Hey All,
As I continue to find clarity about how best to bring my gifts to the 2011 International Conference on Sustainability, Transition & Culture Change: Vision, Action, Leadership (link below) in Michigan in November (see link below), I find that it would be useful for me to do an informal survey. Any responses you feel called to give me in the comments below will be greatly appreciated.
To the extent that we can speak of a “movement” of people who are looking at the current “global situation” in terms of a confluence of environmental, energy, political, economic, cultural, and/or spiritual issues, I have three questions.
1) In broad strokes, what do you see are the goals, or specific measurable results, that this movement is attempting to reach? What is the movement for? What is the movement moving toward?
2) In what ways, if any, do you see that this movement has succeeded? Where has it made headway? How has it reached its goals or created the results it set out to create?
3) In what ways, if any, do you see that this movement has failed? Where has it lost ground? How has it failed to reach its goals?
I’m not looking for quotes to attribute (though I may find some, in which case I will ask your permission before sharing your words). I’m looking to get a general sense of how this “movement” views itself right now. If you have something to say to that end that feels to fall beyond the outlines of my questions, by all means share that as well. These may not be the best questions to ask. And feel free to pass this along to anyone whom you feel would be interested in responding.
Thanks!
Tim Bennett
Writer/Director - What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire
Author - All of the Above
http://www.sustainabilityconference.org/
Dear Tim,
“Enjoyed” your video and I’m looking forward to reading your book sometime. Here’s my take:
The only way to look at this perfect storm of trends and make sense out of it is to expand our vision. At least that’s what keeps me relatively sane. And when you see the current moment in the context of humanity’s journey out of Africa and around the world, it becomes obvious that we have the privilege of being alive at THE major crux point. Here and now is where humanity’s constant urge for expansion meets the planet’s finite capabilities to sustain it. Since there is no physical way to keep doing what we do now, the only question is what the massive changes that WILL happen will look like. Will they be made by us or by vast forces out of our control.
So if there is a movement, I see its goal as first of all: coming to understand ourselves. Because the rock bottom truth is that it’s only us humans here doing what we do and reaping the consequences. Then, as we understand better the forces within us that make us so resistant to seeing, to dealing with changed realities, to responding quickly and changing deeply, then and only then might we have a chance to influence these events and trends… to do some creative Tai Chi with them.
Part of understanding ourselves will also require a realization that in some ways our very inner flexibility and adaptablity, qualities that have so enabled our rapid rise to global dominion, are getting in the way now too. By this I mean this amazing ability we all have to choose to disregard whole segments of reality. As in denial. Some throw away Heaven completely. Some throw away whole chunks of Earth (as in science) completely. If people aren’t even on the same page as to what constitutes reality, how can we ever begin to respond to it appropriately?
Perhaps a worthy goal of such a movement would be to help people just simply THINK about the world and our rightful place in it. Just stop for a few minutes… or hours… or years, forget everything you’re being constantly told, go back to square one and THINK.
Of course, there have been few wins so far. All the voices tossing in their 2 cents about peak oil, global warming, resource depletion for all these years and decades haven’t turned any tides.
AND, our beloved planet is still mostly here. There is still time and there is still hope. There is the rapid change we sometimes see when time becomes mysteriously ripe. There is the history of advancement in every dimension that humanity has proudly brought forth over the centuries. There is the amazing regenerative capacity in so much of Earth life. There are miracles.
1) In broad strokes, what do you see are the goals, or specific measurable results, that this movement is attempting to reach? What is the movement for? What is the movement moving toward? A: Saving some (recognizable) Life on Earth, i.e. Selves Defense — stopping our system’s killing spree before it destroys all Life as we know it B: Bringing us home, i.e. Selves Renewal — returning to the Earth-based, cooperative lives we all ache for. C: Ostracizing psychopathy, i.e. Selves Definition — forbidding participation by greed-oriented, non-empathic thinking and acting.
2) In what ways, if any, do you see that this movement has succeeded? Where has it made headway? How has it reached its goals or created the results it set out to create?
There can be no “-ed” yet. We have so far to go. At this late hour, we have barely begun, but we have begun. The number of homesteaders (those accepting full responsibility for their own resilience as well as responsibility for assisting others less strong/able) is growing significantly. The number of those aware of the battle (Takers — the 1%, v Leavers — the 99%) and willing to “sign up” is growing exponentially, witness #OccupyWallStreet. Awareness may be fragmented and even opposed, but we need it all, for this is the core struggle.
3) In what ways, if any, do you see that this movement has failed? Where has it lost ground? How has it failed to reach its goals?
The movement cannot be called a failure until Extinction is a “done deal”. We may be accused of being Quixotic or even Pollyana, but we must literally “die trying,” if not for ourselves or own own, for the Earth and all Life — all our relatons.
Hello Tim and Sally
Do you know that you have a profound impact all the way over here in New Zealand?
I am finally taking the time to write to you to let you know that “What a Way to Go” was the catalyst that totally changed my life. When I saw the film I was living in the rat race, making great money, living in a huge house and buying stuff like crazy, e.g. 4 motor vehicles for one person. That past life was all about ego and greed.
Now I run a sustainability education centre at my permaculture property. I love my new life and I am very grateful to you for producing the film that finally woke me up. It has led me to a entirely different life – one that is rich with meaning and connection and spiritual growth.
I think you might particularly enjoy seeing the article about the amazing sports car that I donated to a local museum. “Wellington Businessman donates $90k Sports Car to Car Museum due to Climate Change”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00433.htm
All the best to you.
Ron Eckman
p.s. I didn’t know how to contact you other than via this Take the Pulse form. It would be nice to know that you got this message.
Hey All, thanks for responses and kind words. They are helping me get a better sense of “where people are.” I appreciate you taking the time.
Ron, so glad to know that we played a part in catalyzing your life changes, bringing you to the meaning and connection and growth that is really our human birthright, I think. Very cool. And thanks for the link. That was fun to see.
You can get to us on these comments. There used to be an email link on our old site but I don’t see it now. I’ll have to ask Sally if she put one on this new site!
Take care,
Tim
1) What is the movement for?
A different way of being in the world.
2) In what ways has this movement succeeded?
It is in process. That IS its success.
3) In what ways has this movement failed?
Failure is always temporary and relates to the moments when the movement loses awareness of its true, radical purpose; when it is not, or does not appear to be, in process. Because process is ultimately assured, so is victory.
Glad to help.
1) First, I do not particularly see a “movement” currently existing. However, such diagnosis is contingent upon how I define a movement. First, there is the question of size, is the movement in one city, global, contained to a particular sect of the population, etc.? But more particularly, I do not currently see a “movement” because I define that term as “A group of people with common goals who share a common direction.” And while I agree that there are many who speak of sustainability, I find that they are not united through a common plan of action/implementation.” For instance, there are those who speak of sustainability and couple it with “civil unrest.”
However, since you asked, I see that there is a large confluence of people globally championing not so much sustainability, but the fundamentals of daily life: employment, food, security, etc. And surely, if we are to move towards more fundamental topics, and none can be more fundamental then sustainability, then such concepts as employment, food, and water must first be addressed. Otherwise, who will listen? After all one must first satisfy his most immediate desires before he can be concerned with desires which consist of the whole world.
What I find is that particular sects pointing a finger at the ills of society, and this should now include the entire world, fail to often notice, is that there exists an interconnectedness of all the global problems. Perhaps the most glaring example, and by far not the only one, is that our global economic crisis is only possible through the existence of great interconnection. And from the level of cause, such a global crisis should now be for us undeniable proof that that connection, though now globalized to an extent never before seen, is in need of great repair.
But while many are willing to speak of sustainability based on a simple calculation that finite resources are limited, often the ideas presented thereafter do not take this interconnectedness into question. And this is a grand mistake because balance can not be achieved without considering it. For example, if someone does not have enough food and they go crying to the government about it and say take money from X pot to place in Y pot. Then this, while feeding that person through its outcome, causes a shifting of an imbalance from one pot to another. And the reason such requests exist and are often implemented is because we fail to take into account the interconnectedness of things. If the ramification of our actions were seen in their totality, then surely a mindshift would begin to develop, so that our actions would be well spent and only be aimed at creating further balance and not creating further imbalance or a shifting of imbalance.
Since sustainability, global sustainability, can only be achieved in one of two ways: 1) Consciously gradually shifting global society towards that new fundamental framework; or 2) Having a lack of supply dictate that new framework for us. Only the first path is an actual choice and it involves much less pain then the second which is an eventual surrender to horrendous blows.
Looking around we see that sustainability must come into play and it must come into play soon. But if we think that such a movement will come from the political establishment or corporations, and many having already awoken to this, then we are indeed kidding ourselves. And because such a movement can only come from the masses of society, then we are presented with a multifaceted dilemma: 1) The masses of society are uneducated to think beyond their own individual needs/family needs, 2) They are trapped by the influence of the environment, 3) They are more concerned with meeting their basic needs which they find continually harder to do, and 4) They see no point in thinking of questions of sustainability because they do not see the issue as affecting them.
The above points are to show that in order for sustainability to be achieved there are steps that must be taken. Those living below the poverty line and dying of hunger are the two chief concerns that I can see which must be addressed. And surely, if we wish to speak of sustainability then these problems must be answered first because sustainability is not just a question of the planet continuing to exist but humans as well; not in some far utopian future but now as well. And if we can not turn our caring eyes towards those closest to us then we are like those philosphers who throw concepts into the air to argue which of them is superior devoid of human interaction.
And such critique is not meant to say that sustainability should not be broached, but as I said, to remind us that such a thing is not achievable if other conditions or steps are not first met/taken. And if such steps are taken then they will also bring with them a new foundation. This is because if society is removed from the burden of worrying itself over their most basic desires then they can be brought to care about such concepts of sustainability which affect us all.
But the chicken can not preceed the egg. Only in philosphers discussions do such things take place.
Dear Sally and Tim, Im actually posting for a good friend I forwarded this blog to a couple of good friends who also were very impressed by this film and one of them David tried several times to post his comment here but probably due to technicalities it couldnt be posted, so he mailed me his comment and asked me to try posting it.
David Prosser
1) First, I do not particularly see a “movement” currently existing. However, such diagnosis is contingent upon how I define a movement. First, there is the question of size, is the movement in one city, global, contained to a particular sect of the population, etc.? But more particularly, I do not currently see a “movement” because I define that term as “A group of people with common goals who share a common direction.” And while I agree that there are many who speak of sustainability, I find that they are not united through a common plan of action/implementation. For instance, there are those who speak of sustainability and couple it with “civil unrest.” And then there are those who speak of sustainability but are as far away from the idea of civil unrest as east is from west.
However, since you asked, I see that there is a large confluence of people globally championing not so much sustainability, but the fundamentals of daily life: employment, food, security, etc. And surely, if we are to move towards more fundamental topics, and none can be more fundamental then sustainability, then such concepts as employment, food, and water must first be addressed. Otherwise, who will listen? After all one must first satisfy his most immediate desires before he can be concerned with desires which are concerned with the whole world.
What I find is that particular sects or individuals pointing their finger(s) at the ills of society, and this should now include the entire world, fail to often notice, is that there exists an interconnectedness of all the global problems. Perhaps the most glaring example, and by far not the only one, is that our global economic crisis is only possible through the existence of great interconnection. And from the level of cause, such a global crisis should now be for us undeniable proof that that connection, though now globalized to an extent never before seen, is in need of great repair.
But while many are willing to speak of sustainability based on a simple calculation that finite resources are limited, often the ideas presented thereafter do not take this interconnectedness into question. And this is a grand mistake because balance can not be achieved without considering it. For example, if someone does not have enough “Y” and they go to the government about it and say take money from X pot to place in Y pot. Then this, while fulfilling that person through its outcome, causes a shifting of an imbalance from one pot to another. And the reason such requests exist and are often implemented is because we fail to take into account the interconnectedness of things. If the ramification of our actions were seen in their totality, then surely a mindshift would begin to develop, so that our actions would be well spent and only be aimed towards creating further balance and not creating further imbalance or a shifting of imbalance.
Since sustainability, global sustainability, can only be achieved in one of two ways: 1) Consciously gradually shifting global society towards that new fundamental framework; or 2) Having a lack of supply dictate that new framework for us; then only the first path is an actual choice for us and it involves much less pain then the second which is not a path but an eventual surrender under horrendous blows.
Looking around we see that sustainability must come into play and it must come into play soon. But if we think that such a movement will come from the political establishment or corporations, and many having already awoken to this, then we are indeed kidding ourselves. And because such a movement can only come from the masses of society, then we are presented with a multifaceted dilemma: 1) The masses of society are uneducated to think beyond their own individual needs/family needs, 2) They are trapped by the influence of the environment, 3) They are more concerned with meeting their basic needs which they find continually harder to do, and 4) They see no point in thinking of questions of sustainability because they do not see the issue as affecting them.
The above points are to show that in order for sustainability to be achieved there are steps that must be taken. Those living below the poverty line and dying of hunger are the two chief concerns that I can see which must be addressed first. And surely, if we wish to speak of sustainability then these problems must be answered first because sustainability is not just a question of the planet continuing to exist but humans as well; not in some far utopian future but now as well. And if we can not turn our caring eyes towards those closest to us then we are like those philosphers who throw concepts into the air to argue which of them is superior devoid of human interaction.
And such critique is not meant to say that sustainability should not be broached, but as I said, to remind us that such a thing is not achievable if other conditions or steps are not first met/taken. And if such steps are taken then they will also bring with them a new foundation. This is because if society is removed from the burden of worrying itself over their most basic desires then they can be brought to care about such concepts as sustainability which affect us all.
But the chicken can not preceed the egg. Only in philosphers discussions do such things take place.
Mostly we are reluctant to acknowledge that the laws of nature place before us the conditions of complete unification into a single balanced mechanism. It is time to create an economic model of reasonable consumption, based upon mutual altruistic relations, and the benefits of it for All humanity. Having this vision of the near inevitable future that awaits us as the result of our development (evolution), we must educate everybody including ourselves and children of our globally integrated interdependent world and how humanity will and must upgrade our general attitude and uncorrected relations to one another in order to work together for a sustainable flourishing future!
A healthy planet = healthy people = healthy relationships
What we experience externally is an indication of our internal crisis.
Much success to you and Sally at this convention.
sincerely
Ruth Avraham