Global Sustainability Final

Philosophy 414 Final

ECOLOGICAL


METEMPSYCHOSIS

SHIFTING PERSPECTIVE TO ACHIEVE GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY





Tammie Pryor

5/2/2009







When a problem is large and complex, it is often easier to break that problem down into smaller pieces to be examined and solved individually rather than to try to tackle the problem as a whole. What is important, however, is that after individual piece examination, those pieces be put back together to see if the individual solutions flow seamlessly through all other aspects of the larger problem. Sometimes it is found that one solution can be applied to all of the parts, and in these instances it is because there was one root cause to the original problem.

The problem of global sustainability can be cross sectioned many ways. In the next few paragraphs, the intersection of two cross sections will be examined. The first cross section is societal institutions and the second cross section is the I=PATIP model described in class by Dr. Bender. (Bender) When taken apart, examined, and put back together, this essay will show that the root cause of the world’s current ecological crisis is human perspective, thus the only solution that will work in creating a global sustainability is a world-wide shift in that perspective.

Humanity has created a number of institutions for its own comfort. These institutions are education, jobs/money, mass media, religion, medicine, family, community, and government/ law enforcement. I=PATIP is an acronym for Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology x Ideology x Power. It is an easy way to remember that our current global impact is caused by a number of factors, not just one. Lets step into the intersection of I=PATIP and the societal institution of education.

Schools around the world vary greatly in the number of years that students attend them, material taught, and level of educational “advancement” or sophistication in relation to the rest of the world. Education is the basis of change in a society. Adults can be force-fed laws and regulations, or persuaded to change their points of view, but if they do not completely buy into an idea, the level of resistance generated in their own mind will prevent them from taking that idea to the point where it will thrive. Children’s minds, on the other hand, are very malleable. What is taught to children influences their world view and determines whether they will fail or succeed in life.

Education affects population growth. If children are taught that it is better to have multiple children to serve as workers and take care of them in their old age, then those children will be more inclined to have multiple children. If children are taught that they should not have multiple children, or any children at all, because it is not in their best interest, then those children will be more inclined not to have multiple children. If girls are taught that they have birth control options and are in charge of their own bodies, then they will exercise that knowledge and their rights. Population growth affects education. The faster the rate of population growth, the lower the ratio of teachers to students will be in a vacuum economy. And vice versa. Education affects affluence. The more education one receives, the more intellectual resources are available to them to solve problems, invent, improvise, and succeed. Affluence affects education. People are only able to attend and actively participate in school after their basic needs have been met, this is why the number of years students attend school is considerably higher in affluent countries such as Australia and the United States versus desolate countries such as Africa. Education affects technology. The more people learn, the more they are able to give back to society in the form of technological gains. Technology affects education. Computers, the ability to connect to the rest of the world, machines, simulators, electricity, and access to clean water all facilitate education . Education affects ideology. What people are taught influences how they think. Ideology affects education. What people think influences what and how they teach. Education affects power. Those who are able to out-think others become the leaders of society. Power affects education. Those who lead society determine what is or is not taught.

The paragraph above illustrates how each element of I=PATIP and each element of one of the societal institutions is interrelated and dependent on the other. Any one of the societal institutions could be substituted into this formula and it would still work. That which determines our anthropogenic impact on the rest of the world and those items that the human mind has constructed for its own comfort are intimately related. It can thus be stated that a change in any one of the societal institutions has a direct impact on the I=PATIP formula, and therefore, has a direct impact on global sustainability. Since all of these societal institutions were created and are currently run by the human mind, the only way to change them is to change the way the human mind thinks. I will be using the term ecological metempsychosis to refer to this change in perception of human thought in order to create a sustainable environment. Ecology is the relationship between living things and their environment. Metempsychosis is translated literally from Greek as “change of the animating soul”, it is typically used as another word for “reincarnation” when referring to Hinduism . I use the term “metempsychosis” because the human essence as it is now must essentially die and be reborn within a new framework in order for large scale ecological change to take place in enough time to save the planet Earth. Humans must rethink every aspect of their existence in order to drive worldwide change in societal institutions to reduce anthropogenic impact. Lets now examine in more detail each one of the societal institutions and some possible changes that need to be made, beginning again with education.

The typical American school today has a curriculum that is taught approximately seven hours per day, Monday through Friday, nine months out of the year, with approximately one to two holidays or teacher in-service days per month. Children get a couple of recesses and a lunch time everyday in which to play and take care of their nutritional and restroom needs. Some schools have before and after school programs where parents can drop their children off as early as six in the morning and pick them up as late as six-thirty in the evening. Some schools are called charter schools and they are typically stricter, making the children wear school uniforms, having decreased recess and lunch times, and not having playground equipment for the children to play on. The curriculum in the typical American school consists of the basics such as reading, writing, math, science, social studies, physical education, art, language, and computer classes. The American school system prepares students to live interdependently within American society, it does not teach them the skills they would need to live independently, off of the Earth, and in a sustainable manner. Some humans postulate that technology will save the world, but this theory has no more basis in empirical evidence than the theory that a god is going to come save humanity from the world they have destroyed. What we do know that works is living in harmony with nature. This is what we should be teaching our children. An ideal school would be based on the school model illustrated in Ecotopia. (Callenbach) Children would learn hands-on survival skills - how to grow their own food, hunt, make things with their hands, recycle, take care of basic medical needs, etc. A small portion of the day they would also learn about the basics of reading, writing, math, etc., as in typical American schools today. School days would be shorter, about five hours per day, and they would go four days per week, year round. There would be no need for before- or after-school care because children would be raised in families where one adult was always available to be with them. The idea of school uniforms would be silly because children would learn to make their own clothes, and until they learned, adults would make the clothes for them. Playground equipment would be replaced by the natural outdoor experience of trees and other geographical features to play with.

Because of the number of people currently living on the Earth, infrastructural changes would need to be made. Schools could not teach children to hunt if there were no animals around because of the current concrete jungle created by industrialization. While the change in infrastructure would create many jobs, jobs would not be what they are today. People would work in teams to perform the necessary functions for their community. The work would be satisfying because there would be an obvious purpose behind it and the results would be tangible. Satisfaction from work is a human need, as described in Small is Beautiful. (Schumacher) Many diseases of society are caused today by the stress of work dissatisfaction. There would be no need for any type of financial jobs because money would be abolished. Society would go back to a barter system and mass production would be banned. Money is nothing more than an accelerator to inequality, and equality is a necessary feature of living sustainably.

Without money and mass production, mass media could be easily reined in. Television would consist of information and entertainment only. There would be no advertising and no competition over money. The competition would be purely based on the quality of the show. The same would apply to radio stations, newspapers, and the internet. Also, there would be no censorship. If one was offended by content, then they would just not expose them self to it. Today mass media is mostly geared towards making money. News stories are aired on television according to how well they “shock and awe” the audience since there is competition amongst major news corporations. Sitcoms are set up in such a way to keep one glued to the television during commercials so they don’t miss anything. Newspapers and radios are censored for political reasons, and the internet is filled with pay-to-view sites and moving, flashing, and blinking ads. Of course, this brings up the point that only affluent countries have access to televisions, radios, and computers – this would need to change. For any change towards global sustainability to be effective, it must take place worldwide. That means those that those who know need to teach those that don’t. That also means that possibly only one television/computer/radio combo would be allowed per family and the rest would be distributed around the world. If there were not enough to be distributed, then more would need to be made. The important thing here is that people would be taught the skills they needed to make their own items. Hoarding knowledge is another accelerator of inequality, as is taking the position that there is only one right way, and you and only you and the select few who believe in the same thing you do are in possession of the knowledge of that way.

Many types of religion breed inequality. Religion is nothing more than one or more person’s point of view on the big questions in life, such as, “Why are we here?”, “Where are we going?”, and “What is this thing called life?”. While it is perfectly okay for anyone to believe anything they want, especially about the big questions in life, it is not okay for them to act upon those beliefs in an unethical way. The two problems here are defining the term “unethical”, and that religion undoubtedly influences behavior. Religion, sex, and politics are the three biggest things hindering global sustainability. It’s no wonder they are considered taboo to discuss in polite conversations. Nonetheless, these three things must be regulated by strict guidelines in order for global sustainability to exist. These guidelines must detail how many children a person is allowed to have, at least until world population decreases to sustainable levels. These guidelines must also establish how we interact with the Earth and what technology is acceptable. While it is fine for somebody to believe that they are going to go to heaven after they die, it is not okay for them to misuse the Earth while they are living on it. Notice, I do not say “the Earth” rather than “Earth’s resources”. That is because the word “resources” gives the impression that somehow these things are here for our use. That is not the case. The Earth struck a delicate balance that enabled life to form. It is generally agreed that life is a pleasurable experience, hence the drive of all species to survive. It is also generally agreed among humans that all humans have a right to live (except those that society has specifically labeled as unworthy to live). There is no way to determine whether one life is more valuable or pleasurable than another life. Therefore, it is not alright for human’s to destroy the Earth or any living creature on it. Because our life necessitates the death of other living creatures, but we have as much of a right to survive as any other living creature, a dilemma is formed. As humans practicing human ethics, we will always place our lives above those of non-humans, and thus the only acceptable solution is that we destroy the least amount of living creatures possible. This is also in our best interest because if we destroy all the other living creatures on the Earth, we will have eliminated our means to survive, and therefore will have indirectly extinguished ourselves. The continued survival of humans and other life forms on Earth is dependent on changing the way we prioritize religion. This will be the hardest shift of all, since religion in most cases demands that it is the priority in one’s life. The only two ways to make this shift are through strict governmental regulations or by sheer persuasion. Since the former is more easily attainable, enforceable, and tangible, it would be the best option.

Another area that would require governmental regulation is medicine. Many health problems that are seen in industrialized areas of the world today, such as morbid obesity, diabetes, and cancer would be greatly ameliorated by the simple changes in lifestyle described earlier in working with one’s hands in a less stressful work environment, and eating food that one has grown themselves, organically. The focus of medicine would be pushed to good nutrition and fixing people who have suffered accidents. Letting people’s immune systems build rather than disinfecting everything would also be a priority. As recently seen in one local hospital, the response to the current H1N1 flu virus has spurred the implementation of hand sanitizing stations every twenty feet or so throughout the administrative buildings. This is actually detrimental to human beings as a whole because we need to be exposed to germs in order for our immune system to be strong. Children raised in immaculately clean environments suffer greatly when they are finally exposed to “real-life” germs in kindergarten. Disinfectant and antibiotic overuse is setting the world up for a “super-bug” to take over and kill many people. While this would be good for population control, it would create mass suffering, which the ideal global sustainability model would try to avoid. Modern medicine, much like industrialization, has served only to weaken human beings as evolutionary animals. Modern medicine has allowed people to live and reproduce that would have otherwise died. This goes against natural selection, causing the genetic makeup of the human race to deteriorate over time. Eventually more people will end up suffering because of the breakdown of the human gene pool than if the genetically disadvantaged would have died originally from the lack of advances in medicine. The government would need to critically evaluate every aspect of medicine and implement well thought-out and far-sighted regulations to prevent further harm to the human race. Needless to say, healthcare would need to be distributed freely to all human beings. There would be no more health insurance and fee-for-service nonsense.

It is often said that family is the nucleus of human existence. Perhaps this is why so many people in America feel isolated and are on anxiety or anti-depressant medications. A funny thing happens when cultures become more affluent – they become more isolated. Families in non-affluent societies stick together out of necessity. They do not have the luxury of moving half-way across the country to start a new life. They live together and take care of children and the elderly members of the family together. Grandpa is not shipped off to a nursing home and baby Mary is not sent to daycare. This is good psychologically for the family members are not often alone. They share in responsibilities and therefore have a purpose and feel included and accepted for who they are. Many people in America live alone or within non-extended families consisting of one or two adults and children. This is stressful financially as well as emotionally and probably has a considerable impact on the rate of suicide and mental illness in this country. It is also not good for the environment. It is wasteful for one person to live alone in an apartment. A sustainable model for family would be several people living together, sharing work, companionship, and the ups and downs of life.

A common reason that people attend church and community events is to feel connected to something bigger than themselves. People have a need to feel rooted, as was discussed in The Culture of Extinction. (Bender, The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology) I would model a globally sustainable community structure similar to the one discussed in Ecotopia. The infrastructure would be set up in such a way that there would be no need for personal vehicles. The communities would be led by “big men” as discussed in Collapse. (Diamond) The big men would not be elected, they would emerge naturally based on the quality of their ideas and leadership – creating a healthy competition amongst the best thinkers. They would be the liaison for negotiations with other communities and also be a representative for the community in the larger government structure. Each community would have basic necessities such as a medical facility, water and sanitation, and public transportation. Public transportation would use alternative energy sources, not fossil fuels or any other type of pollutants – perhaps it would be as simple as a horse and carriage! Communities would contain no more than two thousand people.

A globally sustainable world would have no need for weapons. The government would be community-based, but connected to the rest of the world. The best ideas would emerge from open discussion, and there would be a board of mediators. The board of mediators would consist of ten people – one from each of the ten communities they represented. The mediators would be different than the “big men”, and they would be educated in counseling and mediation techniques. This is as high as the power structure would go. Any attempts made for control or power over a larger jurisdiction would be immediately eradicated, as the general population would have adopted an anti-power, pro-cooperation mindset.

We have now broken down each of these aspects of human existence, however briefly, and examined them. As can be seen from each of the changes in these societal institutions that are necessary to create a sustainable environment, the common theme that echoes through all of them is that a total change in thinking must be undertaken across the entire human race. We are living in a time when there are so many problems, it is hard to see the forest because of the trees. China is overpopulated, Africa is starving and disease-ridden, the Unites States is polluting and full of self-inflicted ills, the Middle East is terrorizing, South America is manufacturing illegal drugs, and Australia has turned their back on the rest of the world. These are only a few of many, many problems. The future of the world looks very grim. Although a model can be drawn of a what a sustainable environment would look like, actually getting to the point of sustainability is the problem. This is why the Brundtland report, as detailed as it was, was only a piece of the solution. (World Commission on Environment and Development) Going “light green” or “bright green” or “dark green” or “poop brown” won’t help either – they are not enough to solve the problem. There is always the option of doing nothing. The world will always go on as it should. As much as some humans view the human race as a virus on this planet, we are only doing what every other species has always done – living. Our ultimate goal as a species would be to preserve ourselves, but does it really matter if we don’t ? Not to the Earth, it doesn’t. We can kill every living thing on this planet, including ourselves, and it really won’t matter. The Earth will still be a big mass of matter floating in the universe which will either regenerate life someday or not.

Human ego, which houses our natural drive to survive as a species, is the essential problem of human life. This mindset causes us to think we have the right to live at the expense of everything else around us. It is the cause of species extinction, human war, greed, and emptiness. This mindset must die if we, as a species, are to live. The human ego has to be killed and the drive to survive must be reborn into another house in order for the human species to live in harmony with themselves and the world around them. The human race must undergo an ecological metempsychosis.




Works Cited

Bender, Frederick. The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Amherst: Humanity Books, 2003.

Callenbach, Ernest. Ecotopia. New York: Bantam Dell, 1975.

Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societes Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Philosophy 414 Lecture. Perf. Frederick Bender. University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs. 28 January 2009.

Schumacher, E.F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond and Briggs, 1973.

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future [Also known as The Brundtland Report]. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.