Life in the Rear-view Mirror

Learning from Iceland

Iceland, an island with a landmass of over 100,000 square kilometres and almost four times the size of Sicily, lies about 900 km west of Scotland. With a population of just over 300,000, it has a very low population density (three per square kilometre). At about the time that the Polynesians migrated to Easter Island, the Vikings migrated to Iceland. However, the Vikings didn't find a tropical paradise, but something that resembled Norway in many respects.

They quickly established settlements and tried to live the same way they had back home, with farm animals and some agriculture. Most of Iceland was tundra, and the few forests, in the lowlands near the shore, were quickly cleared for agriculture. The highlands were covered with shrubs and grasses, ideal for cow grazing, and they soon became pasture for their animals.

They had no idea that they had disturbed the natural balance that had existed for millions of years. Once their livestock had eaten the lush grasses and shrubs, the rich volcanic soil was exposed to the strong winds that blow relentlessly from the north, blowing it into the sea. The rain and water runoff from melting snow helped to accelerate the phenomenon, and within a few years they had created an economic and environmental disaster. Once the rich soil had been washed and blown away, nothing would grow in the tundra.

They learned their lesson and quickly reduced the number of animals and took steps to slowly rebuild the once lush tundra. The milk from the cows was important because they turned it into cheese that they could eat during the winter months when nothing grew. The sheep were also important for their wool, which they turned into clothing to keep them warm. They couldn't give up animal husbandry altogether, but they collectively agreed on what was a sustainable level.

Because of the disaster, fishing became a more important aspect of their economy. They understood that their very survival was at stake, and unlike the inhabitants of Easter Island, they took measures to change their lifestyle, rather than perish.

There are two possible futures that await us: the one chosen by the inhabitants of Easter Island, and the one chosen by the inhabitants of Iceland. The former chose to ignore the perils that their island was facing and suffered the consequences. The latter took coordinated action to address the peril and carried on a sustainable living, which was subsistence living, but they survived. As a result of their ancestor's actions, Icelanders now enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of Easter Islanders and most countries in the world.

We (North Americans), who consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, face the same choices, and must quickly learn that spaceship Earth is all alone in a vast universe; therefore, our survival depends on timely action.

We could also learn from a tiny country on the southern slope of the eastern Himalayan Mountains, which has a population of only three-quarter million people. Bhutan has a population density of about twenty per square kilometre (more than Iceland but less than Easter Island). With a per capita GDP of just over $2,000, it's not a rich country, but it's probably the happiest country in the world. They measure their livelihood and standard of living not only by GDP, but also by GNH (Gross National Happiness).

Sustainability is the hallmark of the GNH concept, which is based on the notion that human progress (standard of living) should be measured not only by economic factors, but also by peoples' well being. Introduced in the 1970s, its foundation is good governance, sustainable socio-economic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation. Psychological well being, health, education, time use, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards are the factors used to compute the index.

Why hasn't the rest of the world bought into such a beautiful concept? After all, this is the country that is often referred to as an earthly paradise, Shangri-La, or Utopia. If Bhutanese can be happy with a modest standard of living, why can't we be happy with ten times that? If we reduce our per capita GDP from $40,000 to $20,000, we would make a significant positive impact on our well-being and the environment, while still consuming ten times more than the Bhutanese. We might even be happier!

Why is it so difficult for us to give up something for the common good: so that our spaceship can continue to sustain life well into the future? Shouldn't we be concerned about the condition we leave our world to future generations? Why have we become so selfish and greedy?

Finger pointing to spread the blame for our imperilled biosphere doesn't solve the problem. OECD countries (North America in particular) have to reach out to the rest of the world, the underprivileged part, and lead not by words, but by example. Reducing our Western standard of living, by consuming less, and allowing others to have enough to be lifted out poverty, while saving humanity from impending disaster, will not be easy, but it's necessary.

Unfortunately, technology has given America sufficient firepower to blast poor countries "back to the stone age", as it threatened to do on various occasions (see details at the end). It's part of the bullying that allows us to live a life of privilege at the expense of weaker countries. Will it stop?

Maintaining the status quo is almost a sure bet. We will likely continue to overconsume, which is to say that we will cut off our nose to spite our face. The Easter Islanders tried it with disastrous consequences. Politicians and the wealthy, including the church nobility, have reasons for avoiding change because they are privileged megalomaniacs, who abandoned common sense long time ago. But common sense is what saved the Icelanders, and ultimately (and hopefully), it will save the inhabitants of Spaceship Earth.

Common sense dictates that we work together, but how do we do that when nearly half of the North American voting population has given up on the political process? Do we need to make voting in elections mandatory, as some countries already do?

Maybe not! Maybe there's something better!

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

References:

Curtis LeMay, in his 1968 memoir suggested that rather than negotiating with Hanoi, the United States should "Bomb them back to the stone age," by taking out factories, harbours, and bridges "until we have destroyed every work of man in North Vietnam."

Also, according to former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to the stone age' unless it joined the war on terror.