What gives?

No Impact Man posed an interesting question some time ago about what, in the final analysis, we're willing to give up in the interests of sustainability: What is the balance to be maintained between preserving our “way of life” and our efforts to keep the planet healthy? How healthy do we want the planet to be and what are we willing to sacrifice for it?

I think the "way of life" phrase is a US thing - I'm sure I've heard it from Dubbya - but it raised some interesting questions about what gives (or what gives first).

Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" (gee I wish I could figure out formatting in this blog!) devotes Chapter 14 to discussing reasons some societies make decisions that cause their failure. The book covers societies ranging from the ancient Maya to contemporary Haiti and his analysis is in IMHO pretty thoroughgoing.

Diamond identifies a number of causes for societal collapse: From failure to anticipate (eg the British idea that releasing rabbits in Australia was a solid idea) through failure to perceive (typically slow trends like climate changes, or ones no individual is able to perceive, like expanding global population) and through to the idea that some problems have no solution, even when they are well understood.

But the scariest cause he postulates is "values" and other failures of rationality (like psychological denial). Almost by definition, we would not recognise them in ourselves. He describes the Greenland Norse, facing environmental extremes and a very marginal existence, seeing themselves as fundamentally Christian, European, farmers - meaning they directed their meagre resources towards church ornaments and not tools, to hunting walrus ivory to trade with Europe instead of haymaking during their 3 precious months of sunshine each year, and towards farming and not fishing, even when things got to starvation point (and despite plentiful fisheries). He also points out that the Greenland Norse, though they died out in 500 years, survived there longer than western patterns of settlement and agriculture have survived anywhere in the New World.

Call me a radical, but "our way of life" is the very first things I'd like to question. So over to you dear readers (if you're out there...anyone) many of us are tackling the consumption culture (compact) challenge - what else could we happily leave behind?