View Story | 112 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
have found personal reasons for changing what I am doing on a personal level relative to energy use and overall consumption. The two reasons I found compelling for personal change were that I am learning new survival skills for when things get really bad, the other is that I am learning more about the psychology of change and how hard it is to change.
The benefit of the learning I do now about growing food, living on less, using less car based transportation is that I am gradually developing some skills and confidence in doing things differently and I imagine that I will be better prepared as things go south climate and economy wise.
Participating in my own personal psychology of change helps me understand how important and difficult the personal and cultural process of change is. As a country and species I think our most under appreciated aspect of the process of changing our energy system and consumption enough to stave off the worst case scenario of creating a hotter climate is that our identities have been formed in a culture of industrial capitalism and consumption driven economics. As I go through my own personal reactions to change I am better able to encourage others because I have some personal insight into my own resistance to change.
I am in full agreement that individual change matters very little in contributing to turning this around unless we get the big players in line, and they really don't want to line up. I also get pissed when people act as if it is the fault of the consuming individual and that somehow the "consumer" just needs to stop asking the corporations to keep producing all this stuff and making cheap gas for us. The corporations like to play as if they are just the helpless pawns blown about by the irrational desires of the consuming public, what a bunch of crap. The corporations created this mess for their own benefit so they could accumulate huge profits and pay none of the price of their economic externalities.
Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.
by Bob Guyer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:25:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
To sum it up (as I read it):
(Not that I think your comment was too long. I'm glad you explained your thoughts. I just wanted to reinforce your points.)
I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. - Barbara Jordan
by Janet Strange on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:03:59 AM PDT
for me. That is one of the big challenges, motivating people and then helping support them in a change process that isn't easy. When I struggle with change it helps me be less judgmental of others that struggle too.
by Bob Guyer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM PDT
I didn't want to clutter up Adam's excellent diary with, gee I love your sigline, but . . .
I really love your sigline. I've noticed and admired it several times. Now I've stolen it and put it in my "good quotes" doc. I'm a biology person, so I think the "semi-permeable" part is especially nice.
by Janet Strange on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:32:50 PM PDT
and political system that would be well suited to helping us live better with each other and with nature. A long time back I realized that our economic and political systems were not working well and I started to try to understand why.
To make a long story short, I have been writing about what a new system should look like and I have come to the conclusion, at least for now, that modeling our economic and political system based on biology could help provide some guidance for system design and how we think and talk about our systems. Part of the process, since we are conscious biological creatures, is to define who we are. The most basic and meaningful thing I could come up with was that we are conscious, a pretty amazing fact, and that all the boundaries that comprise us at all levels, even the less physical ones of thought and emotion, are semi-permeable. When you look at it that way each one of us is an individual and not separate or truly apart from those we live with and the environment we all share, kind of like holding Buddha (the non reality of the separate self) and Maturana and varella (autopoesis) together in the same concept.
My sig line comes from observing that life as a whole and human social interaction is far more cooperative than it is competitive. The ecological web of life in incredibly cooperative through all the interconnections all things have through their semi-permeable membranes, I include breathing, eating, sensing, and other processes as macro levels of semi-permeable boundaries, and social life is also incredibly cooperative. Competition stands out against a backdrop of cooperation which, like the remarkable fact that we are conscious, we sort of ignore.
When you feel love, whether it is focused and specific or diffuse and universal, I think you are noticing the ever present backdrop of mutually beneficial exchange made possible through the existence of semi-permeable boundaries that define form of any kind. I like Maslow calling it unconditional positive regard but I wanted something that encompassed a broader observation of living systems so I made up the idea that Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries.
Thanks for appreciating the idea, what's not to like about love. I have a lot of bio this and that on my website http://urpartofit.net if you want to see more.
by Bob Guyer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:00:09 AM PDT
Lovely comment. I've bookmarked your blog and I'm looking forward to exploring more of your thoughts. Right now, though, I'm "part of" a bring a dish birthday party later today, and must go cook. Later. . . .
by Janet Strange on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM PDT
I read it, understood it, agreed with it, and found his intelligence delightful. He really didn't need any help. Just saying...
"I am here because of Ashley." - Unknown Obama supporter.
by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM PDT
I thought it was so perfect myself that I just wanted to say "what he said" again. It helped me think about it to write it out.
by Janet Strange on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:36:50 PM PDT
Note my remarks up-post were written offline before seeing your reply to others above.
You could respond to mine or not, no need to repeast any statements contained above but I would like your thoughts on government verses corporate actions, and I'd like to stress that many corporations are good players and deserve credit (and business) for doing the right/smart things. You may also refer to my other posts here with address the subject.
Your original post certianly gave me and other the impression you were making excuses, obviously that's not the case.
So feel free to pass my sermon on to anyone meriting a read.
When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)
by koNko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM PDT
are required in order for us all, as you pointed out we are one world, to make it through this unusual period of time in our species history. I think the freedom of the private sector is less important than making a transition into a stable, livable, energy system and level of overall resource consumption. I think that government needs to be very aggressive in directing the private sector on the macro (standards, goals, infrastructure development, incentives, punishments, monitoring, and enforcement) level and keep its hands off the micro (product design, and innovation) level.
I think credit for doing good is worth doing, as is making companies pay for the harm they do. I think technology development of all kinds related to climate change will make a positive contribution but will not be enough on their own.
There are some industries that contribute more to the problem and resist change in significant ways, the oil and coal industry for example, and I think government should be used to force change in those areas.
As far as individuals doing what they can that is a good thing in many ways but systemic change is absolutely required and it is large institutions that must move decisively in the systems area. We can push that politically as individuals and groups of people advocating change.
We are in a situation where everyone must do as much as they can.
by Bob Guyer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM PDT
Ditto.
And I hope you realize I certianly support your point that laws, standards, incentives and punishments are all needed to make this work and I'm personally involved in drafting/promoting standards.
The simple fact is people and companies need targets, motivation and help, and governments play a positive or negative role, with inaction being a negative.
So despite my rant, I do recognine the system has to be there and fair.
by koNko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 112 comments