Rescuing Ourselves And The Planet

There is a common unhealthy triangle that plays out in many social settings.  It requires three players: a Perpetrator of harm, a Victim of that harm, and a Rescuer who “saves” the Victim.¹

Why unhealthy?  All three are in a co-dependent relationship, and require the presence of the other two to satisfy their egos.  The Perpetrator needs the Victim and, as absurd and senseless as it may seem, the Victim needs the Perpetrator.  The Victim also needs the Rescuer to “save” them and rescue them from their helplessness.  The Rescuer too, needs the Victim in order to satisfy their desire to be worthy, as their own sense of self-worth has been lost or abandoned, possibly in childhood.  The Rescuer also needs the Perpetrator to create the Victim that can then be “rescued” by the Rescuer.

And, of course, the Perpetrator needs both the Victim and the Rescuer.  The former to represent someone (or something) that they can take out their deep held frustrations and anger upon.  And the Rescuer is necessary so as to maintain a steady supply of Victims.

It’s an unhealthy triangle.

Each of these roles often get developed early in life as our egos are forming.  Our western-styled society remains trapped within an ego-centric approach to individual and cultural development and places too little, if any, emphasis of eco-centric or soul-centric development.

Thus, we are enmeshed in a society that accentuates an ego-centric psyche, and because of that, perpetuates a continuing ego-centric culture.

Rescuing The Planet

All too often this same unhealthy triangle plays out in our response to environmental issues, including climate change.

Apart from minor exceptions, we humans play out the roles of Perpetrator, Victim, and Rescuer.

There is little doubt that we are the major Perpetrators of environmental damage upon this planet.

Many around the world are now recognising that we humans have become the Victims of our own actions - our perpetrations.  Some have thought beyond this anthro-centric view and perceive nature, the planet, the Earth, to be a Victim of this Perpetrator called homo sapiens.

With a Victim mentality we then approach the Earth and nature as Rescuers.  It is our job to rescue the planet, to “save” the Earth.

Somewhere, somehow, we must overcome and disrupt this unhealthy triangle.

We need to re-think who we are.  We are not the “top of the pile” dominators, exploiters, and/or consumers of the Earth’s resources.  Nor are we the “ultimate consciousness” that can rescue our future or save the planet.

We need to discover (perhaps re-discover) a nature-centred (eco-centric) consciousness – one in which we are no more, nor any less, than all the rest of nature.

Notes:
1. The use the capitalised forms of Perpetrator, Victim, Rescuer are meant to indicate a part of one’s psyche that informs one’s approach to the world, and relationships within it.  These three roles often get formed in childhood.

THINK Of A Better World

In 1872 Mary Ann Pietzker wrote a poem entitled “Is It True? Is It Necessary? Is It Kind?”  Since then this poem has morphed into an acronym that exhorts us to THINK before we speak (or write).  The acronym suggests we ask ourselves, before speaking:

Is it …
   True?
   Honest?
   Inspiring?
   Necessary?
   Kind?

Most of us, in our work for social justice, environmental preservation, or community development, have one common goal – the desire for a better world.

The creation, or evolution, of a better world surely includes how we treat one another, including those with whom we may disagree.

In that disagreement it is still possible to speak with thought – to THINK about what we say, and about how we say it.

Note that the acronym does not ask: Is It Agreeing?  We do not need to agree in order to be kind, honest, or inspiring.

Let’s also be clear about how we disagree, and what we disagree about.

Suppose you have a preference for Earl Grey tea over English Breakfast tea.  Suppose I prefer English Breakfast and dislike Earl Grey. 

What if I say to you “Earl Grey is vile, loathsome rubbish.”  That may be my truth, but it is hardly inspiring.  It is also unnecessary, and it is definitely unkind.  I could have just said “I prefer English Breakfast,” or nothing at all.

Disagreement for disagreements sake is pointless and often ignites tensions and quickly descends into an unnecessary argument.

The other sort of disagreement that is pointless is that of name-calling and insult.  In a recent post I noted that this usually leads to disconnection and greater polarisation.

In our work towards a better world we eventually come to a realisation that we are all connected.  At some deeper level we are all kin.

In our speech (and our writing) it would pay to THINK first, and then speak (or write) with kindness.¹

Note
1. The word kin and kindness come from the same etymological root.

Going On Holiday

I overheard a conversation this morning:

“I’m going on holiday,” said one.

“Oh, where are you going?” came the reply.

It’s a fairly common conversation isn’t it?  We say we are going on holiday.  Why do we say that?  What is it about our current location that means we must go somewhere for a holiday?

In one sense it’s a little sad.  What has come to pass in our culture that we have to go somewhere else for recreation, relaxation, or pleasure?

It hasn’t always been that way. 

A Holy Day until fairly recently has been a day on which we acknowledged something important in our culture – an anniversary of a momentous event, or a day that contained spiritual significance.

Holy comes to us linguistically from the Old English word halig meaning consecrated.  It pre-dates Christianity and had the sense of “that which must be preserved whole or intact and not violated.”

We have forgotten what is holy in the here and now, and we must leave the here and now and go on holiday.

Vacating Our Place

In the US, the more common term for holiday is vacation.  This word perhaps even more tersely signals the desire to go.  The word gives us a clue – we vacate. 

The root of the word vacation is the Proto-Indo-European word eue meaning to leave, abandon.

What are we abandoning, or going away from? 

Is that what our work ethic, and our institutionalised lives have come to?  That when we celebrate a holiday we must go somewhere else, we must abandon our everyday lives?

The Tourist Fantasy

Going on holiday has now become more and more synonymous with tourism.  We become tourists.

The word tourist entered the English language fairly recently, at the end of the 18th century.  But. my, how we have embraced it.  Tourism has soared.

In 1950 there were approximately 25 million “tourists” world-wide.  Today, every year, the world sees over 1.4 billion tourists.  That’s a 5,600% increase in just 68 years!

One person in every hundred was a tourist in 1950.  Today, one in every 5 is.

Sad, isn’t it?

That we must go somewhere else and abandon our lives in order to find rest, recreation, and/or pleasure.

We have lost the ability to celebrate what is holy in our lives.  We have forgotten how to enjoy our Holy Days.  We have lost connection with our place.

Feeding That Which Feeds Us

Most of us have heard of the fight or flight response.  When faced with a threatening situation, we become distressed, and an instinctual evolutionary response ensues.  We either turn tail and run, or we stand and fight.  We may also just freeze.

When we are threatened, our brain (specifically the amygdala) notices the threat and then, like a central command post, sends out distress signals resulting in the production of adrenaline and other hormones.

Most of us know what happens next:  our heart beats faster, our pulse rate goes up, so does our blood pressure.  We breathe more rapidly, and our senses sharpen.  Blood sugars get released.

If we continue to perceive the cause of our distress then the body releases cortisol, which acts to keep the body on “high alert.”

A continued state of high alert, however, is not good; it can become chronic and toxic.  We get into a vicious downward cycle. The build-up of cortisol in the brain increases the size of the amygdala, thus making the brain even more susceptible to distress.

Long-term, chronic distress negatively affects us.  We suffer from high blood pressure, obesity, anxiety, depression, and form addictions.

Constant Stress

Our modern lifestyle is no longer a “healthy” one.  We are bombarded daily with stressors and other threats.  From the constant racket of traffic, to the deadline to be met by 4.30pm.  From the glare of an iPad or TV monitor, to the lack of car parking space.  Daily there may be hundreds of distress-causing events.

It is little wonder then that most of us are living with chronic distress.  Our bodies are constantly on “high alert,” our sympathetic nervous system is always switched on.  Our parasympathetic nervous system becomes redundant.¹

This constant state of distress impairs our ability to think critically,² and dampens our creativity.

Climate Stress

Right now we are witnessing a dramatic increase in atmospheric carbon concentrations and a warming of the planet, bringing about climate change.

We have already witnessed how this is stress-inducing for people.  People in low-lying Pacific nations live with the constant fear of flooding.  In other parts of the world people live with the stress of drought, or massive hurricanes and tornadoes.  Others find their crops failing and soils being depleted.

It would seem that, in this early part of the 21st century we require both critical thinking and a creative response.

But, if our modern lifestyles hinder both, how do we nourish these capabilities?

Feed That Which Feeds Us

Fortunately, nature provides a solution.  And, it’s a simple one.  It doesn’t cost anything.  It is readily available.  It can be applied by oneself, in pairs, or in larger groups.

It just asks one thing of you: get outside, get into nature.  Go and sit under a tree, in a forest (bush) if nearby. 

Spending time, mindfully, in nature has been shown to reduce distress by lessening the activity of the sympathetic nervous system.  Time spent in nature reduces blood pressure (some research suggests this can last up to 5 days). 

So, the very thing we wish to “save” is the very thing that will feed the critical thinking and creativity we so desperately need.

We must learn to feed that which has been feeding us all along.³

Notes:
1. Our bodies have two nervous systems.  The Sympathetic Nervous System is the one that kicks in with adrenaline to ready the body to fight or flee.  On the other hand, our Parasympathetic Nervous System is the system that brings our bodies back into balance, it calms us.
2. Note that critical thinking is not the same as to criticise.  Although both come from the same Greek word (kritikos) critical thinking means analysing facts, in a clear, rational, open-minded, evidence-based, manner to form a judgement.  Criticise, however, means to find fault in someone or something, and has the sense of shame, censure, or condemnation about it.
3. With thanks to Stephen Jenkinson for this metaphor.  Stephen (MTS, MSW) is a teacher, author, storyteller, spiritual activist, farmer and founder of the Orphan Wisdom School (based in Canada), a teaching house and learning house for the skills of deep living and making human culture.
 

Science and Spirituality: Adversaries?

Western societies seem overly keen to separate things, to allocate different aspects of life to different boxes.  Woe betide anyone who mixes up the contents of the different boxes.

Perhaps the two most significant boxes are those labelled science and spirituality.  Science is science, and spirituality is spirituality.  They are not to be confused, certainly not connected.  Unified?  Heavens no!  At least this is what the dominant mindset would have us believe.

Yet, has it always been this way?  Interestingly the words science and spiritual only entered the English language in the 14th and 15th centuries respectively.

It seems that previously the two were understood as being two sides of the same coin, they were ways in which our quest for understanding was undertaken.

In modern versions, science tends to ask questions about what is out there, and spirituality about what is in here.  Science today asks “why is the sky blue?” or "how do black holes form?”  Today, spirituality asks “who am I?” or “what is the purpose of life?”

But they are not separate.  They are two aspects of our innate curiosity, and our quest for meaning and identity.

For First Nations people there is no split, nor was there for ancient forebears of western cultures.  The Druids, for example, were the holders of knowledge and wisdom, whether it be knowledge of practical use or that of an esoteric nature.  Furthermore, theirs was a knowledge base firmly rooted in nature.  Indeed, the words Druid and tree come from the same Proto-Indo-European root word – deru.
 
So, why is that today we are so keen to put these two aspects of our quest into separate boxes?  And why is it that, by separating them, we tend to give one greater precedence than the other?  Some of us esteem science and dismiss any spiritual element.  Others put spirituality at the forefront and disdain science.

That is a folly, and a dangerous one at that.  The danger lies more with the offshoots of spirituality (religion) and science (technology).

However, the original folly lies in venerating one over the other.

The Time Before

Let’s return to the time before science and spirituality were split apart by western minds.

The ancient shamans, elders, and wisdom-keepers were keen observers of nature, both “outer” nature and “inner” nature.  Had they not been so keen, and hence able to recognise cause and effect, there is little chance that we would have been here today.

Their inner-directed search led them to understand clearly that humans are part and parcel of that “outer” nature – that humans are not separate from nature.

These nature-based scientist/spiritualists recognised that it is a

“…human obligation to maintain the balance and health of the natural world as a solemn spiritual duty that an individual must perform daily – not simply as admirable, abstract ethical imperatives that can be ignored as one chooses.”¹

We see in this quote a sacredness bestowed upon scientific knowledge of the natural world, and the spiritual journey of each person.

Today’s Mistake

And so, today, when the science of cause and effect is ignored and dismissed, we are making a big mistake.  We make an even bigger mistake when we dismiss science in the name of religion, or even spirituality (as some New Age spiritualities are wont to do).

Similarly, we make a mistake when spirituality is dismissed because it cannot be measured and tested according to “scientific” rules.

Science and spirituality are not separate domains with nothing (or little) to offer one another.

We are creatures of nature, and as such have a part to play in nature.  A part that has consequences, and hence a part we must take responsibility for.

It could be said that it is our sacred duty to be response-able participants upon this planet.

Note:
1. Peter Knutson & David Suzuki, Wisdom of the Elders, Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., North Sydney, Australia, 1992.

What Do I Say To Young People?

For 800,000 years the concentration of CO₂ in the earth’s atmosphere oscillated between about 170 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm.  Prior to that the concentration had fluctuated wildly, sometimes up to 2000 ppm.  Then around 5 million years ago levels began to decrease and eventually stabilise in the 170-300 ppm range around one million years ago.  Well before homo sapiens began to roam the planet.

When I was born the atmospheric CO₂ concentration level had just broken through the top end of the 170-300 ppm range.

Only 60 years later (a blink in geologic time) concentrations surpassed 400 ppm and this year reached 415 ppm.

That CO₂ increase has directly caused the warming of the planet.  We, homo sapiens, have hugely contributed to the increase.

In my lifetime atmospheric  CO₂ concentration has leapt over 100 ppm to a concentration level unseen for more than 800,000 years – and at a rate 100 times faster than the “natural” background rate.

Tomorrow (20 September 2019), students and young people all over the world will be striking for action on climate change.  They have been doing so since 2012, and moreso since August 2018 when 15 year old Greta Thunberg took time off school to demonstrate outside the Swedish parliament.

These students and young people are challenging older people to take notice, and to do something.

As one who grew up contributing to, or at least, benefiting from, the increase in CO₂ concentrations, what do I say to these young people?  I don't know the answer to that question, but here are some preliminary thoughts.

The first thing I have to say is – nothing!  Absolutely nothing.

Just listen.

When I was young, I and my cohorts, accused my elders of not listening.  My elders were not listening to our call for an end to the Vietnam War.  My elders were not listening to our call for an end to apartheid and other racist regimes.  My elders were not listening to our calls for a halt to native forest logging, not listening to our calls to abandon nuclear arms and nuclear power.

Now, I am of the “older” generation.  How can I possibly choose to not listen to younger generations.  Conscientiously I cannot.  Nor should any of my cohorts.

The next thing to say does not involve words either.  It is about what I do, or do not do.  I do not go on living in unconcerned comfort as most of my generation has always done. 

I grew up in a generation which demanded individual rights - a mistaken claim.  I cannot now assume that it is my right to play and luxuriate in the comfortable nest created by my generation’s consumerist approach of the past 60 years.

Stephen Jenkinson (1) said it well when he said that “now is not an okay time for okay people to be okay.”  He’s right.  And young people know he is right, and are not afraid to tell us, as they will be tomorrow.

So then.  Listen.  Don’t get comfortable.

Then, I have to take responsibility.  I have to become aware of the ripples of consequences (the wake) that flow out behind my behaviour and actions.

Four Effective Choices

The four most effective things in terms of climate change that I can be responsible for as an individual are:

• limiting the number of children I have,
• drastically reducing the number of international flights I make,
• eating a meat-free diet,
• going car less.

Note that each of these choices is an active one.  I must continually make the choice.  They are not choices that once made I do not need to consider again.  Whereas putting a solar panel on my roof, for example, is a passive choice.  Apart from maintenance choices, it is not a choice I need to continuously make.

My choices then become part of my lifestyle.  I make them over and over again.  I do not renege, I do not give up, I do not abandon younger generations.

I make these choices as an older person who accepts response-ability.

My first choice though, is to listen to the students and young people tomorrow.

Note:
1. Stephen Jenkinson is the author of Come of Age: The Case for Elderhood in a Time of Trouble.

Optimism, Responsibility, and Social Change

Oftentimes when I turn on the TV news I am confronted by what appears to be a world of increasing polarisation.  Factions and fractions seem to be displayed everywhere.

I hear women calling men out for their misogyny and sexual predation.

I listen to victims of colonisation decry white supremacy and racial abuse.

I watch demonstrators railing against the inaction of governments on climate change.

I could sink into the couch in a self-consuming wave of despair.  I could also be “shamed and blamed” into action.

I’ve done both.

Neither works.  Neither despair, nor shaming brings about social change.

However, acceptance and responsibility do.

I’m not talking about a complacent form of acceptance.  I mean accepting that something is real, that it happened.  It means recognising that I am part of a system that has given rise to sexism, racism, and climate change.

And that’s where responsibility comes in.  When I accept my part in those systems, I can accept my responsibility for contributing to (or at least benefiting from) those systems.

As a man I have benefited from the patriarchal system.  As a man of European heritage I have benefited from colonisation and the continuing racist system.

As an unthinking consumer I have contributed to the rise in carbon emissions.  I have benefited from the levels of “comfort” our consumerist system has created.

I have been a part of creating and maintaining those systems.

Despair and shame do not allow me to change, nor do they enable me to bring about social change on a systematic level.

My re-sponse-ability does.

When I recognise my part in the systems, when I recognise my responsibility, then I can make a choice.  I can choose to be re-sponsible.  And, when I take on those choices, my sense of optimism increases.  I am optimistic because I understand that my choices can make a difference.  That difference may be only slight, it may be huge (if we understand the Butterfly Effect).

I do not know if my choices make small differences or huge ones.  I don’t need to know.  I just need to know that I am taking responsibility for my choices and the consequences of those choices.

So, I can stop making sexist and racist jokes and can question others when I hear sexist or racist jokes being told.

I can make choices about the footprint I leave on this earth.  I can choose to ride my bike or walk the few kilometres to town, to the beach and bush, or to a climate change rally.  I can choose a meat-free diet.  I can choose to not take an international flight.

When I take responsibility for my choices I do so recognising that sexism, racism, and climate change exist.  I am not denying them, I am not wallowing in despair, and I am not feeling ashamed.

I am optimistic.

I am attempting to take responsibility.