I had a chance to talk with a couple different groups of people this week about the situation of the environment, as in the state of the natural world and the impact of humankind on it. We perused the issue as thoroughly as possible in the time we were allotted. One thing we did not do was argue whether or not there is an environmental situation at hand, a situation where the human impact on the environment has reached uncontainable levels; or for a more neutral assessment, has become more noticeable than not. I consider that to be self-evident, even for those who aren't aware of the statistics -- the rate of deforestation, the impossibility for many in developing countries to find clean water, the number of species on the planet that are ceasing to exist, the tragic amounts of plastic and garbage gathering in a large section of the North Pacific Gyre, the acidity of rain, the loss of fertile topsoil due to poor agricultural habits, the excessive amount of red meat consumed by the affluent minority of the world and the excessive amount of grain grown to feed the cattle heading in that direction -- a simple look around lends quick exposure to human impact on an otherwise sustainable planet.
I believe all of this is wrong, not the way it should be, irresponsible, sinful, disruptive, distorted, distasteful, unfortunate... and overwhelming. I don't think it's possible for this massive ship (thanks Maxwell, for this metaphor) of over-consumption, over-disposal, and maleficent eco-habits to turn around in just one generation. But I sense the ship aching to turn nonetheless. So I propose two approaches:
Approach #1
Each of us can completely minimalize the residue of our presence; by eliminating every fouling act, numbing every appetite, going strictly vegan, making our own clothes, renouncing our material possessions, decreasing our footprint to zero.
I believe this would work. In time, if every human were to take this approach, I believe that the planet would recover from the devastation it has faced as a result of our over-consumption. In time the soil would rejuvenate, forests would replant, water would reclaim it's geological path and life giving purity, animals would reproduce, the atmosphere would overwhelm the poisons it contains. Unhindered by our abusive interaction with it, the natural world would take care of itself, and regain its all-blanketing beauty.
It would work.
But we, humans, are up to our necks in us. Our livelihood is so integrated with the economic machine of consumption and mass production, in servicing one anothers' massive appetites, that with out the consumer (all of us) then the provider (all of us as well) would be out of a job, devoid of their source of livelihood. In this case, environmental rejuvenation would result in economic destruction. (Which I suspect is the fear that is behind the sad and narrow assessment of environmentalism on http://environmentalism.com/.)
The natural world is resistent -- "inventive, persistent, and sly" (please read A Conservationist Manifesto by Scott Russel Sanders http://www.scottrussellsanders.com/) -- it will take care of itself if we afford it the space to. But we would find ourselves so estranged from the natural world that we would not know how to join the rhythm of rejuvenation.
The environment cannot sustain our overindulgence. The human story could not endure complete withdrawl.
Approach #2
We continue to pursue the good life. We pool our creative energies together to reimagine a sustainable and wholistically healthy version of the abundant life. We vigorously reestablish the connection we have lost with the rhythms of the natural world that we are so a part of. We devote ourselves to the act of sharing, allowing the earth's resources to be redistributed to all who need nourishment (rich and poor, human and non-human alike). We do not merely set about switching from destructive to constructive actions, rather we embrace a posture of acceptance and trust in the earth's rejuvenative potential. (For a far more articulate and exceedingly powerful treatment of these very issues please read Environmental Linguistics on http://laurenzmitchell.wordpress.com/.)
The creative force that set the earth spinning and jostled life into being on its surface is still present and active. And fortunately for us it is forgiving and patient, it still has room for the human story.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
you and god and this book i read
I recently finished reading The Amber Spyglass and so finished the story of Lyra and Will's adventures in many worlds as recorded in the series: His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman.
There is some controversy over these books because the author might be an atheist and the story might have an anti-christian agenda.
I've heard that the author is a kind and open conversationalist (and worthy debate partner), and I've concluded that the story is about Lyra and Will, their friends and their journeys, their struggles, their triumphs, and their coming of age. So if you've got the stomach for a thing or two that might not exactly line up with your personal worldview, or that might, then read and enjoy them.
To readers who identify with the facets of theism, conservative and moderate alike, but who still possess the courage of an open mind, the token of suggestion that I gleaned from His Dark Materials is not so much to abandon belief in God or even commitment to your religious expression, but to reconsider the articulation and possibly foundation of your belief and expression. And in reconsidering be open to revision where necessary.
If your belief in God is articulated in such a way that poses God as a figure of authority who provides limitations and regulations whereby life must be lived, then perhaps it isn't God you are speaking about after all, but a caricature of God created by an institution of religion as dictated by men who are/were un/consciously invested more in the pursuit of power and control than in the pursuit of the divine.
How might your belief in God be better, more accurately articulated?
Is God a monarch and a tyrant? Interested in our human concepts and experience of authority and power? Interested in motivating by the means of fear and force? (Is that the foundation of your religious expression? fear? shame? guilt?)
Or is God something else entirely? Not a being who uses force, but a force in and of itself. Not a motivating entity, but an actual sensation of compulsion.
Which sounds more like that which was present at the incipience of the world? Which sounds more like that which is present in the world's sustenance?
To readers who identify as atheists (or simply do not identify as theists), those who avoid religion and its facets, but who still possess the courage of an open mind, I think you would be encouraged by His Dark Materials, finding your stance on God and religion condoned in the pages of this story. Yet a suggestion all the same, and that is to rebel against the indifference toward life that drives so much and so many in our world (and other worlds too no doubt); and to pull at life instead, finding it active and ready for exposrure: in the corners of our relationships, in the songs and sounds of birds and animals, in the stretch of the horizon, in the very air, and in the breath that we breathe it with.
To readers one and all note that regardless of your articulation -- whether it be in favor of this God or that, whether in denial of either or all, whether in a careful disregard -- our stances can quickly become us; our articulations, if unchecked, become our idols, become the manifestation and limitation of who we are.
How tragic to be defined simply (or to define someonelse) by how one uses the word "God". What a waste to categorize and so dismiss someone because they believe in God or because they do not or because they're not quite sure. When the reality of divinity, energy, life is so readily apparent, as it is through the many struggles and triumphs of the two protaganists, in the curiosty and courage, the kindness and inventiveness, the hope with which we approach our world. To be known, and even defined, utlimately as one who loves and is loved.
There is some controversy over these books because the author might be an atheist and the story might have an anti-christian agenda.
I've heard that the author is a kind and open conversationalist (and worthy debate partner), and I've concluded that the story is about Lyra and Will, their friends and their journeys, their struggles, their triumphs, and their coming of age. So if you've got the stomach for a thing or two that might not exactly line up with your personal worldview, or that might, then read and enjoy them.
To readers who identify with the facets of theism, conservative and moderate alike, but who still possess the courage of an open mind, the token of suggestion that I gleaned from His Dark Materials is not so much to abandon belief in God or even commitment to your religious expression, but to reconsider the articulation and possibly foundation of your belief and expression. And in reconsidering be open to revision where necessary.
If your belief in God is articulated in such a way that poses God as a figure of authority who provides limitations and regulations whereby life must be lived, then perhaps it isn't God you are speaking about after all, but a caricature of God created by an institution of religion as dictated by men who are/were un/consciously invested more in the pursuit of power and control than in the pursuit of the divine.
How might your belief in God be better, more accurately articulated?
Is God a monarch and a tyrant? Interested in our human concepts and experience of authority and power? Interested in motivating by the means of fear and force? (Is that the foundation of your religious expression? fear? shame? guilt?)
Or is God something else entirely? Not a being who uses force, but a force in and of itself. Not a motivating entity, but an actual sensation of compulsion.
Which sounds more like that which was present at the incipience of the world? Which sounds more like that which is present in the world's sustenance?
To readers who identify as atheists (or simply do not identify as theists), those who avoid religion and its facets, but who still possess the courage of an open mind, I think you would be encouraged by His Dark Materials, finding your stance on God and religion condoned in the pages of this story. Yet a suggestion all the same, and that is to rebel against the indifference toward life that drives so much and so many in our world (and other worlds too no doubt); and to pull at life instead, finding it active and ready for exposrure: in the corners of our relationships, in the songs and sounds of birds and animals, in the stretch of the horizon, in the very air, and in the breath that we breathe it with.
To readers one and all note that regardless of your articulation -- whether it be in favor of this God or that, whether in denial of either or all, whether in a careful disregard -- our stances can quickly become us; our articulations, if unchecked, become our idols, become the manifestation and limitation of who we are.
How tragic to be defined simply (or to define someonelse) by how one uses the word "God". What a waste to categorize and so dismiss someone because they believe in God or because they do not or because they're not quite sure. When the reality of divinity, energy, life is so readily apparent, as it is through the many struggles and triumphs of the two protaganists, in the curiosty and courage, the kindness and inventiveness, the hope with which we approach our world. To be known, and even defined, utlimately as one who loves and is loved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)