Discuss: Climate Revelations

Albert Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems at the same level of thinking at which we created them.”  I’ve used that quote in my activism for years, but came to the conclusion that is was not quite on the mark.  It should say “We cannot solve our problems at the same level of “consciousness” at which we created them.”  Our thinking comes out of our consciousness, our awareness, our values.  I’ve worked on many issues over the years.  I was once asked if I could choose just one what would it be.  I answered it would be consciousness, that would solve the others.  Activist/poet John Trudell says, “We should think clearly and coherently and take responsibility for our lives.”  Sounds like consciousness to me.

In the book Natures End, there is a great line near the end.  “You have to understand the striving of the earth itself-it wants consciousness.”

A little silly from where I sit, just another example of the old saying, “Most people don’t look up until they’re flat on their back.”  Or at least think they are.

No, God is not just another resource to be so easily manipulated.  In the words of Wendell Berry:

“I think the conservation movement unwittingly helped to drive a wedge between us and our land by implying that we could live most of our lives in circumstances that don’t quite suit us—doing work that doesn’t suit us, work that makes us say, Thank God it’s Friday—and then somehow, on vacation, go to a national park and reconnect with the natural world.  But of course, that’s not a connection.” —Wendell Berry (Interview, “On the Natural Order of Things, World Ark magzine, Jan./Feb. 2008 p. 19)

Nor is the human spirit so easily “renewed” as by a trendy weekend on the slopes.

The article is not much more than a “feel-good” excuse to continue to pursue the bottom line.

Do we really need someone to tell us more flapdoodle? The “left” and the “environmental movement” is dotted with folks who strive to beatify themselves while all around them burns. This does not mean that these teachers and activists are “responsible” for misery, but they must look at the minute dimensions of their own lives, be humble against the terrible power of the supersystem, and keep, above all else, ignoring cranks like me who adjudge them culpable for not having the cognitive strength to stare at the looming beast. Now, back to the spiritual drum circle, folks - sustainable away!

“Utopia,” from the Latin, means “not a place.” More coined its English usage. The title suggests that “such a place” can exist only in the imagination, and not, as Schendler interprets, “here on Earth.” Schendler also fails to note that the “New Island of Utopia” isn’t exactly utopian. Every household in the shimmering republic owns two slaves.

Did More think that a more humane society would always remain twinkling on the horizon of what “might be?” I don’t think so. What “Utopia” should remind us of,  though, is that utopias are always “imagined.” They are not real promised lands waiting for discovery on the other side of an ocean. We should then consider who is imagining these utopias, and for whom. Is the envisioned “sustainable world” a utopia for corporate executives or subsistence farmers, for Stihl or for forests? Is it a utopia for Utopians or for the Utopians’ slaves? Whose “spirit” is being “renewed” by Aspen Skiing Company? While an appeal to a common “human experience” can be uplifting, it can also gloss over the systemic power relations that lie at the cool heart of capitalist exploitation. It is a powerful ideological tool and we must be wary of who is wielding it and for what purpose. We must always keep in mind that “sustainability” is not an objective set of scientific laws, but rather a socially constructed and contested concept.

Pursuing argumentation towards these subjects, and living through these arguments is what we have as humans. Let us continue to argue and think on these issues.
Then let us act in ways we feel demonstrate what we have learned.

Thank you all for the discussion.

The major problem is that there is a pervasive mindset of MORE - more growth, more money, more things, more security. Somehow by having more stuff, that will give us greater security but we’re just consuming ourselves and our environment until there will be grave shortages on a global scale. The attitude that everyone can have a (bigger) house and more stuff needs to change.

Unfortunately, then economies collapse and everyone panics, becomes scared and fearful for their survival. Tough problem to say the least.

Well done.  Just a couple of comments.  All the great “religions” of the world would rather have us seek the “God up/out there” because it sustains their existence.  The really true spirituals (a la Joseph Campbell), who have been around for centuries but not necessarily tied to a particular religion, have always told us that the divine resides within us (and all around).  The challenge is to help people experience the divine.  Only then, will we be ready to take the radical/revolutionary steps needed to save ourselves, our animal friends, and this planet.

From libertarian spiritual-but-not-religious Oregon: THANK YOU for articulating the basic tenets of the sort of “nature spirituality” that permeates this region.

Now a word of caution: if past is precedent, these dying forms of theistic religion won’t go gentle into that good night - they’ll do as much human and environmental damage as they can in order to sustain themselves. The story of the earth as good, as home, as parent, as sacred, has always been in conflict with the dualistic story of good faraway heaven/spirit vs. evil here-&-now earth/flesh. In short, expect violence in this transition.

But don’t let the violence dissuade or discourage you from the vision of a healed, whole earth. Go deeper into whatever religious tradition, philosophy, or theoretical orientation that best represents this vision for you. Plumb its resources. And let the struggle itself be “tikkun” (Heb. mending of the universe) for you, for your friends, for your enemies, and for all things.