Re: [BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop. growth (was NOV meeting topic)

On Nov 8, 2007 8:42 PM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 8, 2007 12:24 PM, Steven Black < blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Actually, an equilibrium need never be reached. The typical model for
> uncontrolled breeding involves a massive die-off, followed by a return
> to uncontrolled breeding. It is a cycle with no natural equilibrium,
> particularly when age and disease are the primary killers.

I suppose equilibrium wasn't the word I was looking for. I don't mean
so much a stable, balanced state so much as a dynamic, constant
balancing.

Perhaps you meant homeostasis instead of equilibrium?

I invite the folks in this thread to take a look at the latest issue of wie http://www.wie.org/j38/?ifr=hp-art, also available at bloomingfoods and other fine stores in the area. There is an article in there about a new face of environmentalism and sustainability that is worth a read.

Of particular note in the article is integral-laden notion that people don't respond very well moralistic scolding, so it's not a very good way to activate change, even if that change is relatively or absolutely "Better" for those involved.

For example, if you tell someone that overpopulation is doing the planet in and the solution is to remove human beings from the equation, even if that thought is "right" on any level, it wont make it very far into most peoples' heads. It'll get just past the ear before it runs into the self-preservation defense system. Unless that system has been entangled in rational thought long enough to be disabled, the notion falls right back out of the ear as soon as it gets in and notional antibodies will spring up in its place to prevent further such "attacks".

The vhem  movement suffers from this because unless you're already onboard with its ideas, no amount of rational explanation is going to change the physical, evolutionary, and spiritual feeling that it's main focus is anti-being-alive rather than pro-planet.

For instance, my defenses ring with this kind of response: "well any source that is spouting that kind of nonesense obviously doesn't have children, obviously doesn't understand the compassionate role of the human being to do good in the world, obviously has no faith in the creativity and adaptability of mankind, obviously doesn't have faith in any higher power or self, and oddly seems to think that wiping out a tiny, insignificant planet really is a big deal in the huge scheme of the universe. I mean aren't we just a few specs on a big rock? Who cares if the rock warms up a few degrees? Enjoy it while you can and let your kids decide if they want to, too. At least give them the choice." Obviously those are just defensive reactions and any rational being can (d|r)eflect them with formal argument about why they are baseless, delusional, or just plain wrong. That's what rational beings do. But reason alone can't undo decades of habit and generations of culture. To do that requires something more fundamental. It requires something that can surround me, seep into my daily life and be assimilated by my underconscious mind to carry me in the right direction despite my reactionary head.

The article talks about an alternative "brighter green" that is definitely not being sold as something non-hippy, non-activist, and non-green, but instead is centered around the notion of actually using technology and human creativity to dive right into changing the planet in a positive, sustainable way rather than trying to butt heads with how wrong everything everyone else is doing or trying to avoid doing certain things. Positive reinforcement works much better than negative reinforcement, aparently, and making positive changes apparently does more good than using up those resources to disable negative changes.

The article suggests doing this more fundamental kind of changing through the channels that are deemed important to the industrialized countries: style, culture, and media. In short, if green is cool, and people want to be cool, people will act green and the planet will benefit (at least in the short term). If green is fashionable and people respond to fashion (as apparently many do), then people will be brightened towards green. I think that we'll be seeing a whole lot of this now that the media has latched onto the "green" meme. The very idea that it's doing so to support its own agenda and profit is what is going to carry it forward. It's basically an environmental trojan in the capitalOS. Inevitably, it will be abused and the green meme will be trashed, just like Wal*mart will trash the Organic meme, but in its place I have no doubt in the fountainhead of creativity that human beings corral is already coming up with something far better, and that its temporary reign will have left a beneficial mark on the planet's history.

anyhoo, it's an interesting read :)

:g