Low PDG Man. During our interview I asked both of them to give me a rundown about themselves, starting with High PDG Man. High PDG Man “works hard,spends hard. He loves going to bars and restaurants, likes his flat-screen televisions and adore his big house”. From our little coffee gathering I could conclude that High PDG Man loves the finer things in life. He did not "have time to waste on the little things". However, Low PDG Man replied with a more simplistic view. He would provide alternatives to the answers High PDG dispensed. For instance, when High PDG Man partakes in physical fitness, he goes to the gym, but when Low PDG Man participates he just “digs out an old pair of Nikes and runs through the neighborhood”.  It’s no doubt that High PDG Man’s life is quite lavish but the question of who is living a better life is a robust one. After each interview respectively, both personnel's conclusions can only be drawn from their salaries. There was no way to measure the other aspects of their lives. Asu needs to provide a refined and better version of PDG that looks at not only the company, but one that mentions the employees as well. One that gives a true look into the deeper levels on the well-being of the employees.

This is the first volume of many diaries to come for your view. Know this, my investigations are unparalleled. I know of no one who has penetrated Asu this strongly and I take pride in my position of information. We know that PDG is the wrong the measure of growth. We know that if Asu continues on with this approach, the differences in what the company believes is successful and what is truly successful will continue to move further out of its grasp. I will tell you this: a movement is beginning. More often today than the days prior, I run into a worker who tells me of the movement gaining steam of a more broad approach. “A focus on my human growth. Well-being and strength. Awareness and compassion. These are additions to the measure of progress that are slowly being integrated and the most amazing part is that the execs who have the power are being convinced of it, though sometimes it seems otherwise”, Ms. McCracken, Organization Associate to the financial department of Asu, tells me this. If someone is getting the message in the financial department of “true growth,” then this means true influence is being spread.

Stay tuned. Even I, who have been intertwined in this company for six months, come across something new everyday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------