Must sustainability be beautiful? A simple thought experiment suggests that his is the case–try to imagine future generations thanking us for providing for them to with the means of survival but in a world without beauty. Not only is it difficult to imagine such a generation, it is perhaps impossible even to imagine a world in which survival was possible but which was devoid of beauty. This experiment, then, is convincing as far as it goes, but it does not generate much productive thought because it only presents beauty in its hard-to-imagine absence.
A much more generative line of thought for supporting the premise that sustainability must be beautiful is found in Frederick Turner’s singular book Beauty: The Value of Values in which he uses his deep learning in both science and the humanities to develop several important theses including:
“7. Beauty is a fundamental reality”
“7a. Beauty… connects past and future, the known and the unknown.”
“7b. Beauty is culturally universal and goes beyond the subjective self and beyond inner desire; it is a true description of the real world.”
“7c. Beauty is the guide of politics, as it is the core of morality and speculative understanding; it is not the handmaiden of politics.”
“7d. Beauty is the defining property of Being, but only if Being is conceived of as complicated, interfered-with, reflexive, epistemological, and at least potentially aware in its very essence.”
As we adopt Turner’s understanding of the profound centrality of beauty we can to begin to cast sustainability as a practice of creating what Robert Fritz has termed “advancing structures.” We can we envision beautiful future states that, as a result of their beauty, help create the structural tension needed to create them. This is a radically different understanding of sustainability than that provided by manipulative fear mongers such as Al Gore. It is a model based in which the key elements are creating and beauty rather than elements such as avoiding, ugliness, and terror.
