Jeff wrote:
> Eric, you posed a question to the Deep Ecology list and i wrote
> a response but never got around to posting it. Here it is.
>
> What Should we Do?
>
> What are the highest priorities in improving our world?
>
>
> The assumption in this question is that we can't do everything,
> so it is more effective to focus on a few things we "can" do.
That's an interesting assumption, yours not mine, though I guess I'd have
to agree with it in general. (My original statement is copied below for
those interested.) I have a little trouble with "few" since we are capable
of juggling many things, "focus" if it implies ignoring the rest of the
list (what good is a list then?), and "can" if it means that we don't have
much chance in effecting very many things.
I think priorities can help keep things in relative proportion and also
help in making choices. I'm too much of a generalist to ignore things that
are not "at the top of the list". And of course, a list is only a list and
shouldn't be taken too seriously or carved in stone.
Eric's original post to the Deep Ecology list:
>I am interested in prioritizing, if possible, the behaviors that require
the most >attention. Perhaps the ecological footprint would be a useful
tool for this. I >wonder which of our behaviors causes the most harm.
Where can we make the >most difference? I seems that by beginning to
prioritize, it would make it easier >to start making changes without the
feeling that it might have too little impact as >Tully mentioned. If we
started with the things highest on the list that we could >change today,
and continue to check things off when possible, it seems that we >would be
able to make the greatest change we were capable of at any given >time.
>
>There are some (many, perhaps) problems in comparing and quantifying, but
as >long as those difficulties are kept out in the open and acknowledged, I
think they >are unimportant. The goal is to drastically reduce our
negative impacts on the >Earth, so anything we do is better than nothing.
If we gain some ability to judge >where to put our effort, then so much the
better. Perhaps instead of a strict >ranking, there could be a few general
categories of scale.
>
>Anybody have some good information, or strong intuition, on what things
would be >at the top of the list?
>Combustion engine vehicles? Nuclear power? Non-organic, non-local food?
>Non-locally owned business? Global economy? Suburban houses? Cities?
>Disconnect from Nature? No sense of "enough"? Inability to see all
factors? >Electricity? . . . ?
I like Jeff's four points (below). It's a decent answer to my question,
too. Thanks.
Jeff wrote:
> 1. The first priority is education. I need to understand
> my relationship with nature and how the world works.
> I need to find contentment and know my role. I need
> to understand balance and when to apply focus and
> when to step back and think. All these activities
> are internal.
>
> 2. I need to build a model of the world and vision
> for the future. It is my vision that helps "build"
> rather than fight wars and go nowhere.
>
> 3. Next, i need to fit myself into this future vision.
> I have to try and "be" the change i want to see
> in the world. If we focus on changing others then
> we create a world full of people trying to change
> others and nobody changing.
>
> 4. Finally, i need to work at slowing the degradation
> of our environment. This is both a local and
> international struggle, the priority is usually
> local. Which activities are most important is
> still and issue, but the guidance from steps 1-3
> is often enough.
Eric Storm
