Consumption of stuff

Amazing – 10 blog posts in 18 days.  The first 10 posts here took 6 1/2 years to come… a trend to continue?

When I first came to live in Calgary, my family and my grandparents lived in a 1200 sq. ft. bungalow - all of us!  Today, My slowly growing family is finding our 1350 sq. ft. bungalow a bit too small, and I've been questioning why that is.  I suspect it is just that we (bigger WE) keep accumulating more stuff, and need to have bigger houses to keep it all in.  Need to figure this out, and on a grander scale how to support its demise.  Pulling in some of my other thoughts on the matter, there was at one time the idea that resources were limitless (Hardin), and once we had depleted the resources of one region we would simply move on to the next, conquer and take over that region, and use the resources there. Sounds like a fine idea, until we run out of new regions to conquer. We have yet to truly internalize environmental costs, mostly because our inherited system of economics does not do so, and progress (as a model) does not include them. It seems fine to provide a discourse on the matter, to have think tanks, economists and scientists alike, bring forth the idea of internalizing these costs, but there is a level of inertia at play that inhibit international institutes from doing so. As such, with the support of old-tech political and economic systems, we will continue to extract from and degrade ecosystems for the sake of meeting our understanding of economic progress.

But wait – maybe there is hope. Society is becoming aware of the plight of the planet, of impoverished peoples. International institutes are seeing the extent of the planet, and that we don’t yet have another one to move on to. This is leading to a mindset of conservationism, of placing restrictions on exploitation of certain geographic zones to keep them as reserves for the maintenance and sustenance of precious ecosystems. Modern social and economic development is now becoming sympathetic to the needs of ecosystems in these reserves as well as in the wider landscape.

Competition and innovation with clean-tech can lead to this sustainable relationship. I suppose you could say that I am a technocratic optimist. Will the consumerism be left behind? Unfortunately, there was nothing from the readings that give me that optimism... more just a better understanding of the “why” we’ve come to where we are now. Perhaps knowing the "why" may be enough to make that change.

For the wealthy of the world, they can buy a conscience, because they can afford to do so.  Too bad the poor people of the world can’t afford to shop right and save the planet. Right?  Reminds me of the 99% movement.  The wrong people are able to make the right choices for the wrong reasons. 

Focusing on extrinsic values such as popularity and image, you create consumers.  Perhaps this may feel distasteful, but how can you devalue the impact of these variables?  It drives to an erosion of the individual, questioning what the “better future” will actually look like.  I’d say, rather, that we need to find the intersection between the two realms of intrinsic and extrinsic values.

We are a fragile bunch, framing and creating ourselves in a material world and a chase for lifestyle.

Values - It is time to come back to nature

How do we come to the decisions we make?

So – where will the change come from?  Science does not seem to be enough to do it, even though it may still be the bastion of objective truth. Change will in fact come from a shift in our values systems.  The extent of the shift will be immense, and I wonder what the catalyst will be.  It is amusing how as a species we will often to the edge of the cliff before backing away, and I wonder if we may have actually built a viewing deck to extend beyond the cliff’s edge. 

I just don't know how to best address these issues – they are greater than the individual or even the group.  There needs to be that values shift, and I wonder if the resistance to the shift will be strong enough to impede and even halt its movement.  As we enter greater states of stress on our systems, will we find a way forward to positively address them, or will we become even more entrenched in what we know to be safe and familiar.  I really wonder if people will rise up to the challenge, or sneak away under their blankets waiting for someone else to make things better. 

I know I generally sound like an eternal optimist, always finding the positive potential. I know that we are in for some hard times, and are moving into an area never before experienced.  But the feelings of dread come and go, and I need to not dwell on them longer than I need.  I think we all need to have that perspective – it will enable us to see the light if we are not always focused on the darkness.  Sometime people do not see what is right in front of them until they are told that it is there.  If they see the world through the lenses of fear and guilt, then this may be all that they will see.  I am an optimist, and know that people can utilize defense mechanisms to deal with the fear and loss related to climate change, rising above it. 

Data and facts are not enough – they can be manipulated by either side to their own agendas.  So if you can address an issue and make people take notice by bringing forth the emotional attachment such as through art, there may be an avenue to have impact. Quoting Bill Maher from the clip below, “There is no debate here – it is just scientists versus non-scientists.  And since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote.”  You would think that is simple enough, but it still has the potential for debate. Propaganda websites promote false information, both for and against climate change realities.     

Intrinsic and extrinsic values; people are more than this. Is it an either/or approach, or can we find a way to be inclusive. It seems like a fine idea, to include all perspectives to find a better direction; but does anyone know how to make it happen? And what is the motivation - to find another opportunity to make a buck by appealing to the intrinsic and extrinsic values, convincing people that you have found a new best way forward?  It’s almost like being convinced to buy all new Blu-Ray copies of the movies you have on DVD.  Even as you look at the numerous realms of environmental work and analysis, many individuals sit firmly in specific camps, and navigating these ideas is difficult, bringing with it confusion and uncertainty

Oh gawd - must we rely on politicians to tread through the muddy waters and find consensus?

Collectivism and Individualism in Sustainability

The Borg will sometimes spit one out…

Individuals (as a unit) use defense mechanisms to respond and deal with their perception of the ecological crisis. Increasingly we see that people find comfort in shared common thoughts and feelings within a group.  What happens when individual members have ideologies that move them to the extremes of the group?

A recent occurrence around a horticulture GMO research facility caught my eye. In this case, an activist group had threatened the facility with a day of action where they were going to infiltrate the facility, destroying their plants and their work. They were considerate (?) enough to inform the facility of their intentions, so as to ensure that no personnel were present and potentially in harm's way during the insurgence. In response, the lead scientists of the facility appealed to the activists in the form of a video posted on YouTube. It must have worked, as only one individual from the activist collective came out to trample plants.

What brought this individual to this state, and how did the group perceive this action? Clearly the individual was strong enough in their convictions to go through with the action, but the disconnect with the larger group will have ostracized him from them. The group would perceive the individual as being increasingly radical and extremist. How amazing that they were once part of the collective, but that the collective moved on, leaving them to stand alone. The potential the group unconsciously sees is that the extreme individual is now a threat to the comfort level of the collective.

Is individual behavior change the way forward, or is change in the collective the most effective mode? Individual effort and effect can lead to collective effort and effect, but it is an arduous journey, whereas the collective effect more easily influences the individual. It goes both ways and each have affect on the other. It feels good to have the common thought, but there are also feelings of guilt that are group - driving to help move people.  Tapping these values can hold the greatest influence on an individual.  Addressing an issue through intrinsic values can drive and shape an individual, strengthening the message.  Just as it is our values that have disenabled us to adequately address the crisis we face, it is through our collective values that we will find action, driving our collective and individual behavior. 

There will always be potential, as long as we maintain an eye on the prize.  As long as there is a chance for success, we (and I, you) will continue to find a way to support our moving toward it. 

On the arts; using crayons in a dirty world.

There are a couple of driving forces to the use of art as expression. Now, I am not an artist, though I appreciate many pieces of art through many different mediums.  I’ve tried to dabble in some charcoals, but am not even certain if I like my own work.  It is not an area I immediately seek in my daily life, but I do know that it is still important.  So where do I believe the source of our expression comes from?  Passion would be the umbrella, but it is the emotion of love or of fear that seems to create the most interesting of pieces.  And I admit – the expressions of fear to me has always been the most impactful. 

Expressing oneself, or finding solace and appreciation in the work of others, is one of the motivation and draw to art pieces.

Art gives us time to pause, to be drawn away to another place.  It gives a chance to bring a new dimension into ourselves to make sense of the other emotions that we deal with.  Song, dance, video, moldings, poetry and paintings are at the same time outlets and expression of meaning. 

They bring us back to that time or place the artist drew from. 

Most importantly, it is a form of communication that taps into the emotions.

Perhaps it will be in this expression through art that we find solutions to the climate change crisis.  Just as it is an extension of the artists soul, so too will it affect the hearts and minds of the audience.  It's a new and innovative way to convey a message.  It draws people in to actively participate in the piece, making it hard to turn away and ignore. 

I guess the next big question will be to find the best way to see the pieces.  Mass media may be the best avenue, utilizing blockbuster films such as 2012 and the hollywoodized perceptions around An Inconvenient Truth.  The internet, YouTube… even George Takei on Facebook is active in sharing provocative art pieces… perhaps more exposure to groups such as GenerationAlpha.  Art pieces that incite conversation, with the idea to spread the discussion. 

Many times groups that promote these ideas are viewed as being too left-wing and radical in nature, and do not bring forth the desired effect.  Getting mainstream media on side to promote these pieces may be the most effective.

Regardless of where the impetus and distribution of art comes from, it seems to be working, in the least as a new medium for artists.  Bill McKibben looked at the absence of art in climate change conversation in 2005.  4 years later in 2009 he happily reported the surge of expression around the subject.  Perhaps art will be the nexus of how we all deal with climate change. 

I walk and ponder on the place of art in my own work.  In many ways, I intend to give my students a crayon box – a set of tools to go out and make sense of the world, to find meaning, and to use to express themselves.  I am excited to see what they come back with. 

I thought you’d change after we got married… Parallels between sustainability and marriage

Recently I’ve had the opportunity to examine current perceptions on how to move towards sustainability.  Toolkits seem to be unanimous in their requirement that the first and most important step of behavior change will pull society together to actually attain sustainability.  For the sake of the argument, let us liken sustainability to a marriage.  Both states require the amalgamation and bringing together of disparate camps to make the whole stronger than the parts.  Additionally, both require maintenance and upkeep in order to be successful. 

When reading on the topic, my original thought was the metaphor of how some romantic relationships move on towards marriage, sometimes with one or both of the partners expecting or hoping that the other will change soon into the marriage.  From experience, I think we all know that this will not happen; when this is imposed on them, people become even more entrenched in their way, and the marriage will fall apart. Is this not a threat then to the idea of sustainability? If we directly hope that changing behavior will be the crux of reaching sustainability, we may already be putting odds against the system, making bets as to when the marriage will fall apart. Even if it is systemic and culture based, you are faced with outright oppression. No matter how strong we may feel about staying in a marriage, if it is not working, you will leave.

It seems to be a set of conflicts that we fight with continuously. We see the need to have a happy marriage, strive for sustainability, but we feel the impact of the tools that are trying to change us, and this is what is going to make us recoil.

How can we ignore our emotional, psychological self? The connection with addressing the behavior side? Perhaps we need to bring people into the behavior change decision themselves. If the behavior change were supported through incentives or punishments, there would be revolt... but if we focus on choiced change, there may still be hope.

(Yes - I know choiced is not a word - the syntax works for me in this case.)

Changing behaviors of someone is the most daunting thing you can attempt; those that think they can do it within a relationship such as a marriage are fooling themselves.

It brings forward the sense of the tensions that exist between what we feel to be true to ourselves and what those that we respect impose on us.  Various sources purport that the only way to attain sustainability is through the cultured change of a population, and I guess I can see where they are coming from.  In order to make real change in the world, we need to change the behavior of people. 

In order to do that, the lenses through which people see the world must be focused to better receive the proactive message of change.  This, I think, is the key leverage point to make change, encouraging and supporting people to make the transition to the new and more successful state of sustainable living.

How does one actually bring about behavior change, without the recoil?  One aspect of a successful marriage is that the individuals grow and change together within the marriage.  Not that they change in the same way, but that they change together, organically.  Recent discussions I’ve been in have drawn a discourse between the use of motivation or support as tools for change.  My perspective is that motivation would be the more impactful choice, as it brings about a push from the underlying driving forces of the individual.  If we can understand these aspects we will have a better understanding of the individual’s approaches to their lives, and so how to better make change.  So then – is behavior change really the solution, or is understanding the underlying motivations of the individual and collective the more applicable leverage point?  Meadows, in Places to Intervene in a System, indicated that one of the highest levels you can make change in a system is in addressing the goals of the system itself.  This supports the idea of attaining behavior change by addressing the motivations.  If you can learn their motivations, learn their goals, and speak to this front, you would have a leverage point that would change the system at near the most impactful level.

I won’t leave you hanging – addressing the paradigm from which these goals stem can see the greatest change.  But hey  - baby steps.

But this is really what it is all about… we individually have a stake in our lives and how we live it.  There is no master puppeteer that can make us dance to his whim – we decide this for ourselves.  This subjective view of the world is not something that a magic bullet can find – rather, it is the crux.

A daunting task, to be sure.

And on trying to change someone after marriage - forget about even asking him or her to change how he or she squeeze out the toothpaste from the tube!!!

The impact media has on influence.

99% of houses in the US have at least 1 TV, with the average being 2.24.  Is there any doubt that mass media in the form of broadcast news, television, and movies have such an impact on our lifestyle and understanding of the world?  Looking at perceptions of climate change, popularizing the issue can have the profound effect of muscling up support from numerous sectors all at once.  That is not to say that they understand and sympathize with the message as portrayed but rather with the medium through which it is conveyed (McLuhan). 

The most (in)famous of media pieces is of course An Inconvenient Truth with Al Gore. This film brought the issue to the forefront of popular movie media, launching it to be lead topic for many months to the point where even today it is the launch point from which many current discussions on the subject are born.  What makes these films so impactful?  Are they really effective in inciting change?

Only if they can draw people in so that they feel empowered, not enslaved.  Feelings of fear, despair, hopelessness and loss are prevalent when provoked with the emotions that the messages and imagery of the these films can evoke.  I came across a new and yet familiar term when recently evaluating a piece on chemical contamination and cancer.  The term is hardening off, and it really resonated with me.  It refers to a horticultural process whereby the gardener slowly and systematically brings young shoots out into the outside from the green house, a little bit more everyday.  It is in this process of hardening off that we can find coping techniques in addressing dismal conversation topics such as climate change.  Little by little, we can become more and more exposed to the harsh world around us, slowly developing coping mechanisms to deal with that world.  This is particularly useful for those of us that have a disability in acknowledging the world around us, or our feelings as they pertain to it.

We cannot stay in our sheltered greenhouse forever…

My hope, though, is that this hardening off does not make us callous and impervious to understanding of these conditions.  What may occur with the hardening is a deafening to the voice of the issue, and if we close our eyes and ears, then that is worse than dealing with it in a disabling manner.  That would be a form of suppression, and not a form of engagement with the emotions at hand. 

Climate Change Denial

Climate denial is not merely a defense mechanism to deal with climate change, but the intentful movement to sway opinion of those around you to deny the existence and effect of climate change.  In some ways, it is a therapeutic mechanism to deal with uncertainties, with the dichotomy of living for today while being cognizant of the future and the common good.  Also at play is the sense of helplessness, inability to action.  It really creates a sense of dissonance that is not easily resolve, one of Appoggiatura, but that is not answered.  Because of this lack of resolution, maintaining the status quo and closing an eye is the most palatable. 

I see similarities in the emergence of active climate denial to the war against child vaccinations and the threat of autism (at least up until the controversy came to a head a few years ago).  I have two sons aged 3 and 5 right now, and certainly early on my wife and I were confronted with the idea that vaccinations in children were linked to increased incidents of autism is children.  We certainly didn't want that for our boys, and so were reconsidering having them vaccinated.   And yet on some level we need to place faith in facts, of the precautionary principle, in science, and so we went through with the vaccinations. 

Denial-supported individuals have the advantage that if they see an external advantage to believing in anthropogenic climate change, they will tend to move toward that camp.  They see it as yet another opportunity for advancement.  If there is a buck to be made in mitigation efforts, we’d all be all over it!  And if we can advance economically and scientifically, we become better as people.  [personal note] and we may even be able to make the world a better place along the way

So – how does one combat climate change denial?  I have been trying to answer this for a number of years.  It seems that the easiest and most functional point of attack those in the denial camp have is in the uncertainty of science.  As an example, a former climatologist with Environment Canada came and spoke with my class. He let on that his new function was with a  Heartland Institute funded organization.  He proceeded to state that the world could use a little warming; it was cold in Alberta at that time.  He focused on the uncertainty of the statistics of the anthropogenic climate change camp.  He zeroed in on the range of temperature increased the IPCC was now predicting… 2 – 4 degrees this century.  He was focused on this range; which was it; 2 degrees or 4 degrees?  Why not 6 degrees?  Why not 0 degrees? It is when you focus on the uncertainties that you drive uncertainty into the minds of your audience.  With uncertainty, how can one logically join the camp that purports great changes to come? 

I did not invite him to return, but spoke to my class about how it was an excellent opportunity to see the denial movement in full action.  “From the ashes a fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring; renewed shall be blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king” – Tolkien

I have not come up with a definitive set of tools to combat denial.  It is really an experiential and contextual thing, rising up and speaking to greater societal problems and the emotions tied to them.  It stems form uncertainty, of hopelessness, and inability to have impact through agency.  Once the greater population can see what the truth is, I’d hope that action would be significantly more swift and effectual than it has.  Like other psychoanalytic responses, there is no magic button to press to gain resolution. 

Loss and Climate Change

This is to date the darkest, most deflating post I’ve made to date.  Loss -  so deflating, but something that needs to be dealt with.  I find this topic bleak.  Are we really all just screwed?  Certainly a lot of recent readings first expose exactly what we are faced with.  They temper that with perspective and solution on how to address these issues.  So – let’s assume that we’re screwed.  What is going to happen and what are we going to do about it? Looking at climate change, we see that climate is being framed and presented in increasingly innovative ways. 

It seems that we often ignore our eventualities, especially when they are far off into the future.  And why not – we are safe here and now, and who knows what is happening into the future.  As a result, we put off dealing with the loss because we still have yet to feel it.  Could we say that we don't even care?  I don't know about that We already see and feel the impacts that climate change is imposing on us. 

Loss is impactful, and we each deal with the emotion in different ways.  Even though we feel that someone else will feel the loss, we must still realize that it is coming.   But still, it impacts us, and we can

Maybe if we individually understood loss better, we could be in a better place to understand climate change and our feeling of loss towards it.  While something we are facing now and into the future, it must still be recognized that growing our understanding now may engage us to speak to and talk about climate change.  Increasing the conversation would have two positive outcomes.  Firstly, it opens up the dialogue and brings the issue of climate change to the surface, which may indeed raise awareness and potentially action.  We may be able to find through this ways in which we can frame and message about climate change, better positioning us to positively deal with its loss.  Secondly, it helps us better understand the losses and be prepared for them.  It may come from this dealing with the loss a new awakening and awareness of the issue.  Could this be the solution to the climate crisis?  Would dealing with the losses yet to come now be the way forward so that we don't have to face that eventuality?

The loss stems from losing what we felt was ours.  This is not a possession issue as much as a feeling of right to access.  When you give in to that loss… when you give up that feeling…  you don't need to feel anymore.  You don't need to worry.  All the pain goes away.  But what happens when you lose the ability to feel?  Does that pull something away from your humanity?  There always seems to be something that is attacking us, trying to take away from what we hold dear.  And if we manage to let go – then the pain is gone.  

Would it be better?  If we gave up?  If we gave into the feeling of loss? 

It’s a hard thing to think about.  When we move on to think about the world beyond the loss, what would it be that we talk about?  Were things to go about as we predict, we will still be talking about the heat of the sun on our skin, of the sound of the grasses and bees, of the feel of the hot wind moving around us.  We wont be talking about the governments that did or did not fail, or of what we should have done, but of what really is important to us.  We will not talk about despair, but of life, and love.  We need to be strong and as we go into the good night, the talk of the world is what will keep us here, actively engaged and fighting, and we will not go gently. 

I spend a fair bit of time going to and reading the proceedings from various conferences and summits.  What has struck me over the years is the number of outcomes that conclude with a “call to action”.  Then, at next year’s conference, there is another call to action.  And this cycle continues to repeat itself, year after year.  In the past 6 months or so, gatherings that I’ve attended have actually begun to realize just how futile all of these calls have been are and now actually coming out with action items. Commitment to the actions will be the tool governments use to help people in confronting the loss – showing that we still have something.  Something dear to hang on to and fight for. 

Fear and Loathing on Climate Change

There certainly seems to be a lot of “shock and awe” when it comes to climate change.  Images used by many of the proponents of the movement are meant to incite support from the viewer, hopefully bringing them to action.  But does it work, or is it just another form of sensationalism that runs off the back of the oiled duck?

Check out the image below.  Independent of the source of this image, we’ve all heard that rising global temperatures may indeed rise to a change of +4C over the coming years, give or take a few.  And what will that mean?  Well, according to this image – HELL ON EARTH!

From: http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-change-is-simple-we-do-something-or-were-screwed/

Perhaps most impactful from this statement was that it was made through a TEDx talk, which is deemed to be provoking and informative medium to raise awareness in incite discussion and free thought.  Yikes – people will actually watch this!

Fear is not what is going to drive humans to make change.  Rather, it will result into a sense of hopelessness and despair, disenabling from doing anything but let our planet die.  But – are we ready to put our world into a hospice? 

Climate change is increasingly becoming an accepted fact.  Mobilization to action and awareness is another matter though.  Using imagery and media that employ fear though may not in fact be the answer.  It seems that recent research exists that supports the idea that an overabundance of fear mongering may actually deter people from acting effectively in mitigating and adapting to climate change.  If we are going to make strides in reducing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, we are going to need all peoples and governments on board.  So the question arises – how do we engage people to come action?  It has been shown that many already at least recognize the language of climate changes and its risk, but this has to date been ineffectual and superficial.   How does one make a greater impact?

Much of the information disseminated is through news outlets and mass media.  Perhaps using more shocking and compelling stories and imagery can have a greater effect?

From http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html

From: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3572

 An oil slick on a body of water has a lesser impact on the viewer than the lowly duck that has been suffocated by the spill.  But why does this work so well?  Well, it seems that sensationalism is to blame here.  The more interesting, alarming, and dramatic the story, the apt people are to read it and gasp.  As O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole pointed out, the greater the sensationalism and impact, the greater chance an image or story will have to break through the everyday mundane and catch the viewers attention.

In my courses, I invite learners to bring forth media pieces that they find intriguing and provoking.  Occasionally, a piece will arise that does indeed have this shock and fear factor embedded.  Reactions from the audience are typically ones of revulsion, not of interest.  It seems as if they are indeed aware of these issues (they are environmental students after all) but have compartmentalized much of the data they have in order to make it through the day.  But perhaps they are not the ones these pieces are targeting. 

The problem is that you cannot be fearful for too long a time, as this leads to feeling of hopelessness and depression.  Most people are able to come out of these states, and in so doing push back against the fear-focused piece.  Additionally, most global climate change pieces are not ones that fall on the doorstep of most people – the issues are distant and impersonal.  As such, it is often forgot of beyond the immediate – “if its not going to affect us for a number years, I will worry about it then.  Or, maybe it will fix itself, or someone with power will fix it ‘cause I certainly can’t”

I know on a personal level that I have become desensitized to hearing of the latest environmental disaster.  I have opened the eyes of those around me to the implication of these (sometimes) isolated events, and are often brought to the table when a new situation comes forth.  However, I tend to easily brush it off, or add it to the list of occurrences that I have already processed.  This certainly is not the way to bring for action!  Even worse than apathy, fear messages may have the wrong response of denial and apathy, bringing up additional and powerful barriers to engagement of the audience.  Wow – the complete opposite effect the piece may have been conceived to portray.  Seems as if Fear really isn’t a very good motivating tool after all. 

So – should fear be used to communicate environmental climate change? 

Using fear will invoke feelings of fear, depression, being scared, distress – not exactly the emotions you would want in people you hope to call to action.  Perhaps the one set of images that would affect most people is the suffering of other humans or animals.  If it is going to affect people directly… that may be something to pay attention to.  Alternately, it may be the feeling that they could do something about the situation, bringing it closer to home, that allowed them to internalize the image and it importance.  The further removed from the situation, the lesser of an impact. 

So what does this all mean?  Well, shocking, sensational, fearful images grabs the viewers attention, but can often leave them just as quickly, leaving them with an empty feeling often filled with dread, fear, and despair.  Fear imagery can cause the individuals to distance themselves as my students have demonstrated, in the form of revulsion and disgust.  If you cannot empathize with a vision, you will not engage in it. 

I like the imagery.  I need the imagery.  I need to know the plight of the world.  But I need to know that there is hope, and that I will have a positive impact.  I need to know that I will be that agent, and change will be seen in my time.  Give me that message.  But listen - Don't tell me to act because the world is collapsing.  Tell me to act in order to make things better, and that my act will be felt.  Make the act my own, and I will find ways to make even more effectual. 

There is hope...

I don't want to get into where lack of hope stems from… it is contextual and personal.  When one is hopeful, we feel connected and empowered to act.  When we feel hopeless, it is as a result of a lack of connection, of inaction.  It should be noted that I too feel the impact of Doom and Gloom.  It seems everything that I read these days is filled with exactly all of the things that we are doing wrong, and how we’ve reached the point of no return.  Just look at this recent TEDtalk and set of slides here

Where can this hope come from?  It seems that if we couple all of the hope we have in this world with all of the areas of despair, that the list of despair would be overwhelming!  Even from a scientific standpoint and looking at hard facts, the implications of what we read can certainly lead to feelings of despair.  I guess what the world needs is to find a way to balance the reality we face with hope.  Lets face it – the doom and gloom camp is well occupied, with many not just pitching tents but also pouring foundations and raising flags.  Swaisgood would state rather that there needs to be a movement to populate the other side, the side of hope. 

I find that I need to do this in my own experiences as well.  Every year at a certain time, my students come to me with long faces, all realizing and feeling a sense of futility, of abandon, of hopelessness in light of what they have come to know of their world.  They ask me what its all about, why we should be doing anything if it is indeed all futile, and why they are in the environmental program.  I admit to them that I do not have all the answers, and maybe on the answer for them, but share with them some of the inspiration that keeps me going. 

Our technology is what got us into this mess – let us give it that opportunity to get us out.  What I hope I am giving my students is not necessarily a false sense of hope, which can be worse than no hope at all.  Humans are awesome, and if we spent more time in nature, and less time analyzing the facts that indicate that we are failing nature, maybe we can rekindle that hope, and collectively find a way forward in optimism. 

Sure – the above is mostly sports oriented.  Imagine if we could make the environment as exciting and sexy as trick-biking!

We need that hope in our work as environmental practitioners – in fact it is essential, or our credibility would be lost (Lidicker).  As Swaisgood said – hope may not be the most logical alternative, but the necessary one.  Our heroes of the future will be the ones that came from the focus on nature, not with a focus on despair.

Why the source of hope?  Why not just get into bed and wait for the end?  I recall fondly some of the facts around a great inventor.  He was told he was “slow” in primary school, and so ended up being home-schooled by his mother.  He did his first experiments in an abandoned baggage car at a railway station, until it burnt to the ground, losing all of his work.  He was deaf in one ear, and still, discouragement and despair did not set in.  Again years later as an adult, a fire broke out in his organization’s compound, destroying 13 buildings and again losing thousands of hours of ongoing research and discovery.  Still, he resolved to rebuild. 

2332 patents worldwide are accredited to his name.

Accredited with the invention of the light bulb, he had more than 10,000 failures along the path of invention.  Still, his perspective on the matter is what can bring us hope.  Thomas Edison is quoted as saying, “I have not failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work”

Though we may at this junction be at that point of 10,000 failures, we need to retain hope that the success may be in the next attempt.  I think it works for my students.  Many come away from the session with a renewed optimism, one that re-crystalizes their reasons for being in the program.  Grades improve, and overall connection within the group improves.  It is this transformation that actually gives me hope, and the energy to do it all again the next year.  Maybe on a small level I’ve initiated something that will radiate.