Good, bad and the thinking that makes it so
Looks can be deceiving. So can words. Reality itself can be deceiving. Distinguishing deception from truth begins with accepting it is there.
Let’s begin with a funny story behind this photo, one that provides a nice little introduction to more reflections that came from my little Indian adventures.
This photo is the after-effects of a cockroach in my bathroom, a roach I tried to kill. As karma would have it I lost a bottle of my favourite red nail polish in the process, and I still didn’t get the roach.
Then an image flashed before my eyes: I remembered seeing a lady was making my bed in Nepal come across a massive spider in the sheets (that must have been sitting in a store room for far too long, but that’s beside the point). Instead of screaming and squashing it with a boot, like I usually do, she scooped up the eight-legged freak with both her hands and took it out to the garden and let it go…
I looked back at the roach – maybe he didn’t have to die.
“You are an insect, and I, a human,” I told him, “I don’t need to be scared of you. Here boy, come on, come with me…” I willed it calmly, picking up the tube of moisturiser it was hiding behind in my cupboard. He clung to it, like a child being saved from drowning by a life-saver ring. When I got him to the window he flew away.
Only this blood-like stain on my wall remained, as if to signify what could have happened and what was avoided. Things aren’t always as they seem, and when a situation is viewed from a different set of eyes, that sees through the constructs of a different set of language, education and experience, a picture can tell a completely different story. Its the thinking which makes it so.
…
The greatest irony of all my reflections on global poverty has been the realisation that many of the “poor” Indian women perceive ME as the poor one.
“No husband? No children? It’s okay, one day,” they said with sympathetic eyes. Little do they know that my parents have divorced – that’s the biggest no no in the book, something that (if I were an Indian woman) would prevent any Indian man from ever wanting to marry me. All the things they value I lack. When you look at the world through their eyes, and evaluate the haves and have-nots according to their values, you have to ask: who’s the one living in “poverty” now?
As you could probably tell in my last few posts, in my current state of mind, my care for the “poor” people is presently being replaced with a new appreciation for Western culture, individualism, freedom, and even a new appreciation for what I previously perceived to be the “big bad global capitalist system”. The world situation is far more complex than I realised and, in comparison to the caste system, life in the capitalist system simply ain’t that bad. At least not for me. As capitalists we admittedly are currently using the global situation to our advantage, but I’m no longer convinced we are creating it.
Inequality is so widespread, can anything actually be done to make it more equal? Whenever people set out to do good, it ends up turning into new ideologies and creating new cycles of violence… I’m starting to wonder, is there’s any point in trying? And, more importantly, I wonder if I even have a right to try to make what I perceive to be “positive” changes? What if the changes aren’t seen as positive in the mind of the receiver of my goodwill?
One thing that for sure India has taught me is how little I know, and, how conditioned my own mind is to my worldview and my way of life. Everything I think, say, write, and do, is limited by my language, shaped by my education, and inseparable from my life experiences. And then, make things even more complicated, my worldview is constantly changing.
Every person’s worldview is constantly changing. It makes sense consider the world is constantly in a state of change. Our centric view of life sometimes makes us think that our personal worldview is the only worldview, but it’s not. I have to remind myself that my constantly changing worldview is but one in 7-billion constantly changing views. I have agency over nothing more than my own values and perspectives, and the changes that take place inside me. I can share what I learn but outside that it is each to their own.
Back on Planet Paradise – where horns don’t beep, where teeth are brushed with tap water, and where you walk down the street without a thousand pairs of gawking eyes staring you down – it has been almost surreal to sit in my quiet little apartment and read my diary entries from the last five weeks.
It’s hard to imagine such a polar-opposite culture is in full swing just a 14-hour flight away.Just imagine what my life would be like had I been born in India! For a start, at almost 28-years old, I would probably have been married for half my life and seemingly content with whatever husband my family chose for me. I would probably have a few children by now, and be working in whatever job had been delegated to me, most likely following in my mother’s footsteps. Instead I am happily unmarried, childless, free – free to explore my passions, free to travel, free to spend time with who I want, when I want, to learn, grow, discover – and excited to contemplate the endless possibilities the future may hold.
It is hard for a person who believes making and managing a big family is the most important thing in the world to comprehend why a 27- year-old would choose not to. Why would someone want to travel and study and do the things they are passionate about rather than dedicating their life to populating this planet with more people? Everything is relative to one’s own definition of identity and values. As Shakespeare said, “There’s nothing either good nor bad – but thinking makes it so.”
We have no way to conceive what is outside our worldview. We are entirely limited by the constructs we program into our human minds. The perceived value of one’s life is embedded in our understanding of what is worthy and what isn’t, and of our own status relative to others. We cannot know what we do not know we don’t know. No one who has not tasted the smooth orgasmic goodness of Lindts dark chilli chocolate, will never crave it.
Does this bring us to post-modern nihilism? Is everything relative and nothing absolute? Is it impossible to define good and bad? I still like the Shantaram definition: good is what supports the increasing complexity of the universe, while bad/evil is anything that stands in the way of it. Or, how it translates more simply in my own mind: good is that which creates, and bad is that which destroys. The most interesting thing about this dynamic is that: one CANNOT exist without the other. In order to create, we must be able to destroy.
The universe is expanding, and one day, if something always existed, it seems logical to assume that one day it will contract.
I think it was Neil Diamond Walsh in Conversations with God who equated this process to “God” breathing out in the expansion stage, and then breathing in again in the contraction. Who are we to stand back and judge one a breath out as better than the breath in? Maybe we should just observe it, enjoy it for what it is and be happy we are a part of it.
Back to the worldviews of these Indian women and me: I think they’re poor, and they think I’m poor, so what can one do? Should I try to help them, and should they try to help me? What good would that do when we speak such different languages (I’m not referring to the Hindi/English barriers)??? Worldview conflicts are tough, but there’s no real violence that is resulting from this particular one – it’s just different groups of people valuing different things and living in different ways.
Who is one to think they are right and that they have a responsibility to make the other see the world in their way? I guess there are ways we in which can learn from each others drastically different cultures, but ultimately it seems to me that this the best solution comes back to the simple affirmation that Deepak Choprah comforted me with through my headset as I traveled up the dangerous mountainside toward my Ayurveda Retreat in Coonoor: ACCEPT THE WORLD, JUST AS IT IS.
Coming to grips with the elephant in the room
I knew I would leave India with a new perspective of life – but the upturning of my worldview has happened in a far different way than I expected. I thought I would arrive home more passionate about social justice, more inspired to make a difference to the lives of “poor” people. Instead I am leaving India with a hardened heart, more humility, and an increased concern for the future of humanity as a whole. Why? Because the population problem, the elephant in the room, is far too big a problem to ignore. And I simply cannot see a solution to this problem.
Before I went to India, as those of you who have read older blog entries would know, I quite idealistically analysed the global inequalities and blamed war and poverty on western greed.
I looked at these graphs of population growth by economy and region, and blamed the population growth on western development.
Why does the population of poor and developing countries suddenly increase in 1940s, and high income countries only increase a little?
What is going on in Asia???
In my mind, the population had increased so much since WW2 simply because of the design of the global capitalist system. Post-development scholars criticise the global system for being imperialistically geared to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, with the raw materials bought for nothing and sold for billions and so making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I went a step further. It made sense to me that a larger population in developing countries equates to cheap labour, which means cheaper computers, phones, TVs, clothes, cars, chocolate etc. For a government subject at uni I analysed the power-distribution of the system, observing that it is the rich and powerful capitalists who pull the strings behind governments, the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, and other peak bodies. The rich and powerful capitalists I equated to anyone whose lives are not run by debt – those who have shares in companies, money in the bank, superannuation funds, own property without mortgages, own their own business etc. In particular it was the wealthiest of the wealthy – the people who own the banks themselves.
I thought education was the solution. Not education of the poor people, but education of the rich. I thought that if each of us understood the connection between our shopping habits and the mass workers, the connection between our consumption and our future environment, and that the roots of these to problems lay in the capitalist dream: to accumulate more money, then we would begin to move toward a more socially just and environmentally sustainable system.
I thought that the motivation to change our systems would come from a “new dream” that started with rediscovering the connection with our planet, so that we each come to prioritise the whole ecosystem that we are a part of, over and above our individual selfish desires. I thought that this would come from an understanding of Big History, coming to identify ourselves as part of the process of our Universe expanding and increasing in complexity (or what many, including myself, personify as “God”) .
Now, well, now I realize that the answers to the world’s problems are not that simple. There are far deeper roots to this systematic problem than western greed. It seems to me, in this moment in time, that the global system is NOT a simple cause and effect situation with western greed causing global poverty.
For one, inequality is not just a problem in today’s global system, it has always been a problem. Secondly, inequality’s root problem – greed – is not a western problem but is a human problem, a life problem. Thirdly, poverty has cultural, religious and historical roots that have nothing to do with the global system. The caste system existed in India before the British arrived. The caste system is thousands of years old and while Gandhi may have officially abolished it, culture is stronger than law. In India this caste system keeps poor poor and the rich rich, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with global capitalism.
Capitalists may benefit from the fact that China and India are over-populated, and hence human labour is cheap, but capitalists are not standing over these people telling them to have more babies.
Sure there’s the tiny motivational factor of more children equals more money, but talking to Indians at different income levels it seemed to be the cultural aspects (tradition, the values placed on family, lack of entertainment etc) that are behind the population explosion over and above their desire to make money from them. If women get married at 10 and have babies the rest of their life, for cultural reasons over and above any monetary motivation, how can poverty ever be addressed? It is their own actions which perpetuate their poverty and cause the inequalities of the global system to continue.
Should capitalists stop benefiting from cheap labour? That would only mean these people have less job opportunities… that’s not going to help. What if they pay them a little extra, that is, change to a “fair trade” system? This may help a few lives but when people are willing to work for less, because working for less is better than working for nothing, how can such a “fair” system be sustained? How is it “fair” if some people have jobs paying fair wages, while the rest of the billions have no job at all?
Fair trade or free trade, escaping poverty is a choice that people in the situation will collectively have to make for themselves. And unfortunately eradicating poverty requires doing something about that frickin big elephant staring everyone in the face. What? I have NO IDEA. Could this be why so many yogis and religious leaders advise to withdraw from the world and look for peace inside?
And so my worldview crisis…
As a result of the fear that comes from this lack of solutions, the altruistic side that used to dominate my mind is becoming more self-centered: what future do I want for the future generations that spring from the people I love? My previous almost disdain for wealth, thinking all money was intrinsically connected to a corrupt system, is turning into an appreciation of it. Work hard, work smart, then share and enjoy your earnings with your family and friends… what’s so bad about that?
Let’s face it, animal, plant, or human; black, white or in between; this is ultimately life’s instinctive purpose: to live as long as we can, and create offspring to continue our work when we die. That’s why we choose the partners we choose to mate with. That’s why we fight the wars we fight. That’s why we work so hard to buy a house and establish systems of governance, education and business. SELF-PRESERVATION and PROCREATION.
India has given me a new appreciation for the work my ancestors – for their efforts to create a world so good for us, their children. Maybe their methods weren’t so peaceful, with inquisitions, colonialism and imperialism, but let’s face it: it’s not only our ancestors who have done this and if it wasn’t them, it would have been someone else. Before the British invaded India, it was the Moghuls, and before that it was other nations from Central Asia. The British were far from the first, and it is highly unlikely they will be the last.
My experiences in India have left me thinking that if the wealthy of the world did suddenly decide to spread their wealth, to educate the billions in poverty and create a socially-just system; the peace it would create would probably be short-lived and soon all the densely populated places like India would spread to populate the rest of the world. My favourite city would become just like my least favourite, and so would every other city in the world.
I realise my perspective is becoming incredibly selfish, but I do not want people sleeping and dying on our streets; I do not want people trying to rip me off on street corners; I do not want to be living in a dirty, polluted, noisy, over-populated place. In short, I do not want to see Sydney turn into Mumbai. I’m starting to see why Australia’s immigration policy is so strict, and why even with an over-populated planet, our government is encouraging Australians to have more babies…
I mean, just consider the already extremely skewed population distribution, one can’t but help wonder would the long-term effect of the present population trends…
China + India = HALF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE!!!
What will this pie chart look like in ten years if people in the west continue to have fewer babies while the developing world continue to go at it like rabbits? According to http://www.overpopulation.org/ if we continue at our present rates, our population will be over 11 billion by 2035!!! And what then, will Australia still be sitting there with it’s 21 million people? How long will it take for the poverty-stricken masses to turn up on our shores? Am I a horribly cruel person to not want this to happen? With Australia’s rivers drying up there just ain’t enough water for everyone. Nor infrastructure, or systems for food, housing, anything…
And so I worry, might my passionate pursuits to make a more socially just world bring the extinction of my own culture, my country’s wealth and the life style, and all the opportunities our ancestors dedicated their lives to deliver?
While our own culture is no where near perfect, with its insatiable desires and materialistic emptiness, western culture has A LOT to offer: freedom; the scientific quest for knowledge; the creativity that comes from competition; the opportunities for individualistic pursuits. It would be a big shame to lose it in place of an overpopulated communistic uncreative mess.
Think about it, if income was distributed evenly, will the 2 billion women of child-bearing age suddenly decide not to have babies? And, if the wealthy were to even out the income, my new lack-of-faith-in-humanity makes it seem realistic to assume that another group of people would rise up and the same cycles of violence would begin just with a new group of rich and powerful. And, even if this didn’t happen, how long would it take before we would run out of resources (seeing as ecological economists say 10 planets would be required for all people of the world to live an American lifestyle)? Does this mean, simply in attempt to better the lives of people with less money today, all of humanity will die out? I’m sorry, but I don’t think this would be good for anyone involved.
Okay, okay, calm down Juliet, calm down. As you can see there is a lot going through my head. Out of fear I’m becoming defensive. I’m guess I’m still culture-shocked, and struggling to comprehend the reality of our global situation. It’s one thing to see population in a graph but it’s a different kettle of fish to see it with your own eyes. When one’s mind connects such a mess to projections of possible futures for earth and humanity it’s really quite a confusing and scary topic.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t:
- If you consider population control then what about human rights?
- If you don’t control the population then what do you do about the billions living in poverty?
- If you bring people out of poverty then you destroy the planet for everyone.
Now I understand why overpopulation has been the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
My conclusion: “Elephant? What elephant??? I don’t see it either!”
Picture credits:
The Elephant in the Room – my own attempt at photoshopping a photo of an elephant from Taronga Zoo into my Opa’s sunroom.
Population graphs – wiki-commons
Good links found here – http://www.athropolis.com/links/pop.htm
Accepting things, just as they are
“No seatbelt ma’am,” said the driver who picked me up at Coimbatore airport. This is one habit I just can’t shake.
As we drove up through the mountains, toward my retreat, I turned on Deepak Chopra affirmations audio book. The first one seemed appropriate: to accept myself, and accept the world, just as it is. That is exactly what I must do. It isn’t easy to accept that such suffering exists. But it does. And I must accept it.
While I thought the sight of trees and mountains was peaceful, suddenly my transport turned into the streets of Bombay on steroids. Overtaking with honking horns, not a centimeter to spare – on my left, a cliff that should we slip would send me to my death, and on my right, a bus, or a truck, or a bicycle. It’s the buses that scare me most. We overtake one, two, three cars, and a truck – all in a row. The drivers hand on the horn the whole way.
“I’m not in a hurry,” I assured the driver (after screaming at the top of my lungs).
Alas it seems honking and over-taking is the only way up the mountain. Honking, and prayer. I allow Deepak’s voice calm my soul, and the green surrounds give me a sense of serenity. I am glad to be here. I am exactly where I am meant to be. I accept my fate – and I accept this car ride just as it is.
Take note on picture: trees (thank God!), two lane traffic (we are overtaking a truck), and a sharp corner sign ahead (VERY VERY dangerous)… And there were worse situations than this.
I am really not looking forward to the drive back down…
The parable of Easter Island
When I was in South America, one place I missed was Easter Island. If you want to go here I believe flying LAN Chile is the way to go as they give you a free stop over if you’re flying from Australia. We flew Aerolinias Argentinas (one thing I hope to NEVER do again) and instead I got to see New Zealand Airport. You live and learn… Moving on… I want to tell you why Easter Island interested me so much.
Easter Island, or Rapa Nui (the native name), was discovered by a Dutch ship on Easter Sunday in 1722 inhabited by around 3,000 people in war over scarce food resources and surrounded by over 600 of the six-meter high stone statues (that occupy every photo and postcard that leaves the island).
How did it get like this? Well the first settlement on the island was by probably one boatload of 20-30 people 1,500 years ago, but as populations increased and became separate villages, competition arose in the form of ‘a recognizably modern form: competitive monument building.’[1]
Building and transporting the statues involved chopping down trees and more and more trees were cut down until they were all gone ‘quite suddenly, the society collapsed’ as without wood they ‘could no longer fish, make cloth, or build houses, so their diets became impoverished… [and] deforestation also led to erosion, reducing soil fertility and crop yields…’ so basically ‘population growth and increasing consumption of resources, driven by political and economic competition, led to sudden environmental and social collapse.’[1]
As David Christian notes, ‘the most horrifying aspect of this story is that the islanders and their leaders must have seen it coming. They must have known as they felled the last trees that they were destroying their own future and that of their children. And yet they cut the trees down.’[1]
What do you think: ‘Does Rapa Nui provide an appropriate parable for thinking about the larger trajectory of human history?’[1]
References:
[1] David Christian, Maps of Time. pp. 472-475. David sourced this story from Clive Pointing in Green History of the World (1992)
Top picture:
Moai at Rano Raraku |Source = from en:Image:Moai Rano raraku.jpg taken during January 2004
Second picture:
Photo made by de:Benutzer:Makemake and uploaded by him on 18. Dec 2004
Both pictures are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. Official license
Redefining the “good life”
There is plenty of evidence that ‘the work-dominated and materially encumbered affluence of today is not giving us enjoyable lives, and that switching to a more sustainable society in which we work and produce less would actually make us happier’:
- the ‘stress, congestion, ill-health, noise and waste that come with our “high” standard of living.’
- the ‘rates of occupational ill-health and depression have been shown to be linked to the number of hours we work
All in all they have shown that ‘once a certain level of income is reached further wealth does not correlated with increased happiness.’
You can probably tell from the last few blog entries that my happiness (although still caught up in many societal-determined aspirations) it isn’t caught up in material wealth. I do not believe wealth equals happiness. And so you may ask: what is it that actually makes me happy? I feel at my happiest when I am dedicating my time to something I feel is worthwhile. It may be writing, reading, helping someone, traveling, exercising, cooking, spending time with family or friends – whatever it is, my happiness seems to be inseparable from (my perception of) the worthiness of those things to which I am spend my most valuable (and limited) asset.
One way we can increase the happiness in our own lives, and decreasing the damage we are causing to lives in developing countries and our environment, is to reflect on our conception of “the good life” and make sure it really is guiding us toward a life we desire. A redefinition of the “good life” would focus on the quality of life rather than quantity of “things”. It would begin by addressing the “time poverty” so often experienced in western society.
We would begin by decreasing our work hours, which would lower our incomes but would also mean less stress and less strain on relationships, less commuting, and would allow us to be rich in something else: time.
Photo:
Snapped in Bolivia on the Uyuni Salt Lakes. It was even more magic than it looks.
References:
Kate Soper, ‘The Good Life’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 54. Soper is based at London Metropolitan University, specialising in the theory of needs and consumption, and environmental philosophy, author of What is Nature? Culture, politics and the non-human. Also see: Cultures of Consumption Project at www.consume.bbk.ac.uk)
‘How We Kicked out Addiction to Growth’, New Scientist (October 2008). p. 53.
Happiness and relativity
Yesterday I had a bit of a rant about the money people earn and spend in the world I live in comparison to the money people earn and spend in the developing world. Here people work around 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week behind a desk (by one’s own choice) and spend their income on clothes and chocolate and cars and properties and parties and holidays. There people spend 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week behind a sewing machine or picking cocoa beans (no choice) just to put basic food on the table and hope their children can have some form of education so that they can enter our rat race too. We really have set up a horrible system that makes economic slaves of everyone… is it making anyone happy?
Sure nice cars, boats, holidays, parties etc are pretty awesome and fun. But are they making us happy? Why is the suicide rate so high in our “rich” world? Does the couple of weeks of skiing make up for the other 48 weeks spent doing a job we don’t really enjoy, that feeds the system’s ugly poverty/environmental consequences, and that leaves us too tired to do much else other than get pissed on the weekend and try to forget… is that happiness??? Does the result actually justify the means?
And when we get that car or have that holiday, does it actually bring us the happiness we expect it to? What about one month later when our friends tell us their buying an even better car than ours, or going on an even better holiday? Then are we jealous and resentful? How long does the happiness gained from materialistic pursuits actually last?
Psychologists and economists have found that the ‘correlation between absolute income and happiness extends only to a certain threshold’ – after that, it’s only our status relative to peers that determines how happy people see themselves.[1]
Buying an expensive car brings with it a message of status. It tells people whose opinions you care about, and it sends a message to yourself, that says “I am worthy”. But without that car we are obviously still worthy. I wonder where our lack of self-worth comes from? Why do we feel we need to compete and be seen by others as this or that?
I guess a perception of self-worth goes further than just material wealth. The relativity of self. We can only judge ourselves as relative to everyone else: How does our body shape compare to others? How about our eyes, our face structure, our skin? Our intelligence? Our creativity? We are constantly judging ourselves – where we sit compared to the people that surround us.
We are all beautiful, we are all special, we are all worthy. I believe this and yet I still find myself victim to the self imposed oppression that comes from societal superficiality’s. Why do I question myself?
Why do we feel a need to justify our worth, and have others confirm it? Where does this need for external (and sometimes the internalised need) for external justification come from? And how can we transcend it?
Photo credits:
Photographer: Gilbert Rossi
Styling: Erin Blick
References:
[1] ‘How We Kicked out Addiction to Growth’, New Scientist (October 2008). p. 53.
Sex or chess? Peace, the world’s trump card
So yesterday I enjoyed a little rant about the game our governments, supported by the people’s consumer-driven values, are playing with military pawns, strategically placed towers, and other oil-powered weaponry. We established the difficulty in knowing what sources we can trust, but decided that either way whatever moral and immoral tactics the governments are using with their present day “war of wants”, it is the westerners that gain the lifestyle benefits of cheap clothes and food and transport and travel. I am absolutely a beneficiary of this, and I must say I’m glad to be on my side of the fence. But we also established that our state of being is temporary. One day, if we keep playing this zero-sum game, someone else will be the winner and we will be the losers. I left you with a hint of hope: is there another way?
I believe there is a trump card. And that trump card is PEACE.
Ok, ok, don’t close down your browser just yet. I know it’s cliché. And I’m getting to the sex bit.
I think that there’s a difference lifestyle and world system out there that is more satisfying for each of us both mentally, physically and spiritually. What I am talking about is a world system not based on consumption and capital acquisition and an excessive usage of our world’s resources. It’s NOT based on competition, win-lose, on war and violence. What I’m talking about is a PARADIGM SHIFT. A change of game.
A shift from win-lose to win-win; a shift from competition to cooperation; a shift from a world based on limited supply to a world based on infinite creativity. It is crazy that people in the developing world die from hunger while people in the developed world die from obesity. One party has too much, the other has too little. Over the last couple of hundred years or so we have quite ironically and erratically set ourselves up in a lose-lose situation.
It is ridiculous that people in the developed world suffer from self-imposed stress-related illness and depression, and the developing world suffer from lack of self-determination that comes as a consequence of our material and superficial values. They work 17-hour days behind a sewing machine to provide us with more clothes we do not need. They work 17-hour days producing wheat and sugar, to create more unhealthy “foods” to make us fat. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE?
There are hundreds of ways that this absurd system can be fixed. And everyone has a part to play.
Governments: shift the billions of dollars from defence budgets, stop filling up your troops with McDonalds style BBQ foods, and invest in addressing the roots of the conflicts – invest in sustainable cradle-to-cradle designs of products, houses and transport facilities. Be transparent. Create a true democracy.
Voters: vote for governments who put their money where there mouth is, that support the long-term future of humanity. Write letters to your representatives, tell them what you want.
Consumers: spend the extra on the products and services that are sustainable and buy less of the products that are not. Buy fair trade where you can. Write letters to companies and tell them what you want.
Shareholders: you are accountable for your investments. Your money has a consequence not only on the profit you receive in your profit, but also on the social and environment and political situation of your country, of the countries involved in the trade process – which will have an affect on you and your children. Tell the CEOs and MDs of the companies you are invested in what you want them to do with that money.
Bank account holders: your money you put in the bank is then invested in shares – so find out where your money is and make sure your bank knows your values.
Business decision makers: look at the outcome of your company’s actions and your decisions – not only in terms of profit for shareholders, but in terms of people and our planet. Where are your Inputs coming from? Where, after purchase and consumptions, are the remnants of your Outputs (including packaging) being disposed of? How could your product be designed better, so that it’s materials can be not only recycled but are “up-cycled” and used infinitely in the biological and industrial metabolisms? The aim is ZERO waste.[1]
Rich people: did you know that the 225 richest people in the world could provide the $40 billion needed to create a world where everyone has access to food, shelter, education, safe water, sanitation and healthcare [2]? So get off your ass and encourage mates to do so too. Invest in “social businesses” aimed purely at achieving a social or ecological objective. Your money alone can change the world!!!
Workers: look at the company you work for – what product are they creating? Is it good for the environment? Good for people? Where do they get their inputs? What toll does this have on people and the planet? Communicate your thoughts with your bosses. Think creatively – how can things be improved?
Media: try to report more than just the violence – tell people about the peace movements, give people the biggest picture you can get. I know it’s tough given your limited sources.
Basically we must THINK GLOBAL ACT LOCAL. We each can make a difference and together we can change the world.
Imagine if we can shift from looking at the world as game of chess, to seeing it more like, hmmm, more like SEX…
Imagine if the world was a place of making love – a game where there are only winners, and there are no losers. A game where each party feels more pleasure, the more pleasure they provide to the other. A game where energy is created, and not taken away. A game where the happiness and joy and creativity is infinite. A game of utter satisfaction and never-ending joy and happiness. And with no ecological footprint. Now that’s my kind of world.
Did my peace card trump your defense card? DOES SEX TRUMP CHESS? Is it time to change the game?
References:
[1] William McDonough & Michael Braungart (2002) Cradle To Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press.
[2] L. Schirch (2002) “Human Rights and Peacebuilding: Towards Justpeace”. Paper presented to the 43rd Annual International Studies Association Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, 24-27 March 2002.
Picture Credits:
Dormice® (click to see more of his incredible art) Sawan Yawnghwe - A very successful Canadian artist based in Panzano – Florence, Italy. My distant friend.
The world is a game of chess
“War is like a chess game – operated by a few key people, everyone else doing what they are told.” “In war, who is the real enemy? The real enemy is war itself.” War is “preserving democracy, not practicing it.” Crimson Tide
I was talking with some army boys at a party on the weekend. You know, a casual debate about whether or not Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden were once on the CIA payroll. Academic Scholarship vs Military Intelligence. Justice vs Defence. Peace vs Violence. It got just a little bit heated.
It’s crazy when you live in a world where you don’t know which source you can trust. My source was Jeffrey Sachs, a world-renowned professor from Columbia University in New York. Sachs says the US has:
‘thrown elections though secret CIA financing, put foreign leaders on CIA payrolls, and supported violent leaders who then came back to haunt the United States in a notorious boomerang or “blowback” effect (including Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, both once on the CIA payroll).’[1]
Sach also summarises the historically ‘notorious acts of U.S. unilateralism’ including:
‘The CIA-led overthrows of several governments (Iran, Guyana, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile), the assassinations of countless foreign officials, and several disastrous unilateral acts of war (in Central America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Iraq).‘[2]
But hey, I suppose even world-renowned scholars may not have access to the same kind of army intelligence… I guess there is no way to know… So much for democracy…
What I really got out of this conversation was a reminder of the widespread approach to world relations that is not unlike a massive game of chess. A couple of powerful humans move groups of humans and weapons in a zero-sum game where the winner gets the oil, power and the money, and the loser and loser’s pieces, become the winner’s slaves.
Thousands of American troops are placed on bases in all the pivotal positions around the world. Massive little American states with thousands of troops and their wives and children, complete with schools, churches and shopping malls. I visited a couple in Japan as my boyfriend at the time was playing gaijin rugby matches there. It was like a mini trip home besides the very disappointing discovery that an American BBQ is nothing like an Aussie one (think McDonald “beef” patties on white starchy buns)…
Oops I got side-tracked. Back to the chess game.
So what I realised (and somehow remembered through my hangover the next day), is that these military bases and weapons, are positioned and used to manipulate the world however those in power so desire. They can use weapons to block off a channel between two countries and prevent their trade. They can use weapons to overpower governments who do not cooperate with their requests. Weapons are power. Money is power. And at the moment the power is on our side.
When looking at the world through a defense-oriented lens it is hard to imagine a world not dominated by subjugation and violence. It’s America’s turn to win a few games, with their pieces (including people in other western countries) the beneficiaries. Does it matter if Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were on the CIA payroll (which really truly the academic world believes to be so)? Does it matter if our governments initiate wars solely to secure oil (and hence weapons and power) and other resources (including human labour)? Would we westerners want it any other way? You see, if our governments do not support these conflicts, our luxurious western lifestyles (complete with stressful jobs, debts, and the perpetual dissatisfaction that materialism and capital acquisition brings) will be under threat. Believe it or not it in a capitalist world it is the consumers and capital acquisitionists who hold the power (if you have a bank account and own a computer, this includes you) – so we must ask ourselves: WHAT DO WE WANT???
Or forget it. Never mind. It’s only the hardest question in the world to answer… maybe it’s better not to think about it.
Playing by the rules of this game, I can imagine that before long China will have improved their chess-playing skills and take over as champion, with America becoming loser and westerners the world’s new slaves. In a world based on power and violence, this is a zero-sum game with winners and losers. So enjoy either we enjoy it while we are on top and await the tables to turn, or??? … Maybe, just maybe, is it possible to change the rules of the game?
I think so, and I’m going to my thoughts on that with you tomorrow.
References:
[1] Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth : Economics for a Crowded Planet (London: Allen Lane, 2008). p. 12.
[2] Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth : Economics for a Crowded Planet (London: Allen Lane, 2008). pp. 11-12.
Picture credits:
Again one I found on my computer – if anyone knows it’s source please let me know.
Where are we, where are we going, and how?
‘I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.’ George Bernard Shaw.
The following snippets of youtube videos are inspired by an initiative called “Awakening The Dreamer” which involves a half-day seminar that uses these video and more to step through where we are, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we can move toward that goal. taking groups through these questions. I attended the seminar and was impressed with how succinctly these clips summed up the present human predicament that I had been researching last year. Their conclusions, the same conclusions as mine, combine sustainable living, social justice and spiritual fulfillment, and in the end come down to one thing: INDIVIDUAL’S MAKING CHANGES LOCALLY, WHICH ADD UP TO GLOBAL CHANGE. Their videos inspired me to put this post together, so that the message can get out there as fast as possible. You may have seen some of these already, but if you haven’t seen any of them then this sequence of clips will take about one hour… something to do over the (what in Australia is going to be quite a rainy) Easter long-weekend. Enjoy!
Where are we?
A world divided into the “haves” and “havenots” – where the “havenots”, almost half the world, don’t have a place to shit, and a growing number of the “haves” are depressed, dissatisfied with the fulfillment material consumption and acquisition brings, and more and more are becoming mentally ill and committing suicide.
A miniature earth:
It’s just not fair:
But this is not an accident. Inequality is designed into the system. That’s why we in the western world can buy lots of things for cheap, can earn more than we spend and save money to buy houses or travel.
While apologists of global capitalism still adamantly state that the capitalist model is the best path to eradicate poverty; economist and policy director Andrew Simms clearly proves this “trickle-down” theory nothing but a myth. Simms shows that on our current trajectory it would take 15 planets’ worth of earth’s biocapacity to reduce poverty to a state where the poorest receive $3 per day. In other words ‘we will have made Earth uninhabitable long before poverty is eradicated.’[1]
The “developing” countries are in fact a ‘transmission belt’ with value (for example raw materials) forwarded to the ‘developed” nations such that ‘the total arrangement is largely in the interests of the middle class.’[2] It seems that poverty is ‘no longer a side effect, but an intended product of globalization’ with its continuation ‘seen as beneficial for the middle class’ likely to cause a resistance to ‘change and redistribution.’[3]
It seems clear that while markets ‘won’t do the job by themselves’, and governments are ‘often cruelly short-sighted’, for the IPE structure shift to a sustainable model it will ‘be a choice, a choice of a global society that thinks ahead and acts in unaccustomed harmony.’[4] A shift in values from capital-accumulation to social justice and environmental responsibility is likely to result from a widespread realisation that continuing on our current trajectory will, without a doubt, end with devastating calamity. It seems that only a well-informed global population, with leaders and citizens of developed and developing nations acting out of “enlightened self-interest” and for ‘the wellbeing of their children and children’s children’, will allow the IPE structure to enter a sustainable paradigm. [5]
350.org:
How did we get here?
Dawn of human conscious, collective learning, development of separate identities, and the industrial revolution. Our human journey:
The story of stuff, by Annie Leonard:
Where do we want to go?
Well, I know I don’t want humanity to go extinct. Nor do I want future generations of humans and animals to live on a toxic planet as a consequence of the chemicals we use to support our consumption and acquisition…
What alternatives do we have? We need A NEW DREAM… one that is environmentally sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling. (See the Awakening The Dreamer initiative).
The new dream begins with the realisation that “success” is really about the amount of happiness in your life – not the amount of money in a bank account. People are starting to value creativity over capital, experience over “things”, and time over consumption and accumulation. Is there any better feeling than the one felt when you make another person happy?
The new dream is based on an identity that transcends our individual self, appreciating our connectedness to all people, to all life, to our land, and our universe. Our new dream does not fear change, it embraces the transitivity of everything that exists, seeing everything as a process. Life will never be static. Reality is dynamic, and as humans we each have a part to play in creating a sustainable and peaceful planet for ourselves and future generations.
How are we going to get there?
Invest in Cradle to Cradle design – turning waste into food:
Invest in “Social Business”:
A “Global Mindshift”
Hold our governments accountable to the Millennium Development Goals:
Other exciting ideas and initiatives: www.goworldlink.org/
Why should we care?
Our planet is alive. We have adapted to live as part of her ecosystem, if we destroy this for ourselves, we have no where else to go:
Her resources are limited, our needs are expanding and infinite:
Whatever we do to our web, we do to ourselves:
The world is not made up of me and “the other”:
Listen to the wombat – “all is one”:
Where should we to start?
Reflect on our world-view and question our assumptions.
Rethink our values and communicate them with others.
Ask ourselves: what is my role in making the world a better place?
Be the change: know that one person can make a big difference:
And then don’t hesitate, make plans and put them into action!
“FOUR YEARS. GO.” A campaign to shift humanity onto a sustainable, just, and fulfilling path … by 14 February 2014.
Want some ideas about what you individually can do, check out this page on the Awakening The Dreamer website
Start by sharing this message – let’s change the world in the next four years!
References:
[1] Andrew Simms, ‘Trickle-Down Myth’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 49. Andrew Simms is the policy director of the New Economics Foundation in London. In this article Simms steps through the mathematics to show the system is designed such that for the poor to get ‘slightly less poor, the rich have to get very much richer’. This means it would take ‘around $166 worth of global growth to generate $1 extra for people living on below $1 a day’.
[2] Ibid. p. 84.
[3] The Hague Institute of Social Studies, Collateral Dammage or Calculted Default? The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of Globalisation, 2003. p. 35.
[4] Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth : Economics for a Crowded Planet (London: Allen Lane, 2008). p. 81.
[5] Ibid. p. 5.
How Religion Spread
You MUST check out this awesome animated map of history. It shows when each religion starts and how each one spreads across the globe – all in less than two minutes.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf
It’s been a busy week so I will start the Big History series, beginning with the Big Bang, very soon.
Have a good weekend!
Saving the Planet with a Sense of Humour
We are a funny species. And immensely arrogant…
George Carlin on saving the planet:
Richard Dawkins and WHAT is God?
Interesting interview on SBS with Richard Dawkins last night. Stream it at this address:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/600352/n/Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
I left this comment and thought I’d share it with you:
There is a God VS there is no God.. haven’t we forgotten to define WHAT is it we refer to as “GOD”???
I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years but now having rejected it I am getting closer to “God”.
In evolution I see “God”. In intuition I hear “God”. God is not a man in the sky (I think even fundamentalists agree with this) “He” is the personification of creative energy behind life. Atheists prefer not to personify it.
Can we please just expose the manipulative dogmas and seek truth?
I would love to hear YOUR thoughts on this stuff…
Below are personal reflections written a couple of years ago when I was searching for answers.
Monotheisms
All monotheistic religions believe there is only one God. One transcendent being that is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere.)
God, most of us acknowledge, is of a complexity beyond our mind’s capacity to ever fully understand. “He” or it, is a power beyond words our language offers us, a mystery that will always surround us but which until death we will never fully solve.
God’s name
In Spanish the word for God is Dios. In French it is Dieu. In Greek Theos. In Hebrew, Elohim. In Japanese it is Goezur, in Italian Dio, Malay Alla, Latin Deus, Peruvian Puchecammae, Persian Sire, Russian Bojh, In Syriac, Turkish and Arabic, it is Allah. Just as we say cold, the Spanish sayfrio, and Japanese samui, all refer to the same thing. When Muslims call out to Allah, they are calling out to God, but in their language. If they were to pray in English, they could call Allah God, and if we were to pray in Turkish, we would call God Allah. Different words for God doesn’t mean we pray to different gods.
God is on my side
The words Allah and God cognate two very different images of God in our minds, but why? It is due to the fact that most people in Turkey, Syria and Arabia, have been brought up Muslim, and most people in England, America and Australia, brought up to be Christian, that Allah is thought to be the god of Islam, and God, the god of Christianity. But this is wrong, both words mean God. I’m not saying that the Muslim God and the Christian God are one and the same God. No. They are two different civilizations attempts to know the same mysterious power behind life, of which both there is only one.
Islam and Christianity are based on different interpretations of someone else’s God-inspired teachings. The discrepancy between the two religions comes down to the credibility Mohammed and Jesus, the credibility of the writers who documented their stories, the credibility of their followers that continued to spread their words, and the credibility and accuracy of theologians who have interpreted these narratives into the creeds many people so strongly believe today.
Different interpretations of God’s will for different people at different times has led to each religions’ different beliefs about how to communicate with God, our life’s purpose, ideologies about how society should be run, what constitutes good morals etc, and God’s eternal plan for who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Aren’t these differences simply reflecting different civilizations in different times focusing on this one transcendent power behind our existence: worshiping it, praising it, praying to it, being inspired by it, wanting to please it and gain protection and direction from it? Surely if we can just recognize this common goal, and humbly admit our own nature as fallible humans who cannot fully comprehend this power, we have a stronger base to think through our own conceptions and ideas about God, and learn from each other’s?
Dear Christians
Does it really make sense that your God would only reveal himself to the Israelites, one small group of people who exited Egypt around 3000 years ago? What about all the people that lived before the Israelites? What about the Sumerians and Egyptians, the Indian and Chinese, the Indigenous peoples of Americas and Australia? Does God not care to have a relationship with these people too? Why would he bother creating them then?
Does it make sense that the only way to have a relationship directly with God, is by believing in Jesus? Does it really make sense that God would make the condition of entering a relationship with him be based on accepting a number of statements only available to a small percentage of the population? Is God not powerful enough to forgive without creating aformula of sacrifice and forgiveness? Wouldn’t “he” want to have a relationship with all “his” creations?
When you think of God, what image come to mind? A king? A judge? A man or woman sitting on a throne in a golden castle? This is an image but is this what you really believe God is? Does God experience days, and time? Time on earth only exists because of earth’s rotation around the sun and on its axis, so how is it in heaven? Is there a past, present and future in Heaven? Does God sit on his throne reminiscing the past – those good ol’days when Lucifer was his right-hand angel? Does God think back fondly to the times when his creation was perfect, the times when we were his obedient human creations that had not yet sinned?
Does he think about what went wrong, and wonder how he could have allowed himself to be so betrayed? Does he wish he’d used his omniscience and omnipotence to stop it? If he is omnipotent then can’t he do that now? I know we explain this by saying he wanted it to happen, because he wanted us to have choice, does that mean he is disappointed in our choice? But, can you imagine God of most power, actually feeling disappointed and sad? If you were all powerful, would you really take things so personally? Or would your ego be quite ok without needing other’s praise and acceptance?
What would the point be for God to set up such a grand narrative: throwing Satan out of heaven, planning a battle between good and evil whereby we, his special human creations, must choose which side we want to be on? All this bother when he is already “all-knowing” and knows that in the end he will win – and those that chose good will be saved and live for eternity with him. Why did he do it? Why would he bother? Just so that he could have friends? Weren’t the angels his friends? Is it because he was bored?
I guess eternal life of peace might get boring. In a place free of conflict – a place of pure peace and tranquility where every day you feel safe and happy – I think I too would eventually pick a fight with someone, fire things up, just make life interesting again… Could the narrative of a battle between Satan and God be a mythological representation of this ongoing conflict between yin and yang? Did “God” “create” each of these opposites simply in order to write a more exciting story fo the world? The universe is constructed with protons and electrons, which combine together in different combinations to create different elements which combine to create different forms of matter. + and -. It’s like binary code of a computer 0s and 1s. Necessary opposites. It is the balance of opposites that make up for me the wonder of life.
“God” created this myriad of experiences available to us, so that life can be experienced to the full, in whichever way we want. God is more creative, clever and powerful than we give him credit for. In my mind “He” is not some ego maniac king demanding praise and creating hard-to-belief formulas with the requirement for us to believe it, so that when we die, we can meet him and become his servants in heaven. This image sounds like something people living in these type of conditions on earth would have imagined. Think about it, does it really make sense?
How can we believe God is omnipotent if we believe Satan to be a serious threat to our salvation? How can we believe God is omniscient, knowing already who will be in heaven, yet simultaneously believe we have free choice? The only way this can make sense to me is through the omnipresence of “God” when freed from human-constructed conceptions of “His” form.
How I imagine “God”
If God is present everywhere then isn’t “he” in every cell of our body and every spec of matter in our universe?And hence if we are in God and God is in us, can we not derive that the universe IS God. God may be bigger than the universe too, we can never know what’s outside our universe, but we can know that God is everythingin this universe.
I see “God” in the middle of “His” process of self-creative evolution. We humans might even be God in his most creative and dynamic expression to date. More recent developments in this creation process have led to an individualistic self-awareness, whereby we have developed complex minds that construct and deconstruct the realities around us. This is a magnificent part of God’s creative expression, yet in the process we have taken an interesting turn. We are born into a world that teaches us we are separate: separate from each other, separate from nature, and most important, separate from God. This separateness has led to creation of an ego. Our ego has positives and negatives. It allows a greater breadth of feelings, yet is also the cause of loneliness, fear, and confusion. Through self-analysis we have lost sight of what we are and what is our purpose. Our separateness feels like an eternal separateness, and most of all we fear what will happen when we die.
Our purpose in life, as an expression of God, is to continue our collective godly process of creation. To do this we must reconnect with our true self, this means listening to the voice deep within each of us and taking comfort in the fact that all of us are separate yet one. We are all expressions of God, and together we are God. God is you, me, humanity, all life, and the entire universe and beyond – we are all God.
When we realize this, we will realise that peace is possible. This paradigm shift is consistent with all religions, and sciences. Ultimately we are all matter, and in a reality that mind-body-spirit between man, animal and plant, all connect in ways we do not yet understand. Developments in quantum physics, in discovering your intuition, connect to Buddhism, connect to mysticism, connect to the teachings of Jesus, Mohammad, Abraham, Buddha and all the other spiritual gurus of the past and of today.
If we open our minds to an image of God that is not the symbolic one we have grown up with, if we recognise our interpretations are fallible, if we accept that “God” is an incredible entity of which we are a part of even if “He” is not a person and exists in a form that no words can describe – then I think we can truly discover a relationship with God/Our Universe, that so many wise teachers have described.
If we wish to forego our egos, we can return to the oneness of God – just as Buddhists do when they meditate into blissful enlightenment. But egos are also a source of pleasure and competition which spurs creativity. Maybe egos are also good, as long as it’s kept in perspective of the oneness which we are more deeply a part of. I don’t know – what do you think??? (comments??)
Ego or no ego I believe we are simultaneously God’s creation and God’s creators, and we have a purpose: to create! This means we can transform this world and universe to the one we want it to be. How? Well we can start by reconnecting with each other, increasing awareness of our egos, and designing a vision, a blueprint, of the reality we want to create.
Oh, and if you are interested in the comment from Pat Robertson (a leading evangelical in the US) that said Haiti experienced the quake because of their “pact with the devil”, I found the snippet from his interview on youtube:
Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
And when it comes to Atheists – don’t you think they have a right NOT to personify this power if they don’t want to? What difference should it make to anyone else if some people personify it while others talk about it in the scientific terms they decide to delegate to it? Richard Dawkins may be a little derogatory in his approach but he makes a good point – at least he is going about his pursuit of truth through words not war.
When it comes to the crunch we are all incredibly complex beings inside an incredibly complex universe constructed by an incredibly powerful creative energy – personified as God or described as a series of Supernovas – aren’t we all just using different words and conceptions to describe the same thing?
A different lens
What lens do you use when you look at the world?
Is it a 35mm – where everything is pretty much a “normal” proportion? Is it a micro-lens, magnifying the small details? Or is it a wide-angle lens, taking in the big picture?
Just as different camera lenses capture completely different images, so too do our own eyes. We each inevitably look through a lens created by our upbringing, our society and culture, our education and our past experiences. Conflicts throughout history, conflicts between countries, and conflicts between people, take root in the lens through which we see ourselves, and each other.
My mentor once told me that our innermost being is the “essential” person that is surrounded by the “wounded” person, while the outermost part is the “defended” person. Whenever a person speaks in a defensive way they are protecting the wounded person, so their defensiveness gives us clues to the nature of their wounds. When they speak in a non-defensive way, they are speaking from their essential nature.
I think our wounds and our defensive layers are a consequence of looking through a micro-lens. This prevents us from seeing the people and situation for what they really are.
If we can widen our lens might we discern what is defensive from what is not? Can looking through a new lens help us distinguish between a person’s wounds, and their essential nature? How might non-defensive communication better our lives?
Photo credits:
Photographer Andre Rival www.andrerival.com
Makeup artist Winston Torr www.TORRup.com
Seeds, spirals and simplicity
Reading some diaries and writings of my past it is interesting to see how my consciousness today is embedded in them. I can trace most of my ideas in an almost spiral movement back through time. I can see the exact points in time where various experiences led to various revelations, seeding ideas that have slowly sprouted and are now continuing to grow.
For example, in August 2008 I wrote for the first time about poverty. It was the first time, without reading the academic theorists who made these points, that I realised the purpose of poverty, and the dangers that result:
28 August 2008
I just realised for the first time that governments have actually set up systems the way they are on purpose. Our governments wanted to take over the world, have people working for them, and that is what they have achieved.
We have some horrible ancestors, but their attitude was fairly consistent with attitudes at that time: of expansion, conquer and ownership of the world.
The way the world is right now has grown from their dreams, visions and plans.
After colonialism of places like India and China was abandoned, and the slave trade in Africa abolished, a new form of world conquer begun: Capitalism.
Our ancestors figured out that they could achieve the same goals in a new way, by manipulating markets, energy and development, and rule countries without occupying them. From abroad they could manage and manipulate millions of people, have them work 14 hour days for them, and pay them next to nothing. They could suck out the resources from countries in the same manner.
And today it continues. It’s not just our ancestors, but it’s us as well. It’s us that reap the benefits but consuming ridiculous quantities of products every day, at cheap costs. We need these slaves in poor countries to work for nothing so that we can have so many things for so cheap. We are driving the gap between rich and poor. Everytime we buy something cheap, someone else pays the price.
It’s not sustainable in every part of the chain.
1 Our resources are running out
2 Our slaves will eventually turn on us
3 Our consumption still isn’t satisfying us – happiness decreasing, suicide and depression aboud
4 Our pollutants are killing our atmosphere, warming and destroying our planet
What do we do about it?
WAKE UP.
First we must seek out truth about all these factors. Not live in the fantasy world that our ancestors, governments and big corporations have created for us. We must try to understand the dynamics of these international relations, and make a stand for equality among all humanity. We must come together and find solutions to this linear process before we smash into the wall. Solutions do exist or can be found to turn the linear into a circle, so that we can continue to live on this planet for many generations to come.
…
Having since conducted research and written detailed essays on the subject, my conclusions haven’t changed. Strangely enough even although my newer writing is backed by statistics and references, I think this simple reflection is more to the point than anything I’ve written since.
Photo credit:
Rachel Carroll – Sydney artist (and travel companion) – some kind of beautiful flower taken somewhere in South America http://rachelcarroll.com.au/
The Cyberspace Witchhunts
Lateline is an abc news show that I only ever watched with my Opa. We watched it most nights and from there we would talk about politics and the depressing state the world is heading toward. Before I moved in with Opa, I didn’t know the difference between liberal and labour. (Possibly there is no difference but at least I now know the difference that is supposed to exist.)
Since he died and I moved to the city I’ve enjoyed a break from almost everything. I escaped into the book I’m working on, and for three months I didn’t turn on the tv or read the paper.
Turning Lateline on a few nights ago was a big of a step for me. The next day I was walking through the local park, thinking about “CYBER-TERRORISM”, and I burst into tears. The tears should probably have been about the impending cyberspace witchhunt but they were still tears for my Opa. It’s so funny the little things that recoil memories and emotions from your past. But that’s ok, the strange little outburst was over a few seconds later. The impending cyberspace witchhunt, however, is not…
On lateline that night, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, was talking about cyber-terrorism in a way that sounded like the Salem Witchhunts meets Minority Report – and it is pretty scary stuff.
I guess terrorism has always been a bit of a witch hunt, because, well, who get’s to call someone a terrorist? If I’m angry at someone can I call the US and will they send Tom Cruise to jump from a helicopter and take them away?
LEIGH SALES: In a speech on the weekend you said that the US Defence Department computer networks are probed thousands of times a day. By who, and is it possible to give any sort of profile of the average cyber terrorist, if there is such a thing?
WILLIAM LYNN: Well there really isn’t. One of the real characteristics of the cyber threat is the diversity that that threat can take. It can extend anywhere from foreign countries, their intelligence agencies, down through criminal organisations, terrorist organisations and even individual hackers. And each of those can have substantial capabilities and even those with modest resources can pose a threat.
…
LEIGH SALES: There’s a type of war game exercise going on in Washington tomorrow involving the White House and the FBI simulating a cyber terror attack. What are authorities hoping to get out of that?
WILLIAM LYNN: Well, it’s – what we’d like to see is a better understanding both of the kinds of attacks that can be undertaken, as well as what the appropriate responses are, and many of the things in the cyber world are not as well understood as we’d like them. Just, for example: what is an attack? Is it an intrusion in your computer? Is that an attack? Does it have to cause damage? Does it have to cause loss of life? When is an attack an attack?
…
Good questions Mr Lynn, but who’s going to provide the answers?
Full transcript available :
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2820486.htm
Photo credits:
Photographer Wendell Teodoro
We are our own enemy
There is no such thing as enemies. They don’t exist UNLESS YOU CREATE THEM.
Australia sends “modern warrior’s”, off to “wage war against new and real threats” in the Middle East. Their mission is to: “kill the enemy,” “attack rogue states,” “stop terrorists,” and “protect our country and our way of life.”
Saddam Huisain and Osama bin Laden? Are they still alive? Who really knows? We do know for sure that they were once on the CIA payroll (I read that in academic peer-reviewed books) but other than that the stories blend together into a big pile of propaganda bullshit, excuse my language.
Ok, I get that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a threats. But what’s our plan? To try to hunt them down and kill them all??? Come on get real! When has force ever solved anything? What do they really want? Yes, I know they want an Islamic world… But beneath this, when the religious and political indoctrination is stripped away, what is it they really want???
We are all human. Don’t you think they want the same as we want? Happiness and love and fulfillment and peace. Yet war strips all these things away to leave sadness, fear, destruction and violence. Not only for the people involved in the war – but for all people that inhabit this planet.
Sure something has to be done about terrorism but is polarising them as the “enemy” and sending soldiers with guns into foreign lands to hunt them down an intelligent way to go about it? How many billions of dollars go into “defence”? And how much money goes into addressing the points that terrorists are trying to make???
Wars are bullshit. Big boys at the top playing with human puppets. Creating enemies. Dividing the world up into “goodies” and “baddies” – declaring them as one then changing them to the other – depending where the oil and opium deposits take them.
What does it come down to? MONEY. GREED. POWER.
How could the money being used on arms and armed forces be used to delve into the issues – to work with psychologists and conflict analysts and dialogue groups to come up with real solutions?
I understand there are more layers and dynamics to the global stage than I will ever comprehend (least of not because much of it is top secret information I will never have access to)… what I do know is that alternative solutions are necessary.
What is needed is some form of paradigm shift – a shift in worldview that recognises war and violence as the obsolete and wasteful approach to conflict resolution that it is. As the Dalai Lama says, in the globalised new world, where our survival is interdependent on our interaction with each other and our environment, war is outdated. Conflicts must be resolved through dialogue.
Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments section below – I’d love to hear your thoughts…..
Call Me By My True Names
This is a poem by Thich Nhat Hanh taken from: Peace is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life.
Can we recognise ourselves in each other?
Please call Me By My True Names
Do not say that I’ll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope.
The rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time
to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
loving.
I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his “debt of blood” to, my
people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
walks of life.
My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.
Thich Nhat Hanh
…
This is the essence of “interbeing,” the innerconnectedness of all things.
“There’s no such thing as balance.”
The fourteenth day = detox half-way mark…….
It’s after midnight. I’m a little tipsy. What happened to my detox?
As I’ve mentioned in my last post, I “fell off the horse” by no fault of my own – the 3rd ankle sprain in three weeks justified a decafe coffee, a small cheat which turned to complete failure when they brought me a real one. Since this day it has become easy to fall off the horse – again, and again.
Oh well.
A new goal for February… To find BALANCE. Balanced habits that last. The occasional drink without getting drunk. The occasional espresso without getting addicted. A piece of chocolate without demolishing the block. These new goals combined with my “stand on one foot with eyes closed” ankle exercises, led me to think that peace comes from balance – balance within ourselves, and within our environment. So when my friend said to me that “balance doesn’t exist”, some interesting conversations and deep contemplations were the result.
“Not anywhere in the universe. Or in nature. It’s through adversity and hardship that everything becomes stronger. You will find balance – only when you are dead…”
I suppose in some ways he is right. The evolution of plants and animals and us comes down to survival of the fittest. Being the fittest means pushing oneself to the limits, adapting to adversities – moments that are not exactly examples of balance.
Balance. Harmony. Peace.
Find it first within yourself, then you fill find it in the world.
Heaven, enlightenment, rejoining the oneness, becoming one with “God”.
… Reality or fantasy? Neither or both?
“What about the sun and the moon and the tides?” I ask. “The balance exists. In nature.”
I disagree with my friend. I think balance is more than possible. In the big scheme of things balance is inevitable.
We all know that what goes up must come down. BUT… What goes up is not balanced out until it comes down. Neither the moment of ascension nor the moment of descension are moments of balance. Balance isn’t found in the moment. It’s found when viewed as a whole.
When the universe is out of balance life finds a new balance, or it finds itself extinct. My friend is right in saying that it is the hard times and moments of disharmony that make us (or plants or animals) grow stronger, but in the end this will bring us to a new equilibrium. A new harmony.
In the end balance will prevail – to the loss or advantage of humankind. The universal expansion will eventually lead to a universal compression. Creativity is eventually met with destruction. If we destroy our planet it will eventually destroy us. Obviously this isn’t very encouraging. But it is reality. The forces of “good” versus the forces of “evil” represent the duality of everything we know. No moment is balanced until viewed within it’s whole.
And so, at 130am on a Saturday night, as I plan to work on the last chapter of my book until my eyes can no longer stay open, or until my first full draft is complete – I have decided that while balance is good, creativity is better. The maximisation of the creative potential of this moment is temporal. Once potential is achieved, new potentials are created. But even if just for the moment, it’s worth it. The balance will arrive eventually so you have to enjoy the process.
Maybe it was the few drinks I had before writing this but it seems like this rant is has gone full-circle. What does this mean for my detox? And my new goals of balanced diet and lifestyle?
Balance is like truth – you might never reach it but it’s still a worthwhile pursuit.
To balance out my December and January habits I think it’s a good idea to avoid alcohol and coffee and chocolate at least for a little bit longer. And I do hope some lasting balanced habits result. But, as I write my book’s last chapter about Rio’s Carnaval, should I desire a cachaca and pineapple – in the name of creativity I will have one. BALANCE. Hmmm…
So in sum, I’ve failed on three of the first fourteen days of February. See if I do better in the fourteen to come…
I shot a gun. And I liked it.
The first shot blows me away. I focus my eyes, level the gun and POW! My arms jolt up. The bullet hits the paper target.
The second shot. Ok. I’m getting used to this. No idea where the bullet landed.
The third shot. Bulls eye! Well almost. It went somewhere in the circle, or so some dude tells me.
The fourth shot. Woooo. Feeling a bit dizzy. My eyes. Blink. Blink.
The fifth shot. I rest my arms. Blink…. Blink. Why won’t my eyes focus?
The sixth, seventh, eighth. I imagine the target is a person. I can’t help it. “Are you ok?” The dude asks. I pause. I can do this.
The ninth shot. A little better.
The tenth. One round of ammunition. I’m done.
Ok, so I get the power thing. Shooting a gun was fun. But the reality of guns isn’t. I don’t think the pleasure of guns is worth the pain. Why can’t everyone in the world just decide to destroy all their guns, all at once? Individuals probably would. It’s the big boys earning MONEY from the gun trade that won’t. Corporations have the power. Far more power than the gun I shot. Forget “rogue states”… war wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for these money-hungry corporate rogues who, because of the rules of the game, can’t even be tried for crime.
Do you know anyone in the arms trade? Maybe we can shame them into stopping it??? No money is worth the amount of lives guns take.
BTW the picture above was my 18th Austin Powers birthday party – no party will ever top that one.
Living too long and popping too many babies
Today I’m doing a little report for my Dad’s business which is in the Aged Care sector. And I tell you what – I’m learning some VERY interesting (and frightening) facts along the way…
“Around two million Australians are aged 70 years or older. That’s 9 percent of our population. Four per cent of the population are over 80 years of age. The proportion of Australia’s population aged over 70 is expected to rise to 13 per cent by 2021 and to 20 percent (around 5.7 million people) by 2051.” (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
In other words:
In forty years, one-fifth of the Australian population are going to be over 70.
And the ageing population isn’t scary enough for you, put it in this context:
The world population that has gone from 900 MILLION to almost 7 BILLION – in just 200 years!!!
According to the US government census report the current populations of the US and the world are:
U.S. 308,530,840
World 6,797,902,065
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, on 22 January 2010 at 12:25:31 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
22,124,384
This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 June 2009 and assumes growth since then of:
- one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,
- one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds,
- a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minute and 51 seconds leading to
- an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 11 seconds.
By the close of this century we could have reached a whopping 14 billion – well that’s the UN’s “high” estimate… (see graph above.)
What I really don’t understand about the “medium” and “low” estimates is what they think will cause people to stop having babies.
Sure in the rich west we are slowing down, discovering the joys of life without children…
But what sign is there that the third world are going to stop popping out their five or six per woman?
In a world where (as a by product of being integrated into an unjust system created by the West) their quality of life is getting worse – why would they suddenly give up their source of joy – their desire to have a big family?
It’s not like they are going to be brought out of poverty any time soon seeing as (very unfortunately) our system is intentionally designed to keep them poor. Don’t believe me? Think that maybe the wealth will trickle down, bring them out of poverty and then they will stop having babies? Then consider the fact that under the current system, reducing poverty to a state where the poorest receive $3 per day, ‘an impossible 15 planets’ worth of biocapacity’ equivalent to our earth would be required. (says Andrew Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation in London in New Scientist article ‘Trickle-Down Myth’ 18 Oct 2008 – p. 49)
In other words ‘we will have made Earth uninhabitable long before poverty is eradicated.’
Ok – this has led me far too far into distractionville and procrastinationville. I’m supposed to be doing the report for my Dad on Aged Care but have spend the last two hours thinking and writing about fleas… (see next entry)… Ok, now back to work Juliet – back to work NOW.
We ALL live off a Narrative Of Peace
Ok so I’m laying in the water enjoying an early morning swim at a nearby harbour-pool when all these thoughts stream into my mind. A sign that my mind has had enough vacation? I’m not sure.. Narratives of Peace is a topic I’m looking at doing a research project on in the second half of this year…
We ALL have a Narrative Of Peace (NOP) – that is, a story we tell ourselves will bring us toward a more peaceful place.
Even suicide bombers have one – acting with the conviction that their action will bring about eternal peace for themselves and their families, and bring about a world of greater peace for their descendants.
Religious narratives are quite obviously based on a NOP. If you do this… believe this… say this… then you will go to heaven and live in eternal peace.
In a capitalist world a majority look for the next purchase that they hope will bring them peace. Or maybe it’s a mortgage paid-off, moving to a bigger house, a better street, buying a boat, accumulating a certain digit on a bank statement. After this and this and this, then I’ll be happy, then I will be at peace.
Politics, ideologies, even the histories as told by the winners – are told in a narrative, one said to lead toward peace. Even our culturally defined pursuits of love and success – are narratives with at root a narrative of peace: a desire for happiness, harmony and completeness.
Evolution is a narrative, although the scientific one might not set its sights on peace. Is that the missing link? Over and above whatever other “missing links” exist… what meaning can be drawn from this 14 billion year process of evolution? What is it that we are evolving towards?
Which narratives are right, which are wrong? I guess that depends on the storyteller. It depends on the lens he or she sees the world through.
Is there a “grand narrative” of truth that transcends them all? If a grand narrative does exist we can be sure we will never know it, not in our present conscious anyway.
I understand where the postmodernists come from – the rejection of a grand-narrative, the rejection of absolute truth. I do see their point.
Today I was thinking about post modernism and the (very little) understanding I have of quantum physics… if all possibilities exist simultaneously until the observer observes one or the other, then surely we, as observers, are the creators of whatever individual truth we wish to create? Maybe postmodernists are right – it seems like at least on quantum levels no one truth exists until we select it.
Ok, crap. Now I think I’ve tied myself in a knot.
I do believe there is a grand narrative in the non-quantum dimension we find ourselves in. Sure I will never know for sure, maybe there are millions of grand narratives sitting, awaiting us to select one to observe. But I like to think there is one grand narrative that exists, one we can engage with and move closer to… and let me tell you why.
I suppose it is reasonable to say that some narratives that exist today are more true than others – depending on the sources of one’s data and the mental processes one engages in.
If we were able to look at our world through a lens that sat outside our universe, observing past, present and future all as one… I suppose it is reasonable to say that this non-earthly perspective or “Godly” perspective, we would be closer to the “truth” than any earthly lens we look through today.
If these to propositions are true then shouldn’t we be setting our sights on discovering this grand narrative, and drawing from it a narrative of peace? What would the world look like from the perspective of The Universe or even from a perspective outside our universe?
What is the point? How will it help us?
Ok. Consider the fact that fundamentalist religions are experiencing the most rapid growth they have ever experienced. Why??? I think it is because they offer a grand narrative. Granted they are a grand narratives based on words of historical men misinterpreted in our modernistic mentalities (mythos interpreted as logos, Jewish midrash as literal event, symbolic meanings stripped to create historical “truths” that our degenerating modern minds can understand)… but what they do offer the masses is something that evolution as it stands is often not presented to offer. Religions offer people a sense of wholeness: a sense of completeness; a sense of meaning; a purpose for one’s life.
Ok, now consider the “clash of civilisations” predicted to come from the clash of such fundamentalist movements. And the growing animosity between atheism and theism. Surely that is motivation to identify gaps and seek bridges?
Evolution as it stands, particularly since the dawn of post modernism, has failed to provide such a perspective. Where does my tiny individual consciousness fit into the big monstrous picture of an expanding universe? Evolution provided us a grand-narrative but somehow we abandoned it after WW2. We don’t need to look for a new ideology or new religion to replace it, we just need to take another look – reinterpret what it means to be a part of the grand evolutionary process.
If we little humans are but tiny pieces of a universal puzzle that continuously becomes more complicated as the space expands, what the heck can we do about it? Can we actually have a role to play?
Yes, I believe we can. I believe we do. The self-awareness of human consciousness is more advanced and complex than any other form of consciousness that we are aware of. And rather than running away from this gift we have to embrace it, figure out whatever the heck we are going to do with it in the millions of years to come.
As far as we know this awareness is new, extraordinarily new – given that our bodily shape has only been in this form for 700,000 years, and our minds have expanded exponentially faster through to the speed of change and information transmission we are witnessing today.
Recognising this gift. Living in awe of our awareness. And hopefully preventing it from imminent self-destruction has surely got to be a step in the pursuit of peace.
Have I lost you? I might even have lost myself in this one. Somewhere in my mind this makes sense but the rest of my mind hasn’t quite caught on. Maybe when these ideas are clearer in my own cognition I’ll be able to share this a little better than I’m doing today.
St Tropez with Jason Mraz
Hmmmm….. I feel like a capitalist. 
How this reconciles with my hate for what capitalism does to the world I’m not quite sure. Yachting on the Cote de Azur was pretty frickin cool…
Helping “developing” nations
Geez I have been bad at keeping my blog. I’ve had a lot on I suppose… what with uni essays, exams and my Opa slowly dying before my eyes … So yeah, haven’t really been so inspired to write just for the pleasure of it. Also I’m soon going to upload some videos, so that will be fun. Anyway, so that I don’t go a whole week without a post I thought I’d share with you what I have learned this semester as I read, heard and wrote about my two subjects: the Politics of the World Economy, and Rethinking Poverty. These subjects, I discovered, are largely interconnected.
Poverty, I realise now, is the result of the world’s political economy. It sucks. It’s not fair. It’s a very exploitative system that is designed to take from the poor and give to the rich. Anyone living on more than $2 a day is considered middle class, so probably anyone who is living in Australia, with access to even the most conservative welfare payments, should consider themselves in the rich bracket. We have far more than we need, and we only have it because of so many people don’t. People in poor countries work 12 hour days picking coffee beans so that we can drink our coffee. Then we sell them back some instant Nescafe for 10 times what we pay for their rich delicious coffee beans.
And what I discovered is the worst thing about our system, as I think I may have raved on about in my last entry, is that the economic model our system is based on completely ignores where it gets its inputs from, and where the outputs go. An economist from the world bank wrote in New Scientist magazine that he drew a circle around the economy model and wrote the environment, inferring consideration must be given to the limited resources and limited ability of our planet to absorb our pollution and wastes, but they threw that diagram away as it was too hard for them to contemplate. And so we continue to live in our fool’s paradise, accepting the costs it brings to other’s lives, and the costs it will bring to our own lives in 20 years time, and the lives of our children and their children.
What I am posting below is were conclusions drawn from my last essay Rethinking Development: Seeking Sustainable Alternatives. I’ll post the essay after it is marked but in short the argument it made was that “Development” has largely failed because poverty is not a consequence of the system, it is designed into the system and its eradication, scholars say, has been permanently postponed. In frustration after I finished the essay I wrote this one-page summary of how I see those in the developed world who want to help people in the developing world, can best help. And it is not by giving them money…. but by learning from them. More than anything it is us in the developed world that have to “develop” our own humanity. Developing our own sense of true identity (not one based on ownership and consumption) – and from indigenous cultures like the Incan mother and daughter in the picture from Cusco above.
Ok, so this was my rant:
1. Stop exploiting them
Stop imposing our worldview on them, stop imposing structural adjustment programs on them, stop giving them aid they don’t need, help them recognise their own powers, reinvigorate their own cultures, replace our cash-crops with bio-diverse food produce, help them develop their own independent self-sustaining society, remove our barricades, leave them free to design and implement their own solutions and help them only when they ask for it.
2. Take a look at ourselves
Do not think for a minute that we are more advanced than they are. Take a look at our own primitive actions, our lack of cultural and spiritual awareness, the way we are destroying the planet for everyone. We are not the super heroes of this world. We couldn’t be further from it. We may have had good intentions, but they were misplaced. We must try to reverse the damages of colonialism. Where gold, land and other resources have been stolen from abroad, work to give it back as we can, at the very least cancel the debt we think they owe us. Share our knowledge (when they ask for it), share our technologies (when they are wanted), and share our resources until they have recovered from the damage we have caused.
3. Rediscover our true identity
We must work to revitalise our own cultural roots, identity does not come from ownership of goods, buying this or that gadget, car, designer clothing, or house is not going to make us sexy, loved, safe or happy. Nor will the forty years of forty hours of work per week in jobs we do not enjoy. We need to seek ideals that are not dictated to us by advertising. We need to seek the truth behind political ideologies and religions, and see how power has changed them into dogmas they are not. We must think critically, learn from other traditions, religions and cultures, and transcend our problems with creative solutions. Shame those who are rich – everyone knows their wealth, whether directly or indirectly, has come at the expense of others. We must crack down on tax havens, stop giving the banks more money, stop over-consumption and avoid the obesity it brings. Redistribute money to those that don’t have it so that they too can have food and shelter. Share the work and share the income. Enjoy time for self-development, relationships, leisure and creativity. Decrease stress, decrease consumption, decrease wastes, decrease pollutions; allow resources time to replenish. Bring our children and grandchildren up in a world of peace and non-materialistic prosperity.
The first step is the CESSATION OF EXPLOITATION. A fairer world is a friendlier world. As poverty decreases, so will population, and so will security. There will be less need for weaponry and war, populations will stabilise or decrease, the world will be a safer and happier place.
Human beings created the system. Human beings maintain the system. Human brings can change the system. The power is in the hands individuals. Every individual.
Together let us work toward discovering life’s true potential.
…
Enough social movement self help benevolent hype for now… I promise that some more light-hearted fun stuff is going to pop up on my blog very soon 
Internal battles of head and heart
Sometimes the battles inside your body can provide many insights on the battles of the world. The last couple of weeks have been a struggle – a battle between my head and heart over what the two of them inside my body are going to do with this precious gift of life. In the midst of the battle I spiraled down, my mind clouding over with external events and voices sending it into confusion, depression and despair. My heart was speaking to me strongly but it is easy for the power of fear to overcome the power of faith. Faith has the power to trump yet the strength and courage to listen to your heart over your head cannot be underestimated. And even with the strength, doubts manage to creep back inside, tempting you again and again to choose the easy way out, the safest path, choose the most logical option – all of which are reasoned through the common thought structures of our society. What we so easily cease to realise is that outside the thought patterns of our Western-culture are new ways of thinking, new ways of listening, new ways of acting – new ways of living that prioritise one’s heart over one’s mind.
Similarly in the world today it is the battles between short-term interests lacking long-term visions that drives the heads of the world to a fear-driven system, ignoring and suppressing the call of the heart to care for our planet and for other people. Although without such a long-term vision we are condemning ourselves to a hellish future with insufficient water, food, energy, and the death of billions that will surround.
Where is the vision? These threats are imminent.
Governments are still patterning and planning using international relations theories based on defense and security. They aim to trade and enter relationships with other states in whichever way will increase their profits hence increase their weapons supply and increases their power as well as the well being of its citizens (or at least of the citizens in the groups that have the most bargaining power over them)… in sum, governments are still living in the past. Globalisation calls for global citizens. The well being of people in all countries now affects the well being of people in our own. We would be idiots to think populations can go into the billions in some countries and have a mere 20 or 30 million occupy others. All humans share a common fate. And at the moment, with all humans aspiring to lead consumption-driven lifestyles with cars and dishwashers, that fate is not looking so promising… if everyone lived like Americans and Australians we would need six planets. We have one.
Businesses are not yet investing money or time to reduce their carbon emissions. It all depends on Copenhagen’s decision (Climate Conference of world leaders from 6th till 18th of December) – clearly, unless governments place strict requirements and high taxes, no business will lead the change.
But will a tax and carbon restrictions be enough? Even if we decrease our emissions by our targets, will this prevent the planet from warming? Is a tax going to prevent billions of “poor” people from slowing adopting the frivolous lifestyle of the “rich”? No. And if it did, would that be at all fair? In the last 100 years the “rich” have be frivolous enough for everyone, ruining the planet and losing their sense of self in the process.
The mind of the world wants its cake and to eat it too. Only thing it hasn’t quite realised yet is that it’s already done it. The world has eaten its cake and is beginning to gnaw at its own limbs. It can not be denied or ignored that we are on a suicidal path. Really. I’m not exaggerating. I’m studying the scientific, economic, political and social literature on this stuff – this is the daunting and depressing truth. Something has to change. Now.
The heart of the world calls for a return to our collective purpose – placing people before profits, valuing relationships over money. But the economic system dictates profits as number one. You can’t blame businesses for their wastes – they are only fulfilling their programmed purpose – to earn profit for shareholders. Even if the individuals running the business want to put people first, if they want to keep their job and progress their career then they must put their shareholders needs first. And even if shareholders care more about people than profits, they invest their money in businesses to make more money so they can live without doing any real work. So… what is wrong here? Something is definitely wrong. Something needs to change. But what????? Somehow the rules of the game have to change. Is it unreasonable to request for Business Law to change from a Company’s responsibility being first to society and the environment over and above their commitment to profit for shareholders? Are any of you wonderfully smart lawyers reading this? If so please let me know your thoughts… how does one go about changing such a law?
It seems that these battles of the head and heart run deep through the centre of the universe, from inside each one of our bodies, to our world systems and beyond.
The watermelon picture I headed this post with was taken in Nasca, Peru. Mmmmm was that watermelon sweet! The Peruvian people seem to live a far simpler life than we do in Australia. And you wanna know something, it seemed to me that they are also far HAPPIER than people in Australia too. Why? Could it be that they are heart-driven people who prioritise their community, rather than us mind-driven people driven by individualistic pursuits of money? I don’t mean anything personal by this statement, it’s just my cynical observation of our Western worldview.
My heart won my most recent battle. My head feels light and free. I’m no longer depressed but have returned to my usual excitement about life. I know who I am, have a vision of where I am going and letting my heart and soul lead the way. I have let go of my coffee coping mechanism, I don’t feel like a beer at the end of the day, I’m eating healthy, teaching pilates again – spiraling upwards in positivity. Although the war is probably not yet over I hope that in the long run faith can overcome fear - both inside my body and in the body of the world. Fear produces fear and faith produces faith. Everything is a spiral. Do you think it is possible for the world to listen to its heart and spiral upward in faith?
