Foreword

Whenever someone asks me what I think of the world (no one ever does), I reply “Too much”. Seems as if, in recent years, my thoughts have wandered off in so many directions other than they “should”, that it is surprising that I have made it to the point I am now (not that I’ve really made it anywhere yet). Following is an attempt (albeit a small one) to make some sense of this mess, and chronicle some of my thoughts from the early 1980’s to now to the far distant future. I would only offer one initial thought from Stephen Jay Gould:

“May absolutely increased ignorance flourishwithrelatively increased knowledge.”

__________________________________________________________

Partial Autobiographyof

Mark Saville

Many of my current concerns can be related to my experiences as a student/teacher at Southwestern. I was a “good” student in the traditional sense of the word (I got good grades) and was generally pleased with my education and college experience at Southwestern. However, there are some inadequacies I have felt and some concerns and questions that have developed in my mind since graduating.

Briefly, as a student at SC, I majored in Biology (B.S. degree) and Chemistry (B.A.). A review of my transcripts will confirm that I spent the vast majority of my time in Mossman Hall (or on the tennis courts). I had little idea what a liberal arts education was at that time, nor did it really concern me.

My science background, I must say, was more than adequate in preparing me for graduate school at the KU Medical Center. I was more than prepared to enter a scientifically or medically related field upon leaving Southwestern. I have felt inadequate, though, as a scientist/biologist in some ways since graduating because of some of the biology courses I did not take or because of ideas I gave little consideration to. Most notable among these are the areas of ecology,

evolution, and the philosophy/role of science. In spite of my extensive scientific background I have felt somewhat one-dimensional because of some of those things I did not learn or consider earlier. I think part of the reason for these omissions lies with myself for being too narrow in my thinking as a student at SC and trying to take too many courses directly related to my eventual graduate studies. Many of these courses I could have done without (in retrospect) as graduate school provided ample opportunity to become knowledgeable in those areas. I have also thought, though, that some of these concerns which I have felt are related in some ways to the“system” in the biology department, hence the list of concerns I have raised elsewhere.

Another major weakness which I have felt comes from what I feel was a lack of breadth (liberal arts, if you will) in my college education. I should make it clear, first of all, that I just “missed” having to fulfill any general education requirements, and know that some changes have been made since my school years. It is hard to put into words how “little” I have felt like I really learned (at times) from my college education, though my transcripts would indicate otherwise (got a dual degree, graduated with honors– what more could I want?). Much of what I learned (facts and details) has song since escaped me or become a part of me in graduate school. Without this, what remains? Some of the other ingredients of a liberal education, which I consider now to be equally if not more important than just learning information, seemed to be missing from my college education.

Sure Sounds negative and bitter, doesn’t it? Well, I don’t feel negative– or bitter. Besides having every opportunity and advantage a white middle-class male could have in this society, I believe a couple of other factors have helped enlighten me. One is that I think too much (“Question Authority!”). The influence of two SC faculty members has also been important to me. I cannot begin to describe how exciting is the opportunity to work with them now.

************************

THOUGHTS

Politics

Only in America! The 1980’s have ushered in a new era of optimism, entrepreneurship, pride, power, and strength. We can once again stand tall and be proud to live in the greatest nation on the Earth, the leader of the Free World, the land of the free, the home of the brave. The pride is back! We have absolved ourselves of the “weakness” of the Carter administration and will once again get back on the road to prosperity. We have sought to build our defenses stronger than ever before while cutting down (nice self-contradiction!) the size of and role of government, thereby permitting our free enterprise system to stimulate vigorous economic growth, more jobs, more prosperity, less poverty, abolition of the national debt. The American dream is alive and well.

Incredibly, this sugar-coated pill was swallowed enthusiastically (and still is to a large extent) for nearly six years. The flip side of this period of renewed vigor and self-indulgence has been disconcerting, to say the least. Though I need not point out all of the problems brought on by this charade, the general pattern is readily apparent. Progress has been made towards building up our national defense budget – at least we’ve improved national security (or have we?). Unfortunately, these expenditures have acted as a drain on other areas which must be funded out of the pie we call the budget. For an unfortunately large number of Americans, “less” government has meant abandonment. The axe has fallen most heavily on social programs such as education, help for the elderly, homeless, and economically under-privileged, basic science research (excluding Star Wars! Technology), health care, and the list goes on and on. Meanwhile, the budget deficit and national debt have grown, social problems have deepened, and the U.S. has elevated its practices of international imperialism and exploitation to new heights.

But who has the solutions to these problems? How about the Republicans, fearlessly led by a retired actor who favors a return to the age-old methods of exploitation and domination (thinly disguised as free enterprise and patriotism) to deal with new, increasingly critical problems? Will spending more on military

might and less on men, women, and children solve all our woes? Does the “trickle down effect” hold any water? The macho image projected by these leaders (actors and crooks, if you will) tends to make us feel comfortable with our prejudices as well as our single-minded quest for self-fulfillment (filling our own pockets) with no sense of responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

But everything is A-OK (thumbs up!) – we are “stronger” now, the economy (and the national debt) continues to grow, and we are damn proud to be Americans. We sleep well. It also goes without saying that, by definition (or the will of God), we stand for all that is good, virtuous, and desirable in this world and that those goldamned Commies are the source of all evil, deceit, and imperialism. Sure makes good copy – nothing like pointing the finger at Russia (or Ortega, Kaddafi, Castro, and others) to inspire such feelings of hatred, blind rage, and patriotism while having the additional benefit of allowing us to rob, cheat, exploit, and terrorize anyone and everyone we so choose in the name of democracy. Sadly, this ideology will only lead to an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, East and West, man and nature.

But what about the “other” choice? If the Republicans are so screwed up, surely the Democrats have the answers. Most liberal minds favor aid to the poor, the elderly, and the homeless, improved health care and education, equal opportunities for women and minorities, lowered defense spending, and so on – you know the party line. All commendable ideas, and infinitely favorable to the aforementioned alternative. Though Democrats are often scoffed at by conservatives as wanting only to “tax and spend”, it is a more realistic ideal than the “borrow and party” philosophy they espouse. You can talk politics all day (and many of us would), but, as has been said before, talk is cheap.

Gloom and Doom

It won’t work! The whole world is going to hell in a handbasket (to borrow a slogan). The more I learn about and become aware of , the gloomier the picture becomes – things are just bad all over. Though this has always been superficially apparent, it has become even more blatantly obvious to me in recent years as I have more closely examined the world around me. Even if we don’t create our own demise in the near future through global thermonuclear war, overpopulation,

economic collapse, loss of sustainable agriculture, pollution, depletion of resources, destruction of the ozone layer, forests, rivers, multitudes of plant and animal species, and crucial life-support systems, the alternative would probably be worse – a technocratic, mechanized, dehumanized, denaturalized megacorporate slum of global dimensions fit only for the most opportune forms of life to flourish in (viruses, insects, and bacteria). Though I still believe that all humans are capable of love, compassion, and cooperation for the common good of all of man (and even more importantly, the good of Mother Earth and all her inhabitants), I find very little room for optimism in this decadent and depraved world consume by greed, self-centeredness, man-centeredness and blind domination by man of nature and of man himself.

It’s hard for me not to become consumed in frustration, skepticism, cynicism, and bitterness towards man. I long for the good old days. No, not those carefree days of high school, childhood, or even the warm days spent in the womb, but for the 99-plus percent of the earth’s history in which the awe-inspiring beauty and diversity of life on this planet evolved without the aid or benefit of that most supreme (and least well-adapted) of creatures. Nevertheless, this relatively recent development in natural history (cancer, if you will), continues to spread, multiply, and destroy with ever-accelerating force. The whole wretched situation seems to be getting hopelessly out of control.

Man and Nature

“What has gone wrong, probably, is that we have failed to see ourselves as part of a large and indivisible whole. For too long we have based our lives on a primitive feeling that our ‘God-given’ role was to have ‘dominion over the fish of the sea and fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’ We have failed to understand that the earth does not belong to us, but we to the earth.”

-Rolf Edberg

Just who do we think we are? Can we just storm in and create havoc and destruction of unprecedented proportions because we are “meant” to do so? What is really real around us? What is of real value? Is it our movies, fast food joints, skyscrapers, automobiles, shopping malls, smog, professional sports, weapons, television, designer clothes, etc.? What about the reality that existed for billions of years before the "creation” of man?Where to start – Who am I? Are we? Why am I here? We here? How did we get here? Simple, but loaded, questions.Let’s back up a bit and try to get our bearings. A good place to turn is to Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is to me a surprisingly detailed, interesting, and brilliantly conceived work. Because of the Origin of Species Darwin is often credited with proposing the theory of evolution. Actually, the idea of evolution had been around for some time in various forms, but Darwin’s great contribution was in recognizing the mechanism, natural selection, behind the development of life on Earth. Though Darwin’s theory of natural selection gave rise to the phrase “survival of the fittest”, this label has been grossly misconstrued from what Darwin actually meant by “fittest”. An example of this aberration is the concept of Social Darwinism, which has been used to rank human cultures and groups according to their assumed level of evolutionary achievement (witness Nazi Germany). Though this theory has been largely discredited, it still thrives today as global arrogance – our belief in dominion over, rather than fellowship with, more than a million other species on this planet.

But how can evolution help us to answer the fundamental question, “What is the role and status of our own species in nature and the cosmos?” First of all, we need to recognize our own human bias in answering this question. To begin with, our equating of evolution with “progress” is not what Darwin had in mind. He preferred “descent with modification” to “evolution”, which he felt implied the concept of progressive development. According to Darwin, life is not a tale of progress; rather it is a story of intricate branching and weaving. Darwin insisted that organic change led only to increasing adaptation of a species and its local environment. To avoid the idea of progressive development, Darwin never said “higher” or “lower” organisms – an amoeba is as well (if not better) adapted to its environment as we are.

The more you become aware of, the bleaker the picture becomes (no wonder most people choose not to become aware). Wasn’t it Adlai Stevenson who first said the “Earth is a spaceship”? It takes no genius to realize that the ideals of

“growth” at all costs, growth as the equivalent of “progress”, and growth for the sake of growth can only proceed so far on this finite planet which we have spread across like a malignancy in a very short time. How can we continue operating with this mentality when we know there is a limit to the supply of rapidly-diminishing resources (and space) we have become heavily dependent on? Will science and technology allow us to continue our “advance”? Is there any suitable therapy for our military-industrial complex? What will our children and grandchildren think of the world we have dragged them into? But does anyone notice? Does anyone care?

Old Testament Metaphors

Is there any alternative to the type of lifestyle we lead and the kind of people we’ve become? A mind-opening experience for me was found in Compassion by Matthew Fox. Fox suggests that compassion has played little role in Western Christian spirituality because Jacob’s ladder has played so powerful a role in shaping our religions. Remember the words, “We are climbing higher, higher” and so on? A more compassionate metaphor proposed by Fox is that of dancing Sarah’s circle. While Jacob’s ladder is based on climbing over higher, Sarah’s circle is based on joining hands between people on the same level; Jacob’s Flat Earth compares to Sarah’s global village; climbing, dancing; competition, shared ecstasies; elitist, non-elitist; hierarchical, democratic; violent, gentle; sky-oriented, earth-oriented; ruthlessly independent, interdependent; love of neighbor is separate from what is at the top, love of neighbor is love of God. You get the idea. Isn’t our society based on climbing that privileged ladder of success, no matter who we have to climb over or knock off to reach our desired rung? Why can’t we just switch to a more compassionate view of the world, one which is based on cooperation rather than competition and one in which we recognize the interdependence of all things. This is my super-idealistic hope.

Fear and Loathi0ng in Kansas City

“This is the real world, muchachos, and you are in it.”- B. Traven

Guess again, you super-idealist! The world doesn’t work that way.

Rather than equating evolution with progress, a better association is that between evolution and increasing diversity. An increasing complexity of life doesn’t necessarily imply an inexorable progression towards higher things, nor does the fossil record support this. So what does all this have to do with man’s place in nature?

Though we willingly give Darwin a great deal of credit for his own contribution to science, the Western world had yet to make peace with Darwin and the implications of his evolutionary theory due to our unwillingness to accept continuity between ourselves and nature. We have sought to erect a picket fence between even us and our closest relatives (chimps and gorillas), and sought justification for our cosmic arrogance by establishing a difference in kind rather than degree. Can we deny our relationship to apes when over 99% of our genetic material is identical? What do we lose by admitting continuity in kind between ourselves and apes? Only an antiquated concept of separateness for a humble, even exalting vision of our oneness with nature.

Darwin’s view of the world differs radically from the view before his time, but is no less exciting, instructing, or uplifting. Darwinism might salvage our endangered world by denying a favorite theme of Western arrogance, “We are meant to have control and dominion over the Earth and its life because we are the loftiest product of a preordained process.” Biology isn’t the only area of science which has dealt a blow to our initial belief in our cosmic importance. Astronomy has shown us that we are not at the center of the universe (if indeed it is a universe, not a pluriverse). And Geology tells us how little time our species has occupied this planet. The novel Galapagos, by Kurt Vonnegut, supported one of my own biases, that modern man is one of the least well-adapted species in the earth’s history, and that a couple of millenia from now, historians will concur on the futility of our conquest of material wealth and lack of vision.

What’s the point of all this? In actual practice (though we may say otherwise), Homo sapiens has sought to place himself above and apart from the rest of the world around him. We act as if everything were put on this earth for us to dig up, cut down, pave over, shoot, exploit, destroy, harvest, and consume as we damn well please. This attitude, reinforced and encouraged by most of our institutions, has a wide range of devastating consequences, not only in how we treat the earth but in how we treat each other. We rob, cheat, murder, and exploit

fellow humans with the same violent indifference. What else are we supposed to do? You’ve got to look out for number one!

Sadly, even our religious institutions often do more to deepen rather than rectify injustice. Anthropocentrism has prospered under Western religions (the Jacob’s ladder model); this, to me, is a far cry from the compassionate spirituality embodied in Christ. Fearing our own mortality, we have sought (through asserting our separateness from nature) assurance in the self-serving belief that we can have “eternal life”. All too often, however, this absolves us from having to deal with the world around us, and we use our “faith” as an excuse for lack of action.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said:“The belief that God will do everything for man is as untenable as the

belief that man can do everything for himself. It, too, is based on a lack of faith. We must learn that to expect God to do everything while we do nothing is not faith but superstition.”

If we really have true faith, then, how can we become complacent about our responsibilities towards our fellow man, woman, animal, tree, flower, weed, insect, river, mountain, and every other vital ingredient in the biosphere?

Back to evolution – Darwin’s view of the world saw man a part of rather than apart from nature. What can Darwinism teach us? Compassion, interdependence, humility, wonder, awareness, and new ways of thinking about our natural place and our local, global, and cosmic responsibilities.

Most talk about evolution centers on the evolution/creationism controversy, which attempts to answer where we came from. That may be interesting, but I am much more impressed by the idea that we even exist. Besides, that whole creationist argument is shallow (not to mention anthropocentric) and has been more or less resolved among educated people long ago. When evolution is viewed as a process moving from past to present to future, that is exciting. It allows us to ask such questions as, “How have we affected this process in the past? The present?The future? How are we affecting our fellow inhabitants on this planet? What is our responsibility to non-human life?To each other?To our children? Can we use our finest evolutionary distinction to create a sustainable and desirable future? Will we blow it?

These questions have gnawed at me for some time, but for a long only deepened my sense of frustration and anger with humans as a species (not humans as individuals, however). I have felt cynicism about the cultural institutions we have erected around ourselves and caused many of us to lose touch of our oneness with and dependence on nature. Our culture’s emphasis on material wealth and growth has led us to trivialize many of the wonders that life has to offer, while making us believe that trivial goals (fame, fortune, victory, status, and American Express cards) are the ideals of success. My bitterness has often caused me to wonder if there’s any hope at all – man will get what he deserves if he’s too arrogant to see the consequences of his actions. Let him suffer the consequences.

DeadEnds

“We are to some extent the products of an exploitative society, and it would be foolish and self-defeating to pretend that we do not bear its stamp.”

-Wendell Berry

Do we believe everything we see on the six o’clock news? On TV commercials? Read in the newspapers? Hear in the classroom? In church?Is what’s “good for America” good for the four billion citizens living in “developing” (sarcasm intended) countries? Our own 20 million citizens living in poverty?For world peace and harmony?For the earth and all of its living creatures? Can we with an honest conscience seek out a safe and secure life for ourselves without recognizing our relation to and our effect upon our environment and fellow man? Unknowingly, most of what we see, hear, read and experience reinforces the very attitudes and behaviors which prevent us from using our human potential to recognize the problems which could threaten the survival of our species. Unfortunately, what appears to be operative in our society today is a“tragedy of the commons” mentality – “If things are so competitive, I sure as hell better scramble to obtain as much as I can as fast as I can before someone else uses it up or gets to it first.”How do we deal with this? Shall we continue to do the same things, but on a bigger scale? Do we have to scrap everything and start all over? What are our options?

What are the prospects of economic growth solving our dilemmas? The way I see it – that is the problem. The belief that growth is intrinsically good is one that is shared by all governments around the world and is reinforced by the media, the corporate sector, and the educational and religious institutions that so faithfully serve them. Yet our governments fail to acknowledge (why should they?) the basic fault with the system. It is much easier for us to look back at man’s “progress”. Look how far we’ve come! And the GNP is still growing!

What about a political solution? For obvious reasons, I don’t believe Republicans have the answers, the will, or the desire to have their privileged positions threatened by change. An even more disturbing conclusion I have come to recently, however, is that I honestly don’t believe that the Democrats have the vision or the creativity to adequately address the problems which cause poverty, conflict, graft, and destruction. It hurts me to see how painfully out of touch and incapable all politicians are of coming to grips with the urgency and the imperative need for action now. Our legislators and media are so engrossed in the next fiscal year, getting elected, getting re-elected, that the bigger picture is ignored – at our collective peril. The issues most critical to our very survival are given little more than lip service. Moreover, any candidate who attempts to challenge the basic system will have little chance of getting elected, let alone initiating fundamental change. The purpose of government, I now realize, is not to preside over necessary social change but to resist change (at all costs, by any means necessary) and to protect the interests and privileged positions of the ruling class. I’m not saying that all politicians are evil, corrupt and incapable of showing compassion. However, I have little faith in the likelihood of our government to willingly reform to meet the demands of the unprecedented situation we find ourselves in.

Accepting for a moment the widely held belief that man is infinitely wise and intelligent, could it be that science and technology will provide the answers to our dilemmas? We’ve been operating under this hypothesis for some time now (in a symbiotic relationship with GNPitis) to pound the earth into submission, meanwhile reducing the average life expectancy of the inhabitants of this planet to about thirty minutes (or however long it takes the missiles to reach their designated destination). No, science has been often misused, I say.

Perhaps we would be better off abandoning the earth as a spaceship metaphor, as it implies that we are in the driver’s seat and can guide “our” craft however and wherever we so please. Science and technology do not have the answers to all of our problems, but, properly applied, they still must play an important role if we are to hope for a sustainable future.

So far this whole nightmare gives many causes (and with good reason) for alarm, disgust, despair, and pessimism. Will we recognize the urgency of our situation before it’s too late? Will we change our ways only when there is no alternative? Is it already too late?

Me First

“Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.”- Henry David Thoreau

“What? No way! I don’t agree with what our leaders in Washington are doing. They’re the problem. If it weren’t for Reagan, we wouldn’t be in such a mess!”

Easy to say, huh, but do you really risk anything by muttering such language? I think not.

Open for a suggestion? Take a hard look at yourself. Just what is it that prevents us from seeing how we contribute to the problem? This is a difficult but crucial question – “How have I been socialized to become a dependent creature on the very forces that officially sanction and subsidize the exploitation and terrorism of man and nature?”

“Mourn not the dead . . .But rather the apathetic throng –The cowed and meekWho see the world’s great anguish and its wrong,And dare not speak.”

-Ralph Chaplin

Think Global

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

-John Muir

There are many critical problems currently facing this planet’s inhabitants. Unless we begin to give the global environment the attention concern it requires, the scope and magnitude of today’s problems may look miniscule compared to the situation a hundred, fifty, even twenty years from now (mere geological microseconds). A first step towards attempting to deal with the many problems we face is to strive for increased awareness of the global picture. Sometimes it is difficult (and very disturbing) to break out of the small bounds within which we conduct our lives. Global awareness has never been more crucial at any previous point in human history.

In addition to increasing awareness of the world we live in, application of critical thought is paramount. Because of the way we are conditioned, this element of thought is lacking in many of us. Always question all authority. To begin to have any understanding of how to make the world a better place to live, the process of elevated awareness and critical thought must be applied to our own lives and our environment – it should become a life-long process.

A third essential step to increased individual consciousness is attempting to understand the interconnectedness and interdependence of all

life and livelihood on this planet. Inevitably, sincere application of these three ways of elevating your consciousness will in some ways only intensify your sense of helplessness and hopelessness. But on another level, a deeper understanding of the world can provide you a sense of inner strength in being able to view the world with your own eyes – not through the clouded glasses that society forces you to peer through. So awareness, critical thought, and integrative thinking, abide these three – but the greatest of these is . . . love?

Value Judgments

“There is a need for a revolution in our thinking as basic as one introduced by Copernicus, who first pointed out that the earth was not the center of the universe.”

-Lester Pearson

So how do you react to your new sense of global consciousness? You decide – Do we treat the cancer by expensive drugs and chemotherapy, or do we seek to understand its underlying causes? Do we save the world by hating Ronald Reagan or by loving the Earth? For seven years, it has been much easier for me to do the former – and all for what? The futility of this approach only leads to exasperation.

Perhaps it would be best to make a thorough assessment of our values before answering these questions. Just what is of value to us? What should be of value? Large salaries, automobiles, houses, bank accounts, social status, financial “security”? Humans, family, Americans, friends, enemies, blacks, whites, women, men, Jews, Protestants, the affluent and upwardly mobile, the downtrodden, the meek, and the mild? Growth, progress, conquest, victory, domination, competition? Plants, animals, trees, flowers, rivers, mountains, soil, air, water? Peace, justice, love, compassion, human potential, humility, altruism, cooperation?

I happen to believe that only through a more humble view of our place in nature and a more compassionate ideal of our responsibility towards Earth

and our fellow man can we hope for a better future – or any future at all, for that matter.

Just what kind of values should we have? Can the “proper” values really lead to a better future? Am I about to sound too idealistic? Yes. But without idealism, without the capacity to dream, without the desire to envision a better world, without hope, there is no hope. My hope is that we can move towards a sustainable balance between man and nature; a world of peace, justice, and harmony; a world in which all humans may enjoy the basic fruits of life; a world in which no one is oppressed because of race, sex, religion, or social status; a world in which all persons may have three meals a day for their mouths, clean air and water and better health care for their bodies, and culture and education for their minds. Sound crazy? Haven’t I tried this dead-end before? No matter. I see no other viable alternatives.

Peace and Justice

“I could see where you could have the exchange of tactical (nuclear) weapons against troops in the field without it bringing either one of the major powers to pushing the button.”

-Ronald Reagan

“We cannot hope for world peace when 20 percent of the people in the world have 80 percent of the goods.”

-Father Theodore Hesburgh

Some say peace is not possible. Because of our very nature, nuclear annihilation is inevitable. Even more frightening to me is talk of those (from both East and West) who suggest that thermonuclear war is not only very likely, but is (in a very twisted sort of way) even desirable, if not winnable. Many of our leaders (and their hired scribes) have become so infatuated by (and dependent upon, for their very political survival) the reality (much of it of their own creation) of such terms as “first strike” capabilities, deterrence, national “security” (synonymous with global insecurity), national “defense”

(I’d call it offensive, myself), “limited” nuclear war, and “strategic defense initiative”. But what can I say about the possibility of a nuclear holocaust? Only that I hope this scenario does not materialize, and that we must all act as if it is not inevitable. We must realize that a multitude of other scenarios could likely lead to ultimate destruction even if a missile is never launched.

What is peace? Some might say it is keeping our boys in uniform out of combat (we can hire mercenaries to do our “dirty work”); others that it is “peace through strength” (I call it mutually assured destruction, or MAD); still others might suggest that true peace will exist only when Communism is eliminated, when we are finally able to call the entire planet the “free world”. But do the above goals constitute true peace? Would the world be a desirable place in which to live under these conditions?

If the human race clings to its present course, global conflict and instability will inevitably increase. In fact, as the human population of this planet continues to grow (mostly in the Third World), the competition for dwindling resources, inadequate food supplies, economic security, and space will intensify. Terrorism, hunger, disease, crime, and environmental destruction will also increase. If there is to be a major global conflict in our future, it may very well be between North and South rather than between East and West.

The only hope for a lasting peace, as I see it, lies in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”

What is peace with justice? How can this be achieved? Can our current institutions and thought patterns bring about peace with justice? Let’s consider some of the injustices which must be corrected if we are to have any hope for a sustainable future.

A redistribution of wealth and power from the few to the many must occur, both within our own country and between the citizens of all nations. Even though moral reasons alone demand that this happen, there are other reasons that even the

most self-interested parties should take to heart. Without economic justice, conflict within and between nations will inevitably increase. It is also very likely that the Third World countries will at some point reach a threshold in their tolerance of our exploitation of them. By refusing to repay their enormous debts or by halting trade with First World nations, the entire global economic system could collapse (that in itself is a ray of hope to me). Some immediate ways in which a redistribution of wealth might begin include an improvement in the distribution of food (which is well within our means – all we need is the will and desire to do it) and health care. Both of these things are critical both within our country and throughout the world, and progress towards these goals could begin immediately.

Another type of injustice crying out for our attention and action is oppression, whether it be on the basis of sex, color, religious ideology, or any reason. Women make up half of the world’s population (if not more), but in almost all cultures must endure many forms of discrimination and hardship. As suggested earlier, this oppression should be “rejected” on moral grounds alone, but there are also practical (and vital) reasons. Take, for example, the plight of most women in the Third World. In many countries women perform the majority of the tasks such as farming, wood-gathering, cooking, child-bearing and –rearing, and many other duties. The men in these countries have much higher social status and, though often earning wages for their families, seldom perform many of the chores necessary for their family’s survival. A critical step towards a sustainable future is to begin to rectify injustices towards all women, though this must be done in a manner which preserves valuable cultural traditions. In the Third World countries the potential benefits of improving the status of women are enormous. Better education and more equal social status would undoubtedly lead to lower birth rates. This would dramatically help to slow the world’s population growth and reduce the amount of death, disease, and starvation among children, because women would be able to provide much better care to a smaller number of children.

Racial injustice in the world today is very deep and widespread. Though many of us consider South Africa to be a prime example of racial injustice, we need look no farther than the borders of our own country to see rampant racism and its horrible effects. How can anyone say that we do not have a racial problem when there are more college-aged blacks in prison than in our colleges and universities? Racism and discrimination are just as real and devastating now as before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Are our present political, religious, economic, and social institutions equipped to bring about peace with justice? Should our primary efforts towards sustainable peace be directed at rectifying these injustices by bringing about change within our current systems and institutions? No, I say, on both counts. I will attempt to explain.

The Land Ethic

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

-Aldo Leopold

Would rectification of social injustice insure a peaceful and sustainable future? Yes and no. Yes, this is a vital change which must occur if future generations are to be offered a meaningful existence (or any existence at all, for that matter). But no, that is not enough. I find the prospect of correcting social injustices within our current systems not only unlikely, but also undesirable. Can we really expect equal rights and opportunities for all humans to become a reality given the nature of our institutions and thought patterns? (After all, most social injustices are institutionalized). Assuming for a moment that this were possible, could we then expect everlasting peace, prosperity, and opportunity for all? I’m afraid not – not so long as the focus of our efforts remains only at this level.

A deeper, more fundamental commitment is necessary. Rather than working only to give all humans an equal opportunity to satisfy their individual wants and desires (i.e., an equal opportunity to become “unequal”), we must reaffirm the common bond supporting and uniting all of humanity (and all life on this planet) – nature. Our daily lives have become so dominated by busy work schedules and deadlines and we are so insulated from our relationship and interdependence with nature by TVs, radios, movie theaters, jam boxes, rock concerts, air conditioning (why do we have to be cold in the summer?), microwaves, dishwashers, VCR’s, computers, sporting events, supermarkets, “nice” restaurants and fast food joints, shopping malls, and so on and so forth that we seldom stop to contemplate or appreciate the interdependence of all life on this Earth (I know – compound sentence). In a very short time, we have virtually destroyed much of the beauty and diversity of nature that evolved on this planet over billions of years. Edward Abbey (“Resist much, obey little!”) reminds us that we may see our world of concrete, formica, and neon as triumphs of order over chaos. But by cutting ourselves off from the natural world and encapsulating ourselves in boxes of artificial light and

noise, he warns that we have “exchanged a great and unbounded world for a small, comparatively meager one.”

We must become more aware of the common bond that supports and sustains all life on this planet. We must observe, listen to, learn from, work with, and develop a humble respect for nature rather than blindly assault it. I believe we can (and must) become empowered to create a new social order by reestablishing our unity with nature. Only by doing so can we hope to solve our species’ crisis of mind and spirit and hope for a richer, more meaningful existence.

Though a greater understanding and appreciation of nature is essential, we must go further than good intentions alone. It is imperative that we extend our code of ethics beyond the human community. We must accept and learn to live by Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic”:

“All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise:that the individual is a member of a community of inter- dependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in the community, but his ethics prompt him alsoto co-operate . . . The land ethic enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: land . . . In short, a land ethic changes the role ofHomo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.”

Human Potential

“An individual has not started living until he can riseabove the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns tothe broader concerns of humanity.”

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

What is the measure of human success in our society? It seems that capitalist countries hold that the ideal person is the “self-made” individual who does his or her own thing and hurts no one. This person connects his sense of worth with the power he has over others and the environment and with his ability to accumulate

material wealth and status. However, a true global understanding shows that no one can completely “do their own thing” without exerting some effect now or in the future on other humans or other loving species. Though it has become painfully evident that self-centered humans can use their “potential” to manipulate their fellow humans and the natural environment to further individual goals, “other-centered” humans could use their potential to work towards the common good of humanity and nature.

I would venture a guess that most humans (especially those living in our “empty” society today) have never really approached their full “human” potential. I sincerely believe that the majority of our species could live more richly, fully, and deeply by becoming more ecology-minded. When we become able to overcome the artificially-erected barriers between ourselves and nature, we will become more open to understanding the interconnectedness between ourselves and nature. If you get a chance, go to the wilderness (the wilder the better). Anything that brings us physically closer to wild places can help us to become at once more alert, open, free, frightened, and at peace with ourselves and our surroundings. Without wilderness, I am convinced that the very idea of freedom will die, and we may never have the freedom to exercise our potential.

How can our human potential be channeled in a positive direction? We could begin by emphasizing cooperation rather than competition to bring about peace with justice and to work with nature. Humans can exercise a much greater portion of their potential in putting their unique evolutionary distinction to more creative (and less exploitative) uses. We would also do well to exchange our machismo attitudes for more compassionate, loving, humble, nurturing ways of dealing with each other and nature. We may also be able to see once again that “small is beautiful” and learn to see that diversity among humans and in nature is much more beautiful than homogeneity. So much could be gained if we would only devote more time out of our busy schedules for conversation, laughter, and fellowship with each other. Moreover, by recognizing our common kinship to the Earth, we may finally be able to see our fellow inhabitants of this planet as members of a community to which we all belong. We may then see ourselves as global citizens, sharing common bonds and interests with humanity that are much stronger than the artificial geographical and ideological boundaries we have erected. Our human brains have the potential to work together to form a new kind of global consciousness capable of creating a world which can meet the present and future needs of the Earth’s inhabitants.

NewModels

“There is enough for everybody’s need but not for anybody’s greed.”-M.K. Ghandi

How can the previously mentioned set of values be translated into a working model towards a sustainable earth? I would begin by moving beyond Spaceship Earth to “Mother Earth” as a model from which we derive our attitudes and values. Though the spaceship paradigm may be of some utility, I believe we should adopt a deeper ecological way of thinking. One model which intrigues me is the “Gaia hypothesis”, named after the Greek goddess of the Earth. The Gaia hypothesis suggests that the entire life of the Earth, from its atmosphere to its oceans, functions effectively as one self-regulated, living organism. May at first sound crazy, but in an ecological sense is much more appropriate than Spaceship Earth.

A deeper ecological mindset demands that we stop viewing ourselves as separate from nature and begin to view humans as a part of nature. Rather than emphasizing concerns only about human feelings (anthropocentrism), the right of all species to exist must be emphasized. This deeper ecological view must be put into practice, however, and extended farther than has generally been the case so far. Traditional resource conservation, which has been concerned with the wise management and use of resources for human use, is a small step in the right direction; however, a deeper commitment to conserve resources for all living species must be adopted. Rather than positively endorsing or accepting by default the ideology of continued economic growth, this practice must be replaced by the goal of ecological sustainability and preservation of biological and cultural diversity on Mother Earth. Rather than making choices based on cost-benefit analyses and short-term goals, decisions should be based on long-range planning for the good of the global community and goals based on ecological intuition when all the facts are not available. And finally (and this is where I can begin to see a small light glowing at the end of the tunnel – more on that later), we must question our existing political, social, economic, and ethical systems, and seek better systems based on sound ecological principles.

Idealism or Realistic Hope?

The problem has been stated. Our species faces, at best, a gloomy and miserable future unless fundamental changes in our institutions and thought patterns occur. Most of our political, economic, and social systems seem ill-equipped and unwilling to acknowledge and adapt to the crises we face, and I see little chance that they will initiate basic change in an orderly and timely manner. A close look at these institutions today only reinforces this seemingly inescapable cycle of self-destruction. From this view-point, the only question left appears to be “when” rather than “if” doomsday will occur. Have we reached the end of the line? Is there any way out?

There are a number of normal reactions many of us have when we begin to comprehend this grave situation. Though we may profess to have sound religious and ethical beliefs, we all too often revert to a number of excuses for our lack of willingness to put these beliefs into action. One trap is “gloom-and-doom” pessimism, the belief that the world is doomed to nuclear or environmental catastrophe – so why not enjoy life while we can? Others of us submit to “blind technological optimism”, in the belief that human ingenuity will always be able to come up with technological solutions to our problems. Third, we may choose fatalism, the belief that “whatever will be will be” and that we have little or no control over our actions when confronted with something that requires a great deal of effort. Finally, we may resort to “extrapolation to infinity” – the idea that ‘If I can’t change the whole world immediately, I won’t try to change any of it’. This rationalization is reinforced by our society’s emphasis on instant gratification and quick results with as little effort as possible.

But what does all this accomplish? It is important to confront the situation squarely and come to grips with it. But incessant negativism without the desire and creativity to search for alternatives is self-defeating. By falling into one of the four traps mentioned above and failing to become personally and socially involved in caring for the Earth, we are in effect saying, “I don’t care.” After all, actions do speak louder than words. Moreover, our true values are reflected in our actions (or lack thereof) rather than in our professed beliefs. This is the real world, muchachos, and you have now come to a moral crossroads. If you so choose to dwell in the darkness of selfish destructiveness, read no further. Bury your conscience and go for the gusto! After all, what have you got to lose?

FreeAtLast

“The despair that haunts the background of our dailylives, sometimes obtruding itself into our consciousness, can still be modulated, as I know from experience, into acomfortable melancholia and from there to a defiance, aroaring affirmation of our existence. Even, at times, intoa quiet and blessedly self-forgetful peace, a modest joy.”

-Edward Abbey

To rehash one last time: My understanding of the world suggests that we live in a very critical time. If current trends and attitudes continue unabated, we can expect global catastrophe in the very near future. Our current institutions, however, continue to lead us down this perilous path to self-destruction. Because the primary purpose of most institutions is to support the status quo, I see little chance of these systems initiating the fundamental changes necessary to prevent chaos and disaster. Though I can envision many better ways of living, I see little, if any, chance that a better world will come about as the result of institution-initiated change. So how can I (or anyone) avoid falling into the trap of endless frustration and hopelessness, given these circumstances?

This has been the toughest question for me to answer, but the search for an answer to it has provided me with what I consider to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in my own thinking (and I’m still working on it). It’s so simple it’s beautiful. Instead of fuming over the lack of desire and inability of our institutions to adapt to the problems they have created, I see this inherent flaw as a shining ray of hope. Why invest so much time, effort, and emotion in fighting a system which is incapable of adapting to its environment? While it is, to an extent, a noble endeavor to subvert, resist, oppose, and seek to reform “the system”, the system appears to be doing a fine job of destroying itself. As our political, corporate, and social institutions (including the media) become increasingly rigid in the face of ever-widening difficulties, they only beg for self-destruction. History has shown this to be repeatedly true. Yes, I believe that our present-day institutions will become the last vestiges of a crumbling empire – a grand experiment in materialism and anthropocentrism that was doomed to fall from the beginning. Rather that fighting the system, our time and energy can be directed to better use.

If fighting or changing the system won’t work, what will? As I stated elsewhere, unabated negativism lacking a creative alternative is self-defeating and accomplishes very little. I have also tried to outline what I see as alternative ways of thinking and living which are preferable to the status quo. Isn’t it still too idealistic, though, to hope that these alternatives will “somehow’ become reality?

Where will fundamental change begin to occur, if not in our cultural institutions? I repeat, “Me first.” Rather than becoming trapped in fatalism, you and I can begin to create the kind of future we desire. As I see it, the change must begin at the individual, not the institutional level. Only then will our ideals become our commitment and be translated into a better future. This commitment may then begin to spread from the bottom to the top, rather than from top to bottom. I find a sense of strength in envisioning the emergence of a new social order by this route. I can envision a scenario in which an ever-widening gap between the have (the few) and the have-nots (the many) will catalyze this process. Change beginning at this level has the potential to be very rapid and widespread once a critical level of global consciousness is reached.

Still skeptical? Is there any realistic possibility that this could occur? Is there any evidence of this happening now? Yes. Yes. There are a number of encouraging prospects now in motion on a number of levels. Many of them have their origins in the various movements which began in the turbulent 1960s, the present-day versions of which, though not as superficially visible, exist at a much deeper level. Together, the cumulative efforts of these processes form what new-age physicist Fritjof Capra calls the “rising culture”. This rising culture may be near an exponential phase of growth which may soon eclipse the “declining culture”, our present-day political, religious, social, and economic institutions. It is exciting to consider the possibility that a number of positive forces already in motion may soon converge to form a new global consciousness. Among these forces I would include the ecology, feminist, civil rights, holistic health, peace, and human potential movements, to name only a few. What do all of these “separate” movements have in common? Essential qualities such as compassion, nurturing, feminine qualities, and love of the Earth. The potential for these forces to merge into a new union (witness Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition) is enormous, especially in this new age of communications. The realization of this possibility will be difficult, but I believe that it offers our best hope for a somewhat orderly transition to a sustainable way of living.

The world, viewed from this perspective, can be seen as a well-spring of hope and opportunity, rather than a hopeless cause. This new way of thinking frees us to recognize and become a part of the rising culture, and to begin to appreciate how much progress is actually going on “out there”. Even more exciting, we each have the privilege and opportunity to become a part of this historic revolution. The future is in our hands.

“Through our scientific and technological genius, wehave made this world a neighborhood. Now through our moraland spiritual genius we must make it a brotherhood.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr.