Jeff wrote:
>
> Some other conclusions:
>
> 1. Just because fixing individual problems is not working
> does not prove it is a useless idea. We may need
> to do it a little differently.
I don't believe it sounded as though I was recommending that we stop fixing
individual problems because they are "not working" or "useless ideas". I
don't think Chris was suggesting that either. But just in case, let me
give another example of my point. While fixing a flat tire on your bicycle
every day for a year gets you to school, not riding through the thorny
brush as a short cut to school is a better approach. And yes, you will
still have to fix the flat from the last time you went that way, and any
others from others sources. Rather than getting very skilled at fixing
flat tires, we should find out what is causing them and either develop
better tires (technology) or avoid them in the first place (behavior).
>
> 2. Researching human history and behavior may not lead
> to a solution. We may conclude a new way to
> behave (cultural change) is needed. This leads to
> the question: how?
Such research, although it will not solve the problem, I believe, will
provide clues as to where to look for solutions (thorns not flats). It may
also help with answers about how to make necessary changes through a better
understanding of human nature. Fixing immediate problems, as Chris pointed
out, will also not solve the problem. Perhaps both of these, along with
some healthy experimentation of alternatives, will lead us to a solution.
>
> 3. Going off into philosophy and definitions may not
> be the best approach either. If we are looking for
> new ways to view the world then this may be something
> we create (culture). Can you define culture with
> philosophy and definitions or do you build it? In
> most cases we know what needs to be done, the struggle
> is with special interests within the culture. This
> leads into cultural activism.
Good point. Philosophy and definitions tends to be a process of looking
backward at what already exists. "Can you define culture with philosophy
and definitions or do you build it?" Both. You can define (describe)
culture, but, again, this is often looking backward and therefore may not
have a large influence on how it evolves. We also build culture in the
sense that it evolves out of the combined behaviors of the group. But the
word "build" seems to suggest that it is a conscious or planned activity
with a purpose or goal. I don't (like to) think that this applies to our
culture, at least so far. Does this mean that culture can not evolve
purposely? I think it can, but it may mean that purposeful change is not
the normal tendency (a possible opposing point made below). Therefore
actively steering culture may be very difficult. This may be the role of
cultural activism, which I see as a marriage of ideas and action.
The reference to "struggle with special interests" was interesting. Are
you suggesting that some special interests are the primary obstacle to
change in the direction of sustainability? I assume you're talking about
things such as global conglomerates and others with a large financial stake
in the status quo. I suppose any special interests, by definition, can be
an obstacle because of the inflexibility that comes with a narrow focus.
But, assuming that I am understanding your point, I don't know that I (want
to) agree with it. It makes it seem like individuals have little power to
change their lives; their behaviors and beliefs are dependent on the more
powerful "special interests". I believe quite the opposite. Individuals,
knowingly or not, give their power to the special interests by supporting,
or at least not defying, them. This support is often with money in our
culture, but also includes things like political influence and the ability
to shift cultural values -- both, by the way, examples of ideas leading
action. Perhaps we do have a purposefully changing culture, but the ones
who choose the purpose may be the ones who are skilled at doing so, and not
simply the combined effects of the group. This may be what Jeff was
getting at. If so, rather than seeing the "special Interests" as obstacles
(my word not Jeff's), we may need to become more skilled in influencing the
path of society.
>
> Question:
> What points in human activity is it possible to introduce
> new ideas (solutions). Politics?, Education?, Religion?,
> Trusts and Non Profits, Unions, Mass Media?, Individuals?
A very good question. An answer to this question may be critical to our
path toward sustainability. Otherwise, we may be destined to drift toward
some other future.
>
> If you want endless debate and little action then try
> organizations tied to the dominant culture. By definition a
> culture only acts to preserve itself. If the problem is
> built into the culture it will resist changing itself to
> fix the problem.
Very true, hence the difficulty of becoming more sustainable. It requires
humans to not just preserve themselves. If it was easy, we'd probably
already be there.
>
> Solution:
> Due to feelings of mercy and kindness i'll spare everyone
> a discussion of individual action, internet community,
> paths, processes, local community, small systems, and
> all those other things <grin>.
I agree with your ideas here as solutions, but it begs the question, how do
we get there. I know, I know, just do it (see below).
>
> The ecopath view might be something like this:
> If we do nothing will things get worse?
> Can we as individuals see things to do?
> If we make individual acts and choices will it help?
> Should we try to pressure others to do it our way?
> Do we see clearer as we approach a goal?
Yes to all but all but the 6th. "Pressure" and "our way", though, are
loaded words. Are we not responsible to help others move toward
sustainability? Is it not useful to help others shift from consumerism to
sustainability? Each will have their "own way" toward sustainability, but
haven't all of us been influenced by other people.
>
> My answers to these questions say: Just do it.
> I find "doing it" fun and i can't think of anything
> better to do.
This begs the question, "Do what?" Jeff has spent a lot of time thinking
and looking into sustainability which may make "it" more obvious. Someone
else's "it" might be building a spacecraft to carry thousands of people to
another planet. Don't we have some responsibility to at least engage these
people in some kind of debate? Do we just let everyone "do their own
thing"? Pessimistically, perhaps, this is all we can do. But I'm not
convinced yet.
Eric:
