In 1992 one hundred citizens - ranging from a corporate executive
to an activist, from a priest to a teacher - formed the Sustainable
Seattle Civic Panel. They wanted to build their city's "long-term
cultural, economic and environmental health and vitality, with
emphasis on long-term." But how?
They wondered: How does anyone know whether a community is getting
more or less sustainable? How do you measure sustainable progress?
They broke up into 10 topic groups - economy, education, health,
environment and so on. Each group brainstormed a long, lively
list of possible measurements. However, then they had trouble
winnowing down their burgeoning lists! After investing over 2500
volunteer hours in the project, they finally settled on 99 indicators
of Seattle's sustainability. Their list included:
Volunteers presented their list of 99 sustainability
indicators to the public in a dramatic reading interspersed
with stories, quotes and poems.
Sustainable Seattle is unearthing and publicizing actual numbers
for as many of these indicators as possible - and getting city
institutions to measure and report them on a regular basis. They're
initiating programs to get those indicators moving in positive
directions. With sustainability consultants, awards, checklists
and publicity, their efforts will start to make a real difference
in the quality of life in their city.
This powerful program, run on a shoestring, could be done by any
community.
Donella H. Meadows - Dartmouth College professor, systems analyst,
and co-author of The Limits to Growth and Beyond
the Limits to Growth - comments: "The indicators a society
chooses to report to itself about itself.... reflect collective
values and inform collective decisions. A nation that keeps a
watchful eye on its salmon runs or the safety of its streets makes
different choices than does a nation that is only paying attention
to its GNP [Gross National Product - the sum of its economic transactions].
The idea of citizens choosing their own indicators is something
new under the sun - something intensely democratic."
Based on "Using Salmon Runs and Gardens to Measure Our Well-Being," a syndicated column by Donella H. Meadows, seen in Timeline, Sept./Oct. 1993
COMMENTARY: "Growth" has been a buzzword in our society.
More is better. But are more people, more highways, more factories,
more consumption intrinsically better? Cancer, too, is growth
- growth out of step with the body, the larger system it depends
on. A co-intelligent community, conscious of its internal and
external interconnectedness, would not seek endless growth of
its material "standard of living." Rather, it would
seek sustainable development of its "quality of life,"
as manifested in the welfare of its members, the vitality of its
culture and the health of the natural environment in which it
was embedded.
So let us suppose a community wants to promote its quality of
life and not just "growth." How can it think, feel and
respond as a coherent, conscious entity? This is a question of
societal intelligence -- society-wide collective
intelligence. Societal intelligence depends (among other things)
on feedback. Our individual senses bring us feedback - a grade
on an exam, the pain of a stubbed toe -- to tell us how we're
doing as individuals. In the same way, a community or society
needs feedback to guide its efforts to succeed. The indicators
it uses has a tremendous impact on how intelligent it can be.
What makes Sustainable Seattle's story even more co-intelligent
is the fact that their indicators wove together diverse perspectives:
many people's views, human and ecological needs, long-term and
short-term perspective, and so on. An important part of co-intelligence
is the wisdom to expand
our perspective to embrace a wider view.
So this story shows us co-intelligent (wise) indicators created
by a co-intelligent (diverse and collaborative) group and presented
to the public in a co-intelligent way (using diverse
teaching media - stories, poems, etc.).
(For a national example, see The Underdeveloped Happiness Kingdom.)