Subject: [ecopath] Building a Sustainable World (fwd)

From: Larry London <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:40:13 -0400 (EDT)

http://metalab.unc.edu/london   InterGarden   
[email-masked]   [email-masked]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:36:25 -0700
From: Jeff Owens <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ecopath] Building a Sustainable World

The following is taken from a post to the Deep Ecology discussion
list.  I'm not sure everyone views deep ecology this way, but it
is a viewpoint i enjoy.

 ----

 From: Betsy Barnum <[email-masked]>

Social and cultural solutions are certainly required to move
successfully to sustainable ways of life.  But these are not going
to happen from the top down.  Grassroots change has to happen
first, people changing their way of life and gradually spreading
their ideas and practices, and systematic change happening rapidly
from there.

To say "I won't do it because it won't be effective" is so
pessimistic, in two ways.  One, it is ludicrously stubborn.  If I
don't take responsibility for my own impact on the Earth, who will?
This argument is like saying, "I won't do it until you do it.  No,
you first, no, you first...." Somebody has to go first.  Why not
me?  Why not you?  Also, this comment implies a fundamental doubt
that people will change their ways before ecological crisis changes
them for us, or that people *can* change.  This makes me feel sad
and disheartened, a mood that *really* makes me ineffective!

Second, this word "effective" is a real red herring, in my opinion.
It's a buzzword of the industrial economy, of human-only thinking,
a false value in my opinion.  It has its place, it is a value, but
it doesn't deserve its place as a primary measure of behavior.
It's passionless, bloodless, dry--it's about accounting,
"bang-for-the-buck," quantification.  Does everyone use
effectiveness as a measure for all their decisions?  I don't.  Why
use it as the only measure for decisions to reduce ecological
impact?  Aren't there lots of other good reasons to simplify?

The argument that "it isn't effective" or "it won't work" also is
imbued with the notion that simplifying one's life will be a
sacrifice, not pleasurable or satisfying or joyful.  This is a
misunderstanding of simplicity, in my opinion.  I suppose on one
level your friends are right--if simplifying entailed huge
sacrifice, then nobody would want to go first, enter into that
suffering, unless they knew for sure it would "work."

But reducing ecological impact is never going to be voluntarily
embraced if it is a sacrifice.  The truth is, the way of life most
people aspire to brings satisfaction that is fleeting and empty at
best, destructive of something essentially human at worst, and
growing numbers of people know this.  A life embedded in a place,
in a community, with minimal need for money and things and a
healthy fabric of relationships for help and celebration is so much
richer than a life characterized by owning and maintaining a huge
house, huge vehicle and all the toys.  This awareness, the yearning
for something truly, deeply satisfying, is right on the edge of
consciousness for a huge number of people, I think.

WRT "if you don't use it, someone else will," I can hardly think of
a worse reason to continue in a wasteful life.  Why is it better
for me to use "it" than someone else?  This leaves me feeling not
just empty, but dirty.  This thought to me is the flip side of the
economics argument--we have to keep buying stuff to keep the
economy going.  These notions exemplify one of the worst
misapprehensions that modern culture teaches people: that we must
always compete with each other for everything.  This includes
competing with other creatures as well as with other people.
That's how we've gotten into the mess we're in, or one way.

So how does deep ecology answer these arguments?  To me, DE is an
invitation to explore a deeper connection with all life.  It's a
call to examine how I live, and how I can bring the way I live into
some degree of balance with the ecosystems I live in, as well as
understanding on a spiritual level that I *am* the Earth, and
learning from that awareness.

Part of what I have come to through living with DE is that no
matter what is happening around me, it's of utmost importance that
I live a life of integrity and wholeness, to the best of my
ability.  Live in harmony, reduce the negative impact of meeting my
needs, maintain a respectful relationship with all beings including
all humans, and experience as deeply as possible my oneness with
the Earth.  Not out of duty, not out of fear, but out of love, joy,
the profound contentment and even ecstasy of participating
consciously in *life*.

Whether or not this is "effective" in any external way doesn't
really matter.

Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
[email-masked]
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]