This Sustainable Life

Regular readers and listeners know my passion for cleaning my local park, Washington Square Park, and how my heart breaks at how we abuse this sliver of a vestige of nature, especially the mornings after the Queer Liberation Marches of the past two years.As an organizer, Jay didn't have to respond to my request, but he did. By the end of this recording, you'll hear us talk about reducing waste next year. We begin by talking about the evolution of the pride marches from when he started attending in the 1980s. He describes them becoming more corporate, less participatory, but most of all, controlled by the cops, not necessarily helping the march. The cops often seem like they're just dominating parades; all New York City parades, not just this march. As a New Yorker, his description struck a chord. His split with the older march sounds almost heartbreaking.Then we talk about the mess attendees created. I point out that nearly everyone identifies ground and waterway waste as sanitation issues, but I see them as too-much-supply issues. We talked about collaborating to reduce the waste people bring and buy at the event. For decades, if people brought things to marches and parades, they didn't leave plastic garbage behind. If they did, not nearly in the quantities of today.It may not seem fair for people to have to decline buying trinkets and bottled water when they just want to have fun, but attendees before cheap, abundant plastic enjoyed parades as much as today. I expect there will be more fun if we communicate to next year's attendees to refuse disposable anything.We also did the Spodek Method and you may be able to tell from the picture I used how it went before you listen to our second episode. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I answer my first listener questions. If you have questions on topics I write about, like leadership, sustainability, sustainability leadership, sidchas, habits, academia, physics, podcasting, and so on, contact me.This episode's questions:Hi, Joshua, in the winter months of this year, in New York, in your flat, will you use heating or blankets?Can you describe a time when you struggled with a decision about a polluting act? To give an example of what I mean from my own life, as you know I'm trying to reduce my car use. To go to my modern jive night requires car use (no suitable public transport and too far to walk in dark). So I've wrestled with giving it up but decided I didn't want to because of all the benefits to me. Can you think of an example like that in your life? Perhaps something that you couldn't find a less polluting alternative but didn't want to give upI referred to my episode with Stephen M. R. Covey. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I came across John from listening to one of his podcast's season, Seeing White, about the development of whiteness as a race. I listened to the whole series, which I found fascinating and provocative. Then I discovered another season, Men, covering another topic important to me. I invited him to be on the podcast, then I learned from him the most recent season, The Repair, is on the environment.We start this conversation talking about systems and approaching the topics above through a systems perspective. With such topics, with which everyone connects intimately, meaningful communication about them becomes personal. John shared his evolution beyond his expectations, challenging his identity even to himself. I comment how openly he shared about himself, which must have taken a lot of courage. From another perspective, I think his, I think he felt compelled to share.He shared how his ongoing research into race and these other systemic issues keeps revealing how baked in to American society inequities are. No one can escape them. He also talks about our widespread willful motivated denial. There are commonalities to my views on sustainability, so I bring them in.We could have filled hours and I feel we just got started, but he'll be back for more episodes. His experience with nature was touching.John's podcast Scene on RadioJohn's TED talk, The lie that invented racism Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

AJ is in some ways a kindred soul, actually doing things many people hear about or even talk about, but rarely do. Regular listeners might remember our mutual friend Mike Michalowicz suggesting we talk. We start by talking about things AJ has done and written about. He read the encyclopedia cover to cover. He lived a year following biblical instructions as literally as possible. He practiced radical honesty.He shares behind the stories too, the fun and learning that came from it. I believe I heard some resonance and more meaningful respect for my trying to live more sustainably.Underneath it all from AJ, you'll hear a curiosity, thirst for life, and enthusiasm to experience life to its fullest, the opposite of watching it happen or letting it pass him by. You'll want to live more thoroughly too.AJ's home page Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stephen's book, Trust & Inspire, recounts today's effective way to lead, by creating trust and inspiring. He laments people still relying on the old techniques of commanding and controlling, which may have worked in more industrial times, but not today. They provoke resistance, the opposite of trust and inspire.Those familiar with my work have heard me lament what people do in sustainability: CCCSC, my shorthand for convince, cajole, coerce, and seek compliance. They rely on extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation, which provoke resistance.From the start of our conversation, I tell him how valuable his book's message is for sustainability. We explore each other's approach and share how much we like them.His descriptions of what the environment mean to him and his commitment I found touching.Stephen's book page for Trust & InspireFranklin Covey Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our third conversation, Whitney and I get more friendly and conversational, fun conversation.He's been picking up more garbage, which I hope is part of a journey of continual improvement. Since long before we met, he rides his bike to get around the city. Otherwise, he's focused on other things in life than sustainability. He's examined a lot of parts of his life, but not his impact on other people mediated through the environment.I'm not trying to change people who don't show they want to change, so we just talk. You'll hear a very thoughtful, active leader speak with me about his views and environmental values.Not Just Bikes YouTube channel Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Listening to an episode of Sam Harris's podcast featuring Roland Griffiths, Johns Hopkins neuroscientist researcher, on psychedelics revealed that much of their benefit sounds a lot like my guests talking about their experiences of nature. I think we don't know how much we're missing by paving over and cutting off as much as we do from nature.I'd guess people before we cut ourselves off from raw, wild nature so much would never have guessed we could deprive ourselves from forests, beaches, and birdsong so effectively. As I'm typing these words, cars are driving by with noise engines blasting music you could hear from blocks away. How can we experience the sublime or transcendent under these conditions? I suggest we can't.By contrast, our ancestors generally lived a few minutes' walk, maybe a couple hours, from solitude.I play a couple clips from that podcast and compare their description of the effects of taking psychedelic drugs to simply experiencing nature, commenting on how much we've isolated ourselves from it, having paved over the most abundant parts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Most second conversations on this podcast come weeks or months later, after the guest does his or her Spodek Method commitment. In Michael's case, our first conversation was so engaging, we kept talking almost two hours, so I split the conversation into two parts.The first mostly covered Michael and his research. This part covered applying his research and my leadership to sustainability. What can we learn from cultures that lived thousands of years or longer? What can we learn from cultures that thrive without polluting? What benefits do we enjoy that they lack and vice versa?How can we apply answers to those questions? Can we change our culture?We also discussed Michael's research on the forager population paradox. Quoting from a UCSB article on his research that links to his peer-reviewed paper:Over most of human history — 150,000 years or so — the population growth rate has hovered at near zero. Yet, when we study the contemporary populations that are our best analogs for the past, they demonstrate positive growth.If population growth rates among our early ancestors matched those of subsistence populations from the 20th century, the current world total of 7.8 billion people would be many orders of magnitude higher. This is true even if population rates increased only after the dawn of agriculture, some 10,000 years ago.It’s long been a paradox with no obvious solution.“Contemporary hunter-gatherers from the past century show positive population growth rates that couldn’t possibly represent long-term averages over our species history,” said Michael Gurven, a professor of anthropology at UC Santa Barbara. “So if our ancestors must have been at near zero growth over many millennia, how is it that most studied groups living under traditional conditions — without healthcare, clean water, sanitation or other modern amenities — are growing, and some very rapidly? Some experts even believe that hunter-gatherers today live in marginalized habitats unfit for farming, and so hunter-gatherers in the past may have lived under even more favorable conditions.”Now, Gurven and UC Santa Barbara postdoctoral scholar Raziel Davison have a good idea why. Slight differences in average fertility and mortality rates between then and now combined with periodic catastrophic events could explain what scientists call “the forager population paradox.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

*"The average modal age of adult death for hunter-gatherers is 72 with a range of 68–78 years. This range appears to be the closest functional equivalent of an 'adaptive' human life span."Would you be surprised that humans evolved to live to 72 years old? Wait, isn't one of the greatest results of our technology and progress to advance human lifespan from 30 years old?How long do humans live naturally? Of course, the question and its answers is complicated, but I found Michael through a paper he co-wrote with Hillard Kaplan: Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination, that researched the question through populations all over the world. Read the paper for their full research, but the quote at the top suggesting 72 years resulted from extensive research and analysis.Michael lived among many cultures that live more traditionally than anyone you've probably met. Not France or Japan, but the Tsimane, Ache, and Mosetene, and researched a world of others. In this conversation he shares how a guy from Philadelphia ended up there, as well as running a lab at UC Santa Barbara. Then we talk about how much we don't know about how our distant ancestors used to live but also how much we do know.I don't think I downplay the richness and complexity of this subject to ask why we so commonly believe all our ancestors used to live to around 30 but we lived much longer, at least if we lived past childhood.How did 30 become old age? What does progress mean if the system and culture that restored our lifespan lowered it in the first place? What if that system and culture is now lowering our lifespans? It forces me to reevaluate the values my culture promotes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Janet shared how she found This Sustainable Life, what kept her coming back, the guests she liked, and how it's affected her. I wish I had recorded episodes with listeners before to learn what you all like, don't like, and want more or less of.Listening to it after recording, I consider our conversation one of the most accessible for new listeners. Janet described various aspects of it that I suspect will resonate with many listeners.One thing that hit me was how the podcast restored her enthusiasm to act. Years ago she acted as much as she could on sustainability, to the point of picking up fruit rinds people had littered to put in compost. She didn't act for internal reasons but external, so she burned out and stopped acting. Then she found This Sustainable Life and it restored fun to acting. She does it for the joy of it, which keeps her going, gives her energy, not feeling like giving up.Plus she did the Spodek Method, so you'll hear what she commits to do more.If you are a listener and would like to be a guest, contact me and let me know.Blake HaxtonTom SzakyBob LangertBehind the Mic / Sex, Drugs, and Rock and RollJames Rebanks Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.