Post #24, “Uncovering Assumptions” did not post for some reason.  I assumed it had.  A good lesson so immediately poignant!  And this points to an assumption that is obvious to only a few of us, and the reasons for this post:  sustainability into the future cannot be assumed. 

Though dualistic thinking is absurdly dangerous, it is the simplest way of showing contrasts and limited comparisons, and their usefulness.  Here is a list of dualisms that are used by the vast majority of people.  EITHER:  us or them, them or us, left or right, right or wrong, liberal or conservative, good or evil, believer or atheist, citizen or foreigner, Republican or Democrat, winner or loser, saved or sinners, slaves or owners, sane or insane.  The point of listing these few dualisms is to demonstrate that one dualism is completely missing:  the dualism of either sustainability or UNsustainability.  This absence tells us most people assume that social stability and sustainability are unquestionably assured. 

When an “either-or” dualism exists, it sets up a contention between two topics.  If there is no dualism, no contention exists.  Concerning the dualisms of either social stability or social chaos and social sustainability or social decline are not even close to being a thought of contention in the minds of most people, except the Preppers.  It is assumed that what exists today will exist tomorrow, which is probably more typical of citizens in mature democracies than emerging or developing democracies. 

My point is that there is a high likelihood that the vast proportion of people in any democracy believes their society and nation is invulnerable, timeless and immanently sustainable.  To date, we have not seen the destabilization of any mature democracy.  The point of this Post is that it is timely for citizens to apply dualistic thinking to the sustainability or UNsustainability of their democracy, the contention that develops could be very useful.  Discerning the history of the democracies of the US, France, Britain and others we see that they have evolved into their maturity without losing any functions or rights of citizens.  …they evolve, which means that if that continuing evolution becomes stalled with the three pillars of society (social, political and economic/financial) also becoming stalled, the outcome is not known.  The contention should provoke these questions, “What would it take for a mature democracy to become UNsustainable?  And, what is needed for it to evolve into social sustainability?”  We can assume that the answers are already on the minds of strategic thinkers, but not for typical citizens in any of these democracies.