What are the implications of scientists’ verdict that we currently consume the equivalent of 2 and half planets? Well, begin by imagining the Earth is a cruise ship with all 6.6 billion of us on board. If we consume the ship’s resources of food, water and fuel at the same rate humanity does today, by itself our ship will run out of food, fuel and water. In order to sustain the supply of resources, there would need to be at least another cruise ship and a half to keep up with our demands. And, since the ship represents our reality and not our ideals, half of all the available food, water and fuel is consumed by only 10% of the passengers.
Now, in order to include all 6.6 billion passengers equitably into our western standard of living, how many planets would we need? Five planets? Seven planets? The specific number is unimportant because any number larger than one is arguably suicidal. It also implies that in an already over-productive system we permit a constant underclass because our system cannot support 100% of us. Our system of providing for ourselves and our families does work for a percentage of the population, but it has not proven itself capable of providing for the entire population. So our faith in the system to rid the world of poverty by offering a job to everyone is a myth. Indeed, the world is mostly divvied up among a few and their successors will live comfortably. For the remainder, our fate is predetermined. And, what does this imply for our projected population of 9 billion by 2050? Poverty will grow and only a very small percentage will live in the comfort many of us do today. Is that fair? Is that the future we want?
Maybe the issue comes down to what we believe the purpose of life is. Does that mean treating others “humanly”? At a minimum that would suggest offering food to the hungry, water to the thirsty and shelter to the homeless. While this form of social security exists in small doses, it does not exist in the abundance necessary to meet current humanitarian needs. And, if it is as simple as “getting along with others” then with the growing intolerance of religious and political extremism we are headed in the opposite direction. What if our “success” in this life is not determined by what we have accumulated, but in how we treat others? We like to evangelize our ideals that we value life above all else, but our actions sadly reveal another story.
The future we dread of rampant poverty and wars over water and oil is rapidly approaching and quick action is needed to thwart it off. With every plan there is a time component of preparation and implementation. And, as time creeps by, so does the population continue to grow, resources continue to be over-consumed, the problems compound in complexity. And, if addressing the issues begin with a 10 year plan, that’s 10 years after the decision to implement and after we develop consensus to take action. But, remember, in a court of law, ignorance is not a defense -- to not choose is by default our choice.
One of the profound implications of sustainable systems is that among the many options and choices that are possible, we are choosing to limit our choices to only sustainable ones. In the United States which was founded on the ideas of liberty and personal freedom, this will be a tough pill for the American ego to swallow because it implies that we are limiting the scope of our freedom. But, isn’t that just another definition of responsibility? Maybe sustainable choices are part of an evolving civilization. Maybe the challenge we face is simply to grow up.
On The Web
Consumer Consequences
Play this game sponsored by American Public Media & see how many planets are needed to sustain 6.6 billion people that live like you!
www.consumerconsequences.org
Showing posts with label happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label happiness. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Our Common Future
In addition to the “sustainability puzzle” I’ve made frequent reference to “our common future” throughout this Blog. What do I mean by this phrase, why is our future common and why is it important? Well, to put it as simply as possible, while we emphasize our differences in color, race, sex, religion and language, we have more in common than we have differences. While we achieve many things in our individual lives, our single greatest legacy is what we leave our children. And, a reasonable question to ask is: have we contributed more to their problems (bad) or to their solutions (good)? It’s important to recognize our common future because I believe we have arrived at a time of choice with the power to choose between creating a world of our dreams or one made of our most dreaded fears.
Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.
If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.
Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.
So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.
Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.
If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.
Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.
So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Sustainability Puzzle
Throughout this Blog I’ve often referred to something I call the “Sustainability Puzzle.” In this entry I’d like to explain more clearly what I mean by this concept. If we look at the world as a whole, how people live their lives and earn a living, scientists estimate we currently need at least 2 and a half planets to “sustain” the systems we’ve created that support the way we live -- and that is with at least half the planet in poverty. In short, I believe we can do better.
The first question to ask is what do we mean by sustainability? Well, one way to look at it is from the American Indian perspective. In their decision making process, many tribes would think in terms of how their decisions and actions would affect the seven generations that followed them – not wanting to negatively impact their opportunities through short-sighted choices. Today some refer to this socio-economic goal as “intergenerational equity”--I prefer to keep it simple and call it "being responsible." While integrating such a long-view perspective into our modern world would have wide ranging implications -- from the food we eat to how we produce power, from how we transport goods to how we build our homes and communities – it’s more important to face the facts: we are consuming our children’s resources and not living within our means.
So, why is it a puzzle? First, I truly believe it’s possible to sustain everyone and not diminish our modern comforts. In fact, I believe a truly sustainable system can raise the standard of living for the majority of people in the world. And, the ability to achieve this does not lay in some distant technology of the future, but in common sense solutions that already exist. In order to be sustainable, we will need to consume fewer resources than we currently do now. The “puzzle” part is re-organizing these elements in a way to achieve a system that everyone can benefit. The internet will be a key component of the solution because it can replace much of the brick and mortar infrastructure that has evolved to form our marketplaces. But, the internet can do the same virtually and more cheaply, while allowing greater access and less environmental impact through web pages, virtual presence and VoIP technologies.
My sister told me a story this week that I’d like to share with you because I think it demonstrates the predicament we face today. One day a storm came to a village and the rain started falling. A man of great faith looked out his window and saw the streets flooding and climbed to his roof. He prayed to God to save him as the waters continued to rise. Well, later that day a man approached in a canoe and asked him if he would like a ride. The man of great faith declined the offer knowing that God would save him. A little while later, someone else came by in a row boat and again offered a lift to the man on the roof top and again he said no because God was going to save him. The waters continued to rise and the man continued to pray and a little while later a motorboat came by offering him a ride. The man with great faith turned down the offer knowing that God would save him. Well, the waters kept rising and eventually he drowned. When he arrived in heaven he stood before God and asked him “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “I sent you three boats! What more was I supposed to do!”
The solutions to save our world are here. Our challenge is to recognize the pieces of the puzzle and start building a sustainable world that we can all enjoy.
Additional Reading:
Behind Consumption and Consumerism
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp
The first question to ask is what do we mean by sustainability? Well, one way to look at it is from the American Indian perspective. In their decision making process, many tribes would think in terms of how their decisions and actions would affect the seven generations that followed them – not wanting to negatively impact their opportunities through short-sighted choices. Today some refer to this socio-economic goal as “intergenerational equity”--I prefer to keep it simple and call it "being responsible." While integrating such a long-view perspective into our modern world would have wide ranging implications -- from the food we eat to how we produce power, from how we transport goods to how we build our homes and communities – it’s more important to face the facts: we are consuming our children’s resources and not living within our means.
So, why is it a puzzle? First, I truly believe it’s possible to sustain everyone and not diminish our modern comforts. In fact, I believe a truly sustainable system can raise the standard of living for the majority of people in the world. And, the ability to achieve this does not lay in some distant technology of the future, but in common sense solutions that already exist. In order to be sustainable, we will need to consume fewer resources than we currently do now. The “puzzle” part is re-organizing these elements in a way to achieve a system that everyone can benefit. The internet will be a key component of the solution because it can replace much of the brick and mortar infrastructure that has evolved to form our marketplaces. But, the internet can do the same virtually and more cheaply, while allowing greater access and less environmental impact through web pages, virtual presence and VoIP technologies.
My sister told me a story this week that I’d like to share with you because I think it demonstrates the predicament we face today. One day a storm came to a village and the rain started falling. A man of great faith looked out his window and saw the streets flooding and climbed to his roof. He prayed to God to save him as the waters continued to rise. Well, later that day a man approached in a canoe and asked him if he would like a ride. The man of great faith declined the offer knowing that God would save him. A little while later, someone else came by in a row boat and again offered a lift to the man on the roof top and again he said no because God was going to save him. The waters continued to rise and the man continued to pray and a little while later a motorboat came by offering him a ride. The man with great faith turned down the offer knowing that God would save him. Well, the waters kept rising and eventually he drowned. When he arrived in heaven he stood before God and asked him “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “I sent you three boats! What more was I supposed to do!”
The solutions to save our world are here. Our challenge is to recognize the pieces of the puzzle and start building a sustainable world that we can all enjoy.
Additional Reading:
Behind Consumption and Consumerism
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp
Monday, June 18, 2007
Everyone Wants to be a Millionaire
Have you ever noticed that everyone wants to be a millionaire? Or, at least look like one. Las Vegas is probably the ultimate manifestation of the market trying to satisfy this almost universal desire, allowing the common man the chance to experience the “good life”. Cell phones, large houses, expensive cars and perhaps even an air of indifference to those around us – we communicate to others with these symbols of seeming success. The problem is that these benchmarks aren’t necessarily rooted in reality even though we convince ourselves of many “needs.” I’ve lived in large houses and found that I usually end up in the same three rooms, day after day, while the others collected dust until its occasional use.
But, where does this universal desire come from? My guess is that it grows from another universal, but rarely acknowledged human condition – insecurity of self. Speaking from my own experience I think it stems from the desire to attract others to you – be it parents, siblings, friends or lovers. They are symbols of success and happiness we use to communicate indirectly simply because we don’t know any better. We don’t know where to find happiness and we don’t know what to communicate. But, like the blind leading the blind we continue looking for happiness in the same place our parents did, the same places our friends look and where society tells us we’ll find it.
Is this necessarily a bad dynamic? Well, in my opinion it has two major consequences. One, by seeking fulfillment in others, happiness will continue to elude us. And, if dealing with depressed people were the only consequence, I wouldn’t necessarily bother you. But, it is the second consequence that disturbs me: that we’re destroying our planet in this seemingly ever expanding cycle of consumption that gets us nowhere but more frustrated because what we bought hasn’t made us any happier! Sustainability dictates that we have to “get over” this indirect communication with the stuff in our lives.
You won’t find existential happiness in the stuff you buy or in the relationships these symbols attract. But I think it primarily comes from you liking yourself. And, the intimate relationships we seek can only result after we’ve made peace with ourselves. But, when you finally do, you have something to offer that is both unique and that you believe in. No, not everyone is going to like what you have to offer, but that’s okay. The only people we truly want in our lives are those who appreciate us for who we are and we definitely don’t need to be a millionaire to do it either. :-)
But, where does this universal desire come from? My guess is that it grows from another universal, but rarely acknowledged human condition – insecurity of self. Speaking from my own experience I think it stems from the desire to attract others to you – be it parents, siblings, friends or lovers. They are symbols of success and happiness we use to communicate indirectly simply because we don’t know any better. We don’t know where to find happiness and we don’t know what to communicate. But, like the blind leading the blind we continue looking for happiness in the same place our parents did, the same places our friends look and where society tells us we’ll find it.
Is this necessarily a bad dynamic? Well, in my opinion it has two major consequences. One, by seeking fulfillment in others, happiness will continue to elude us. And, if dealing with depressed people were the only consequence, I wouldn’t necessarily bother you. But, it is the second consequence that disturbs me: that we’re destroying our planet in this seemingly ever expanding cycle of consumption that gets us nowhere but more frustrated because what we bought hasn’t made us any happier! Sustainability dictates that we have to “get over” this indirect communication with the stuff in our lives.
You won’t find existential happiness in the stuff you buy or in the relationships these symbols attract. But I think it primarily comes from you liking yourself. And, the intimate relationships we seek can only result after we’ve made peace with ourselves. But, when you finally do, you have something to offer that is both unique and that you believe in. No, not everyone is going to like what you have to offer, but that’s okay. The only people we truly want in our lives are those who appreciate us for who we are and we definitely don’t need to be a millionaire to do it either. :-)
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Sustainability Puzzle: A Trickle-Up Economy?
I’m no expert at economics, but I don’t believe it takes an expert to ask questions and make some basic observations. I’ll first state the obvious: our present system economics has brought us to where we are now -- a world transformed as a result of technological development. The big question is whether this particular style of economics is the best way forward.
I ask this question because no system is perfect and despite the many positive advances we’ve made, it has come with both serious social and environmental costs. Perhaps the most telling consequence is our resistance to change our harmful behavior for fear of its negative impact on “the economy”. I’m specifically referring to global warming and the economic machine that generates carbon emissions. But, in general the end result of our system is that two-thirds of the world’s resources are utilized to sustain only one-sixth of the planet’s population. This consumer based economy screams waste and inefficiency relying on wealth “trickling down” to solve the problem of poverty.
So what would the characteristics of a sustainable system be? I think it would have to meet at least two criteria. One, it would be capable of meeting the needs of the entire population and two it would not harm our environment in the process. I believe these goals are both reasonable and achievable. A key theme to the solution is the notion of investing in oneself and the role of government policy is to provide the tools that support this theme such as education, sustainable infrastructure and LEED platinum designs to name a few examples. Here are some thoughts on achieving these goals.
Trickle-up: If the system is truly going to provide for everyone, it has to be built around everyone’s productivity and cannot be over-productive. Concepts such as the 40 hour work week need to be rethought and replaced with a more realistic approach of “many hands make light work”. Also, it may seem backward to suggest it, but we need to shift from an industrial based economy to one which is sustainable based on renewable resources in which the vast majority can actively participate and thus “trickle-up”. This would suggest a rural, knowledge based economy that is actively participates in local; agriculture (I’m thinking of a quasi- Kibbutz system).
Sustainable Transportation: Fundamental to our modern world is our ability to transport goods and services. Unfortunately, our methods and volume of transportation are the source of many of our problems. A sustainable system will be rooted in smart public transportation. Luckily, the power of the internet can eliminate a lot of unnecessary transportation.
Time-Based Currency: While using time as a currency is not practicable in all situations, it provides a more direct and equitable exchange for services while at the same time promoting a sense of community. Perhaps hours will be the currency of the sustainable economy and will allow a means for a hybrid system as we “switch gears”.
Small-Scale Government: Ideally small, local governments are more effective at responding to its citizenry and creating a sense of involvement and community. However, in the age of the internet and a well designed people moving system, networks of small communities can form the basis of large-scale economies that will sustain us all – just more efficiently and effectively.
Economics is not something “other” that we should fear, but rather it is a description of how we manage our resources amongst ourselves. While these thoughts are admittedly vague, incomplete and probably making economists and businessmen cringe, this entry is more about developing and sharing ideas because, not only can we do better, we have to do better.
I ask this question because no system is perfect and despite the many positive advances we’ve made, it has come with both serious social and environmental costs. Perhaps the most telling consequence is our resistance to change our harmful behavior for fear of its negative impact on “the economy”. I’m specifically referring to global warming and the economic machine that generates carbon emissions. But, in general the end result of our system is that two-thirds of the world’s resources are utilized to sustain only one-sixth of the planet’s population. This consumer based economy screams waste and inefficiency relying on wealth “trickling down” to solve the problem of poverty.
So what would the characteristics of a sustainable system be? I think it would have to meet at least two criteria. One, it would be capable of meeting the needs of the entire population and two it would not harm our environment in the process. I believe these goals are both reasonable and achievable. A key theme to the solution is the notion of investing in oneself and the role of government policy is to provide the tools that support this theme such as education, sustainable infrastructure and LEED platinum designs to name a few examples. Here are some thoughts on achieving these goals.
Trickle-up: If the system is truly going to provide for everyone, it has to be built around everyone’s productivity and cannot be over-productive. Concepts such as the 40 hour work week need to be rethought and replaced with a more realistic approach of “many hands make light work”. Also, it may seem backward to suggest it, but we need to shift from an industrial based economy to one which is sustainable based on renewable resources in which the vast majority can actively participate and thus “trickle-up”. This would suggest a rural, knowledge based economy that is actively participates in local; agriculture (I’m thinking of a quasi- Kibbutz system).
Sustainable Transportation: Fundamental to our modern world is our ability to transport goods and services. Unfortunately, our methods and volume of transportation are the source of many of our problems. A sustainable system will be rooted in smart public transportation. Luckily, the power of the internet can eliminate a lot of unnecessary transportation.
Time-Based Currency: While using time as a currency is not practicable in all situations, it provides a more direct and equitable exchange for services while at the same time promoting a sense of community. Perhaps hours will be the currency of the sustainable economy and will allow a means for a hybrid system as we “switch gears”.
Small-Scale Government: Ideally small, local governments are more effective at responding to its citizenry and creating a sense of involvement and community. However, in the age of the internet and a well designed people moving system, networks of small communities can form the basis of large-scale economies that will sustain us all – just more efficiently and effectively.
Economics is not something “other” that we should fear, but rather it is a description of how we manage our resources amongst ourselves. While these thoughts are admittedly vague, incomplete and probably making economists and businessmen cringe, this entry is more about developing and sharing ideas because, not only can we do better, we have to do better.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Price of Paradise
A couple of years ago I moved to the small town of Avalon on Catalina Island. I discovered that like any place there are advantages and disadvantages to living there. I must admit, Avalon is very appealing in many ways. It’s a small town of about 5,000 people living in a one square mile area. It’s picture perfect with a beautiful harbor to view every day. People greet each other. There is no commute time except for the 5 to 10 minute walk to work. There is hardly any crime and it seemed to me a haven from the “real world”. This “paradise” did not come without a cost and that was the extremely high cost of living with very few jobs that could sustain those costs. But in my conversations with people, they would reply that this was “the price of paradise”. I disagreed and moved back to the mainland to continue my search for paradise. But my experience raised an interesting question: if the world is to become the utopia we all hope for, what will be the costs and will people be willing to “pay” for our paradise?
What if the price of paradise is a world with no private cars. As a major source of pollution, an intense user of resources and a source of economic division (see “Rethinking the Sources of Poverty”) its very likely the world will need to depend on mass public transportation to achieve a sustainable and equitable world without poverty. Will people be willing to give up this symbol of freedom and individuality? I would definitely give up the costs, the frustration of traffic and pollution and crime cars create for a paradise that has affordable, accessible and safe mass transit.
What if we each have to “pitch in” a little more to achieve our paradise? Speaking for myself, I get bored doing the same types of activities and enjoy being both a thinker and a laborer. I look forward to picking grapes of helping on a farm. Now if that were my only job it might get old, but such chores were a community effort as it is in a Kibbutz, I would rather do that than pay taxes or exorbitant food prices to avoid that chore. I’m not sure where people develop these notions of what jobs are important and which are not, but every job fulfills an important place in modern communities. It seems to me that such distinctions are a result of ego and to achieve paradise we each will have to recognize the essential needs of each role, job and task and “pitch in” to achieve equality and sustainability.
What if we each have to tolerate the ridiculous beliefs of others? It seems that our paradise will be defined by peace. But peace does not happen just by itself, it happens through our choices. Peace could be achieved by a benevolent dictator, but I don’t think any of us want to be told how to live. Peace could also be achieved by creating a homogenous population – one religious belief or one race, but I think diversity is a resource and offers strength. And, once again, I get bored being around people just like me, don’t you? Perhaps in paradise we will just have to choose to be tolerant of each other which means we will also have to exercise restraint in the public sphere. I think the great freedom we seek will require great responsibility from each of us (see “Lost in Freedom”).
What if we each have to eat more fruits and vegetables to make our paradise a reality? It may sound silly to contemplate, but our food habits are causing many of our health and ecological problems. For example, beef production is a major source of methane gas and our overfishing is depleting stocks in the oceans. Our agricultural system is overly complex relying on fossil fuels for transport and toxic chemicals to increase yields. And, in general, we overeat because we are depressed and lonely and the excess weight fuels high healthcare costs. Paradise will have none of these problems, but that is because the solution is to buy more locally available organic produce and in general rely less on resource intense meat and fish. In fact, in paradise we might each have to grow a small vegetable garden so as to take on some of the responsibility ourselves.
What if we each have to better educate ourselves and think before we act? We all want to be needed, to be heard by others and contribute to the solutions – the ideal of a direct democracy. But, the founders of America knew that a democracy required a well educated public to make informed choices. It seems to me that in paradise we will each need to be educated. We will each know when to speak up and contribute and when to be quiet and listen. None of us are equal in our gifts, but we each have something special to offer. In our paradise we will all be empowered to achieve our potential (see “Educationally Challenged”).
A key notion of paradise is that it is something different from how we live now. And, in order to achieve this paradise there needs to be change. The distance from where we are now to achieving that paradise is the time it takes us to make those choices. I'm not saying that what I've outlined is the price of paradise, but if it were would you pay it?
What if the price of paradise is a world with no private cars. As a major source of pollution, an intense user of resources and a source of economic division (see “Rethinking the Sources of Poverty”) its very likely the world will need to depend on mass public transportation to achieve a sustainable and equitable world without poverty. Will people be willing to give up this symbol of freedom and individuality? I would definitely give up the costs, the frustration of traffic and pollution and crime cars create for a paradise that has affordable, accessible and safe mass transit.
What if we each have to “pitch in” a little more to achieve our paradise? Speaking for myself, I get bored doing the same types of activities and enjoy being both a thinker and a laborer. I look forward to picking grapes of helping on a farm. Now if that were my only job it might get old, but such chores were a community effort as it is in a Kibbutz, I would rather do that than pay taxes or exorbitant food prices to avoid that chore. I’m not sure where people develop these notions of what jobs are important and which are not, but every job fulfills an important place in modern communities. It seems to me that such distinctions are a result of ego and to achieve paradise we each will have to recognize the essential needs of each role, job and task and “pitch in” to achieve equality and sustainability.
What if we each have to tolerate the ridiculous beliefs of others? It seems that our paradise will be defined by peace. But peace does not happen just by itself, it happens through our choices. Peace could be achieved by a benevolent dictator, but I don’t think any of us want to be told how to live. Peace could also be achieved by creating a homogenous population – one religious belief or one race, but I think diversity is a resource and offers strength. And, once again, I get bored being around people just like me, don’t you? Perhaps in paradise we will just have to choose to be tolerant of each other which means we will also have to exercise restraint in the public sphere. I think the great freedom we seek will require great responsibility from each of us (see “Lost in Freedom”).
What if we each have to eat more fruits and vegetables to make our paradise a reality? It may sound silly to contemplate, but our food habits are causing many of our health and ecological problems. For example, beef production is a major source of methane gas and our overfishing is depleting stocks in the oceans. Our agricultural system is overly complex relying on fossil fuels for transport and toxic chemicals to increase yields. And, in general, we overeat because we are depressed and lonely and the excess weight fuels high healthcare costs. Paradise will have none of these problems, but that is because the solution is to buy more locally available organic produce and in general rely less on resource intense meat and fish. In fact, in paradise we might each have to grow a small vegetable garden so as to take on some of the responsibility ourselves.
What if we each have to better educate ourselves and think before we act? We all want to be needed, to be heard by others and contribute to the solutions – the ideal of a direct democracy. But, the founders of America knew that a democracy required a well educated public to make informed choices. It seems to me that in paradise we will each need to be educated. We will each know when to speak up and contribute and when to be quiet and listen. None of us are equal in our gifts, but we each have something special to offer. In our paradise we will all be empowered to achieve our potential (see “Educationally Challenged”).
A key notion of paradise is that it is something different from how we live now. And, in order to achieve this paradise there needs to be change. The distance from where we are now to achieving that paradise is the time it takes us to make those choices. I'm not saying that what I've outlined is the price of paradise, but if it were would you pay it?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Something I've Learned...
If you want to hear, be quiet.
If you want to see, be still.
If you want to understand, you begin so by being
both quiet and still.
If you want to see, be still.
If you want to understand, you begin so by being
both quiet and still.
Monday, May 7, 2007
RU?
A question I constantly ask myself is whether my actions are part of the solution or part of the problem. It’s a simple question that I’ve only recently started asking myself. I do tend towards being “hokie,” but speaking for myself, I want to leave this world knowing that my presence “helped”. I believe most of us don’t want to add to the problems of the world and so I thought I would share this “lens on life” that helps me make choices and decisions in my daily life.
Some may fairly argue that I am being judgmental and I don’t disagree. But, first and foremost I apply this “matrix” to myself. Yes, I also apply this to others as well. Maybe it’s a result of my autistic mind to systematize everything, but it seems to me that anyone and everyone makes judgments about others – it is a sorting process that is integral to our survival instincts. I guess rather than deny this politically incorrect judgment of others that we each carry on in our heads, I am challenging the foundations of what those judgments are based on. Are they for the right reasons or the wrong ones? I’ve made a conscious decision that “contributing to the solutions of the world” falls into the category of the “right reasons”, but that is a judgment you need to make for yourself. ;-)
This raises the next point: What are the problems and what are the solutions? At first glance the answers to these provocative questions would seem highly subjective. I think as long as you only focus on the personal details of our daily lives, my reply is yes… you get highly subjective answers. However, if we constantly relate these questions to the “big picture” issues such as pollution, crime, world peace, happiness and health – issues that affect us all – we will find common truths and common solutions.
Now this “matrix” does not only apply to external actions, but more importantly to internal thoughts. Are my personal thoughts and choices helping me or hurting me? Are they part of the solution to the problems and issues I face with myself, or are they contributing to the problems that have haunted me throughout my life. While I am still challenged in many ways by myself, I’ve found that asking myself whether a particular choice or point of view is helping or hurting me has contributed to me becoming my own best friend. While I don’t know if this particular “lens” can be a panacea for everyone, it does make sense: you’re stuck with yourself for an eternity – might as well make peace with yourself and learn to like who you are.
Speaking from personal experience I think the tendency of most of us is to assume that “I am not the problem.” But, like most assumptions, the truth of the matter only reveals itself when that assumption is tested or challenged. Someone far greater than me once said “A un-contemplated life is one not worth living.” So I challenge you to think of your actions, behaviors and thoughts in terms of this single question: Am I part of the solution or part of the problem?
Some may fairly argue that I am being judgmental and I don’t disagree. But, first and foremost I apply this “matrix” to myself. Yes, I also apply this to others as well. Maybe it’s a result of my autistic mind to systematize everything, but it seems to me that anyone and everyone makes judgments about others – it is a sorting process that is integral to our survival instincts. I guess rather than deny this politically incorrect judgment of others that we each carry on in our heads, I am challenging the foundations of what those judgments are based on. Are they for the right reasons or the wrong ones? I’ve made a conscious decision that “contributing to the solutions of the world” falls into the category of the “right reasons”, but that is a judgment you need to make for yourself. ;-)
This raises the next point: What are the problems and what are the solutions? At first glance the answers to these provocative questions would seem highly subjective. I think as long as you only focus on the personal details of our daily lives, my reply is yes… you get highly subjective answers. However, if we constantly relate these questions to the “big picture” issues such as pollution, crime, world peace, happiness and health – issues that affect us all – we will find common truths and common solutions.
Now this “matrix” does not only apply to external actions, but more importantly to internal thoughts. Are my personal thoughts and choices helping me or hurting me? Are they part of the solution to the problems and issues I face with myself, or are they contributing to the problems that have haunted me throughout my life. While I am still challenged in many ways by myself, I’ve found that asking myself whether a particular choice or point of view is helping or hurting me has contributed to me becoming my own best friend. While I don’t know if this particular “lens” can be a panacea for everyone, it does make sense: you’re stuck with yourself for an eternity – might as well make peace with yourself and learn to like who you are.
Speaking from personal experience I think the tendency of most of us is to assume that “I am not the problem.” But, like most assumptions, the truth of the matter only reveals itself when that assumption is tested or challenged. Someone far greater than me once said “A un-contemplated life is one not worth living.” So I challenge you to think of your actions, behaviors and thoughts in terms of this single question: Am I part of the solution or part of the problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
