Hello! It has been a while since we last had the chance to talk, but every now and then it is good to change the scenery. How have things been on your end? Mine have been busy and interesting. In some cases, I had to return to earlier paradigms, and in others, I had to break them to “relearn.” Yet, just as the saying goes, one always returns to where one is happy, certain topics also have a way of returning to us as triggers.
In my case, the well-known and frequently mentioned subject of sustainability.
In fact, if you type the word sustainability into the search bar of this site, you will find seven articles where the term appears. And, knowing how I write, I doubt it is merely a fifty-character paragraph where the word happens to show up.
Now then, why do we return, like a dog returning to its own vomit, to a topic that could already be considered overused in this journal? Quite simply because, although we have approached it from different angles, what we have produced is more like a mosaic.
Take, for example, the topic addressed in Mai ta'amah: ecological legal persons and ecological corporations. While the discussion revolves around the relationship between humans and nature (to put it simply), we never explicitly discussed or even mentioned the word sustainability.
Before continuing, imagine the following scenario: you are in a business meeting with a client or someone who, through what will be negotiated in that meeting, could change your future for the better (for instance, a new supplier or a new client). Suddenly, in a dry and direct manner, looking straight into your eyes, they ask:
Do you consider sustainability important in our context?
What would you answer? Be careful, your response could determine the success of the company, the business, or even your own future.
Most likely, like a radiant being who spreads light wherever they go, you would respond with a committed "yes." After all, what kind of monster would not want a better world?*
But what if, after that answer, they asked: “In what way?” And furthermore, is that way decisive when it comes to doing business?
Would you be able to respond and still feel satisfied with your answer?
Regardless of what you might say, that scenario involves only two people. But what if I invited you to give a conference about how sustainable you are? Would you take the opportunity?
That is the situation I have observed throughout my days dealing with these types of topics. If you decide to make them part of your daily life, you either become a radical, a charlatan selling illusions, or someone constantly restrained. Why? Because you will always find yourself either defending or attacking your position. Even if no one else in your circle practices it, you will inevitably be audited, even by those who are among the most harmful to the environment. (This happens with many things in life, but with topics like these, it happens even more.)
It is a subject that everyone seems eager to mention. Yet, few possess enough substance to discuss it beyond statements such as: “I don’t use plastic,” or “I don’t use aerosols.” Let us be honest: the vast majority of human processes are destructive. While it is often said that humanity is an innovative species, innovation itself frequently implies a process of destruction.
In fact, ecological thinker Thomas Berry argued that what humanity celebrates as progress in the twenty-first century increasingly coincides with the Earth's devastation, and that such environmental destruction may ultimately shape humanity's own destiny.
Curiously, within all this destruction, there is also comfort; comfort that, for some, generates considerable income. As long as we treat sustainability as an adjective implying perfection and purity, meaningful progress will remain elusive. After all, the concept and its foundations emerged only in 1987.
Sometimes people say that certain lessons are only learned the hard way. This often applies to topics such as ecological legal persons and ecological corporations or, more recently, the application of the EUDR regulation on deforestation-free products, including coffee.
Put very simply, ecological legal persons function similarly to individuals protected by law. In other words, if I commit an offense against your integrity today, you have the legal right to sue me and request compensation for the damages.
Many people argue: “But we are human beings! We have consciousness; animals do not.” If that is the case, then why do legal persons exist? After all, they are legal entities that can exercise rights and assume obligations.
As for the EUDR regulation on deforestation-free products (particularly regarding coffee), it prohibits the use of products grown on land deforested after December 31, 2020.
I am not saying that one must adopt an absolute yes or an absolute no regarding these matters. Extremes, more than bringing people together, have often produced division. Everyone speaks from their own trench, yet few wish to look beyond it. Some claim that human beings are intrinsically good; others argue they are intrinsically bad. In my view, human beings are largely influenced by the entropy inherent in their own nature.
To put it another way: how many cafés claim “we are sustainable”? The reason? They use paper straws. However, the lids, and often even the cups themselves, are still made of plastic. Moreover, studies have shown that the adhesives used in some paper straws can be harmful to health. So are you telling me that the price of sustainability is the health of your customers?
Or consider another case: I am a coffee producer who has just purchased a plot of land where I plan to produce a specialty lot and hope to enter the European market. But if the law comes into force, I am excluded because the previous owner deforested the land before I bought it. Yet all my savings are invested in that farm. How am I supposed to sell my coffee if my market does not pay for “specialty”?
Speaking of specialty coffee, why do we call burnt coffee that causes acidity “regular coffee”, while the one that has received careful cultivation and optimal roasting is labeled “specialty”?
This is precisely the issue: we cannot move toward extremes. Not too far to the right nor too far to the left; not too high nor too low, and certainly not sideways either. We must seek, as far as possible, a neutral point. As a society and as a market, we function like the gears of a Swiss watch; if one gear fails, the entire mechanism will stop sooner or later.
Let us be frank: together we allowed the problems and situations we face today to emerge, so together we must also find our way out of them. Only through dialogue, recognizing that no absolute truth exists, and approaching one another with humility, remembering that we have two ears and one mouth so that we may listen more and speak less, can we eventually arrive somewhere.
Good? Bad? I do not know. That will depend on everyone involved.
Please, let us leave behind the growing trend of hostile hospitality.
We have moved from segmentation to hyper-segmentation, and now to hyper-segregation, under the illusion of specialization, sustainability, expertise, culture, and even knowledge itself.
Satoricha ~
*Footnote: To avoid misunderstandings: yes, the previous remark is meant with irony and a touch of sarcasm. If you are new to this journal, “Leaks in Our Teapot” may serve as a good starting point.