openspace4life: (Default)

At the 2010 State of the World Forum, Paul H. Ray described the state of the world as “getting better and better, and worse and worse, faster and faster.”  As I’ve mentioned before, the annual Bioneers conference in San Rafael, California is mainly focused on the “better and better” aspect, showcasing projects that appear to be in the process of solving some of the world’s biggest problems.  But at the Whidbey Island Bioneers satellite conference three weeks ago, the keynote speaker, Meg Wheatley, offered a contrarian viewpoint.  She believes that activists have no real chance of making headway against the entrenched power structure whose policies are making things worse on a global scale, and that we should focus instead on building “islands of sanity” within our current local spheres of influence.

I’ll return to that argument at the end of this post, but my main goal here is to repurpose Ms. Wheatley’s phrase in order to talk about ideological “islands of sanity,” each of whose inhabitants generally believe that only their island is sane and everyone on the other islands is crazy.  Most of them would also be surprised to learn just how vast the ocean is, and how many islands exist beyond the foggy borders of the Mainstream Archipelago (reachable only by navigators with a good political compass).  Most of those radical islands, of course, are very thinly populated, and many radicals find it difficult to even imagine banding together with other nearby islands to form a significant political force.

As an activist, I meet a lot of radicals, and one rhetorical strategy that some of them use to defend their “islands” is the claim that people in the mainstream are the “real radicals.”  For example, Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, gave what I can only refer to as a vociferously moderate speech as part of the Bioneers plenary session (live-streamed to Whidbey and other satellite locations from San Rafael).  He described the DPA as a big tent, embracing “people who love drugs and people who hate drugs,” and explained its mission to “reduce the harms of both drug use and drug prohibition” – that is to say, both preventing severe addiction, overdoses, and the spread of disease via needle sharing, and winding down the trillion-dollar War on Drugs that puts hundreds of thousands in jail and targets minorities far more aggressively than whites.  The DPA’s website doesn’t seem to have any specific policy recommendations other than legalizing marijuana*, but still manages to make the currently accepted zero-tolerance drug policy in the U.S. look like the extreme one.

Leading climate activist Bill McKibben of 350.org is much more explicit about it.  In his Rolling Stone article and the nationwide Do the Math tour based on it, for which I attended the kickoff event in Seattle this past Wednesday, McKibben depicts oil and coal companies as a “rogue industry” whose radical agenda essentially involves wrecking the planet for profit.  By contrast, he defines 350.org’s mission, to reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere back to 350 parts per million, as the fundamentally conservative goal of maintaining a planet somewhat resembling the one we were born on.  Climate scientist David Battisti of the University of Washington was in the audience at the kickoff event, and McKibben thanked him for his contributions, but in fact Dr. Battisti considers the 350 ppm goal to be hopelessly extreme.  Then again, that’s mainly due to political feasibility concerns; 350 may not be a goal we can achieve, but it’s a goal that almost anyone who believes in mainstream climate science would want.

Speaking of super-ambitious goals that sound attractive to lots of people (intended to make bigger islands and pull in more of the scattered radical population, along with some moderate progressives), one of the things I learned about at Bioneers was a four-hour Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream Symposium that I ended up attending last weekend. The new dream described in the Symposium is defined broadly as “an environmentally sustainable, socially just, and spiritually fulfilling human presence on this planet.” However, in the four-hour version at least, the contrast with the current “dream of the modern world” isn’t made very clear; for example, one animated video clip defined that dream as mindless consumerism and blind worship of futuristic technology, but the presenters and some later live-action clips endorsed technological solutions such as wind and solar power, and one clip even celebrated Walmart’s green initiatives!  Are they claiming that consumerism is still okay as long as you do it right?  And how can social justice advocates support Walmart when its business model depends on keeping workers in poverty?

Still, I can fairly easily imagine the argument for why the Mainstream Conservative and Libertarian islands, at least, are extreme compared to the Awakening the Dreamer vision: “People on those islands think that ‘sustainability’ is code for burdensome EPA regulations that should be abolished, because they assume the cost to business is greater than the impacts of pollution, species extinctions, and climate change; they think that ‘social justice’ really means taking taxpayers’ hard-earned money and handing it out to lazy poor people; and they see no contradiction in seeking ‘spiritual fulfillment’ while living a self-centered consumerist lifestyle.”  But that sentence is a caricature, drawn by someone with a deliberately underpowered radio that can just barely pick up the fuzzy transmissions of the conservative half of the archipelago from a great distance.  The closer, more moderate regions of those islands make little to no sound, while from the far side comes the endless ultra-amplified noise of the right-wing propaganda machine.  So our left-leaning observer just assumes that the latter represents all conservatives, and writes them all off as crazy, which is what s/he wanted to believe in the first place.

I’m even worse than that observer in some respects.  I almost never even listen to right-wing media directly; I only see the carefully chosen excerpts quoted in The Daily Show and in outraged emails from progressive advocacy groups.  But at least I’m not so sure of myself as to choose a single radical island and claim it’s the only one where people are sane.  Let’s add a third dimension to my metaphor: People on the ground have no self-doubt whatsoever, which is easy given that even nearby islands are hard to see through the ocean haze.  Meanwhile, people like me hover in balloons above the cloud layer, able to see many islands but unable to make out enough detail to choose between them.  In fact, we believe that uncertainty is the only rational response to the immense complexity of the world we live in, although we acknowledge that we have to at least pretend to some degree of certainty about some things in order to live at all.  A state of complete uncertainty is equivalent to suffocating in the vacuum of space.

I’ll close with a quote I used at Bioneers the day after Meg Wheatley’s keynote, along with that initial quote from Paul Ray, to explain why I don’t think we should be so sure that global problems will only get worse:

“. . . so much was happening at any one time that any description of the situation had some truth in it, from ‘desperate crisis, extinction event totally ignored’ to ‘minor problems robustly dealt with.’  It was therefore necessary to forge on in ignorance of the whole situation.”

- Fifty Degrees Below by Kim Stanley Robinson

*In his Bioneers talk, Nadelmann expressed support for the marijuana legalization initiative that just passed in Washington State.  My dad, who has a law degree and works at a courthouse, is pretty sure the initiative will just result in federal drug enforcers arresting a bunch more people.  I’ll probably do a post about the election soon.

openspace4life: (Default)
I'm writing this from a new apartment, but in the same apartment complex where I was before. The landlords required that I move out of my old unit so maintenance could rip out the living-room ceiling, which is filled with asbestos and has been covered with mold for most of the last six weeks. I'm now wondering whether I should have decided to end my lease, pay the early termination fee, and move somewhere else entirely. Maybe there wasn't enough time. Maybe the costs would have outweighed the risks of continuing to live in these poorly-built structures. Then again, maybe not.

It all started about two months ago, when I noticed a small damp spot in my bedroom ceiling.The gory details... )

From that point (March 6th), it took the landlords three and a half weeks to make a final decision to move me out. But when they finally did so, they wanted to move with some haste--an emergency transfer, they called it.More gory details )

My new unit is much larger than the old one and has its own washer-dryer unit, but it's on the first floor instead of the third, which means I get footsteps overhead but am not immune from roof leaks, as I learned shortly before I moved.Even more gory details ) I'm left wondering if this or a similar disaster will happen to me in the nine months before my lease term is up.  (UPDATE: It did. One fine evening, the bathtub in the unit above me started leaking onto the floor of my bathroom, and I had to hold back the water with a dam made of towels while waiting for the guy with the water extraction machine to show up.  He told me that he has to use it about twice a week in this apartment complex.)  (UPDATE 2: I have now moved to a new complex with no asbestos in the ceilings and no record of recent water leak incidents. It's substantially more expensive and the road outside my window is noisy, but I don't care.)

So what's the metaphor here? Well, the opposite of a global-warming skeptic is someone so obsessed with the climate crisis that he/she focuses on fixes that are too specific to just that crisis (e.g. the Richard Branson prize for figuring out how to pull a billion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere per year). Such a person ignores the fact that an unsustainable civilization such as ours will inevitably continue to produce such existential crises. We need to "move out" of this way of life and into one based wholly on technologies and behaviors that don't undermine our own resource base, destroy ecosystem services, etc. The landlady may give us a few more decades to make that move, but we had better not get too sidetracked by short-term fixes that might let us cling to business as usual for a little while longer. As shown on the diagram on the sixth slide of Paul Ray's presentation for the State of the World Forum, relying on such fixes to save us will probably just lead to a slow death for civilization.
openspace4life: (Default)
This shouldn't need saying, but the application is both simple and profound: if you can use one or more of the pressing issues listed below to connect with someone who doesn't believe in global warming, their denial will cease to matter.  Every one of these problems is a threat to our way of life, and many of them are already responsible for thousands of premature deaths every year.  And every one of them would be solved by transitioning to a sustainable civilization powered by renewable energy.
  • Peak oil and the resulting inexorable rise in gas prices
  • Indirect funding of terrorist groups via oil payments to nations that harbor them
  • Air and water pollution from fossil fuel burning and other unsustainable industrial processes
  • Degradation of soil due to unsustainable farming practices, particularly loss of topsoil
  • Oceanic dead zones due to fertilizer runoff
  • Ocean acidification due to carbon dioxide absorption
  • Overtaxed and increasingly failure-prone garbage and sewage handling systems
  • Species extinctions and resulting loss of ecosystem services, due to most of the issues above plus habitat destruction and overhunting/fishing
I originally wrote up this list after finding out that we had one or two global-warming skeptics at the climate-crisis-focused mini-State of the World Forum in Washington D.C. last week.  As described here, the original full-scale event was "indefinitely postponed" because the organizers believed the general political climate in D.C. was swinging too rapidly back toward denial and inaction.  So the roughly forty people who showed up anyway talked mostly about leadership in other countries such as Brazil and China, subnational-level approaches, and nonpolitical topics like the rise of a subculture, the Cultural Creatives, that shares the values needed to build a wiser world.  I'll probably talk about other aspects of the forum in my next few posts.

March 2015

S M T W T F S
1234567
89101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 11:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios