BLOG OF iECYCLE

To be effective with our actions we must be accurate in our perceptions

I’ve been able to find a wide range of enthusiasm shared for the subject  of environmentalism.  It goes from those on one extreme who will purposefully neglect their natural environment in order to spite “environmentalists” and then to another extreme where we have anywhere from mild activists to extreme and militant activists.

If you’re here reading this then we probably have a few shared principals which are relevant to us:  There is something quite necessary, beneficial, and liberating  about living in accord with nature, for now at least.  And when making decisions about what we consume and produce and do in our daily lives we tend to try and keep conscious of environment, of nature, which is quite respectable. 

There’s another purpose of this article which I wanted to bring to attention though, it’s to talk about how we “do” environmentalism.  Depending on who we’re talking with, “environment” could mean a very different thing; it’s a very subjective word and changes based on experience.  Now you and I know that right now when we say “environment” we are talking about nature.  I’d like to broaden the spectrum of what “environmentalism” is, out of necessity.  It seems that everyone strives to live in and create a healthy environment, and some are better than others are manifesting it.  It is the contrast in perspectives of what “healthy” is that I want to explore. 

Arguably, anything made by humans is part of nature.  So now we have to distinguish a difference in “nature”, “environment”, “green”, and “sustainability”.  I’ve noticed that people generally seem to use them all interchangeably and meaning something like “ecological sustainability”.

Distinguishing what we “should” do can get very confusing and people ask “why can’t it just be simple?”.  Well the good news is that sustainability is all very simple, but when people make sustainability look like something it’s not and their concept of the truth gets complicated or perverted then we run into problems.  When we take into account that people think they are being sustainable when they are not really being sustainable, albeit maybe less destructive, there is a certain level of unawareness there that can be very damaging.  Let’s explore simplicity and “what to do”.

To be effective with our actions we must be accurate in our perceptions.  By a conscious choice I tend not to think so much in terms of “carbon footprints”, “carbon offsets”, “carbon credits”, “organic”, because they actually tell nothing about sustainability or the environment.  What they do tell is a more or less accurate description of a product or user’s relationship with “greenhouse gasses” or certain chemicals, which is only a small (yet still very important) part of the equation of “achieving a healthy, sustainable, prolific living environment”.  These labels don’t tell about the impact the products have on humans and individuals’ lives directly or indirectly involved with the products.  Ultimately, if we are concerned about “The Environment” we have to not just look at what humans are doing to nature, but what they are doing to other humans and their own and others’ lives and living arrangements.

Ultimately, the social environment of humans is the thing informing us to create and handle the problems regarding “the environment”; so then it’s paying attention to and manipulating the social arrangement of humans that is going to ameliorate these issues that we have, much more so paying attention to nature alone and stating facts, hoping that everyone will be able to abide to them.  This opens up an exciting new paradigm where we will want to develop a social environment that promotes its own well-being and the well-being-of and harmonious-exchange-with everything informing or affecting it.  Doing this to a point which can handle all problems involved is true sustainability.  I want to reiterate that line that I mentioned earlier:  “achieving a healthy, sustainable, prolific living environment” – paying attention to all of these aspects is true environmentalism, not just paying attention to nature, which could arguably be called naturism.  Paying attention to nature is only one (extremely important) part of ameliorating the planet’s well-being-capability and the human condition.  If Mother Earth calls us to look at the way plants and animals interact with each other, wouldn’t we want to look at the relationship humans have among themselves and among plants and animals and fungus and bacteria?  We want to look at human relationships, not just human affect on greenhouse gasses.  There is an exciting social and ecological role that humans play in nature, not just a statistical one.

So what do we do? – Pay attention to everything that we are doing regarding health, to everything that we come in contact with, physical and metaphysical.  “Is this sustainable and prolific?”  How good is it for “achieving a healthy, sustainable, prolific living environment” for everyone?  There are some things that we must do to move ahead.  We are never going to be “perfect” because that’s not efficient in today’s world.  There is a quote that a friend of mine read me once: “We need airplanes so that we can transcend them.”.  This advises us that for our upward evolution there are some conflicts or inefficiencies that are necessary to experience in order to reach a higher level of wellness, sustainability, justice, consciousness, ability-to-take-care-of-and-be-taken-care-of by our communities.  This notion of acceptance should not be exploited by keeping the self under-informed as a way keep thinking that everything one is doing is necessary and helpful.

Our lifestyles and surroundings are our environment.  Different people value different things, which is okay, and which sometimes is and sometimes isn’t affluent to progress.  The way that we treat our parents and children and co’s and strangers has as much to do with sustainability of the planet as greenhouse gasses do.  If we can inspire actions that promote well-being and health in others than we have made an exponential impact compared to if we have saved a plastic water bottle from a landfill.  When using steel water bottles, are we taking into account the mountain-top removal mining that is poisoning thousands of people and destroying the second most ecologically diverse region of the world?  In-fact, all people did without stainless steel and plastic before 1912.  Cell phone manufacture requires Coltan, which is a metal ore being mined and exploited in Africa to a similar effect of the blood-diamond trade.  Recycling is still extremely harmful to the environment – and depending on the materials and method of recycling material, much of recycling material is extremely inefficient, actually incapable of being recycled, or extremely energy-intensive to recycle.  Centralized electricity plants do wonders of destruction on environment and health with the resources and land involved and the EMF radiation emitted from high-tension power lines and community grid distribution alike.  Keeping with the original idea, inspiring conservation and health in 10 people would be more valuable than recycling is for one.  With this idea I want people to explore the potential for adjusting or creating communities, jobs, planets to working with the idea of integrating the social environment closely with the physical environment – “Think globally, act locally”.

Global capitalism most often provides a huge disconnect between the intentions of the producer and consumer or end user.  When being conscious of environment, it is these disconnects that we have to watch out for because it’s so hard to know the impact we are having on others so far away.  Personally, I have lived in New Jersey, Washington state, California, Central America, and India and seen a huge diversity of living and working situations.  It doesn’t seem easy or affordable for many people to live (or even desire to live) in complete integrity with the well-being of our “Spaceship Earth” (and hence the well-being of those dependant on the planet), but we do not seem hopeless.  No-one is permanently stuck and incapable of purporting the wellness of Humans, The Earth, and The Earth’s Other Inhabitants.  It’s up to the social-structure of all-of-humanity to helpfully advise its own structure and the environment containing all structures (Planet Earth).  Adjusting the integrity of the whole seems to stem outwards in a simple pattern, from the co-ordination of the psyche of the individual, to psyche of the family, to the neighborhoods’, the nations’, and so-on.

So ultimately, when thinking about environmentalism I have a keen interest in awareness of all aspects of environment, and the ever-important notion of “thinking globally, acting locally” – taking into account the imperative human aspect of environment .  After all, most of us still are driving cars right?  Had we been to developed a human-development-conscious approach to environmentalism rather than trying to ask people to walk around suburbs  or ride bikes 40 miles to work we would probably be doing them.  The development of this human-growth-conscious and environment-growth-conscious infrastructure (which really is the same thing) will alleviate ourselves from many-many problems and simultaneously opening new doors to progress.  I find a huge excitement in this path of being able to serve the wellness of humans and the planet’s ecology at the same time.

Some closing questions:  Are we connected with the things that we are consuming and producing?  Do we know the full implications of our actions?  Do we know our full capabilities?  Do we know our neighbors who we are (consciously or unconsciously) creating this world with? When we consume do we have similar intentions as the producer?  Are our intentions healthier?  What about when we are the producer?  Or when we play both rolls?  Is our workplace set so that it promotes or engenders healthy and sustainable development , not just some healthier practices?  Is our family set-up for wellness development?  How about our nation?  It’s important to keep in mind that in times of urgency, nothing is “good enough” unless it is actually good enough.  In today’s time of urgency we require a social technology that engenders the development of sustainability, because our human world is in-fact not sustainable, and thus necessetates the development of sustainability technology.  Perhaps focusing the algebraic expansion of sustainability via social-development technologies is much more effective towards “being green” than the arithmetic expansion of “green” product creation and consumption.  There is an idea to me that goes like this:  If we are accepting healthy practices into our unhealthy lifestyle than we are being less unhealthy than we were before;  If we are creating healthy practices in our healthy lifestyle than we are actually being healthy.  It’s important to always distinguish our means from our ends, if they are different.  We are not in the end times right now, we are in a global shift and the times call for excited people with productive ideas.  In this urgent time for the ecology of our planet and our people we need our actions and products to be exponentially constructive for ecological and social health – we ourselves need to all develop and create and modify towards health and wellness, not just embrace others’ ideas and products and ways.  Everyone is a necessary part of this equation.  To me, choosing this path is a complete and expanding liberation with limitless possibility for exciting things to happen, and every day I’m glad that I’m here and get to take part in it.

Source: wikipedia