I've been musing a bit on two different sorts of environmentalism, and I've recently come across two good exemplars.
First, in Orion, Curtis White argues that environmentalists are involved in a futile enterprise as long as they fight from within the system -- as long as they use technoscientific, rationalist, bureaucratic language to fight problems that technoscientific, rationalist bureaucracies have wrought. We shouldn't blame big bad corporations. We are the problem. Nothing will change until we change our fundamental worldview.
Next, over on Old Man in a Cave (an interesting new blog you should check out), Fergus Brown makes a different point:
The message here is simple: yes, the climate system is at risk of being changed for the worse because of CO2 emissions. No, it isn't our fault - not us, the end-user, the taxpayer, the car driver or holidaymaker. The risk comes from energy production and industry. The fault lies with the infrastructure which lies at the heart of a developed economy, and with the investment and shareholding system which underlies our commerce and our comfort. It is not an easy thing to change the way in which we work, especially when the values which matter are purely economic and fiscal, and not ethical or social. It is not an easy thing to move the balance of power away from an inequitable hierarchy towards a more genuinely Democratic distribution of wealth, whilst avoiding spiralling inflation, recession or shifts in international power-dynamics. But, if there is any hope of actually preventing CO2 emissions from reaching levels which lead to the worst of the predicted outcomes in the next hundred years, then this is what will have to be done, somehow.
Though Brown cites ethical and social values, fundamentally he's talking about tweaking the rules of modern capitalist democracies to make them work better and more equitably. And he's specifically rejecting the notion that average citizens should feel guilty about their unavoidably destructive lives.
So which is it? Are we waiting for a fundamental spiritual awakening, or are we just trying to make our developed societies work better and more cleanly?
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:20 am
03 May 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:55 am
03 May 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:48 pm
03 May 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:35 pm
03 May 2007
I don't know if I'd give up on grist because of this, but false dichotomies do "dumb down" the discussion.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:42 pm
03 May 2007
_
All you have to do is show them both kinds of green in their future, and they can make it happen.
What worries me more-so are the
"It's the thought that counts"
Or "A for effort" environmentalists.
The ones which don't really care about making change happen, they just want to resolve themselves from feeling bad about their individual "eco-sins".
_
More or less,
You can move a mountain of sand, one speck at a time. "All together we can make a difference".
But I think it's much more effective to let the proffesionals handle it with a steamshovel.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:27 pm
03 May 2007
But what is Brown's? That WE don't have to worry about conserving, it's THEY who have to conserve--and who are THEY? Well, it's THEM over there, those nasty power producers who just make electricity all the time and hope someone will buy it, because they woudn't want to have a lot of it sitting around.
What's that? You say that electricity is only made the instant it's sold to supply demand? Well then it must be demand from THEM, because it's not from ME. MY carbon from my holidays is just a teeny widdle biddy bit--THEIR carbon is HUGE and DANGEROUS.
"No, it isn't our fault - not us, the end-user, the taxpayer, the car driver or holidaymaker."
Well, let's see, end users, taxpayers, drivers, and vacationers -- whose that leave out? Hmmm, --- wait! I've got it, it's the HOMELESS people. THEY aren't end users, they don't pay taxes, don't drive, and don't take vacations. SO THEY"RE THE ONES CAUSING ALL THIS DAMN GLOBAL WARMING.
Let's see: Somebody once said we could either have a system of concentrated wealth or we could have democracy, but that we could not expect to have both.
Where White updates that to say that we can either obey the false idols of economic religion or have a livable planet, but that we can't have both, Brown's only contribution is to say "It's ALL SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT."
That's not two kinds of environmentalism--that's a serious argument from White and a loud whine from Brown.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 5:13 pm
03 May 2007
Perhaps it is a specifically UK thing, but for many months now, the main emphasis of political comment on GW has been about the individual; individual responsibility, individual duty...
The impression is that the UK government is trying to get us all on a huge guilt trip about CC; we are responsible, not the government and not industry; we have to act, we have to pay tax, we are damaging the planet and NOT the manufacturers, producers, power companies.
Hopefully, my opinion of this political 'spin' should be clear from David's quote: I think it stinks; it is dishonest and manipulative.
None of this means that I do not think we should avoid acting to make our own lives less damaging to the earth's systems, but this choice should be a freely made, independent decision based on one's own ethical stance, not a response to the guilt trip mentioned above. At no point do I suggest that we should not act; but we should also not let government get away with shifting the responsibility for emissions away from the real sources and towards the taxpayer.
I think you should read the context before you make your mind up about what I am saying; you appear to have missed the point because you haven't looked for it, yet. That doesn't matter too much, so long as you have a look at the blog and delay a moral judgement of the author of the above extract until then.
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 8:51 pm
03 May 2007
'The fault lies with the infrastructure which lies at the heart of a developed economy, and with the investment and shareholding system which underlies our commerce and our comfort.'
This is a more gentle critique than Curtis's, but it founded on the same recognition, that, when it comes to capitalism and the causes of climate change (which is my personal 'thing'), 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.
However, I have a quandary about how best to approach this. Do we reject the entire system and its apparatus as individuals and reinvent ourselves in the mould proposed by Curtis? Or do we work with the world we have, to engage with the processes which destroy our environment and work to change them?
I worry that there might be a tendency, once the re-naturalisation process (finding our true humanity, in Curtis' terms) is complete, of disengaging from the larger world, having done what we can, or should. If this happens, we cease to be as much a part of the problem, but we also take ourselves out of the equation in terms of seeking the larger solutions. In congratulating ourselves for our own 'greenness', we might choose to believe that our responsibility is satisfied. To me, this would be a mistake.
In the world of 'realpolitik', the imminent transition to a new kind of capitalism is a long way off. In the meantime, the fan is still spinning, and the stuff is still flying. Becaue I am concerned that the problems associated with our changing climate are not properly understood, and because I believe that our responsibility extends beyond our immediate sphere of existence to our entire planet, our entire human race, I have chosen to engage in what there is, and to try and work on that.
It may not be the complete solution, but it might be the more practical, in the coming decades.
Regards,
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:55 pm
03 May 2007
I am not at all surprised that you agree with much of what Curtis White has to say. Your essay and his belong to different genres. And it was unusually glib of David Roberts to characterize you both so briefly as he did, as well as to establish you in opposing camps. "Apples and oranges" all the way!
The commentators who complained about "false dichotomies" are in principle right, but I should like to hear more about what they mean. Also, Sam Wells has been for a bit a most valuable and well-appreciated commentator in Gristmill, and we would all suffer, were he to leave us now.
My new friend JMG, that lovable old crank-o-saur, O Fergus, is someone I generally agree with, as here. But be assured, he seems to be responding to David Roberts' inaccurate characterization of you, not to the whole Gestalt.
What I really have a problem with here, is that I do not understand quite what Curtis White is getting at. He writes very powerfully, even prophetically. And given my philosophic and religious sympathies, I naturally heartily approve of a great deal of what he says. His long paragraph, in the second half of this essay, in which he refers to Emerson, Thoreau, Leibniz and Saint Thomas Aquinas, is magnificent, a real tour-de-force.
BUT, I do not see how he is effectively appealing to anybody to change his/her commitment to environmental care.
What I perceive in his essay, Fergus, is a great deal of hostility towards North Americans (in the first place) who want sincerely to commit themselves to some sort of environmental activism, but whose activities of course go only so far. Your own sympathy for the more-or-less guilt-free "end-user" would seem not at all to be accommodatable in is message.
But really, as much as I love what Curtis is saying, I do not know what exactly he is proposing. It would be kind of cool, to do spirituality-plus-environmentalism courses, involving reading of certain classic texts. Possibly, professors are already doing that sort of thing on certain campuses. "While the students are charging the tuition on their Sierra Club credit cards!," Curtis might point out. Well OK, so then what? What is the next justifiable, hopefully effective step?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:56 pm
03 May 2007
In general, this 400th anniversary of the English settlement at Jamestown is fascinating. It is bringing together a great body of interesting data, on subjects about which we have been the original intentions of English settlers, and how that expanded; on relations between Europeans and Native Americans, and how they established an unfortunate recurring pattern; on the introduction of African slaves, and the justification of that institution, in part for supporting the unnatural, environmentally questionable cultivation of a new monoculture crop, tobacco.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
randino Posted 11:19 pm
03 May 2007
Changes that will be necessary technologically will be reflected throughout the society. From the civil rights movement on to current movements, a movement that does not require you to sacrifice something, and change yourself is not much of a movement.
I read Curtis White's article and it really did not turn my world upside down. I found Paul Hawken's article in the same edition of Orion much more interesting.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 12:01 am
04 May 2007
However, it is important to note that effective change will indeed begin with a fundamental transformation of how we view capitalism, economics, and the purpose of our lives - that is, it will begin with a quiet and revolutionary change in values and perspective. After we take this first step, we can truly proceed in changing our lifestyles, and then the flawed system. But this first step is most difficult, and will likely take much longer than we all anticipate.
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 12:46 am
04 May 2007
Being a fan of Levinas, I'd characterise a certain type of 'environmentalism' as being in 'bad faith'; I think this is the gist of Curtis' essay. Even changing a lifestyle can be, after all, more of a style statement than a commitment these days, and can (though not necessarily)merely be a substitute for responsibility on the larger scale. Assuaging one's guilt by purchasing carbon-offsets doesn't stop the carbon from getting into the atmosphere. 'Buying in' to an 'eco-friendly' lifestyle speaks for itself; it is just another fashionable response, like having a Prius as the 'second car'.
The cycle of capital-labour-consumption-waste- damage is a complex and interrelated one. We want our comfort (even a modern citizen living in a woodland shack with all amenities is still 'wealthy' by comparison to those in developing nations), and we want our freedoms; Curtis wants to question the foundation on which this type of thinking is based, AFAIU.
His message also seems linked to Levinas' perception of what it means to be good, to be fair, just and, above all, human. This is founded, to some degree, on the way in we we approach the world. It is founded in part on a value system which places no merit on appearance, and demands of the individual not to 'judge' others, but to let them be as they are.
If we are to see the 'quiet revolution' which sets off the process of reaching a fairer and more equitable world, it begins with what we value. As long as we succumb to the feeling that we are inadequate in the absence of visible property, we are doomed to fail. The revolution begins with wanting less.
Finally, on the subject of history; it's true, we never seem to learn. maybe because we don't place enough value on the lessons that others have learned before us.
Enough. Thank you for your attention. Be loved.
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 1:02 am
04 May 2007
I'm not against talking about it, but do we really think it's going to happen? Truly honestly?
Permalink
amc89 Posted 1:31 am
04 May 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:39 am
04 May 2007
Effect. 10% drop in gas mileage from 10% ethanol in gasoline. An extra gallon of fuel bought and burned, to go the same miles from every 10 gallon fillup. One gallon of ethanol takes at least one gallon of gas and.or diesel to produce.
A gazillion dollars wasted, more GHGs, 10% more money to drive to work, school,shopping whatever.
The alternative? That same gazillion dollars spent on government vehicle fleet conversion and tax incentives for.
Electric cars with a 40 mile range (with backup generator). US manufacturing base restored, the EVs use 10% of the gas of regular cars, it costs less than a third of what it now costs to drive to school, work, shopping.
The two kinds of environmentalists? The ethanol people or the EV people? Hehey.
Start dividing it on those lines instead. Nuke people or wind and solar people? Central power production, or distributed power generation and storage.
RFK jr or Lester Brown? I guess we in the green movement need our own primary.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:31 am
04 May 2007
As for "divinely inspired paradigm shift": Obviously that is too much to ask. (I guess, short of divine intervention; but in that case we would not really welcome divine intervention, would we.) And while I have no problem generally with bringing God into environmentalist discussions, on the same lines with a lot of what Curtis has to say, I entirely agree that that suggestion (if he is indeed making it -- but he is so suggestive without being clear!) is not very helpful.
Nor do I find very helpful much of the latest Levinas-based discourse of our excellent Fergus, whatever our other young-Turkish pals may think.
But I do indeed like this:
<<
As long as we succumb to the feeling that we are inadequate in the absence of visible property, we are doomed to fail. The revolution begins with wanting less.
>>
"Wanting less"! That is wonderful. And definitely there is serious bridge-building foundation there, in Curtis's direction, in the first sentence. (You know, "corporations are helpless, in fact," and all that.) And meanwhile, I have nothing personally against Marx and Engels, but maybe we should drop the "revolution" talk, or at least soft-pedal it.
Curtis's flip-side is that interesting paragraph about how well-meaning businessfolk, people involved professionally in business, corporations and economy, are rather inevitably destined to play out that sorry story of the fox and the viper. (And not that it matters, but I have heard the same parable told with rabbits, etc., and scorpions, etc.)
Actually, it has been always a powerful seed of change in American society, to begin by telling Americans, "You are helpless, and there is nothing you can do about it."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 2:47 am
04 May 2007
:)
Be loved.
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:20 am
04 May 2007
Brown is right: there is no point in people feeling guilty about their unavoidably destructive lives. They should feel bad, and act to change, those aspects of their lives that are both grossly and avoidably destructive. But beyond a certain point, there is very little that an individual can do to eliminate their negative impacts. The critical changes have to come from industry and the infrastructure. However, those bodies will only respond to pressure from large numbers of individuals. That pressure can be political, economic, and and philosophical. That's why CFLs and Prius sales are so important: green consumer products will not save us. But successful green consumer products will:
Change the perception of what is politically feasible.
Place pressure on industry to respond to market demand by becoming more green.
Change people's consciousness, awareness, and focus of attention. If people are getting excited about, and paying attention to, energy conservation instead of (or in addition to) American Idol, that makes an enormous difference.
This is why this dichotomy is so silly, and why focusing exclusively on personal changes or political changes or market changes is dumb. It's going to come from all three, and each element feeds back on the others.
Scientific reductionism is a powerful tool, that has made technological society possible. But it has also done great damage to our thinking, but training us to focus on small, tractable, static systems and ignore the complex dynamics of interaction. This is a terribly dangerous error, and it's overwhelmingly common, even within the green community (as much of this thread demonstrates).
Nature is all about dynamics, feedback loops, and relationships between elements. It's the same thing here.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:41 am
04 May 2007
I would agree that a movement that does not require change is not much of a movement. By definition, it's more of a stasis :).
Change is often painful, as well, and can be perceived as a sacrifice. But I don't think that sacrifice is a good framing for this discussion. It's counterproductive, because it scares off the less-than-fully-committed. It's also not really true.
The fundamental change that must happen to our culture, both at an individual and an institutional level, is that we must form a relationship with the natural world that is cooperative and nurturing, rather than competitive and exploitative. This will be a real sacrifice only for those whose interests are tied up in the current paradigm of exploitation (e.g. extractive industries who lack the imagination to find a new way to do business). For the rest of us (the overwhelming majority), there may be a cost in making this change, but it is not a sacrifice, it is an investment. It is a cost that we can incur now, that will pay enormous dividends in the future. By investing in our natural capital, we will ultimately increase the basis of our society's material and spiritual wealth.
The question is not, to sacrifice or not. The question is, do we accept a short-term cost for the sake of a longer-term reward. Or do we, as a culture, act like children and insist on immediate gratification with no thought to the future.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:17 am
04 May 2007
Dave points out:
"Curtis White argues that environmentalists are involved in a futile enterprise as long as they fight from within the system -- as long as they use technoscientific, rationalist, bureaucratic language to fight problems that technoscientific, rationalist bureaucracies have wrought."
Okay. Let's dispense with the technoscientific (conducting research), rationalist (discussing and weighing of evidence), and bureaucratic (relying on elected leaders and those they hire to run our society) approach. Let see... if we are not going to study problems and design tools to sovle them, and we are not going to worry about whether it makes sense, if we are just going to trust our intuition, and we are going to bypass the bureaucracy, stop relying on trained professionals, then...
How about you all just put your faith in me and I'll tell you what to do? See, I was sitting on the grass under an apple tree the other day... taking in the natural world... and realized that I actually know what is best for everyone. Little old me. Got it ALL figured out. I could try to explain it, but it is sort of intuitive, not really based on evidence or reason. I just have a feeling I know what is right for humanity and the planet. So, who's with me?
Hey... if we are not going to bother with science, reason, and democracy, then I want to be in charge. I assume Mr. White would be okay with that?
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:42 am
04 May 2007
:)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:08 am
04 May 2007
Their personal actions make change happen
That we need to redesign society's behavior/education to make change happen
Those who believe that influencing political leaders makes change happen.
Those who believe that convincing businesses that green is good for their bottomline makes change happen.
Me,
I agree with point 3 and 4
I don't agree with point 1
And I only agree with point 2 if it leads to point 3
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 11:31 am
04 May 2007
First of all, I agree with the false dichotomy--it makes too cute a discussion for too complicated a subject.
AS was said, we in fact do have to do both in pretty much a seamless blend. Two of the world's greatest political philosophers and writers provide the rules. For Curtis White's position, from Henry David Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is cutting at the roots." For Fergus Brown's position, from Mohandas Gandhi: "Be the change you wish to see in the universe."
So we combine the two, pointing out strongly what is wrong and using ourselves as the model for change. That is essence of "leadership", the root word for which being "lead".
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:34 pm
04 May 2007
The Gates Mansion...
http://lathom.com/uba/photos/ra300283.jpg
More CO2 emitted and land disgraced than a host of tract homes.
How can we fight pollution when the top 3% own 84% of the land?
You Read It Here First
Permalink
RemyC Posted 10:35 pm
04 May 2007
RemyC.
Permalink
degal Posted 2:15 am
05 May 2007
Personally, I think the viciousness of debate between the libertarians and the "lets get back to nature" types have debilitated the issues with their absolutism. Many young environmentalists will give up on change if we keep telling them they have to change the whole world and to completely reject the old system. I know I was completely despondent for several years because of the impossibility of the situation. Hopefully we've moved further away from the dichotomy, but it is still persistent in much of the environmental debates.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:19 am
05 May 2007
This dichotomy is absolutely silly, in addition to be destructive. The libertarians are all about personal responsibility for ones actions, and respecting the rights of others. Dealing with pollution and externalized costs is precisely about taking responsibility for the indirect impacts of one's decisions. The libertarians should be all over the green agenda, and pushing it heavily. (Note that here I am talking about specifically the environmental agenda; there is perhaps a genuine conflict between them and the social justice crowd.)
But they aren't. I think that this is partly because libertarians, just like everyone else, are mostly interested in rationalizing continuing to do what they are accustomed to doing. But it's also largely because libertarians (even more than the general population) tend to be so disconnected from the natural world that they literally do not believe that by damaging the biosphere they are harming other people. Total ecological illiteracy.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 12:05 am
07 May 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
07 May 2007
The right believe the rights of corporate "citizens" trump everyone else's. they are better named "corporatarians" than libertarians.
Unfortunately most of the corporate sponsored, libertarian orgs, like "The Cato Institue", are filled to the brim with corporatarians.
Each pundit jockeying for a better position in the world of princely corporate jet junketry around the globe. Lavishly funded by the corporate class that benefits from their blathering about how awful government is and how wonderful corporate contractors are.
Outsourcing government to companies like halliburton creat a lot of untraced cash to provide for lavish lifestyles. The think tank sophists are all over that action. They want to trurn the highways, national parks, ven the oceans over to corporations to own and manage.
Imagine being pulled over by the halliburton highway police and put into a naked cheerleader pyramid along side the road. If you like the idea (to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy), you may in fact be a "corporatarian" (redneck of the corporate variety).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:31 am
07 May 2007
Unfortunately, the reality is that 90% of the Libertarians I have met (including myself, once upon a time), and ALL of the prominent Libertarian thinktanks, are firmly stuck in the mindset that environmental protection is (a) not a priority and (b) conflicts with their values (personal freedom and economic prosperity). It is a most unfortunate form of blindness, but it is quite consistent in my experience.
If you can offer up counterexamples, I'd love to hear them. As far as I know, John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) is the only prominent Libertarian to take what I would consider to be a reasonable "green libertarian" position. And I know that he has taken alot of heat from the Party "mainstream" for his views.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:53 am
07 May 2007
"Curtis White argues that environmentalists are involved in a futile enterprise as long as they fight from within the system -- as long as they use technoscientific, rationalist, bureaucratic language to fight problems that technoscientific, rationalist bureaucracies have wrought."
Our current leader is apparently on the cutting edge. Granted, he is not trying to stop degradation of the environment, but he his using Curtis White's strategy for tackling a different problem, international terrorism. He has rejected all that technoscientific, rationalist, and bureaucratic language, looked to his Bible and his heart, and decided how to bring an end to violent conflict in the world.
So... how's that going?
Forward!
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 11:52 pm
10 May 2007
Am I one of the latter? Not yet, nor the former; this is a new area of study (environmental ethics), so it'll take a while - but credit to you, David, for spotting the connection, and apologies for taking so long to work it out.
Regards,
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:11 am
11 May 2007
Hey, Fergus:
I respectfully disagree with you, but in doing so I allow myself to be drawn into the dichotomy argument.
Before I go much further though, it should be pointed out that environmental ethics ain't so new--Aldo Leopold wrote about it in an incandescent, transcendent manner in "A Sand County Almanac" published in the late 1940s. EVERYONE should read this book, if you read nothing else in your life.
First, I think both of you are correct in the excerpts provided, and why I said we need to act on both fronts seamlessly. A complex problem (or enemy) requires a complex solution (or attack). Problems are solved by many researchers on many levels working in parallel on many aspects--and by activists, politicians, teachers, academics, plumbers, salespeople everywhere. Wars are won with intelligence, spies, the homefront, underground resistance, artillery, grunts in foxholes, generals, bombers, missiles, navies, etc., etc.
Second, I do believe one universal rule is true: We MUST be the change we wish to see. This means we MUST lead by example. We have to first put our convictions into action for ourselves. Otherwise it is sheer hypocrisy, and as with anything that is "sheer", people are gonna see through it, and others are gonna use it against us. This is THE FUNDAMENTAL change we should ALL make to our approach to the problem we seek to solve. David Roberts refers to "exemplars"--we must be the exemplars of sustainable living.
Third, I agree with those who think that more and more technology is NOT the sole answer, and is often not even a very good answer. In many ways, technology is the broken-down horse we rode in on. It is an institutionalized part of the problem. An example is the mentality we are not even aware of, that being the mentality of 'electricity as commodity', a resource or service that 'someone else' owns, that we can only rent on a monthly basis. Distributed generation is one antidote to this mentality, but even this does not go far enough. Billions of people in the world can produce their own electricity on a small scale, just as billions produce hot water in their own homes. PV and wind can make a huge dent in several issues, as simple as household economics, as common as losses in transmission, and as global as GHG emissions. Of course, this is using technology, but technology that has been around for 50 years and not future promises.
Our current situation is everyone's fault, as we all are witnesses to the crimes, even if we do not realize what we witness, and everyone has a place and a stake in the solution.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 3:47 am
11 May 2007
On reflection, I tend towards the view that whether one is a 'revolutionary' (sic.) environmentalist, or a 'reformationist', both require a step-change in the way we conceive of our world and our roles and responsibilities in it. There is, though, a fundamental difference in the two broad perspectives, as you know.
How much does it matter why we take the right actions, so long as we take them, though? Trouble is, we need a way of defining right actions - we need a value system. Can we dispose of the value system which has created the world with live in so far? Or is it so deeply embedded in the meaning of modern human existence, that the best we can do is transform it? These questions matter, because if we aren't clear why we want things to change, we're never going to persuade people who don't want to, and to get the whole system in sync., we need the majority on 'our' side.
Turned out nice again...
Permalink