Gene wrote:
> Do what feels right to you. The key word is "do." "Every time" indicates
> that you get a strong urgency to act but do not. Don't waffle, just do it.
Gene, I assume that you are new to this list, but I'll spare you and the
rest a list of what I do. The "a better job" in my original post
indicates that I do act. The sense of urgency comes from acknowledging
that my lifestyle is not yet sustainable. My standards for sustainability
are high. (see my recent article:
http://jungle-echoes.com/20/society.shtml )
> That small part of you is nonexistent in most humans. Those of us that have
> a large part of us concerned with the future of natural systems are acting
> in ways that we feel are appropriate.
I'm not sure what you are saying. I see that most people are unwilling to
do much towards living sustainably, and I assume it is often because of
such a feeling, though perhaps much stronger. Obviously, those of us who
are concerned are doing something, probably an amount relative to the
strength of that concern.
That small part of me is probably a healthy sense of doubt that keeps me
from becoming evangelical or militant in my beliefs. There is a quote from
someone that goes something like: an open mind is good, but not so much
that your brains fall out. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is
nonexistent in most people.
> "Right direction" implies that someone has a reality that he/she wants
> others to act on in his/her direction. I hope you can resist evangelism and
> prosyletizing. Words are easy. Show by example what you feel is right
> living.
Jeff and I have gone around on this before. Words like "evangelism" and
"proselytizing" are heavily loaded words, assuming things like an
unyielding belief that one has the only correct answer, a disrespect for
others decisions, overly aggressive methods, etc. My use of "right
direction" simply refers to the feeling we all have that what we choose to
do or believe seems right to us, otherwise we would do or believe it. If
open minded, we will find our beliefs, ideas and actions changing over
time. As Jeff frequently points out, balance is the key.
Living sustainably but unnoticed, as true sustainability would almost
require, _will_ effect the small area one occupies and lessen the burden on
other areas. And while it is true that if everyone did this, everything
would be fine, you have to admit that it is more likely that the rest of
society would go merrily on its way if those concerned about the ecosystems
simply kept to themselves. The end effect would be small.
As Jeff wrote in a recent post, the other extreme is perhaps no better. If
one only engages in thought without action, and possibly activism without
action, very little actual change will occur. Again, "if everyone did it"
leads to a lot of talk and no action. It is necessary that there be
balance between thinking, acting and working with others.
Useful action requires thinking. Useful thinking requires a grounding in
real life situations and therefore in action. Useful thinking also
requires interaction with others, to gain from their experiences and ideas.
Likewise, others benefit from your experiences and ideas. Ones influence
on others is small if not actively pursued, but can be dramatically
increased with a little effort and thought. We are not concerned with
simply the degree our of own sustainability; ten percent of the North
American population living sustainably would have little overall effect on
the future. We are concerned with the degree of sustainability of all
human societies. Therefore I find it too narrow minded, and even selfish,
to avoid positive influence on others. I suspect that there is an
underlying reason (wound) when someone strongly defends the position of
allowing everyone (me) to do whatever they (I) want.
> The question of the future of homo sapiens and what we present humans
> should do to affect it ultimately reduces to philosophical questions. Those
> with strong religious beliefs handle it with dogma. Those who think it is
> nonsense or who don't think we can or should do anything become hedonists.
> Nothing new there.
And do you, Gene, propose to leave them to their own ideas and just go
about your own business, writing off everyone else's beliefs as dogma or
hedonism? Even if they comprise most of the population of the
industrialized countries? By "reduces to philosophical questions" are you
saying that the question of the future of homo sapiens is not worth
spending much time thinking about? Nothing new here, I agree, but then
what? I'm not sure where you are taking this.
> Someone mentioned to me yesterday that Gary Snyder once responded to >
such questions with a question: "Why survive?" Think about it.
I have. I doubt we are needed on the Earth by other species. I don't
believe that we are anything special (beyond the specialness of other
species). Given our current situation and prospects for the future, our
extinction might be the best option for life on the planet. I, however,
still hold some strong optimism that humans can get their act together, and
I for one enjoy life. Though it comes down to individuals making changes
in their lives toward living sustainably, I believe that the necessary
changes will not come in time to prevent unimaginable hardship to the life
systems on Earth (let alone humans) if we wait for individuals to
independently decide to make such changes while letting the rest go about
their business as they see fit, hoping that some day they too will come
around.
Eric Storm
