Who will change the world?
This image is called "Do You Believe in Change?" It's by Carf.
Guest post from Paul Raskin and Orion Kriegman of the Great Transition Initiative.
In our 2006 guest blog, What Future Will We Choose?, we introduced the concept of a Great Transition, a paradigm shift to a sustainable, equitable and humane global civilization.
We now address the question: who will change the world in order that the Great Transition may come into being?
To briefly recap the key points previously covered: society and nature have always co–evolved in a dynamic process of change. A defining feature of today’s world is that the human transformation of the environment has reached the scale of the planet. Not only that, the rate of change is accelerating. People all over the globe are becoming aware of the impacts they are having on each other and the Earth. This awareness can provoke apprehension about the future and feelings of powerlessness. But it also creates the potential for new forms of global consciousness that can influence our collective destiny.
The Global Scenario Group’s analysis, culminating in the essay (pdf) Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead, shows that a Great Transition to a just and sustainable global society is possible.
The challenge of making that possibility an actuality is immense. It can only occur if concerned citizens the world over become actively engaged in the project of transition.
Transnational corporations, governments, and non–governmental organizations are powerful global actors. But in different ways, they suffer from myopic outlooks, particularism, and fragmented world views. They may one day become agents of a Great Transition but only if they are transformed by an involved citizenry acting with new visions, values, and unity.
Will today’s citizens rise to meet this challenge?
While daily life for most people is dominated by proximate, short–term concerns, there is a growing pool of citizens who are eager to make a positive contribution towards a better world. Indeed, many become involved with specific issues. But without a holistic framework for understanding the interrelationships among global issues and how our behaviors and values shape the future, the potential for effective action is limited. The concerned public is increasingly aware of a multitude of emerging dangers, yet in the absence of compelling alternatives, this apprehension leads to apathy and resignation. Without a shared image of the future we want, it is not possible to collaborate in creating it.
Overcoming the apprehension and confusion among today’s concerned public is crucial for increasing numbers of citizens to become involved in shaping the global future.
Civil society, which includes civic action by individuals, associations, foundations, and a variety of nonprofit organizations, is a source of hope. It has generated an explosion of activities addressing the panoply of global problems. Its many voices are increasingly heard in the struggles for peace, justice, development, and environment. The strength of civil society has been its diversity and energy. Yet, its possibilities remain circumscribed by organizational and philosophical fragmentation.
Over 25,000 international non–governmental organizations and countless individuals are active in social change. Many engage in collaborations and networks with one another, with intergovernmental organizations, and with the most dynamic representatives of the business sector.
Global campaigns address international policy issues or mobilize for direct action. Global forums bring segments of civil society together to share ideas, discuss experiences, and build community; notably, the World Social Forum has grown into a lively annual event. Information efforts provide news, perspectives, and resources. Research networks bring together scholars and analysts to influence the policy agenda. Aid organizations help people cope with existing and emerging crises (natural disasters, poverty, genocide, etc.).
This is an impressive array of activity, the DNA of any comprehensive global movement for a Great Transition. However there is a nagging sense of incompleteness. Efforts remain too dispersed, diffused, and small scale. Progress painstakingly won here and there is overwhelmed by systemic deterioration. Success stories of community action do not scale up to a new pathway for global development.
A global movement must begin to understand these various perspectives and initiatives as different expressions of a common global project.
There are no blueprints. An effective global citizens movement would build alliances and find common cause with existing initiatives and local movements. But most importantly, the top–down structure of earlier oppositional movements will not suffice, nor will its converse, faith that political coherence will arise spontaneously. A living movement must navigate between the polar pitfalls of rigidity and disorder. It must be fashioned by citizens in a process of adaptation to one another and to changing circumstance as it learns, educates, and organizes.
In the absence of compelling alternatives, should today’s issues culminate in some form of global crisis, the desperation caused by catastrophe could very well lead to an embrace of authoritarian solutions. Prior to any emerging crisis, the development of a shared vision, one that celebrates the diversity of human culture in balance with the demands of social justice and ecological sustainability, would provide a plausible basis for action that could inspire the concerned public to move beyond reactive protests to the proactive implementation of solutions.
It is critical to begin building an embryonic global citizens movement that edges tenaciously toward its tipping point. For that task, alas, there’s nobody here but us chickens – but there are more and more of us chickens around the world.
Paul Raskin is founding director of Tellus Institute, founder of the Global Scenario Group, and the Great Transition Initiative. He has published numerous articles, three books, and served as a lead author for such efforts as the International Panel on Climate Change, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, United Nations Environment Program’s Global Environmental Outlook, and the U.S. National Academy of Science Board on Sustainable Development.
Orion Kriegman, the Organizer for the Great Transition Initiative, has a background in conflict transformation and democracy building efforts, and has focused his career on organizing international civil society networks for social change. Kriegman holds a Master in Public Policy and Urban Planning from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
For those readers interested in more details on the forces and factors influencing global change and the potential formation of a global citizens movement we recommend the following for further reading:
Dawn of the Cosmopolitan: The Hope of a Global Citizens Movement
(pdf, 25 pp.)
World Lines: Pathways, Pivots and the Global Future (pdf; 25 pp.)
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
I think that Lincoln said it best when he expressed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” There are signs that the means to our needs – the energy, air, land, water, food, shelter, and social fabric to sustain us — are at odds with what nature can provide, with physical reality.
Alex Steffan of Worldchanging talks of “the need to follow your geek.”
He explained it to me in an upcoming interview to be featured.
“Everybody, no matter what walk of life they’re in has something that really inspires them and that they know how to do well. And what we need today is millions and millions of people taking that thing that’s in their lives that they really know a lot about, whether it’s gardening or home repair, your business, your family — take the thing that you have in front of you that you know a lot about and make it better. Make it brighter. Make it greener … And then tell people about the choices that you’ve made and the kinds of things that you’re doing differently. Help spread the word that things can be categorically different, not just a little bit different.” – Alex Steffan, Worldchanging in an interview to Earth & Sky.
This is a very important statement! I agree.
Thank you for putting it together.
Allison
It’s true that, as Paul Raskin and Orion Kriegman say, “Efforts (toward a sustainable and just world) remain too dispersed, diffused, and small scale.”
However, these efforts have vastly increased in contrast to a decade ago. At least, it seems that way to me.
In particular, the internet seems to be an amazing tool for bringing large numbers of people – from various parts of the world – together. It’s interesting to me that this tool has emerged just when we need it.
I feel hopeful.
Deborah
Dear Friends,
It could be helpful to say something that is both encouraging and discouraging. My hopes soar whenever my attention is drawn to our children and their unvarnished views of, and activities in, the real world. On the other hand, a keen sense of foreboding is awakened within when I see what the leaders of my not-so-great generation are ruinously doing, failing to do and reporting widely as exercises of virtue.
Will the world be changed for the betterment of our children’s future by the members of my not-so-great generation? Few of us are willing to so much as acknowledge the appearance of looming global challenges before humanity in these early years of Century XXI.
Will the huge global challenges our children could face in the offing be addressed by my elders’ generation who are so very much implicated in the maintenance and promotion of these problems? Most in my generation are interested in keeping the status quo; in staying the current course; in unbridled per human consumption and seemingly endless economic expansion.
My generation pregnantly awaits the announcement of the world’s first trillionaire while ignoring billions of destitute people. There are more impoverished people on Earth today than existed in the world’s total human population on the day of my birth.
We are prepared to have the children fight wars and to mortgage the children’s future for the sake of assuring our way of life. We want our private jets, Valentine’s Day flowers from Africa, sea bass from Chile, thirty thousand dollar dinners in Thailand, hideouts in remote places, private clubs and secret societies, freedom from the requirements of practical reality, life without regard to limits, et cetera. Please note that our way of life is the one and only best way to live. It is not negotiable.
Despite the lack of cooperation by my generation, I remain completely confident that what the Earth & Sky community is doing by telling what is true, as we see it, could be vital to our children and coming generations. Perhaps something we are saying and trying to do will help them protect life as we know it and preserve the integrity of this good Earth that God has blessed us to inhabit.
Always,
Steve
Steve,
Your comment above is quite eloquent and full of the type of frustration and judgment I often feel toward “my fellow Americans”, for example. Yet, I think it is important to move beyond this initial space of anguish and accusation, especially if we want to motivate large numbers of people to get involved and take on the work.
I appreciate Deborah’s formulation of “no shame, no blame” especially as regards past generations. Humanity is a traumatized animal — we’ve survived centuries of genocides and natural disasters, children who’ve lost their parents and entire communities growing up to create society. In this time, our consciousness has evolved — the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a testament to the learning we are doing as a species. Now there is also the Earth Charter. The power of a global civilization would be to actually enforce these standards.
It is true that there are many ignorant, gluttonous, and greedy people (of all ages) who continue to avoid reflection on the impact of their lifestyles on impoverished billions, the biosphere and future generations. This attitude needs to be confronted.
But, far more importantly are the tens of millions of people (of all ages – but a lot of them above the age of 55) who eagerly want to help make this world a better place. WE — as I believe you and I are in this category — need to get organized. We need to recognize ourselves as part of a global community, and we need to communicate a vision of hope.
Hope and optimism, not polyannaish day dreams, but real plausible holistic visions that address the global system. People who feel apprehensive and fearful are not likely to take the risk of compassion, generosity and faith in human potential. Without a basis for hope, there is little possibility for proactive positive social change.
I hear in your voice a tone of urgency and desperation. I share the sense of urgency, but I encourage you to find your power and help others do the same. It is only when we feel powerful that we will be able to create a better world. Community organizers know that people are attracted to powerful groups. Groups that have a “can-do” optimistic attitude and a track record to justify it are the ones that generate a bandwagon of support. We need to focus on the tens of millions who are apprehensive, then we can turn our attention to those who are ignorant. Let’s get organized.
Hasn’t the process of going forward in life always been born of some pain and frustration? Which of us would ever move forward if not motivated by some discomfort?
I believe that humanity has followed the only path open to us. For millions of years, as a species, we struggled against nature to survive. In the past couple of hundred years, we learned to “conquer” nature very thoroughly … so thoroughly that our population numbers increased rapidly. We now have gone “overboard,” using too many of nature’s resources.
That all seems very normal to me. To have done otherwise would have seemed superhuman somehow.
But now – thanks to the fact that we live in an age of information – we can see very clearly that we are using too many resources, that things must change.
I believe in change! Change is integral to nature and to our being.
Orion, I’m curious about your statement that we must get organized. What would that look like? If I wanted to help humanity in the effort to get organized, what should I – as an individual – do?
Deborah
Dear Orion,
Please understand that I share your views and want to support whatsoever you and anyone else wants to do that carefully, skillfully and humanely helps our predominant culture move in another direction. At least to me, staying the course of endless production, unrestrained per human consumption and unbridled reproduction no longer makes sense because such unregulated behaviors, when taken together, could soon be found to be patently unsustainable.
“No shame, no blame” is surely correct; however, there comes a time, I suppose, when an individual has to speak clearly and loudly about what could be happening because the normal
communication channels, to the brothers and sisters of our generation, Orion, are clogged with disinformation. Good science gets marginalized and is ultimately ignored.
I am one who holds fast to hope; but it is not the false hope derived from wishful, magical and preternatural thinking, from cortical conceitedness, from political convenience and economic expediency. The hope to which I am referring is based upon the many wondrous, distinctly human attributes of our marvelous species, good science and God.
Always,
Steve
Deborah,
Those are two good and different questions. The first one, what would it look like? I attempted to answer this in my essay Dawn of the Cosmopolitan: the Hope of a Global Citizens Movement — its a long theoretical essay that attempts to provide an image of what a Global Citizens Movement might look like.
The second question, what should I as an individual do? Ironically, it is not as an “individual” but as an organized movement that we might have an impact. The emphasis on individual action and lifestyle change is insufficient. So, you might ask, who are the “we”? This is a good question to start with.
Until WE have a sense of identity as a group, as a community that exists not just in the USA but all over the world, then WE cannot act collectively. I suggest that WE are Global Citizens.
We are those people who are 1) aware of the major changes taking place in the world today, and 2) seek to work together to create a world rooted in social justice and ecological sustainability.
To do so, we must assert our citizenship in a country that has yet to be: Earth. Take this identity on and see if it changes you. If Earth were a country in the United Nations, it would be the country with the least effective central government, the worst inequality and poverty and illiteracy, ongoing apartheid and extreme gender violence, etc. As citizens of Earth, we need to advocate that it join the 21st Century community of nations and address all these problems. We must channel our outrage — (imagine if America still had Jim Crow laws, we’d be marching in the streets right now—and yet most Earthlings have less freedoms, forced to live in ghettos of poverty).
So, one piece of the puzzle is raising awareness and shifting consciousness. When there are groups of Global Citizens active in every town and neighborhood across the globe, meeting regularly at BBQs, forming study groups, celebrating birthdays, protesting unjust corporate actions and despotic governments, writing letters to the editor, then we’ll be getting somewhere.
When WE start to see all the diverse issues of today (climate change, terrorism, poverty, AIDS, labor rights, human rights) as joined into the project of creating a just and sustainable civilization — then we are getting somewhere. We are no longer divided into environmentalists, feminists, labor activists — we are all Global Citizens working together.
Of course, working together for what? Is it enough to simply list platitudes that can attract a lot of people but remain vague and fuzzy? I’d argue we need to promote a cohesive, sophisticated vision — one that feels plausible. Not all visions are created equal — and the details matter.
There are a lot of people peddling their visions — but most don’t go very deep. The Great Transition Initiative is attempting to push further. GTI is developing a rigorous vision — one that will have to continually adapt and develop as conditions change and more people get involved. A vision that affirms plurality — we want a diverse global civilization, not a mono-culture, not a McWorld. But this pluralism needs to be constrained by reality — for example, everyone must work together to address global warming. Furthermore, we can no longer tolerate societies that trample human rights. It is a vision of pluralism rooted in the values of equity, solidarity, quality of life, and a healthy planet. Values that have been forged through centuries of struggle and are the inheritance of all humanity.
Let me pause here and see if I am connecting.
Dear Deborah and Orion,
At least to me, your ideas are good ones. Yes, Orion, you are connecting. Keep going.
Steve
Orion, I agree that the vision of the Great Transition Initiative is the most encompassing and compelling vision of the future available today in English (as for other languages, I don’t know).
I hope everyone will explore your website and especially your recent paper series.
I know I found GTI’s work mind-bogglingly exciting, refreshing and hopeful when I stumbled on it a few years ago …
But until there are groups of global citizens meeting in cities and towns around the world … what do you suggest? What can we do to help bring about this more enlightened future?
Right — I don’t think there is a single answer to this question, and while I can offer my initial thoughts, I am also quite curious to hear yours!
To start with, I assume there is a pool of people — potentially several hundred million around the world, but definitely in the tens of millions — who are 1) educated on global issues and 2) gravely concerned and 3) would love to do something if they could think of anything effective to do. Maybe even join a movement if they could find one they could believe in.
Thus, an immediate task is to tap into this latent energy and help it manifest — as Paul puts what is needed is “a venue for group engagement that reinforces and legitimates these values and provides a locus for identity.” A movement ultimately needs infrastructure, tools, resources, leadership, narrative, vision, etc. so that it can blossom.
However all this can be in place, and the movement can remain quite small for many years until a key event tips the scales (crisis?). Think of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in the initial decades of the women’s suffrage movement. They were on their horses traveling from town to town, raising consciousness, meeting people and finding partners. The movement did not grow quickly.
Similarly, SDS was active for years on college campuses in the early 1960’s, but burst onto the national scene only after the Vietnam war heated up and a draft was implemented. At which point thousands of students flocked to join SDS.
Another example, the Civil Rights Movement is commonly thought to have been triggered by Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat. But she wasn’t acting as a lone individual. She was a leader in the NAACP (I believe), and was chosen for her grandmotherly image, and had planned the event (even tried it before). Organizations like the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Council provided the infrastructure that created publicity and helped unleash the latent energy of what came to be known as the civil rights movement. (interestingly, both the “suffrage” and “civil rights” movements are named in retrospect for their major accomplishments, even though they were about much larger goals of equality, justice and social inclusion).
What organizations are similarly positioned to tap into today’s latency for Global Citizenship? What networks are currently in place that promote a vision of global society? Perhaps we need to help these form, link, and grow.
But we also need to continue to get on our horses and ride from town to town, meet in libraries, living rooms, and on-line, to raise consciousness. Publish articles, write poems and songs, paint images of the future world we are creating — unleash the imagination to expand the frontiers of the possible.
Where is the documentary showing tangible examples of all the creative community efforts to live sustainably? How do we highlight the most encouraging ones and bring these to the attention of the mainstream? Let’s make it.
In today’s computer age, what about a video game that could educate kids and adults about the forces and factors shaping global development? There exists a good model for this in the award winning strategy game by Sid Meir called Civilization. Only, why not base the underlying assumptions of the game on the latest accurate scenario tools of scientists like those of the Global Scenario Group ? This could be a huge way to reach a new generation with the simultaneous message of hope and responsibility for the choices we make.
An art contest, a speaker’s circuit, a movie, a video game — all these are about reaching the latent pool of concerned citizens to help them overcome their apprehension and move into a state of mind conducive to dreaming big and taking action.
Paul Ray talks of Cultural Creatives and says there are 50 million of them. Unlike the 50 million or so Evangelicals in the United States, Cultural Creatives lack awareness of themselves as a whole people. This is a similar argument to the one I am making about a latent pool of Global Citizens (I don’t particularly like the term “cultural creative”, too vague).
By the way, when thinking of what we can do, in addition to lessons from social movements throughout history, it is interesting to look at the Religious Right and ask how did they get organized? I don’t know the full story here.
But there are some clues. People need to be able to gather locally, affirm their shared values and identity face to face (despite the glory of computers, we are still apes), celebrate and mourn together. The leadership of these local communities needs to communicate, debate an agenda (through democratic means — elections), and ideally communicate a clear message to the other powerful global actors (transnational corporations and governments).
Forming local chapters of Global Citizens might be a place to start. In a city like Boston, such chapters might work on projects the promote sustainable living by reducing car use, planting community gardens, etc. They might have BBQs, sing songs together, throw festivals, attend each other’s weddings, etc. In countries like Ghana, I am sure their activities would emphasize their immediate concerns. But ideally the Global Citizens in Boston and Ghana would understand their separate activities as part of a common global project.
Is this making sense?
Yes, it’s making sense. Definitely.
To your knowledge, are any groups forming such as the Global Citizens groups you suggest in your last paragraph?
Hi,
Terrific effort. Thanks. I hesitate to interrupt this vital work.
What you are reporting reminds me to add two words, America Speaks.
Steve
Folks, this is not science. This is socialism masquerading as socialogical goobletygook.
The human animal hasn’t changed in recent history. He ain’t gonna morph into a god-like loving creature who wants to serve the collective in the next day or two. In fact, the folks singing this song don’t believe it themselves. Al Gore is not going to build a log cabin with his own hands and start raising his own food and clothing. Kofi Annan will not suddenly start living a “sustainable” lifestyle.
The new world order is going to be a disaster if it happens. No one will take care of you. No one will build a great society in which all needs will be met.
The true course for improvement of the human race lies in capitalism. A system where people can own their own property, to control their property and where they can pass on what they earn and learn to their progeny. Where there is no central control. That is the only real hope.
Please know that all collectivist societies rely on central control. The bureaucrats simply protect their own rice bowls. There is no possibility of good coming out of that.
For evidence, please see the results of the former soviet union, cuba, north korea ad nauseum. These were not accidents. These debacles were, and in some cases are, the results of collectivism. It cannot work if we are going to define success as any sort of positive product for humanity.
I also find it a bit amusing that we are warned of a coming cataclisym while enjoying the highest standard of living in human history.
Please excuse spelling and grammar errors. I did not have time to proof this will. Gotta go make some bucks.
Ben
Benjamin,
I’d like to ask you my question once again, as I had initially in the program “Values shift ahead? What is happiness anyway?”
You say “climate change is beyond our understanding,” and also state that “cars, heaters and power plants are not affecting our climate in any measurable way.”
If, indeed, “climate change is beyond our understanding,” then on what scientific basis do you make your claim that “cars, heaters and power plants are not affecting our climate”?
Bruce
Deborah,
Yes and no. There is a group of parents I met on the North Shore in MA, they all commute to Boston for work and started meeting regularly to read books like Collapse (by Jared Diamond) and learn about Climate Change, industrial agriculture and soil degradation, and watch related documentaries. This scared them — they started to see that the world they are bringing their children into is in trouble. And, they recognized that their suburban lifestyles were contributing to the problem. One couple eventually sold their house and moved into the city so they would no longer have to commute.
They invited me to come to one of their study groups, where I presented (in 20 minutes) the Great Transition framework. With their input, we also put together a Well-being Toolkit (still in draft form). The goal was to help provide them with a framework for how they might take action that can scale up and join with numerous others who are acting on the community level.
There are also groups of people in cities around the United States who are attempting to transform their neighborhoods (and ultimately bio-regions) into models of sustainable living. For example the urban ecovillage network provides a listserv to help such groups link-up and share resources. One of the most impressive efforts I’ve seen has been the group forming Tryon Life Community Farm in Portland, Oregon. There is also the well known Los Angeles Ecovillage, and the Rhizome Collective in Austin, Texas. These groups tend to attract a more radical personality who is willing to go against the existing cultural tide to forge a new path. They certainly aspire to be beacons and examples that will attract mainstream attention at some point.
There are clearly thousands of people who go to conferences like bioneers and green festivals — and there is a similar set of speakers and authors who tour these venues (such as David Korten, author of the Great Turning ).
There are also the many groups interested in the World Social Forum and the Global Justice Movement. The organizers of the Boston Social Forum (and soon the US Social Forum in Atlanta this summer) have started a community space here called Encuentro 5 with the help of progressive local city councilors and others in the activist community. Again, these efforts tend to attract an existing pool of radical activists, and while the Social Forum process provides some umbrella under which to gather, it is still chaotic, disjointed and fragmented.
I could go on and on listing examples — and I am mostly familiar with the US, but do know of similar groups in Europe, Australia and Latin America (and I am sure in Asia and Africa as well, but I am less familiar). But the point is, as we mention in the essay above, these efforts are diffuse, dispersed and small scale. There is no group that I know of that is organizing around a truly systemic vision of global civilization. Most of the groups I mentioned above do have some awareness of global issues and their interrelatedness, and they do have some feelings of solidarity with humanity as a whole.
In my experience, they find the Great Transition framework to be a helpful affirmation of what they have felt intuitively — it puts into words what they are already thinking about, and helps things “click” into place.
However the true challenge is to reach beyond the usual suspects, i.e. those already active and engaged, to the latent pool of the currently inactive, apprehensive, concerned citizens and help them find a constructive channel for their energy. This is not yet happening as far as I can tell.
Part of why this hasn’t happened is that existing activists have yet to formulate a narrative and vision that resonates with large numbers of people. This is both a marketing question — which words to choose — and a content question — plausible and legitimate solutions must be offered. For example, the Global Just Movement (erroneously labeled by mass media the anti-globalization movement) has adopted the phrase “another world is possible.” That is pretty weak in my opinion — it offers no clue as to what that other world might be and how we might get there. It is unlikely to appeal the average New York Times reader who is concerned about the future for their grandchildren — and it is over the heads of the people on the North Shore I mentioned above. It is at least framed in a positive proactive manner, though.
It could be an interesting exercise to map existing groups, study their strategies and efforts, and think about how they might link up. The Progressive Strategy Seminar has looked into this from a political perspective. However, a narrow focus on political activism misses the broader cultural elements of the Great Transition needed to bring us to an ecologically sustainable and just society. And the focus on American politics misses the fact that we are in a planetary transition (clearly America plays an important role in this, but somehow we must connect the concerns of Americans to the world as a whole).
Thank you for this great article.
I would just like to add a few thoughts. The people who read this blog realize how important math and science are to the future of both the country and the world.
We must emphasize this in our schools. But we must also emphasize deep-thinking and problem solving. I think the Internet allows us to find information very quickly but makes us impatient in terms of both our thinking skills and our social skills.
I am all for technology. I truly am. But as a society we need to connect more with each other and ideas.
Thanks for listening.
Orion, thank you for the wonderful collection of links in your last post!
Dear Benjamin Napier,
Your comments above are declarative and informative. Please accept a couple of questions related to your view of the natural world and the human economy.
Let me agree with you in extolling the virtues of capitalism. It has been a great system. However, given the scale and rate of growth of predominant captialistic world economy, do the requirements of physical reality, as you have reported them, not make crystal clear to all of us that the UNBRIDLED GROWTH of capitalism could be approaching a time in human history when the human economy is patently unsustainable?
I am appealing to your appreciation of science when I report that there are physical limits to the growth of capitalism or any other economy designed and constructed by humankind. Is there any question whatever in your mind about Earth’s limitations to sustain seemingly endless economic expansion that we see overspreading Earth in these early years of Century 21?
Among a virtual mountain of data tracking skyrocketing global economic growth, please note Robert J. Samuelson’s recent report on the expansion of the world economy by more than 20% in the short time since 2001.
Always,
Steve
it is very good topic
mohammad
The idea of the songwriter, John Mayer, may not be sufficient. It may not be adaptive or even make good sense to be found “waiting for the world to change.”
On the other hand we could surely benefit from looking carefully at the words and actions of one of our greatest leaders. And, yes, it pleases me so that he is one of my generation of elders. He is not like most of us, however, the ones who have fallen into fatuous complacency, mortgaged our children’s future to promote our patently unsustainable lifestyles et cetera. This great human being understands the value and signiticance of cultural change when that becomes necessary. He is a 1990 Nobel Laureate and his name is Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.
Not so long ago he called for a shift…......for cultural change. The words he used to describe the needed behavior change among the people he represented were GLASNOST and PERESTROIKA.
Perhaps a shift in human behaviors among those in today’s predominant culture has at least something to do with the kinds of change proclaimed by Mr. Gorbachev. At least to me, this great man called for changes in human behavior that he realized were maladaptive and destructive of the community he served. For people to choose to ex-change unsustainable behaviors for ones that are sustainable would plainly and transparently lead to greater adaptability and survivability of the human community, I suppose.
I would like to invoke now the words of another great person and, also, and outstanding scientist by the name of Dr. Russell Hopfenberg. “GIVEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT OUR ‘INCREASE CULTURE’ HAS PRODUCED, IT SEEMS A CULTURAL SHIFT WOULD AMELIORATE THESE CONDITIONS.”
I just looked at the Wellbeing Toolkit, mentioned by Orion in comment #11, and it is very thought-provoking.
I’m looking forward to reading some of the articles on the reading list, for example, and the idea of forming groups and discussing these articles is very compelling. I hope that the Earth & Sky website will become one such group … a community of people wanting to discuss a more sustainable and fulfilling way to live.
I was raised in the 1950s, when materialism was just beginning its heyday, following World War II. And I was part of the generation of young adults that first questioned this materialism in the late 1960s … and then gradually joined the workforce, joining the quest for material things, as most of us did in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. As my peers and I grew older, many of us having children, we participated in the dominant culture. It seemed not only the path of least resistance but, perhaps, the only reasonable path for those wanting to remain in the world.
And it sometimes seemed as if those questioning voices of my youth had disappeared.
But as the decades passed, it became clear that an undercurrent remained of a form of “radicalism” with respect to the status quo. Individuals were using their careers to find new ways of talking and listening to each other, new ways of being in the world … new ways of understanding what it means to be a human being. Much of this work was done in pyschology, I believe, with deep listening being one example.
Now, as the Wellbeing Toolkit shows, people are becoming more organized toward the goal of finding out what is truly important to human fulfillment and satisfaction.
It is heartening to me now that some of this groundwork began to be laid by my generation, those same peers of mine who gathered in dorm rooms in the late 1960s, questioning the dominant culture. And of course many of them went on to have children – dare I say “like Orion?” – who are now leading the charge to a new kind of world.
It is a thrilling time to be alive!
Deborah
As unthinkable as is the potential of a looming global calamity on the far horizon, there is but one thing that is a much greater anathema: that an intelligent and abundantly gifted species like ours would choose a primrose path of patently unsustainable economic growth that leads the children so silently into the night.
Who is prepared to represent humanity by railing against even a probability of the impending death of light?
Can the maintenance of the deafening silence proclaimed by the masters of the universe or the conscious avoidance of our brothers and sisters in science be somehow for the best?
I cannot imagine how the stakes could be higher. What say you? Struggle or flight?
Yes, we live in interesting times, ones that are also thrilling….once the fear subsides.
Perhaps we have become such artful vendors of words that words themselves are no longer serving to promote human understanding.
I was just visiting San Francisco, and I found that there are many people in California who view the coming transition from a predominantly spiritual perspective (see for example the pachamama alliance or the work of Joanna Macy).
My colleagues with a more scientific orientation are often turned off by the use of spiritual metaphors and language — because it invokes a type of wishful or magical thinking. On the other hand, I believe the depth of emotion and “heart-space” captured by spiritual groups is part of the energy that needs to be channeled toward the Great Transition.
Also, I suspect that many people resonate with a more emotional appeal, and not so much with a technical analysis.
Somehow it would be good to help link groups that use different metaphors but are working on the common effort. For example, how do we link groups that embrace or emphasize the spiritual, like David Korten’s Great Turning, and Joanna Macy’s Awakening the Dreamer, and groups that emphasize the scientific, like the Great Transition and other sustainable development NGO’s?
Beyond the New Age spiritual movement, are elements in traditional religions that are also connecting their belief systems with a proactive role in shaping a positive and ecologically sustainable future.
This is similar to the “tower of babel” problem. Not only are there multiple languages being spoken, but as each sub-group develops there are multiple metaphors and jargons.
How do we help over-come this tendency toward conceptual fragmentation and talking past each other?
Orion, perhaps we overcome what you’ve identified as “conceptual fragmentation and talking past each other” by – simply – valuing listening more.
We do seem to be in a era of talking. The “tower of babel” indeed. Sometimes it seems as if very little listening is going on. On the internet, especially, there’s a lot of talking and not much listening.
But some people are trying to listen.
On your trip to San Francisco, you must have been listening in order to gain some understanding that some more spiritually oriented groups and some more scientifically oriented groups – such as the Great Transition Initiative – are really talking about much the same thing … the common effort, as you called it.
I’m also trying to listen. About a year ago, I started making a conscious effort to listen more carefully. It’s hard sometimes because sometimes the things I’m hearing aren’t pleasant, or they scare me. Sometimes I don’t understand people at all.
Still, surely listening needs to become part of the equation toward a successful future.
I’m really talking about connection here. One person or group talks, and another listens. A connection is made.
How else can we ever bridge the spaces between us?
Deborah
Deborah,
I agree that listening is an important skill, which like any skill can be developed and enhanced. There will always be some people more trained, and who have more aptitude, for listening. There will always be people who are bad listeners.
This might not be what you are saying, but just to be especially clear, I do not believe that a Great Transition will happen because somehow a large majority of individuals achieve some heightened state of functioning, or enlightenment, or whatnot. There will always be all the varied and obnoxious and even abusive types of people in the world.
Still, we could begin to support and train a cadre of “citizen diplomats”. These would be people recognized by their communities or organizations as exceptionally good at listening, translating between perspectives, and cross-pollinating ideas and concepts. As I suggest in my paper on the Global Citizens Movement — these would be a new type of leader. These Citizen Diplomats would not replace the other essential types of civil society leaders, but would complement them.
They would need support and authorization to play their role successfully. They would need training. They would benefit from being part of a network of Citizen Diplomats, meeting their counterparts from other community groups and organizations. They would be expected to help form bridges, but a big piece of this would be to challenge the members of their own community/organization to see the world differently, to broaden their perspectives to understand the view points of other groups. That would be very hard work. It seems somewhat far fetched that movement organizations would actually fund and create such positions—who wants a professional provocateur on staff?
And we must accept that far more than listening is needed to overcome differences — in many cases there are real disagreements that need to be debated, probed, reframed — we must be able and willing to engage in dialog that could transform our identities. In other words we must be ready to engage honest conflicts. Setting up the spaces and forums for such dialog between key groups is also critical if we are to create a movement that contains the seeds of the world we seek.
Hopefully it is a world that values diversity and different approaches while at the same time fosters unity and a common sentiment of humanity, as we all share one planet. Balancing this dual commitment to plurality and unity is tricky. In the past, as movements matured, one group’s vision often crowds out all others —and this replicates the dynamic of domination we are seeking to move beyond. It is precisely because of this history that many activists eschew any talk of “vision” — they are hyper-allergic to potential for domination, and they prefer to maintain fragmentation. This is, obviously, not a solution to the issue, but simply a means of avoiding facing it.
Dear Deborah and Orion,
Many thanks to both of you “for being the change you want to see in the world” (Gandhi). This dialogue appears to me as an example of one of many potentially fruitful beginnings of a succession of meaningful human actions.
For reasons that are unclear to me, it seems important to invoke the words of another outstanding humanitarian, Albert Einstein: “God does not play at dice with the world.”
Perhaps there is a lesson in Albert Einstein’s understanding, one that most human beings respect and take for granted. If God does not play at dice with the world, then how are we to describe and understand human beings who appear set on doing that very thing? Are they simply misguided?
Let us imagine together that God is without limits and God’s creation is without limits. Let’s remember that “God does not play at dice with the world.”
Now let’s recognize humankind as a species that is limited, I suppose, by evolution, space-time, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. It seems to me that decisions by an intelligent species like ours that, in effect, plays at dice with the world could be gravely mistaken. Terrible errors could be committed for which there are no previous examples in the history of the world, as that history has been given to us.
As I have done in the past, I will not begin by naming people, in this instance giving names of people who appear to be playing at dice with world, who seem to have lost their sense of humanity, who have evidently forgotten their feet are made from clay, who will risk God’s creation to fulfill their desire for power and wealth. Certainly, I have referred to this group before, but not individually. They know who they are.
Evolution is change; life is change; human beings change; human cultures change, inevitably change is in the offing. Somehow the changes, whatever they may be, must not result from playing at dice with the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit. That seems incorrect, intolerable and unforgivable.
If it is all right to do so here, it seems important to submit that here could be something emphatically and fanatically wrong-headed among human beings who are determined to play at dice with God’s creation.
Always,
Steve
From my humble vantage point, it appears God’s creation is threatened by certain unbridled human activities overspreading our planetary home now.
Perhaps it would be helpful to begin to share an understanding of what those potential threats are. People who are going to step forward and save both life as we know it and the integrity of Earth could benefit from identifying from whence threats could come.
1) At a total population nearly 6.6 billion human beings in 2007, the estimated rate of growth of absolute global human population numbers to 9+/- billion people by the year 2050 could pose serious problems: biodiversity loss, as an example.
2) Maximal industrialization and untethered economic globalization could result in a variety of threats to the maintenance of global ecosystems. Air and water pollution, loss of wilderness, global warming are examples.
3) The unchecked depletion and dissipation of Earth’s limited resources could inadvertently collapse fisheries, forests, the economy, etc.
4) The loss of cheap (and environmentally pernicious) fossil fuels and the failure to preemptively and expeditiously move to alternate fuels could pose a threat.
5) More people are living on resources valued at less than $2 per day than existed on the surface of Earth in the year of my birth. Our plan to feed the world and end hunger is unexpectedly resulting in billions of hungry people. Their numbers are growing day by day. Some consequences of these circumstances include the appearance of threats posed by famine, potable water scarcity, disease and deep poverty.
6) During my entire lifetime, humanity, life as we know it and the integrity of Earth have been presented with the threat of nuclear war. It remains a clear and present danger.
Your additions, deletions, corrections and any other suggestions are welcome to this list of potential Century XXI threats.
Thank you.
Steve,
I think you might be interested in Paul Raskin’s paper World Lines: Pathways, Pivots and the Global Future
In it he discusses several examples of events that could trigger a systemic global crisis: abrupt climate change, pandemics, macro-terrorism, peak oil, financial collapse.
It is important to remember the interrelated nature of these trigger points, as Paul writes: “Several different types of future upheavals may be germinating. Of course, the precise timing, character, and triggers of global crises are unknowable. Nevertheless, we can imagine stylized ‘general crisis syndromes‘—multi-causal phenomena that cascade across sectors and subsystems to force restructuring of the global Human-Environment System…it is the possibility for feedback, interaction, and amplification across domains that define systemic global crises.”
Of course, his paper does not stop there — he goes on to discuss the role and power of human choice and the possibility of “branch points” which may shape the future. The Great Transition Initiative is an attempt to show a positive path forward through impending global challenges, and to paint a plausible vision of the future in which freedom, well-being and diversity are not sacrificed, and a healthy world sustainable for future generations is achieved.
Dear Orion,
You and Paul Raskin are doing some of the great work in the world today. Thanks for the reference to GTI and the ongoing efforts of Tellus.
Somehow, Orion, we have got to find a way(s) NOT to allow the stunning complexity that is real and evident everywhere in the world in which we live to blind us to certain good scientific evidence regarding the human population.
If the greatest challenge for every human being is to “know thyself,” then the equally profound challenge for the human population as a whole is to share an adequate understanding of its speciation, with particular attention to the “placement” of humankind within the natural order of living things.
Always, with thanks,
Steve
Dear Orion,
What worries me now is that many too many people are following the many leaders in our generation who are encouraging our children down a primrose path. That is to say, the self proclaimed masters of the universe may not have gotten things right, afterall. On the contrary, their unadulterated pursuit of power, wealth and dominion of the Earth may have unexpectedly resulted in a human predicament, one that could require the best within our species to address and overcome. At least to me, it appears that the future of life as know it and the relative integrity of Earth, as we now know it, literally twists in the wind and hangs in the balance.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve,
I don’t think it is all that helpful to talk about “self proclaimed masters of the universe”. An accurate diagnosis of the problem is most helpful in considering solutions.
While there are powerful leaders who are misleading us — they are not the cause of our predicament. For example, George W. Bush
(who has stalled any Federal action on climate change) was re-elected because at least half the US voters preferred him to the alternative. That is a lot of people, surely there is more going one then simple misinformation.
It is helpful to think of “leaders” as playing a role. They are authorized by their constituents, and they are removed from power when they fail to meet their constituents’ demands. Should a leader step too far out on a limb, they risk being eliminated. Thus it makes sense that they will only go as far as their constituents can handle. Real leadership is walking this fine line and stretching people in the direction of human betterment.
In any powerful organization, the people who rise to the top are those who are best able to promote themselves and the interests of the most powerful coalition. Thus, there is selection for a certain type of ruthless personality; a political animal who is able to shift with changing wind is needed to surf the wave of power. Should one person fail in this competition, there are a million behind him waiting to take his place.
This doesn’t deny the extraordinary role that charismatic leadership can play. There are always amazing people among us, like a Martin Luther King Jr. — whether they are heard or not is dependent on the circumstance and timing. Before Katrina, Al Gore’s slide show wasn’t news worthy — after Katrina it is an all time top-grossing documentary.
Our actions as individuals can and do make a difference — but they make the most difference when we act together. Leadership does matter, but leaders acting alone accomplish nothing.
Dear Orion,
Your comments above mean a lot. Thanks.
The work done by demographers and other population scientists, and all the recent splendid scientific discoveries regarding “the environment” are mostly news to me. For the first 50 years of my life, I scarcely thought about such things.
My field is psychology. In moments like these, that appear as opportunities, I feel it best to resort to what I know a bit about, the life of the mind, emotion, perception, behavior, etc.
Let us imagine together in this moment that a patient has presented to us for evaluation and treatment. The patient presents with symptoms of a mental illness; however, we notice that the signs and symptoms do not appear that serious. For all the world, the patient looks “normal.”
As time with the patient passes, it becomes more clear that a major mental illness is not part of the patient’s problem. What does emerge are signs and symtoms of a personality disorder. We learn enough about the patient’s history to understand that the patient was raised in the same culture in which we have grown up. It has been widely reported that our culture is a culture of narcissists. Not surprisingly, we have found evidence of narcissism in the patient’s presentation. At this point we are going to make nothing more than preliminary diagnosis, with the hope of gaining better understanding in subsequent interviews.
Anyway, we can recognize that the patient appears to fit the diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder.
If this preliminary diagnosis happens to be somehow on the right track, then we know immediately that an effective intervention with the patient will not be automatic or easy. There will be no “quick fixes,” “magic bullets.” et cetera to “cure” him. If progress is to be made, there will likely be years of hard work because of the nature of the illness itself.
Patients suffering from a borderline personality disorder appear to share at least one thing in common. They resist change, any change in the way they perceive the world and act in it. Most clinicians would agree, I suppose, that any meaningful effort to help the patient will mean being PERSISTENT in the face of the patient’s RESISTANCE to change. Years of treatment could be required to produce meaningful change.
Although there is obviously much more to report about the patient, I want to add just a bit more evidence before concluding for the moment.
In response to the request for a name, the patient said, “You can can call me Master.”
“Master what?” I asked.
“Master of the Universe,” was the reply.
Even in the earliest moments of the evalution the patient lays out where the work will take us. I suppose most human beings would agree that our species has “feet of clay” and its leaders are not actually masters of the universe, regardless of what the leaders and their constituents wish to believe to be true. Whatsoever is is, is it not?
Perhaps the work ahead with the patient has to do with persistently reminding this person, over and over again over the years of treatment, that human beings have “feet of clay” and that the patient is “playing a role,” as you put it.
Always, with thanks,
Steve
Each human culture presents its many members with knowledge of reality and with longstanding, adamantly held perceptions that are illusory. For example, unverified cultural transmissions can give rise to widely shared distortions of the world whenever mistaken impressions are consensually validated as if they represent what is real.
In these instances, humans ubiquitously emit culturally biased and scientifically unsupported communications that confuse human reasoning and often promote a certain cortical conceitedness that is not useful in acquiring an understanding of the practical requirements of reality.
Over long time periods, preternatural ideas are passed down from generation to generation, with an unintended result. Distorted perceptions of reality are shared among people, thereby confounding the efforts of humanity to share an adequate awareness of what is real.
When good science emerges, it is initially disturbing because the new science usually challenges well-established but unrealistic ideas about what it means to be human, the “placement” of the human species within the natural order of living things, and the requirements of biophysical reality. New scientific facts of this particular kind are uniformly difficult for people to see because unexpected data expose hubris to view by the human species.
Since humans are shaped early and pervasively by a superabundance of culturally derived transmissions in our perception of reality, it becomes an evolutionary challenge for human beings to see the world as it is and to gain knowledge of the human species as one of many miraculous creatures to inhabit so wondrous a planetary home as Earth.
When a scientist-practitioner of psychology such as myself thinks a patient is suffering from mental illness, that determination is an evidence-based clinical judgment. However, cultural standards of normalcy are not as carefully and rigorously developed as are clinical judgments, but instead are casually agreed upon and promulgated as social norms and conventions that include scientifically validated perceptions of reality as well as misperceptions of what is real.
Because some distorted impressions of the world are valued by those who share them, these misperceptions are readily passed from member to member within a culture, among both peers and the generations.
Deeply disturbed mental patients distort reality so drastically that their incorrect impressions of reality do not become established by being passed along to other people. By contrast, “normal” people in instrumentalities of governance, social organizations and cultures appear not to misperceive reality so sharply, yet distortions of what aggregations of normal people perceive do remain.
A term of art in psychology is useful here, folie a deux. The term means that two people share an identical distortion of reality. This understanding leads to other terms, folie a deux million for a government agency or political party, folie a deux cent million for a social order or folie a deux billion for a culture. These terms refer to misperceived aspects of reality held and commonly shared by many people of a government, a society or a culture.
At least one way to define the highest standard of normalcy for people in these aggregates is in terms of being able to adequately distinguish what is illusory from what is in scientific fact real.
Great discussion!
Interesting how we are all discussing from our individual vantage points, but then again what else could we do? Seems like the main point is to be reaching across this space, trying to understand each other ...Steve,
Given you’re analogy, you might particularly enjoy this diagnosis of Modern Society by a Qualified Licensed Psychologist.
Perhaps, as you point out, collectively we are “delusional” — in other words living in a society whose institutions and culture reinforce a misapprehension of the true nature of things. The question then turns to what can best be done about this?
The Great Transition Initiative takes as its premise that millions of concerned citizens are increasingly uneasy. Millions of people are increasingly aware of the mismatch between our lifestyles and the requirements for sustainability. Millions of people are beginning to wonder, what can we do to ensure this Earth is healthy for our grandchildren and beyond?
These many millions are the ones who have the potential to change the world. Acting together, from a space of optimism, we — the concerned citizens of Earth — can manifest the political will that will force our leaders and institutions to take necessary corrective action. Yet, this potential is still latent. The task, as I have come to understand it, is to create the mechanisms, spaces, and avenues for this latent energy to become manifest — to help midwife the birth of a global citizens movement
I think it’s interesting to carry Steve’s analogy – humanity as a “delusional” individual – out a bit further. We all have our moments of delusion, but sane people also have an inner voice that says, “You are eating too much (drinking too much alcohol, watching too much TV, becoming too isolated, working too hard).”
In Steve’s analogy of humanity as a single body, the millions of people just described by Orion – those who are increasingly aware of the mismatch between our lifestyles and the requirements for sustainability – are like that that small inner voice.
We are the small voice that will eventually – in a sane world – cause the whole human body to turn toward a more sustainable way of living.
We’ll do that, if humanity is sane. And I believe humans are both sane and essentially good. Most people are good. That’s why I feel optimistic …
Terrific effort.
If I may rely now on the words of Rabindranath Tagore who has helped us understand that human beings can be cruel; but humanity is kind.
Just in this moment there occurs to me a way in which the words SANE and SUSTAIN could go together. Can there be EITHER sustainability of life as we know it without human sanity OR the maintenance of mental wellbeing without the human achievement of a sustainable balance with nature?
In closing, it is with a deep sense of sadness I share with you the news that the human community has lost an original global thinker and great humanitarian. Dr. Dennis August Rondinelli, 63, passed away on March 7, 2007.
Justice and Equality will eradicate terrorism automatically! – By Sunimal Alles – April 4, 2007
Many world leaders talk about “Eradicating Terrorism” today, mainly by trying to eliminate terrorists physically, through counter-terrorism initiatives. This could be an efficient strategy if all “terrorists” were ready and available to be eliminated and their countries became “Police” states. However, I am concerned, as police states don’t last long, and leaders may never attain their objectives, even if they spend all the funds in their treasuries , unless they eliminate the creation of terrorists. They must first commit themselves and those that are under their orders to clearly study and analyze the reasons why “Terrorists” exist and how they were created. I say, “Created” as no terrorist was born with a destructive weapon in his/her hands and an objective to kill. “Terrorists” are still being created the world over, as very few leaders are listening to the issues of commoners and no measures are being taken to fulfill their needs. When commoners’ voices are not heard, they join others that “Think” like them to manifest their discontent, first in a non-violent manner but later with arms and violent attacks. Therefore, the eradication of “terrorists” needs to start where they are being created. My research since 1975 indicates that it starts in oppressed and marginalized neighborhoods and communities. I also found that the process of creation of an individual “Terrorist” starts in the womb of a mother that has been subjected to INJUSTICE. I found that there are various ways in which a mother is subjected to injustice. Some originated in her home and by her parents, where she was denied the right to express her wishes and refused the right to follow a course of study aligned to her natural talents and aspirations. Some were and are being denied the right to select their life’s partner, which eventually leads to disharmony in the marriage. Some marry without taking into consideration their level of mental evolution and future aspirations (A woman is a human being who can think, has a mind that is constantly evolving whether educated or not). We must remember that a mother is a primary link in the creation of the next generation, and protecting girl children against premature arrangements (such as selecting their future professions and partners) and ensuring that their will is fulfilled will assure that there will never be any future creation of terrorists. A traumatized or single mother giving birth to a child is the primary place where a terrorist is created. Therefore, it is in the interest of everyone, that we have efficient child and mother protection and care systems where all families are taken care of. Special attention should be taken to care for families that were marginalized or UN-JUSTLY treated in the past, due to ethnic, political, economic or any other reason. This is because these are the families where terrorists are born and incubated.
Today we find that many young people and children do not have moral and social values. If an analysis were made, we would find that it is because they either did not have time to spend with their parents or their parents do not have values. Valuing each other in a family and community is also necessary to prevent terrorists being created. Misinformed children from one tribe will rarely value other tribes when they grow up, unless values are inculcated into their minds and concrete measures are taken to ensure that active socialization takes place among those affiliated to different ethnic/tribal/religious and political origins.
If we did a profound study on the different “terrorists”, their organizations and how they become strong, we will find that INJUSTICE, marginalization and segregation are the primary causes. Of course, there have been many individuals that have used these terrorists to bring about chaos as they have hidden agendas, such as power politics and exploitation of natural resources.
I wish to state here, that while newly elected leaders are not totally responsible for “Terrorists” that existed at the time they came into power, I hold them responsible for the increase in number of terrorists, if there were any, from the time that they came to power, as they have not taken all measures to ensure that the voices of those who manifest, either non-violently or violently are heard, and immediate action taken to satisfy their concerns and needs.
If serving their nations is the primary objective of leaders, they should not be afraid to take stock of the situation, which includes an analysis of the causes of existence and emergence of groups that terrorize using violent means. They should not be afraid to bring to book any official that worked under previous regimes if they are found guilty of INJUSTICE towards common people, and families where terrorists were created. A leader cannot have unresolved INJUSTICES of the past, and govern his/her people efficiently. If they need to wipe out terrorists, they should wipe out the “Terrorist creation and incubation centers” by providing the marginalized with all services and opportunities, not try to wipe out “terrorists” by instructing authorities to arrest them, as “terrorists” will continue to be created so long as there are unresolved issues and intimidations.
Modern day leaders should realize that, anybody could communicate anything to anyone today as communication methods have advanced immensely during the past 30 years. I purchased my first computer in 1986, but used telexes to send messages. Today I can communicate messages, photographs and video clips in a matter of seconds, to anyone, anywhere in the world. In the same way, many false messages can be transmitted rapidly to bring about disharmony within a nation, where the population do not love and respect their leader. Why don’t modern day leaders assure that this does not happen by being 100% transparent and govern their countries in a democratic way by taking into consideration the voices of the people, and acting on them?
Therefore, my advice to world leaders is to take into account every person who is being intimidated, marginalized or UN-JUSTLY treated in this world, as he/she is a potential terrorist. He/She will definitely join an existing terrorist group or create one on his/her own to voice his/her opinion, unless his/her rights are restored rapidly, his/her voice is taken seriously and measures are taken to undo the harm that he/she, his/her community and friends have faced. All terrorists are human beings. All leaders and those they authorize to maintain law and order have to listen to the problems of common people and those of emerging terrorists, if they wish to see the eradication of terrorism. Can we start NOW?
If any world leader wishes to contact me for an analysis of the causes of terrorism in his/her country, and wishes to put in place a programs to totally eradicate terrorism and ensure that his/her country will RRN (rapidly return to normalcy) they can contact me for advice at: Sunimal M. Alles, The TIDY center, 54 Anura Mawatha, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka. Tel: 00-94-722826620. email: sunimal_alles@yahoo.com There are also nearly a hundred people that were trained by me in the past to resolve issues in communities and ensure rapid economic growth.
I have worked in around 14 countries for the last 32 years and most countries were either in conflict or are post conflict. I write this article on behalf of the: The POOR who are becoming destitute, the MIDDLE CLASS that are becoming poorer, MOTHERS who are traumatized, PARENTS/FAMILIES who weep as their CHILDREN are at war, and the DISPLACED that have to sleep under or on trees.
PS: World leaders should also be humble and not try to impose their “Power” to the common person, nor manifest their egos by naming monuments or systems as their own, if they wish that the people took direction from them. They should realize that they are also citizens of the country they govern, and the more they give credit to where it is due, the more they will be popular and their messages will be heard. For example, they should never print currency bills with their images, while they are living or in power. It should be left to the desire of successive generations to do so, if they considered that the leader was honest and governed their country JUSTLY by providing services and opportunities to all citizens equitably.
A good benchmark to measure if the people accept a leader is when he/she can take a walk in the street without being intimidated. How many leaders can walk the streets today? Leaders are also human beings, and wish to be free. If they need to be free, they have to assure that the people under their care are free and respect them.
The world leader that has inspired me the most to date was the late Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso.
Thank you
Dear Sunimal Alles,
If the self-proclaimed masters of the universe, who assume responsibilities for providing leadership to human community in our time, understood and accepted what you are prescribing as a path to the future, the world would be changed in ways that a majority of humanity would be sure to support.
At least to me, your valuable perspective deserves to be seriously considered with the hope that one day your work will be supported and your goals achieved.
As things now stand, it appears to me as if colossal wealth and accompanying political power rule the world…...not justice and equality. Justice is not just; people do not have equal opportunities. Wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of millions of people while billions of the less fortunate people among us are destitute and powerless.
The overconsumers in the world want to blame the overpopulators, while the overpopulators want to blame the overconsumers for human misery. The environmentalists want to blame the corporate polluters; the corporations want to blame the environmentalists for impeding economic growth and progress.
No one wants to take responsibility, it seems, for “connecting the dots” associated with three human activities now overspreading Earth: 1) per capita overconsumption of limited resources, 2) skyrocketing increase of the global population and 3) the increasing scale and unbridled growth rate of the seemingly endless expansion of large-scale production capabilities of economic globalization….all of which are occurring synergistically on the small, finite planet we inhabit.
Necessary leadership is not provided for the careful and sensible examination of these distinctly human “overgrowth activities” and, consequently, little is actually done differently from the way leaders have been doing things for a long while. Lip-service is paid to the values you are advocating, but everywhere they are subordinated to whatsoever is to be derived from wealth and political power. Even though they and we can see that more of the same ol’ powerbrokered, business-as-usual behavior we see from many leaders could be detrimental to our children and coming generations by harboring the potential to threaten life as we know it now and the future for coming generations, still too many leaders subscribe to unmaintainable business-as-usual activities that continue to be momentarily successful but, unfortunately, are soon to be recognized as aspects of a patently unsustainable way of life.
Sincerely,
Steve
Please check out the link below to a current article by Bill McKibben.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune-2.html
From the article:
“Is it foolish to propose that a modern global economy of 6 (soon to be 9) billion people should rely on more localized economies? To put it more bluntly, since for most people “the economy” is just a fancy way of saying “What’s for dinner?” and “Am I having any?,” doesn’t our survival depend on economies that function on a massive scale—such as highly industrialized agriculture? Turns out the answer is no—and the reasons why offer a template for rethinking the rest of the economy as well.
We assume, because it makes a certain kind of intuitive sense, that industrialized farming is the most productive farming. A vast Midwestern field filled with high-tech equipment ought to produce more food than someone with a hoe in a small garden. Yet the opposite is true. If you are after getting the greatest yield from the land, then smaller farms in fact produce more food.
If you are one guy on a tractor responsible for thousands of acres, you grow your corn and that’s all you can do—make pass after pass with the gargantuan machine across a sea of crop. But if you’re working 10 acres, then you have time to really know the land, and to make it work harder. You can intercrop all kinds of plants—their roots will go to different depths, or they’ll thrive in each other’s shade, or they’ll make use of different nutrients in the soil. You can also walk your fields, over and over, noticing. According to the government’s most recent agricultural census, smaller farms produce far more food per acre, whether you measure in tons, calories, or dollars. In the process, they use land, water, and oil much more efficiently; if they have animals, the manure is a gift, not a threat to public health. To feed the world, we may actually need lots more small farms.
But if this is true, then why do we have large farms? Why the relentless consolidation? There are many reasons, including the way farm subsidies have been structured, the easier access to bank loans (and politicians) for the big guys, and the convenience for food-processing companies of dealing with a few big suppliers. But the basic reason is this: We substituted oil for people. Tractors and synthetic fertilizer instead of farmers and animals. Could we take away the fossil fuel, put people back on the land in larger numbers, and have enough to eat?”
Elsewhere in these E & S threads, I have tried to comment on the global economy in our time as a distinctly human, pyramid-like construction, one that in modern times is organized much like a colossal pyramid scheme in which most of wealth in the economy funnels upward into the hands of millions of people near the top of the structure, while billions of people near the bottom of the pyramidal construction possess only a pittance of the wealth.
In the US in the 1980s Mr. David Stockman, the Treasury Secretary in the Administration of Mr. Ronald Reagan, referred to the economic globalization scheme of that time as a “trickle down” economy. As these leaders and others were quick to point out, the ‘wondrous’ aspect of the trickle down economy is that the rising tide of wealth in an expanding economy “lifts all boats.”
For many too many millions of people on the surface of Earth who were destitute then and for the billions of people who are impoverished today, the idea of “lifting all boats” is, of course, technically true but nonetheless scant comfort.
For a long time I have been trying to find another way of looking at the global economy. Perhaps it is helpful to consider how the construction of the gigantic global economy and its economic globalization scheme is not only like the economic pyramid we see gloriously displayed everywhere in our planetary home on the one dollar bill(US), but also like a perpetual motion machine.
Let us think of a perpetual motion machine as a kind of isolated mechanistic construction, one that operates without regard either to limits its growth or as to a sustaining source of energy. Such an economy would hypothetically function and grow forever. Incidentally, this idea is taken from, and reminds me of, comments made by the masters of the universe regarding their adamant insistence that the current scale and growth rate of the global economy can occur maximally and endlessly.
If it all right to do so, I am hopeful that members of the Earth & Sky community will consider the economy as a patently unsustainable perpetual motion machine and make comments.
Thanks,
Steve