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.

Is it all just Doom and Gloom?

“Why isn’t everyone as scared as we are?” – from the Population Explosion by Ehrlich (1990). 

There is something to be said about sticking your head in the sand, putting on blinders, ignoring the world.  I know that young children can often play hide and seek by merely closing their eyes.  If they cannot see you, you cannot see them, right?  Well, when you look at the state of the climate crisis, one certainly would like to just close their eyes and believe that it is not there.  Still, I cannot take up the stance that Ehrlich phrased in the chapter title above.  I cannot believe that there is no reasonable way forward anymore.  If everyone were as scared as they, there would be no sense in going forward, and we may as well just off each other. 

From this, I am an admitted technocratic optimist.  I know that our ambitions and innovations have brought us to this point, likely beyond the tipping point.  I see also the potential of humankind, and that we will find a way out. 

I offer this story… I heard it long ago and found it in many places online


There is an old Jewish story about a rabbi who was talking with God about heaven and hell. "I will show you what hell is like," God said. They went into a room where there was a large bowl of soup. The smell was delicious, but around the bowl sat people who were very thin and starving and hungry. They were all holding spoons with very long handles which reached to the pot. The handles were longer than their arms. So it was impossible for them to get the soup into their mouths. "That is what hell is like," God said.

      Then God took the rabbi to another room where He said, "Now I will show you heaven." There was a similar pot of soup. And the smell was just as delicious as the first room. And the people had the same size spoons. But these people were all well-fed and were smiling and laughing. Everyone could eat. "I don't understand it," said the rabbi. "Why are they happy here when they were miserable in the other room?" The Lord smiled," Ah, don't you see?" He asked. "It's simple. Over there everyone only tries to feed himself. Here in heaven, people have learned to feed each other."


The hope and inspiration here is that we find that way to feed each other

Common Stewardship or Common Suffering.

Is it that we need to come out of the ashes of a disaster, or find vision to safegueard our own interests?  Living sustainably will involve collaboration and innovation to find a way forward, especially with our already stressed ecosystems.  Somehow, we need to stop focusing on the doom and gloom of today and tell stories of new potentials, of hope and a plan for the future.  There is already interest in the world for this, and capitalizing on it will be the way forward.  The benefits of economic reform will happen with the intent of safeguarding our lifestyles, food security, and natural resources.  They must be seen as something that benefits our individualities directly, actually making our lives better and more enjoyable.  Just because it will also benefit the environment and planet as a secondary thought is fine – as long as it happens.

The key to consider is that we do not need to go forward alone.  The individual who makes the decision to ride transit to work is making a change, just as the government to use more buses is making a change.  The answers are out there, monumental and everyday decisions will be made, and we will move forward from the smallest community garden to the IPCC.  This addresses people value systems, more than their wallets.  Once you change their values, the dollars will follow.  This is a polycentric approach (Ostrom) that can be the sustaining element that supports change. 

And going forward, we see situations of opportunity, not of constraint.  Human creativity and innovation has brought us to this point, and it will bring us out – or at least it can if given the support it needs.

More than the money...

Ostrom seemed to give credence to values-based considerations, but with a caveat.  My perception is that great weight can be placed on the approach if needed as a tiebreaker.  If no other measure can make a decision for a committee, if all economic measures indicate a balance between accepting a project and not, then values can be used to make the decision.  This seems to take the wind out of values-based thinking, placing it more as an afterthought rather than a controlling factor.  

Does this all-still work in today's society?  For example,  on one hand we may have people from an oil company talking to first nations. They are speaking a different language.  Whereas the exec may be able to code the language of the FN individual to something they can understand and place a quantitative, monetary value on, the FN individual may have a more difficult time taking the monetary understanding from the oil exec and place a value that they can understand on it.  

Sure, there is a sense that one can bring these externalities into the equation with the inclusion of values-based decision-making, but they are vulnerable to misinterpretation and misappropriation.  

I guess ultimately, we need to have an inclusion of values-based impacts in decision making as they are the true test of the system.  The sole inclusion of quantitative and economic measures limits the scope of decision makers, predisposing their decision making to those that present information in a specific manner.  There is more than merely money that drives the world.  What should also be included are facets that look at culture, spirituality, and identity.  There are many different perceptions of what has value, of what should be valued, which must be considered in any environmental decision making. 

A Shrimp Salad of International Environmentalism

The international environmental movement, as embodied in the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment which brought together many of the formerly present but disparate schemes, is in place to balance the resource-based view of the world which is extractive in nature, with more current (post-WWII) views of a more holistic respect for nature, and even a reverence for it.  And what a job it is.  The extractive nature of the resource ideology has been ingrained for 250 years, placing a value of the natural world in terms of monetary value.  This value is not present solely on the extractive and resale value of the resource, but also has been to place social, scientific, and spiritual values to resources.  It is utilitarian in nature, and one we can relate to, as we see the need for an extractive nature to our existence (let’s face it, we do not generate energy from the sun directly as plants do).  So, not only do we see this thought on an individual level, we see it in effect on a local, national, and even global level.  Clear cutting Brazil rainforests for biodiesel sold in the UK to purchase prawns from Thailand hits so many environmental issues – grossly the rainforests, fuel consumption, and mangrove trees. 

Ecosystems thinking becomes the tool to challenge this system, the supportive world view, and so in does the Salad metaphor lie.  The advantage to using ecosystems thinking and servicing is that it can enable and facilitate discussion towards a truly sustainable future.  This future may actually be one of sustainable lifestyles, so that we can still have our shrimp salad, to reach our full potential.  The troublesome thought around this, especially in the arena of international environmentalism, is the notion of executive democracy where a select and elite group, under the guise of democratic process, dictate our environmental future.  As a newer stream of thought, perhaps it will indeed be this ecosystems thinking that supplants this executive democracy, bringing (environmental) internationalism back to all people. 

Sustainability and consumption.

To have is to be… is a measure of self-creation, of self-perception, through consumption and possession.  As we continue to consume, so too then must we continue to extract, and increase our industrial production.  This development is indeed perhaps at the root of problem, and its inclusion in the sustainable development.  Consuming will not fix all that is broken with the world, in this consumer-oriented society and lifestyle.  Asking someone to cast off their materialistic tendencies would be akin to asking someone to give up who they are as an individual.  As indicated earlier, our economic system is one of exploitation of resources, and is ingrained in us.  Inertia keeps this moving forward and is part of our identity.  As we consume, differently or newly, we can actually redefine ourselves, and so associate with new individuals and groups who share similar compulsions.

Frustration is not necessary any more.  Why do we continue to do this?  We can see, or at least feel, the impact our consuming has on the environment, so why do we continue at a pace?  We assume that consuming more is somehow improving ourselves, bettering ourselves, looking at achieving perfection.

We’ve hit 7 billion people earlier this year, and the vitality of ecosystems is a measure of our own vitality.  We are a species like all others, indivisible from the natural world.  We have a great capacity to adversely affect natural ecosystems in a very short period of time thanks to our huge population and technologies.  But let us not fall back to that pre-industrial mindset, and let us consider the new clean-tech mindset, where this destruction is not necessarily a given reality.  Rather, let us make decisions now, with far reaching long-term goals that do not meet the wants now, but the needs for later… and our needs are inexhaustible.

A Consideration of the opinion of a mate…

Climate change is often focused around carbon – how much is in the earth, in the atmosphere, and how much we are changing those amounts.  I am seeing a connection this week between carbon releases and population growth.  When you think about it, the more people there are, the greater their carbon footprint.  A non-person would have a carbon footprint of zero, after all.  And when you think of the footprints of the descendants of this non-person also being zero – the impacts are huge!  Less people, less emissions, less impact, right?  So – for all of the efforts that governments to go to impose controls and sanctions on corporations that emit high amounts of carbon, or the oil sands with their huge carbon footprint, governments would do better to send the message that the more non-persons we have, the lesser their footprint would be. 

But maybe it is not just in the hands of government?  Maybe corporations in an effort to expand their carbon offsetting schemes will invest in family planning initiatives and organizations.  Perhaps we can even develop a new market for persons and non-persons, moving them as needed to properly offset their impacts. 

Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian thinking shows that the population bomb has exploded, and only in the support control programs can we even consider our any stability on of this world.  What a wonderful and clean world we will have, full of non-persons.



Personal Edit/Response: I cannot deny the astronomical effects out-of-control population growth is going to have on this planet.  My contention is with those that besmirch those that have children, to the point that even ostracizing them as the walk down the street.  Have 14 kids is a bit much, but our children will be the ones to find a way forward where we have yet not done so.  When I asked my 4 year old what he wanted for his 5th birthday, he said he wanted to make the world more green.  Is it not these kinds of people that we want in the world?

Ecology comes of age – I even took it in school!

What early writers on ecology did was to bring the ideas of environmental catastrophe down from its lofty position in science to the values and emotions of people.  No longer were human impacts on the environment left to statistical and scientific knowledge and jargon that only a select few to understand.  The works of early activists such as Carson and Commoner brought an emotional connection to the data, making it accessible to a much broader audience.  I wonder if the medium and language they used had the underlying intent of a scare tactic to make its point.  It may be true, but I’ve a feeling that if it did not have such an intent, the impact would not have been felt and we would have continued on, business as usual.

No longer could individuals be absolved of their responsibility to the effects their lifestyles of consumption have on the planet.  The sense of entitlement to extraction and consumption began to be coupled with awareness of actions.  What happened in the sense of ecological thought at the time was that the facts and data were beginning to mean something to voters and consumers, and was beginning to change how they vote and what they bought.  These attitudes, emotions, beliefs need to change.  These thoughts are what drives our behavior.  If one can change an attitude, the behavior will change for itself.  Perhaps this is the direction policy makers should take – don't impose controls on people, but work to change their minds…

Ecology and Ecosystems

From the works of Meadows, Capra, E.O. Wilson, and Odum, one can see that ecology is the study of community, but it is what makes up a community that differentiates ecology from other investigations.  My perspective is that it looks at organisms in their natural environment, or in the least where they exist.   The key here is the inclusion of the environment.  With the consideration of natural environments, we come to the idea of interactions within ecology and move to the idea of ecosystems and the interconnections between organisms.

The idea here is that from an ecological standpoint, thought is developed and created from what has already been.  Connections are made, connections are realized, and most importantly we see in the development of thought the connections that exist amongst all beings, matter, and energy.  One can admit when you touch another person, there is a sense or feeling of energy that moves between the two.  When does that energy and connection break away?  At 1 micron of separation? 1 millimeter? 1 meter?  It seems to me that the connection may diminish with spatial and temporal distancing, but never really disappear.  We are all connected, biological and non-biological entities, on this planet.

And what did we do with this connection?  Our consciousness has given rise to governments, relationships, community, and deeper connection.  Maybe we’ll be lucky and figure out how to reap the rewards of these connections for the sake of our ecosystems, of our ecology.

The Origin of (Ecological) Thought

Return, from the brink of the forgotten. 

To the millions that follow the Enviromug blog every day – after a long hiatus of many years, this blog will become quite active again, for a minimum of 9 weeks and 10 posts. 

The topic of contribution? 

The consideration and observation of the world around in relation to the Biosphere and Ecological Sustainability. 

And for this week…  I expect the readers will grant me a day of repose.  Life, sometimes, happens… and has given me a new, and yet old, view of how we have become who we are.  Stay tuned (tomorrow) for what that is…

I find it interesting as I may search for a specific topic in a search engine or view a topic in my newsfeed viewer (Flipboard, BTW) how the top results are often a rehash of some other post on the net, especially when looking at current events. Perhaps more prolific is the somewhat recent phenomenon of likes, shares, retweets, diggs, reblogs, plus, and other social media sharing tools. The thing is, I don't know if what you are sharing is your own thought. So often do we see someone think a subject is interesting, and then share a link to an external site.

But they don't tell me why it is interesting, what they think about it, their perspective, and what it means to them. This to me is not original thought... It's a meager attempt at stating that someone else’s thinking is your own. In a way, it is quite self-deflating and demeaning to state that you cannot come up with your own idea, and that someone else's original thought is actually better than your own.

This has really been brought to the forefront in my own research. In many ways, I am building on the ideas and thoughts of others. I take their perspectives and original thought, in hopefully new and innovative ways, and place my own spin on them in an original and unique way. In this formulation, I am building on the collective knowledge in the hope that others will do the same on what I now feel to be original thought.

Like Benjamin Franklin who repeatedly posted discoveries before they were fully investigated for the intent of furthering science, so too now does the Internet provide an avenue today; it is easy to spread the word on twitter, Facebook, and a multitude of other social media tools. 

From a community standpoint, we are looking at the mobilization of people towards a common good.  This is what our ecosystem and ecology looks like – the creation and discovery of thought.   

Worst part about it – I’d wager there is already posts somewhere out there very much like this one.  Never looked though, so though these ramblings may not be original, they are genuinely my own… first and hopefully last time I put a disclaimer like this in my blog…
 

Study: Being a Dad in Canada

Found this great article about paternity in Canada, from CTV.ca The actual Statscan report holds a lot of great data

More dads taking paternity leave: study

Updated Wed. Jun. 13 2007 10:15 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A growing number of dads are taking paternity leave from work to

attend to the birth or adoption of a child, according to findings

published by Statistics Canada.

The report, General Social Survey: Navigating family transitions,

found that the number of fathers taking leave has grown since 2001,

although men are still returning to work sooner than mothers.

The proportion of men who took leave for a birth or adoption

increased from 38 per cent in 2001 to 55 per cent in 2006. Most men

returned to their jobs within one month.

"Although you're legally allowed, there's still kind of a stigma

behind doing it," one father, who asked to remain anonymous, told

CTV.ca.

He decided to take a month off work after the birth of his second child.

"People kind of make fun of you and you worry about if your job's going to be there when you get back," he said.

The proportion of women who took leave remained stable at nearly 90

per cent during the same time period but mothers generally stayed home

for much longer.

Nearly half of mothers returned to work between 12 to 47 months following the child's arrival.

Still, 23 per cent of parents who took leave did not reintegrate into the labour market, the report found.

More than half who remained at home said the decision was based on a

desire to raise their children themselves. Nearly 24 per cent of

parents said they did not return to work because it was too expensive

to pay for child care services.

The majority of parents, 86 per cent, who took leave from work reported they were satisfied with their return to the job.

However, mothers who returned to work underwent far more stress than men, the study found.

Six out of every 10 mothers reported the transition back to work as

stressful and one-fifth said it was very stressful. Meanwhile, 65 per

cent of fathers rated the transition as not too stressful or even not

stressful at all.

The data also showed that nearly half of parents returning to work

felt that balancing their job and family responsibilities was the main

source of stress.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What am I thinking?

Crazy - I am one of the worst bloggers around. Still, I am thinking of registering a domain and starting something more serious.

I think I need my head read.

Now I just need to find out how to get a domain, the whole hosting thing, and start filling 'er up.

And... I'm going to be a dad. Yikes!

And the Beat Goes On...

For updates on the House building, check out this Link to the Mount Pleasant Home Development

Not a Blog

I've realized that I really should contribute to this blog. Nothing ventured, nothing gained...

Though... exactly what am I hoping to gain?
Dunno. But... It is June 13, 2006.


Stayed tuned - Demolition has occured!

The Future of Blogs

Blogs - the Future of Free and Independent Media

Maybe there is something to all of this after all...

The Truth About Climate Change

I’ve come to the realization that there are a great many people out there that refute the position that climate change is a reality, that humankind is the primary contributor to climate change, and that the effects of not doing anything will be disastrous. Anywhere and everywhere you look, you will find groups and individual who contest the science of global warming. Has the message simply not been getting across? For 150 years we've come to know Darwin's theory of evolution, and have produced hundreds of thousands of scientific papers to confirm it, with no true measure of contradictory evidence. Still, more than half the population of the US still support creationism as explaining our origins.

Has science and reason lost the battle against fear, prejudice and ancient belief systems?

Like lighting up a cigarette while Rome burns, or taking a bath in your Atlantis villa. Imagine the world in 50 years with coastal cities under water, CO2 levels twice what they are now, and global temperatures 5 degrees higher and still rising. These same individuals will still be on their soapbox claiming that everything is fine, and that the effects observed are natural and nothing to be worried about.

Let’s face it - half the population does not believe that climate change is a result of human activities, particularly its impact in increasing CO2 levels. Scientists are all full of crap, right?

I am generally not one to rant about the issues of the world simply for the sake of complaining; if you are going to point out a problem with something, it is best to also suggest a solution. And so, here is my suggestion. Trying to predict climate change and its effects is difficult, and requires more computing power than is readily available to researchers. There is a technique known as distributed computing whereby your personal computer will allow a small program to run calculations in the background, only when you are not actually using the computer. The SETI@home program has been doing it for years . When it’s done, it will send results back to scientists in Oxford to be combined with other models. Over time, we will get a more and more accurate picture of our impact on this planet, and where it is going. Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/ to check it out. This is something both proponents and opponents of global warming can do to help better determine what WILL happen.

Rather than point fingers of who is right and who is wrong, let’s try and find out what the truth is.

No one can truly predict the future - maybe we will find solace in knowing that we're using "clean coal", and can do so for the next 900 years. Or maybe we’ll look back in 2050 and say that we should’ve devoted more time and effort to renewable and sustainable energy sources rather than putting a positive spin on a non-renewable one.

But hey... we made a few bucks and had a few laughs along the way, didn't we?

Canadian Federal Election as Job Interview

I was not sure what to say regarding the upcoming Canadian federal election next week. So, rather than profess allegiance to any one party… Have you ever noticed how this election is like a common, everyday job interview? The candidates and parties are but trying to get a job (elected). Campaigning is the interview, and the voting public the interviewers. We test the candidates, examine their credentials, and make a decision in voting. Either way, we pray we’ve made the correct decision and have to live with the result; at least for a while.

Here is a quick and simplified comparison between the traditional job interview and the election process.

The employer recognizes the need for a new employee and places an ad in the newspaper.
Current ruling party comes to the end of the term, there is a vote of non-confidence, etc, and an election is called.

Applicants submit their applications in response to the ad.
There is a formation of parties, selection of candidates, announcements of running (not to mention procedural applications and paperwork).

Employers review the applications and C.V. of applicants, looking to their past as an indication of future actions and performance. The process really is an examination of accountability and credentials.
This step is akin to examining the past and previous record of parties and candidates. Even now, these individuals rest and tout the laurels of their predecessors. Also, they cannot escape but must answer to past crimes and indiscretions. For example, the liberals flaunt their connections to Medicare in Canada all the way back to the ‘50s. In the next statement, they apologize for injudiciousness as recent as the Ad Scam and as distant as the Chinese Head Tax dating back to the 1880s.

Now the interview process. It begins initially when the applicant comes in (or over the phone) and meets with the interviewer. After initial pleasantries, the interviewer tries to get a measure of the applicant. There are typically questions, tests or exams administered (personality, competence, personal suitability). Applicants are judged/scored against each other based on their performance and a belief of how much they will add to the organisation.
This is the test of the accountability and actions of the candidates. The step involves debates, promises and campaigning. Examined are the actions and statements made.
In the end, applicants are measured against each other based on the above criteria and processes, their past, their conduct, and of course their promises. A decision is made and they are offered the job. Ad campaigns are as close to the window dressing as a clean shirt is during the interview. No one would admit that dressing professionally has merit on getting a job; after all, people should not be judged by the cut of their shirt, but by the courage of their convictions (poetic licence exercised). Still, being clean and wearing a suit has a more positive impression on the interviewer that arriving intoxicated and in beachwear. What do the current ad campaigns, promises, jibes and promotions from the parties really say about them?

After a decision is made, the employer offers the successful applicant the position, and they start work, typically after giving 2 weeks notice to their previous employer.
Election Day!!! We (employers) go into the little voting booth, make our mark, and place our vote for what we believe will be the best candidate for the job. A variation of this is that we select the party we want to win, or alternately NOT select a party/candidate that we do not want to win. Election night, they are informed of their success/failure. Baring recounts, challenges, and other contests of the results, they too would give their 2 weeks notice, and it’s off to Ottawa!

If the election were responsibly treated as a job interview, would we vote differently? How would we view the present-day actions of the parties such as slanderous ad campaigns and debates? Often, the arguments presented are based on why you should not vote for party A rather than why you should vote for party B. How would that reflect on an individual in a real job interview, telling the employer why they shouldn’t hire the other guy rather than hire themselves? We vote based on similar promises and platforms from the parties… would someone be hired merely on the promise that they will try really hard, trying to give good results? If we were to pay more attention to the party’s resumes, what impact would their predecessors and past have on our vote… Chrétien, Trudeau, Mulroney, Broadbent… all the way back to MacDonald? If the Green party received more than 580,000 of the popular vote last election, with candidates in all 308 ridings, why were they not invited to the debates; the Bloc were invited, yet 75% of Canadians are not even able to vote for them.

What about new guys on the block like the Green party? Are they caught in the vicious “can’t get the job without experience, can’t get experience without the job” cycle?


Two interesting and related thoughts to finish off…

In industry, research has shown that a new employee actually COSTS the company money initially, and does not actually begin making the company money for three years. Is that not about the time that a new election is generally called?

Finally, even though I’m doing the hiring (voting), whoever the winners are will end up being my boss…