[BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop. growth (was NOV meeting topic)
August R. Wohlt
blug_at_mailman.cs.indiana.edu
Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:47:19 -0500
------=_Part_7051_17427822.1194623239346
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Nov 8, 2007 8:42 PM, Sim=F3n Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007 12:24 PM, Steven Black <blacks_at_indiana.edu> wrote:
> Actually, an equilibrium need never be reached. The typical model for
> uncontrolled breeding involves a massive die-off, followed by a return
> to uncontrolled breeding. It is a cycle with no natural equilibrium,
> particularly when age and disease are the primary killers.
I suppose equilibrium wasn't the word I was looking for. I don't mean
so much a stable, balanced state so much as a dynamic, constant
balancing.
Perhaps you meant homeostasis instead of equilibrium?
I invite the folks in this thread to take a look at the latest issue of *wi=
e
* http://www.wie.org/j38/?ifr=3Dhp-art, also available at bloomingfoods and
other fine stores in the area. There is an article in there about a new fac=
e
of environmentalism and sustainability that is worth a read.
Of particular note in the article is integral-laden notion that people don'=
t
respond very well moralistic scolding, so it's not a very good way to
activate change, even if that change is relatively or absolutely "Better"
for those involved.
For example, if you tell someone that overpopulation is doing the planet in
and the solution is to remove human beings from the equation, even if that
thought is "right" on any level, it wont make it very far into most peoples=
'
heads. It'll get just past the ear before it runs into the self-preservatio=
n
defense system. Unless that system has been entangled in rational thought
long enough to be disabled, the notion falls right back out of the ear as
soon as it gets in and notional antibodies will spring up in its place to
prevent further such "attacks".
The vhem movement suffers from this because unless you're already onboard
with its ideas, no amount of rational explanation is going to change the
physical, evolutionary, and spiritual feeling that it's main focus is
anti-being-alive rather than pro-planet.
For instance, my defenses ring with this kind of response: "well any source
that is spouting that kind of nonesense obviously doesn't have children,
obviously doesn't understand the compassionate role of the human being to d=
o
good in the world, obviously has no faith in the creativity and adaptabilit=
y
of mankind, obviously doesn't have faith in any higher power or self, and
oddly seems to think that wiping out a tiny, insignificant planet really is
a big deal in the huge scheme of the universe. I mean aren't we just a few
specs on a big rock? Who cares if the rock warms up a few degrees? Enjoy it
while you can and let your kids decide if they want to, too. At least give
them the choice." Obviously those are just defensive reactions and any
rational being can (d|r)eflect them with formal argument about why they are
baseless, delusional, or just plain wrong. That's what rational beings do.
But reason alone can't undo decades of habit and generations of culture. To
do that requires something more fundamental. It requires something that can
surround me, seep into my daily life and be assimilated by my underconsciou=
s
mind to carry me in the right direction despite my reactionary head.
The article talks about an alternative "brighter green" that is definitely
not being sold as something non-hippy, non-activist, and non-green, but
instead is centered around the notion of actually using technology and huma=
n
creativity to dive right into changing the planet in a positive, sustainabl=
e
way rather than trying to butt heads with how wrong everything everyone els=
e
is doing or trying to avoid doing certain things. Positive reinforcement
works much better than negative reinforcement, aparently, and making
positive changes apparently does more good than using up those resources to
disable negative changes.
The article suggests doing this more fundamental kind of changing through
the channels that are deemed important to the industrialized countries:
style, culture, and media. In short, if green is cool, and people want to b=
e
cool, people will act green and the planet will benefit (at least in the
short term). If green is fashionable and people respond to fashion (as
apparently many do), then people will be brightened towards green. I think
that we'll be seeing a whole lot of this now that the media has latched ont=
o
the "green" meme. The very idea that it's doing so to support its own agend=
a
and profit is what is going to carry it forward. It's basically an
environmental trojan in the capitalOS. Inevitably, it will be abused and th=
e
green meme will be trashed, just like Wal*mart will trash the Organic meme,
but in its place I have no doubt in the fountainhead of creativity that
human beings corral is already coming up with something far better, and tha=
t
its temporary reign will have left a beneficial mark on the planet's
history.
anyhoo, it's an interesting read :)
:g
>
------=_Part_7051_17427822.1194623239346
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;">On Nov 8, 2007 8:42 PM, Sim=F3n Ruiz =
<<a href=3D"mailto:simon.a.ruiz_at_gmail.com">simon.a.ruiz_at_gmail.com</a>>=
; wrote:<br></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;" class=3D"Ih2E3d">On Nov=
8, 2007 12:24 PM, Steven Black <
<a href=3D"mailto:blacks_at_indiana.edu">blacks_at_indiana.edu</a>> wrote:<br>=
> Actually, an equilibrium need never be reached. The typical model for<=
br>> uncontrolled breeding involves a massive die-off, followed by a ret=
urn
<br>> to uncontrolled breeding. It is a cycle with no natural equilibriu=
m,<br>> particularly when age and disease are the primary killers.<br><b=
r></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;">I suppose equilibrium wasn't =
the word I was looking for. I don't mean
<br>so much a stable, balanced state so much as a dynamic, constant<br>bala=
ncing.<br></div><br>Perhaps you meant homeostasis instead of equilibrium? <=
br><br>I invite the folks in this thread to take a look at the latest issue=
of=20
<u>wie</u> <a href=3D"http://www.wie.org/j38/?ifr=3Dhp-art">http://www.wie.=
org/j38/?ifr=3Dhp-art</a>, also available at bloomingfoods and other fine s=
tores in the area. There is an article in there about a new face of environ=
mentalism and sustainability that is worth a read.
<br><br>Of particular note in the article is integral-laden notion that peo=
ple don't respond very well moralistic scolding, so it's not a very=
good way to activate change, even if that change is relatively or absolute=
ly "Better" for those involved.
<br><br>For example, if you tell someone that overpopulation is doing the p=
lanet in and the solution is to remove human beings from the equation, even=
if that thought is "right" on any level, it wont make it very fa=
r into most peoples' heads. It'll get just past the ear before it r=
uns into the self-preservation defense system. Unless that system has been =
entangled in rational thought long enough to be disabled, the notion falls =
right back out of the ear as soon as it gets in and notional antibodies wil=
l spring up in its place to prevent further such "attacks".=20
<br><br>The vhem movement suffers from this because unless you're=
already onboard with its ideas, no amount of rational explanation is going=
to change the physical, evolutionary, and spiritual feeling that it's =
main focus is anti-being-alive rather than pro-planet.
<br><br>For instance, my defenses ring with this kind of response: "we=
ll any source that is spouting that kind of nonesense obviously doesn't=
have children, obviously doesn't understand the compassionate role of =
the human being to do good in the world, obviously has no faith in the crea=
tivity and adaptability of mankind, obviously doesn't have faith in any=
higher power or self, and oddly seems to think that wiping out a tiny, ins=
ignificant planet really is a big deal in the huge scheme of the universe. =
I mean aren't we just a few specs on a big rock? Who cares if the rock =
warms up a few degrees? Enjoy it while you can and let your kids decide if =
they want to, too. At least give them the choice." Obviously those are=
just defensive reactions and any rational being can (d|r)eflect them with =
formal argument about why they are baseless, delusional, or just plain wron=
g. That's what rational beings do. But reason alone can't undo deca=
des of habit and generations of culture. To do that requires something more=
fundamental. It requires something that can surround me, seep into my dail=
y life and be assimilated by my underconscious mind to carry me in the righ=
t direction despite my reactionary head.
<br><br>The article talks about an alternative "brighter green" t=
hat is definitely not being sold as something non-hippy, non-activist, and =
non-green, but instead is centered around the notion of actually using tech=
nology and human creativity to dive right into changing the planet in a pos=
itive, sustainable way rather than trying to butt heads with how wrong ever=
ything everyone else is doing or trying to avoid doing certain things. Posi=
tive reinforcement works much better than negative reinforcement, aparently=
, and making positive changes apparently does more good than using up those=
resources to disable negative changes.=20
<br><br>The article suggests doing this more fundamental kind of changing t=
hrough the channels that are deemed important to the industrialized countri=
es: style, culture, and media. In short, if green is cool, and people want =
to be cool, people will act green and the planet will benefit (at least in =
the short term). If green is fashionable and people respond to fashion (as =
apparently many do), then people will be brightened towards green. I think =
that we'll be seeing a whole lot of this now that the media has latched=
onto the "green" meme. The very idea that it's doing so to s=
upport its own agenda and profit is what is going to carry it forward. It&#=
39;s basically an environmental trojan in the capitalOS. Inevitably, it wil=
l be abused and the green meme will be trashed, just like Wal*mart will tra=
sh the Organic meme, but in its place I have no doubt in the fountainhead o=
f creativity that human beings corral is already coming up with something f=
ar better, and that its temporary reign will have left a beneficial mark on=
the planet's history.
<br><br>anyhoo, it's an interesting read :)<br><br>:g<br><br><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left=
: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1e=
x;">
<br></blockquote></div>
------=_Part_7051_17427822.1194623239346--