The SAEN philosophy blog:
How do we move….
from
philosophy….
to
strategy….
To
concrete actions?
To minimize e-mail traffic, messages
commenting on the philosophical discussion launched by Melissa Miller at the
June 2008 SAEN lunch will be posted here. For more logical reading we will
start at the beginning and new items will be posted at the bottom. However,
dates will be prominently labeled to assist you in quickly finding the items
you have not yet bread. Interested SAENers are urged to check this blog occasionally
to keep up…and, of course, to add your comments when
the mood calls.
The initial meeting report from
Harry Noyes, with admin details omitted….
Melissa Miller introduced the thoughts
of environmental philosopher Thomas Berry. The essence: to save the planet, we
must reinvent the human species. There was debate over details, but most of us agreed humans have an
ingrained tendency to shortsighted, selfish attitudes. How to change that?
Environmentalists/conservationists traditionally see this as an educational or
PR problem: find the right facts, the right words, the right logic, and
people's reason will inspire them to change their ways. But this doesn't seem
to be working, or at least, not fast enough. Why?
Melissa noted that people don't just
learn by words...they learn via ritual and physical activity, too. We need a
larger paradigm to reinvent Homo sapiens. Better fact sheets and bumper
stickers won't be enough. But WHAT? How do we connect
philosophy to our day-to-day battles? What concrete actions can we take to move
from ad-hoc battles to a world-changing strategy that amounts to people
evolving to another level?
It will surprise no one to hear that
we didn't find an answer. We did agree this kind of strategic or philosophical
discussion is valuable and the SAEN lunches are a good place for it. Yet we
also agreed there are down-to-earth issues to discuss, too. So the consensus
was to have some philosophy and some nuts-and-bolts at each lunch, though there
won't be a rigid schedule.
NOW, some personal comments about
yesterday's discussion.
his morning I happened to see a little item about cooperatives and a bulb
went on. Remember what Melissa said about learning from ritual and action? I've
heard that taking the first step often leads to deeper commitment. Maybe we are
truly reversing the horse and the cart. MAYBE what we need to do is not to
enlighten people on global warming so that they will reduce their carbon footprints...MAYBE
what we need to do is to seduce them into reducing their carbon footprints for
other reasons and that will start to turn them into global-warming activists.
The same principle applies to tree
preservation, bird protection, etc. True confessions time: I got into this
business because I was getting divorced and needed something to distract me and
let me meet women. I saw a notice for the Zoo docent program, remembered my
childhood love of animals and biology, and joined. I was interested in education
and social life and didn't give a thought to conservation. AFTER I joined the
program, what I learned set me on fire and led me to join Audubon and other
groups. I once heard Richard Alles joke that he and another guy started a
tree-planting group to meet women and then became fervent conservationists.
The point is an old salesman's
adage: "People buy for their reasons, not yours." We have to find
what the public cares about and use that to seduce them into choices/activities
that funnel them down a slippery slope to environmental commitment. People care
about their families' economic welfare. How can we help them address that issue
in a way that also serves the cause of conservation and the environment?
Maybe one way would be to foster
cooperatives or processes to support farmers markets, etc. Bexar Audubon has
had very brief discussions on creating a "green-housing association"
to help homebuyers and renters find green housing choices. The idea was to
encourage green builders by expanding their markets. But maybe it is also a way
to start people who just want lower electric bills onto a path to a new
lifestyle and a passionate conservation commitment, towards what National
Audubon calls a "culture of conservation," i.e., not just an intellectual
concept but a value system deeply engrained in our every fiber like "thou
shalt not kill."
Cooperatives are surely not the only
option for seducing converts. What other ideas do y'all have for
"selling" conservation to uncommitted San Antonians by satisfying
THEIR goals, instead of always focusing on our goals?
From Loretta Van Coppenolle….
Some thoughts on reinventing the
human species. Wow! Talk about impossible goals. I
have come to the conclusion in recent years that it is not just the human
species that is selfish and short sighted. Other species seem to have the same
flaw -- or need for self preservation? I
have been observing birds at my bird feeder and other animals as well. They, for
the most part, seem to be as selfish as we. It looks like we all evolved and we
survive by being selfish. The shortsightedness cannot be helped in other
species, but in ours, since we have some ability to think beyond the present,
can maybe be altered. I see it as the job of those of us who see beyond today
and ourselves to enlighten and extend the thinking of
those who don't. So there is hope in that regard.
As for using different approaches to
get people to do the right thing, I think you're on the right track. What I
have found is that using that selfishness that I spoke of above,
is a way to get to people. It seems that the bottom line is all that many care
about, and when you appeal to the bottom line, you get their attention. When we
began this latest anti-nuclear struggle I quickly found that most people care
mainly about what nuclear will cost them. So much for other people's babies
getting cancer, so much for waste disposal that will burden future generations:
Not their problem. But you tell them that if the new nukes wind up costing $18
billion as predicted and that comes to over $13,000 with approximately 4% rate
increases every year for each CPS ratepayer over the next 10 years or more,
they start listening.
Global warming was not getting much
attention as long as we talked of future unborn generations feeling the pinch
of it. Now we can say that it's here and now and the catastrophes are occurring
as we speak. It's just a matter of time before San Antonians feel once again
the wrath of an abused nature in some big way. It could come in the worst
drought we've ever known, it could come again as a torrential flood that wipes
out many homes, it could come as a tornado the likes
of which no one here has ever seen. But in the meantime, maybe we should be
stressing what global warming is costing us and what it will cost us. Nicholas
Stern did some good work on analyzing the monetary setbacks of global warming.
We need to bring that info home to individuals we talk to. Whenever people talk
about the high cost of addressing global warming, I come back with the high
cost of NOT addressing it. We can start with high utility bills. If our climate
hadn't warmed as much as it has here (and San Antonio is now roughly 2 degrees
F warmer than it was about 100 years ago) our bills would be lower, we wouldn't
need as much a.c. as we do, etc. We can
talk about how much higher food costs are and will be not only because of
rising oil/gas prices but because of crop wipeouts in other places affected by
drought, fire, flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.
Our citizens
energy coalition has formed a business committee and we will be approaching
business people about efficiency and renewables. We hope to let them see how
their bottom line will ultimately be positively affected by using those tools.
We won't have to say too much about global warming (some are still
unbelievers), and when we let them know that we oppose nuclear power, we tell
them that we do so in great part because if we sink all our money into that,
there's none left for the efficiency and renewables. We have already met with
some success in our dialoguing. We invite others to join us in this effort of
meeting with business people and talking efficiency and renewables. The
dialogue does not have to include mention of nuclear. Maybe you'd like to help
out with this too.
From Sue Calberg….
I have an idea. For the past two
years I have provided affordable housing to City Year/Americorps personnel.
This year's crop of nine tenants graduates and goes on to their next things at
the end of June, so the housing will be available to some other purpose if
anybody is interested in developing a new thing..Permaculture,
for example. I took an introductory course in
From Sister Elizabeth
Riebschlaeger….
Put simply, I think that people
basically make choices based on what's at stake in it for them.
True, that is self-centered,
ego-centric, or maybe just survival oriented.
At least it is a motive. So that can work for the environment if those
who see the significance and importance of "the movement" or
conservation can use that as the "first step" down the road to
environmental success, so to speak. And I think it is valid, for the need to survive
is a basic instinct that has good effects for one's life on the planet, or in
any scene. It is something that God placed within us for a purpose.
About 20 years ago or more, a fellow
named Kohlberg (maybe some have heard of him) did a study of human beings and
their moral development stages. There are several stages of moral development
in his theory. But basically, as he saw it, people moved from a childish
(self-centered) morality (what's good for me is "good", period) to an other-centered morality. As we grow, we turn from our
selfish motivations to other-centered motivations. Along the way, about at fourth-grade level,
the person is motivated by punishment. What avoids the pain of punishment
becomes the reason for my "moral" choices. So, I do what the teacher
or the parent says because if I don't the "pain factor" of punishment
will enter my life. Kohlberg found that most people today function on that
level--even many if not most adults. So, we see many people speeding down the
highway, and as soon as Smokie is spotted, they slow down--not because they are
interested in their own safety, but because they fear the penalty. But these
days, I see a lot more people driving 60-65--and that is probably not because
they want to be safer, but because they are having to
stretch their gasoline dollars to the max. Reward, in ither
words. Values, choices, in other words. But in
both cases, it is still the "what's in it for me" motivation.
Of course, many people mature
spiritually way beyond that, and learn to live their lives poured out for
others in service--e.g. Mother Teresa who cared for the dying--even lepers, or
Martin Luther King, who risked his life for the betterment of his people. There
are lots of stories of ordinary Americans who quietly live that way as well.
Yet, the lesser and somewhat selfish
motivation also can work for good.
People will respond to rewards for them as well as to punishment to
accomplish the same purpose. So, applied to the environment, what if most people
could be convinced that to "green up" their houses and lifestyles,
would save them lots of money? Or what if most people could really be convinced
that unless they act and act now, their children and grandchildren will suffer?
Paint a very convincing picture of what that future will surely involve, and
then ask them the question if they want to be the cause of it? Or can they make
that "future picture" change by changing their actions now. Sort of like "the Ghost of Future
Christmas" in the old Scrooge story--still very popular around Christmas
time. It makes people stop and think because they are faced with the reality of
"the end", or "death" or "consequences of your
actions." I have to think also that the pictures of the recent rash of
tornadoes, storms and present flooding in the
I think that is why Al Gore's movie
was so effective. Because it painted a picture. We
have to build on that and find ways to paint many smaller pictures, convincing people
that everyone really has a real stake in what choices they make now, for the
future. It's valid; it's worked in the past; it can work now, because it
appeals to the most basic instince in the human species. I even see lots of
pickup trucks with "for sale" signs on them these days.
And in
From J.C. Dufresne….
I think you've hit the nail on the
head with the comment "MAYBE what we need to do is to seduce them into
reducing their carbon footprints for other reasons and that will start to turn
them into global-warming activists." I've been thinking much the same thing
and a few months ago I saw an article in the Express News about a town on in
Iowa I think that was rebuilding after being flooded a few years ago and they
were going very green not because they were environmentally enthusiastic but
because the economics made it a good idea. The price of gas has made a lot of
folks conserve by cutting back on unnecessary driving or using mass transit and
some have even replaced gas guzzlers with higher mileage cars, new truck sales
are way down and manufacturers are closing truck plants. I want to see gas
prices stay at $4 to $5 a gallon so that it makes hybrids, electric cars and
hydrogen vehicles economically competitive.
One of the currently most
cost-effective steps we can all take is to convert
our homes to solar water heaters, they reputedly pay for themselves in 7
years or less and GVEC will finance them for 7 years. If the return on
investment is correct you can basically keep the same monthly electric bill
for seven years and then your bill drops by the monthly note amount.
White roofs also cut you electric
bill because it reduces the need to run
your air conditioner. Encouraging folks to use white roofing materials when
replacing their aging roof is another money saver that is also green.
If you live in an older home you can
upgrade insulation, replace single
glaze windows and replace weather stripping and not only save money but also
be more comfortable in your home and those ideas are green also.
Adding trees in the right area of
the yard can create shade on walls and roofs that helps keep the house cool
thereby reducing the energy bill and is doubly green as the tree absorbs carbon
as it grows and best of all its pretty cheap to plant a tree.
I think emphasizing comfort and
money savings are going to be the best way
to motivate folks to be more environmentally aware.
From Harry Noyes….
There seems to be widespread
agreement that we have to offer people concrete economic carrots to get them to
change behaviors and adopt more eco-friendly lifestyles (and hopefully move on
then to active environmental involvement at higher levels, including political
levels.)
One caveat: The incentives have to
be more or less immediate and, ironically, they need to be fairly modest. Since
people are shortsighted, promising them that good environmental behavior will
ensure they have comfortable lives in 2050 will not elicit a response. Perhaps
even more important, arguing that good environmental behavior will save their
grandchildren’s lives will also be ignored, even actively rejected. People
simply refuse to contemplate such titanic stakes. They simply refuse to believe
that anything so horrible can happen to Americans. The carrots must be measured
in dollars and the public must be able to see the money coming in within months
if not weeks.
From Melissa Miller….
I see that our philosophical discussion quickly devolved
into a checklist of things to do. This is, of course, why I wanted to discuss
philosophy: because our group is very practical and action-oriented, and I
believe we will get further by creating a few beliefs/slogans/talking points
that can help folks move toward an environmental ethic without us babysitting
them each step of the way.
Despite the inherent selfishness of humans, as you see it,
we act on our beliefs. So you don’t act on the nuclear question because it will
cost you a lot, you act because you believe it will cost you a lot and you
believe that this will cause you pain. This phenomenon has resulted in
myriad religions and affinity groups. As an anthropologist (by training),
I learned about fully-functioning belief systems (sometimes totally bizarre
from my point of view) that created thriving cultures that were as different
from one another as night and day.
Also, I’m having trouble believing selfishness is really the
overriding motivator — though it is one. If so, we wouldn’t have
religions, philosophers, saints, priests, nuns, monks, aunts, uncles, or
mothers (and many fathers). Nor would we have crows, some other birds,
wolves, and other animals where some individuals forgo procreation in order to
help raise their younger siblings. No one would be saved from
drowning. Nor would ants sacrifice their lives for the colony. Nor
would there be a Thomas Berry. Nor would anyone go to war, nor would
anyone struggle for peace. Nor would there be symbiosis or cooperation or
maybe even parasitism. (Ever considered the possibility that the host is
really being a hospitable, self-sacrificing donor? No
science on that yet.)
Unless, that is, you include enlightened selfishness: the
suffering of one is the suffering of all; As long as one person is not free, I
am not free.
I admit, I am self-centered, but I don’t admit I am
selfish. I say, despite my flaws, I try to act on a set of principles
that are higher than the lowest layer of Maslow’s Heirarchy of
Needs. Though I try to make sure my needs are met, I believe I have
given up some of those needs for the good of others—though I can’t think of any
such incident right now.
Think of Maslow’s heiriarchy as points of entry where our
message can get to them and then move them up to the higher need. Perhaps
it is useful for this discuss: How do we move people quickly up to the highest
level of self-actualization. Oops. Here I come with the practical
again. I think we first need to understand what the salient
oral/ethical/philosophical/beautiful/loving messages are that we want humans to
adopt. To take them from meeting women to honoring the
earth (and women).
Monday, June 23
From
Harry Noyes…
Another
intriguing piece, Melissa.
You certainly challenge me to get my mental ducks in a row. I cannot quite tell
if you are happy or miffed that the philosophy evolved so quickly into a to-do
list. Personally, I am glad it's headed that way, because for me environmental
philosophy is not an end in itself but rather a tool for imposing coherence and
clear direction on our actions. However, I think we still have a way to go
to develop an innovative to-do list that fully reflects the implications
of the philosophy (as opposed to just reiterating stuff our groups are already
doing). Still I think this discussion is helping sort things out.
Re: selfishness-versus-love,
I've been wanting to better explain what I was saying
June 14. Some of the shorthand I used didn't express my thoughts
well. The point I was trying to make is that Darwinian
forces enforce the survival of success and the death of failure, with
success being simply "whatever works" in a given environment.
Observation shows that short-sighted self-interest "works" on
Earth and thus dominates animal behavior. (IMPORTANT: self-interest here is
defined as ensuring the survival of one's own DNA. Please note that your own
message supports this point, when you remark that wolves and some
birds forego procreation to help raise SIBLINGS ...everything I've read on
this topic emphasizes that this makes Darwinian sense because the foregoers are
actually helping their own DNA to survive because it is largely shared
with the siblings.
DNA is the boss: it controls behavior ultimately and if it
decides survival is more likely if John becomes a monk and uses the
church to protect his siblings, then so be it. It's been estimated 10
percent of humans are naturally celibate so that they can easily fulfill this
mission. Social insects are mostly clones, so their DNA “identicality” is
total. Anyway, while a wolf may have a sense of self-sacrifice, ants surely do
not and their behavior is more like the mindless self-sacrifice of a phagocyte
attacking a germ than human altruism. I mentioned Darwinism to suggest why
the same thing would be true of ANY pre-technological species on any
planet and why the results would be similar.
Shortsighted,
self-interested individuals are well-adapted to pre-technological life.
Being shortsighted makes sense when one cannot do anything about the
future more than a few weeks ahead. Being selfish about advancing one's own DNA
at the expense of conspecifics also makes sense when living in the rough
neighborhood that is pre-civilized Nature. Why cooperate
with non-relatives when the family is big enough for whatever crude
cooperation is possible? Better to attack others and steal their food.
The crunch comes when
technology (agriculture) causes population booms. Suddenly one is physically
forced together with other members of one's species by sheer numbers and resource
needs. One must learn to cooperate to survive, and the new exploitative
classes who live on the surplus (priests, chiefs, etc.) have motives to insist
that one does so. Yet the old self-centered DNA is still there, urging Cain to
kill Abel (not brothers but symbols of pastoralism and agriculture). And
it takes more than a mere 10,000 years to change that.
The great achievement
of the priests and chiefs, despite their own sins, is that they succeeded
in finessing the DNA by more or less fooling people into thinking
they are related when they aren't. In other words, the ability of these leaders
to create persuasive creation myths that tie clans together
into tribes and tribes into nations has made possible a level of
cooperation among mostly unrelated people that is unthinkable anywhere
else in the animal world. (Here is where your reference to people learning by
ritual comes in.)
Yet there is still
far to go. All too often, we have only elevated abuse of others to a
higher and more lethal level. Neanderthals may have bopped each other
for legs of mammoth, but only tribes and nation-states have
managed to create coherent genocide policies. And, then of course, there is our
massacre of the environment for money, which is the instant issue.
And this is where the
SETI question comes in: maybe the reason we don't hear other civilizations on
the air is because (like us?) they all commit environmental suicide just as
they get the ability to broadcast radio waves. Please note: while I thought of
this myself, a far more respected man -- Jared Diamond -- came to the same
conclusion. See The Third Chimpanzee.
So the question
becomes, how do we break that cycle? How DO we move people up the Maslow scale
when so many people (1) seem to lack the brainpower or (2) simply
refuse to help. Melissa, you can be moved by
philosophy but most people cannot, which is why we have to find practical
to-do lists of things that can motivate those people.
They are allowed to
vote and to consume natural resources, so we must change their behaviors
as well as our own if we are to save the planet. (I recommend Felipe
Ferndandez-Armesto's Humankind: A Brief History.
Contrary to the sound, it is not a history of the world, but of the concept of
humanness. He documents how hard it has been to convince people that other humans
are human, let alone that other animals are worthy of kindness and respect.
(Ironically, he shows that some primitive men were more advanced in this area
than we are.) It is a testimony to progess, but also to how hard and slow that
progress has been.
Tuesday, June 24
From Melissa Miller….
Thanks for your kind remarks on my message. I’ll make a few
comments.
First, life is complex and there are many causes for any one
action. Although it is clear that acting to preserve the self is paramount
in the body’s response to stimuli, it isn’t all that motivates
people. Some people die to save complete strangers, and although it is
rare, it happens enough for all of us to have heard about more than one such incident. If
you want to change peoples’ behavior, I think it is important to put all such
tendencies on the table. We can’t just act on the most primitive tendency
of the human race and be able to claim to be any better than advertising
wonks. I am not writing to you because I’m interested in my
survival. I do not care about children because I have any or am only
concerned with my relatives. People don’t send money for tsunami relief
because they are related to the victims.
I disagree with your belief that all is biology, although it
certainly would mean we could start making to do list faster. I don’t
think people act just like chimpanzees, no matter how closely we are
related. (Although I must qualify that by saying “most
of the time.”) And Mr. Diamond has been roundly criticized by scientists
for doing so. It’s why we have psychology and sociology. We are hard
to understand. (Not that chimpanzees are a
cakewalk.)
Also, apparently some cultures have thrived by not being
short-sighted: take the seven generations rule of the American Indian, or the
Aboriginal sense of continuity with thousands of years of history. I
noticed some assumptions in our group that are actually culture-specific,
especially individualism and its products. I let it pass because we could
go off on another tangent that way, but Hawaiians, for instance, will adopt any
child they see in need. I was informally adopted twice. One couple is
still living, and I am still one of their children.
You say: The question is: how can we lead people
through the next stage fast enough to save the planet? We
have to at least have an inkling of the next stage. That is what spending
TIME considering the message is about. You needn’t worry. There is no
way we are not going to get practical. It is more likely that we will go
off on some fool’s errand because we have not spent time considering our
direction and message. Indeed, I think we’ve done that many times
already. We are not as effective as we could be because we don’t think
globally — I don’t mean the world, I mean the style of thought.
And everyone is moved by philosophy, it just is a question
of what philosophy they are motivated by. I’ve sat in the homes of the most
uneducated or dysfunctional people who will spout off some philosophy that will
likely bring them a lifetime of pain. They will act on that philosophy
until they decide they don’t like what it brings them and someone else offers
them a better one. Let’s offer a better one.
Tuesday, June 24
From
Larry Martin….
(Seems to be response
to Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger…)
Very
good. So you see progress,
but are we moving fast enough. Should
schools be a part of this movement? Should churches? You propose a solution,
but how is that solution implemented? (NOTE: Martin is the principal
at O'Connor High School)
From
Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger….
Thanks for your
response, Larry, and challenging questions.
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that we are definitely not moving
fast enough to reverse the damage being done to the environment. But we
are a lot farther down the road than we were say,
12-18 months ago, I think, thanks to the "stark, raving facts" in Al
Gore's movie that woke a lot people up. I am sure you have seen the same
recent articles reporting that scientists now think that the warming process
and its effects are happening a lot faster than first calculated. I hope
sceptics will begin to finally recognize the worsening droughts around the
globe, resulting food shortages and jump in prices, and the recent disastrous
weather events were all foretold by the same scientists.
But there is no question that we simply have to reverse the situation, and it
is actually simpler than it seems if only people will listen and choose to do
their part. For example, driving 55-65 mph instead of 70-80 mph on the
open highway will cut back tons of emissions and conserve a lot of
gasoline. Southwest Airlines has announced a few weeks ago that
they will be flying a few miles slower, arriving about 5-6 minutes later, and
saving thousands of gallons of jet fuel, plus eliminating tons of harmful CO2
emissions. If they can do it, why can't we? Will other airlines
follow suit? They could; so why not choose to fly airlines that make a similar
pledge? We can do this.
One good sign is that there is a three-month waiting list to buy a Prius at the
And yes, definitely, schools should be a part of the movement. Although
this has become political fodder, it is not per se a political issue -- it is a
scientific, ecological, and survival issue. But what politicians/elected
officials decide to do in leading us as a nation toward national behavior
patterns that will save the nation's and the world's environmental healh and
the public's health does matter. So, it can be introduced in schools just
as any other public safety or health issue can. Ecology is a subject to be
studied; the environment is a reality within which we live and survive or not. It
can be destroyed, just as rain forests, rivers, lakes,
oceans, neighborhoods, soil and air can be contaminated and made unsafe for
human consumption or agriculture, or destroyed. Those truths are surely
matter for education. And there are plenty of curriculum materials there
to do so.
My sister taught in the
As for churches: most evangelical churches, and my own denomination, the
Catholic Church, has taken the stand that it is part of God's "respect
life" mandate to care for earth and our environment. It is a moral
obligation related to the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. I
always included that component when teaching the Commandments to not only
students, but also their parents.
There are lots of organizations that are dedicated, each in their own way, to
taking some kind of action in some aspect of conservation of earth and the
environment. Lots of people have and are joining these and taking up their
causes. This includes taking action to get legislators and members of Congress
to pass laws that will protect the environment and stop abuse of people and
their neighborhoods by air, soil and water pollution. People are becoming
better informed through these organizations, each of which has a strong
educational component (and some student chapters), and as a result, are
starting to act. The internet is making a tremendous difference and
speeding up the whole process of information
sharing/gathering and also communication among activists and between
constituents and their members of Congress. There is
all kinds of reason for hope, and all kinds of potential for moving ahead and
doing so quickly.
But the greatest motivator, as it always has been, is money. The
Scriptures say, "You cannot worship both God and money.” But perhaps
this is one situation in which saving money can provide the motivation for
people to do the right thing and keep that "life commandment"
mandated by God. Maybe there is a reason why the American dollar is green.
I see you are a school principal--so go for it, with your students and
faculty! Take the challenge and run with it. Thanks! PS: A good
website is
http://www.biogems.org
Tuesday, June 24
From Bill Hurley….
I am excited and encouraged that we
are publishing such important
base-line opinions and from different environmental sources. I think it's
tremendously important that we understand each others take and discuss (like this)
some areas where we pursue the 'big picture' and (in some cases) areas where we
differ. For example, I know more than a few of us who don't think the newer
nuclear technology to be as un-safe even though it's rather
expensive up front. No matter right now though. The point right now is one
of major strategy WE should use, not about the methods CIVILIZATION could
use. So, let me say that I'm also a pessimist about human behavior. I don't
see that they will, in time, curtail enough energy usage voluntarily no
much
how affordable recycling became. If we made conservation mandatory (at
least today), there'd be revolution.
I agree with Loretta in that I don't
think humans are the only short-sighted
species. But I think it's imperative that environmentalists "know thy
enemy"
and I think we have a history of not doing that too well. So I think
discussions like this really help. Harry put it well in that we need to
pursue a 'culture of conservation' that is deeply ingrained like "thou
shall
not kill." So, how to do that is the question we should be addressing.
I
think it should be the chief topic of all our meetings really -- enough of
"preaching
to the choir,” I say. By that I mean that it seems 100% of our
time is spent going over the specifics about another case of "unplanned
growth and it's consequences" -- don't most in attendance know that
already?
Wouldn't we be better served
spending time on our strategies for response?
I want to add to this sentiment from
Harry. "Perhaps even more important,
arguing that good environmental behavior will save their grandchildren's
lives will also be ignored, even actively rejected. People simply refuse to
contemplate such titanic stakes. They simply refuse to believe that anything
so horrible can happen to Americans. The carrots must be measured in
dollars and the public must be able to see the money coming in within months if
not weeks." This points to something I tried to
bring up during the last SAEN meeting but explained myself horribly (which I'm
apt to do during ad-hoc discussion).
Many of us believe that we don't
attack the hard right-wing talkers like
Rush Limbaugh because we think
they're a small subset of the populace. I
agree, they are. But most Americans are intellectually lazy and when they
hear those guys spew crap and then they see our side on TV or in mags
showing pictures of cute polar bears and noble mountain ranges, they feel
it's OK to just take the middle road. So you end up with the majority saying
"global
warming" is the most critical issue of our time, but they're not
willing to pay $.05 more per gallon to fix it. The thought from most people
I talk to is that "if the
environment were as bad as you say, certainly no
human politician would let that happen" and then they vote for George W
Bush because he'd save them tax money. Speaking of Bush, more than a subset
believe a biblical God wouldn't let that happen either -- (remember the
biblical pact from God regarding rainbows?). The bottom-line is that most
don't see science as united -- at least united enough so that we should
change our lifestyles or our family economics.
Al Gore and John Kerry both took similar
stands and didn't defend themselves from the charges of "inventor of the
internet" and "opportunistic traitor" because they thought the
believers of that were just a small segment of
society. My point is that these stupid, unfounded charges from the
right-wing sway the 'bell curve' of public opinion. For example, most people
I talk to here in
on whether global warming is happening at all -- much less how serious it
is.
The fact is that there's been
upwards of 90% agreement for over 20 years.
Now it's above 95%, but here's the
point -- those 5% will still get press. So
to the minds of lazy intellectuals, there's still 50-50 dispute.
Therefore, I think it's important
that our job, when addressing public opinion, must be to counter the rightist
extremes. Perhaps there's another way to do it, but I'm at a loss to determine
how. The cooperative Harry mentions may be a good start. Oh, I also add that
stressing cute animals under threat of extinction may win us some battles (like
golden-cheeked warblers over the RZ or polar bears in
From Judit Green….
I think it is true that people care
about their own issues. There has been similar discussion within the TPWD Urban
Wildlife Offices throughout the state while we do our jobs to try to engage the
public.
Probably one of the biggest issues
that ranks at the top for most people is for their
own, as well as for their family's, well-being. We all know that water is one
of our most valuable resources because we rely on it on a daily basis for
drinking, bathing, washing, cleaning, etc. It wouldn't be a hard sell to get
people to take action if we could package it such that it dealt with our water
resources. Those of us concerned with trees, wildlife, or anything else, could
most likely benefit from pushing our package wrapped with a "water"
theme/message. I would suggest that an opportunity for an exercise presents
itself, where we try to package things we care about under the topic
"water." (Some research may be in order to come up with truthful
factual statements-I would avoid trying to be too overdramatic. I feel the public trusts statements more if
they sound reasonable and don't sound too dooms-day-like.)
From
Harry Noyes….
I’ve been cogitating upon recent submissions (trust me: cogitating
is harder work than merely thinking or even pondering). It is hard to disagree
with anything anyone has said. But there is still a
disconnect between theory and practice, and I think we need to bridge
it.
I agree with Melissa about the need for a philosophical
foundation for action,
but I feel like I already have one and now I want to take action.
But then she says (if I understand her correctly), “Whoa, the action we need
most to take is to educate society on the philosophy itself because THAT is
what will change behavior.” I see her point: that would be a once-for-all
solution. Unfortunately, I lack her faith in humanity’s ability and
willingness to be educated at that level in the time we have available
before the planet reaches the point of no return. She is right to argue that
some people are noble and philosophical. I think I am equally correct to say
that most humans are stinkers most of the time. That debate turns on
percentages.
But how do we know what the percentages are, and what can we
do about it anyway? Even if 80 percent of people are noble and philosophical
(and surely that’s too high), it will make no difference as long as the other
20 percent control the legislatures and corporations. Let us take her own
example, the “seven generations rule” of the American Indian, and her comment
that our group’s assumptions are culture-specific. Leaving aside how many
tribes quoted the seven-generations rule and how well
they really followed it, it is worth noting that it availed them nought when
they came face to face with… US! American capitalism made hash of them like it’s making hash of the planet. THAT is the culture we have
to deal with! THAT is the culture we have to change to save the world. If only
we had the luxury of dealing with wise livers-in-nature, we wouldn’t need to
have this discussion at all. But the fact is we have to deal with foolish
self-styled “conquerors” of nature instead.
Melissa says we must start with an inkling of what the next
stage is before we can lead people there. I think I already have an inkling. I envision a world in which people (1) are as
grieved by the pointless death of an animal as they are by the death of a
child; (2) are as horrified by a tree massacre as they are by an ethnic
massacre; (3) consider it repulsive and perverse for anyone to claim personal
property rights over resources that are needed by all humans today and tomorrow
(which doesn’t preclude private ownership of resources as a pragmatic measure
to foster efficient use of them if that works best: what we must slay is the
attitude that property rights are a moral imperative, a law of God that
outweighs other rights); (4) regard corporations as tools for human welfare and
not as the rightful arbiters of human fate (by which I mean stripping all
corporations of their status as legal persons and making them subject to any
and all regulations the legislature may choose to adopt); and (5) believe with
all their minds and souls that the health of the Earth is fragile and that
safeguarding it is as necessary for their survival and their children’s
survival as food, water and oxygen (which, mirabile
dictu!, are indeed gifts from the Earth, a point too often forgotten).
In the end, we come back to the question of practical
action. WHAT do we do and HOW do we do it? If the solution is to educate people
on philosophy, let’s pick a philosophy (or several, for I think we’ll find it
harder to agree on that than on practical goals) and lay out a strategy to sell
it. Any proposals?
Okay, I’ll go first. I am not a religious person, but I am
convinced the best hope for the environment in our culturally specific milieu
is the growing consciousness among American believers that the Earth is God’s
gift, to be loved and protected for the common good, not recklessly exploited
for personal gain. I believe that religion is a robust, existing philosophy
that is best positioned to make a real change in American life.
I suggest that every SAEN believer make a personal
commitment and develop a personal strategy to get his/her church, synagogue,
mosque, or other worship group to make environmental protection and
conservation a focus of mmbers’ discussion, thought and action. Specifically, I
urge you to persuade your groups to participate – if they are not already doing
so – next spring in Stewardship Earth Weekend. Bill Barker of Solar San Antonio
is a prime mover in that and, if he is not already on your rolodex, I can get
you in touch.
Let me conclude by quoting from a
message I received recently from an environmental activist named John Conner in
Pennsylvania, a quotation that reinforces why I believe we must proceed to act
now, as best we can, even as we continue to work on getting our philosophical
ducks in a row:
“After
these past few years of talking to people in churches, colleges and high
schools, I now believe that the average American is not yet disposed to make
the necessary commitments to curb Climate Change, with respect to personal
lifestyle changes and working to influence governments and corporations. Nor
are governments and large corporations willing to make changes that interfere
with their pursuit of wealth and power. Sometimes they say things to make
people think they care, but when you look at their actions, you can see that
they really don’t care enough to act in ways that threaten their profits.
"What’s good for me now?" is their watchword. Unfortunately, as I’m
sure you know, corporations play a major role in running the world. Which leads
to the sad conclusion that although it is right and good for us to reach out to
people and urge them to preserve life in the face of Climate Change, we are not
likely in the near future to see the needed responses. Many say that we will
have to wait until conditions worsen considerably before people wake up and act
appropriately. Which of course is extremely sad because of
the suffering and loss of life that will be inevitable. But maybe that’s
too pessimistic. Maybe enough good and caring people will join together to
reach out to others and create a strong enough movement to reshape society. Which, of course, will never happen if those good people sit around
and do little or nothing.”
From Judit Green….
Here is more on the idea of
"repackaging" our conservation messages with ones that may prove more
meaningful to the general public disguised as a water message (and maybe even
with a money message that affects the pocketbooks of our citizens), while
providing solutions too.
I see this exercise offering up a
product that lists traditional conservation messages along with alternative
"repackaged" messages that have truth and substance to them, along
with solutions, so that we (agency, organizations, and businesses) can use these
alternative statements and solutions when we are being interviewed, or talking
to the public. We want the public to act on information we provide, making it
personal to them may encourage their action which in the end will also benefit
our natural resources secondarily (which is okay — bottom line: it benefits,
too). The final list should be shared with everyone, so that we can choose
which "repackaged" message we need at our various venues/events.
As far as how to proceed, maybe it
would be wise to ask everyone via email for one or more important concerns
phrased in a sentence. At a later meeting, groups could be formed with each
group given the same set of concerns and asked to look at each statement with
the task of repackaging it with a new statement/concern that the general public
would care about, along with a solution that an average person could take
action on.
For example, one of my agency
concerns is: "Loss of wildlife habitat due to development." The idea
is to come up with ways to rephrase this such that it may mean something to the
average person-possibly with a water message-or with a monetary message that
affects their pocketbooks.
Example #1 of rephrased concern and its solution: "Traditional development
results in removal of almost all plants and topsoil. This costs the average
homeowner $x-number of dollars to bring in decent topsoil and plants. It may
also cost an average of $x-dollars in water bills to get these new plants
established." (The $-figures can be figured out later.) Solution: Let your
opinion be known to potential builders/developers (also your local and national
government representatives). Select a builder/developer that is willing to
retain large plots of native plants (with the existing topsoil in place) so
that the homeowner decide at leisure which plants to
remove, if any. Native plants thrive in the regions they are found in, so they
need less watering and pampering if they already exist on the property!
Example #2 of rephrased concern and its solution: "Traditional commercial
development results in huge islands of impervious concrete cover throughout our
neighborhoods. This means rainfall cannot penetrate the ground and recharge our
aquifers, which are major sources of drinking water for
Example #3 of rephrased concern and its solution: "Traditional private and
commercial development leads to removal of all or most of the plants on a piece
of property. This means we lose a method of converting high levels of carbon
dioxide back into oxygen." Solution: Voicing your opinion to
builders/developers and selecting them or not, based on their method of
development, lets them know what is important to the consumer. Choose a
builder/developer that retains most vegetation. Better yet, look for builders
that use the "building envelope" approach or offer "conservation
development" subdivisions. (These terms would need to be defined.)
EXAMPLE #4 of rephrased concern and it's solution: "Traditional development, with the
removal of most of the vegetation on a piece of property, can lead to high
levels of carbon dioxide in our city, which can also lead to increased
temperatures in our urban area. (Find out: what percentage increase? Can this
be computed into a dollar figure per average citizen?) Solution: Voice your
opinion to mayor, council members, builders, developers that as a consumer, you
want neighborhoods with native plants left intact. Not just the live oaks, but
more!
Maybe this could turn into a
hand-out we all could distribute to the public, especially if there are good,
easy solutions the average citizen can do.
From Harry Noyes….
Judit offera a very promising idea
that might enable us to build that elusive bridge from philosophy to practical
action. My initial question is, how many of us have even defined our “traditional”
messages so clearly? I suspect a lot of us are working from our gut, responding
to specific issues with ad-hoc messages. It might do us all good, as
individuals and groups, to ponder this question: “Assuming there were no
current battle, if the mayor asked us what our goals are — what messages do we
want the public to hear and remember — what would our answer be?” Do we have
messages ready to go or do we still need to craft them? But that’s not quite
all. Before we translate messages into a context the public will respond to, we
need to corral our ambitions. We cannot succeed if we have too many messages.
We must FOCUS on just a few messages – probably no more than three, preferably
only one. We need to examine our starting list to identify common denominators
that enable us to fold several messages into one (short, simple) one. Failing
that, we must prioritize, setting some aside in order to have a better chance
of successfully “selling” the remainder. Only then, I think, can we proceed to
follow Judit’s examples and translate them into ideas and action the public
will support. And after THAT, we can develop methods for communicating the
messages.
Sunday, July 20
From Garri Dryden, PhD, ASLA….
Thanks to Melissa Miller’s courage in bringing up a
philosophical topic. I feel compelled to make a suggestion that one way
consciousness may evolve is by one minute of reflection, or prayer if you are
so disposed, on how the human-environment relationship may be improved starting
on
Sunday, July 20
From Harry Noyes….
I have a lot of respect for the power of spirituality in
people’s lives, and I support ideas like those presented by Melissa and Dr.
Dryden because I think they work for many people and we need to offer a “big
tent” for all who care about the planet. I confess I’m a pragmatic so-and-so
myself and I keep looking for the practical measures we can take. Even in the
spiritual arena, I want to know what we can actually DO to make things happen.
In this regard, I got rather excited upon reading a U.S News and World Report interview with
environmentalist writer Bill McKibben (May 12 issue…I often run behind in my
reading). McKibben says nobody ever tried to do a global grass-roots movement
on global warming because the tools weren’t available …but now they are. He is
heading a movement called 350.org. The number refers to 350 ppm, the maximum
safe level CO2 in the atmosphere. “Our only real goal is to take this number
and tattoo it into every human brain, so that everyone in the world, even if
they know nothing else about climate, knows that 350 represents
a certain level of safety.”
Now, leaving aside whether “350” is the right slogan, I
am convinced that he is on to something about the need for a slogan, an iconic
word or phrase or image that will move people. A major part of our
philosophical debate, not just here but in my friendly years-long mental duel
with Bill Hurley, is whether we should focus on the public’s mind or emotions.
I think there is room for both, and the beauty of “350” and the climate change
issue (if “beauty” is the right word for such a peril) is that it challenges
BOTH the intellectual and emotional dimensions, and we can employ appeals to
mind and feeling together in a coherent program to move people toward the right
action.
But in any case, the organizing principle must be “Keep
it short and simple.” We have to hit the public with powerful, simple ideas over
and over again. Consider the most successful, behavior-changing campaigns in
history: “Don’t mess with
It may also be a way
for us to weld together the two threads of concern within SAEN, Melissa’s
concern for doing something about global issues, specifically climate change,
and many people’s preference to focus on local issues. Here perhaps is a way to
“act locally” with both local and global results. “350” calls attention to a
global issue but it can also be a cogent argument for local action — the city
energy plan, tree planting/preservation, protecting the aquifer recharge zone,
fostering green building methods, etc. And we can boost the idea economically.
Tee-shirts, lapel buttons, repeated references in letters and e-mails, posters,
bumper stickers can get the idea before the public and keep it there for years.
Curiosity will do the rest, as people wanting to know what the heck our
tee-shirts mean will give us a chance to tell them perhaps more than they
really want to know!
(Finally, here’s a
thought: what about starting a campaign to demand that Congress mandate the
placement of stickers on automobile fuel-cap lids and fuel pumps, stating:
“Fossil fuel emissions are a threat to your health, the welfare of your
descendants and the survival of civilization as we know it. Minimize use and
support the adoption of emission-free alternatives.”)
From
Harry Noyes….
I’ve come across some
quotations that are relevant to our discussions.
Several come from an
article that should warm Melissa’s heart. It’s called "Spritual
Ecology" and it comes from Malamalama,
the
(1) “Ecology is the
relationship between organisms and their environment,” explains (Leo) Sponsel
(professor of anthropology at UH-Manoa). “The spiritual part can refer to
religion but it doesn’t have to. There are many people who don’t consider
themselves religious, yet they consider life sacred. Spiritual ecology refers
to a deeply felt personal transformation in the way we relate to ourt environment.”
(2) The article notes
that the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, affiliated with the World Wildlife
Fund and including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam among 11
participating faiths, has sponsored concrete projects and obtained concrete
results in the past 20 years (and I never heard of them before!). Example: in
(3) A number of
prominent universities now have religion-and-nature programs or have sponsored
spiritual-ecology conferences, including the
(4) The article notes
that sacred status long preserved places in
(5) “The ‘eco’ in ecology
comes from the Greek root oikos,
meaning house. The Earth is your house. You want it to last, so you keep it
clean and protect it. At the same time, you depend on it. The environment, too,
will take care of you if you protect it.” That quote is from Leo Sponsel’s wife
and research partner Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel,
Finally,
a more ominous quote from an unimpeachable source. In an interview for U.S. News & World Report, published May 14, 2007, Jane Goodall
said: “People here say, ‘Why should I care about the rainforests in Africa?’
and you Finallysay, ‘It’s the lungs of the world.’ Well, they don’t care about
that. But I think as environmental damage spreads, as people get more and more
desperate, as water levels drop, you’re increasing the risk of major health
epidemics, you are causing unrest that can lead to instability, and instability
in other countries, as we have proof, can lead to problems in the U.S.” We all need
to hurry a little!