It seems to me if consumerism is what our country needs from us in a time of great peril, then I suppose the time has come for us to take look at ourselves and at what we are doing in our planetary home.

What does it mean when consuming becomes the highest and most necessary expression of partriotism to my country in wartime?

Perhaps the time has come to also ask some other questions.

1. What does it mean to be a human being in the post WWII world era?

2. What meaningfully characterizes an adequate relationship to other human beings?

3. What is our relationship to all that lives on Earth?

4. What are to be our personal responsibilities to and for the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit?

IF, for example, the questions above are answered in the following way:

Answer to question 1 —- consume and accumulate resources;

Answer to question 2 —- encourage others to keep up with me and with
“the Joneses”;

Answer to question 3 —- consume whatever it is I desire;

Answer to question 4 —- consume as much as possible, THEN we will soon devour everything. We will literally eat up the finite natural resources of Earth as well as the living things which depend upon the Earth for existence. There will plainly and transparently not be adequate resources remaining, even for our children’s survival.

At the current scale and rate of growth of the personally irresponsible American lifestyle, just with regard to per capita consumption of resources, where will humanity likely find itself in 2050 when a fully anticipated 9.2 billion human beings will be members of the human community?

For a moment only, imagine what the world of 2050, the world of our children, might look like. What might the words, “American ethic of personal responsibility” mean then.

At least for me, even now, the words “American ethic of personal responsibility” appear hollow, without either meaning or a ring of truth in them.

Sincerely,

Steve

In addition, connecting to nature, being present to non-human life, watching the stars, noticing the vastness of forces beyond human control, recalling our ancestors journey into civilization — all of this provides perspective, reminds us of the long view.

The wisdom of stewardship is not promoted by our consumer culture, it is not well taught to children, it is not well demonstrated by our leaders. We live in a culture that preys on our anxieties, that appeals to our unhealthy hungers for sugar, burnt fat, and salt — that purposefully manipulates us with images plastered everywhere to generate increased sales.

The barren wasteland of the strip mall, spreading congested sprawl, is the manifestation of the forces and factors which undermine our ability to rise to the challenges we are now facing.

Would an individual ever be able to accomplish the destruction of the Earth we are seeing at the hands of our ‘corporate citizens’ today? In the light of a reckless incorporation of the very surface of Earth we inhabit by big business conglomerations, that is occurring before our eyes, what can the words “corporate citizenship” possibly mean? Corporate citizenship is an oxymoron. What concerns me is that the ethic of personal responsibility has virtually vanished, like the honeybees, from the American experience.

With thanks for your work, Orion,

Steve

I couldn’t agree more…and yet.

Hope SPRINGS eternal in the human breast!

Orion writes of changing perspectives. Societies perspectives on nation, race, gender, war, sexuality all have changed in recent decades. They continue to change, and there is resistance to change. Still, change is inevitable.

I think it is possible to focus on the positive apsects of change, on the future we are leaving, not only to our grandchildren, but to ourselves. I think its possible to make people happier with less.

I think that’s the challenge.

I’m not sure about “technology is going to set us free.” I’m not sure about “technology is the problem.”

I think, as always, it comes down to all of us.

I think sometimes, when an idea’s time has come, it can spread incredibly quickly. As Mao said, “A single spark can start a prarie fire.”

All we need is a spark.

We need to be sparks.

Thanks for these encouraging comments. It is inconceivable that we will NOT acknowledge, address and overcome the global challenges that are presented to humanity by the human overpopulation of Earth in Century XXI.

Please note that young people are indicating in the form of similar declarations that there is nothing THEY can do to save the world. ALL IS LOST, they suggest,……………and I suppose, because we have not enough scientists like Rachel Carson who will stand up, speak loudly and comprehensibly to the economic powerbrokers, the megalomaniacal leaders of mulltinational conglomerations, the bought-and-paid-for politicians and their minions in the mass media. Science is our guide, is it not? Whatsoever is is, is it not?

Sooner or later, the sons and daughters of Galileo are going to speak the truth as they and, evidently, our children see it. Then the world as organized by the self-proclaimed masters of the universe will be changed for the better, I trust.

Sincerely,

Steve

I am not a big believer in sacrifice. I think strategies that demand perpetual sacrifice from a broad range of stakeholders will fail. It’s not very inspiring to people. Certainly short term sacrifice can be sold to people when there is a big payoff on the horizon (like rationing during World War II). But long term people will rebel.

I do think the future will require that western countries reduce their resource usage, but this does not have to be sacrifice. We can learn to do things more efficiently and we can reframe our needs. As Orion points out, most of our “needs” are constructed by corporate marketing anyway.

Here’s a problem with practical change: Architecture 2030 (www.architecture2030.org) estimates that nearly 50% of our carbon burden is related to building and heating and cooling the buldings we live in. Our built environment changes very, very slowly. They do outline a path to carbon neutrality in buildings by 2030, but I think we need to go further. They do not take into account the pattern of land use in their calculations: it’s not just the buildings themselves but how they arranged that drives carbon (through driving). The surburban model of development will never be carbon neutral, even if all the buildings are hyper efficient. Bottom line is the way we arrange our lives (where we live, work, shop and play) has a huge impact on CO2 production.

I believe better models could be built or retrofitted today with current technology. We need more examples of how this done. We need to see real people living happily in new arrangements. And this needs to be not just for new developments, but for all of our existing communities as well. The biggest hurdles are the conservative forces: bankers fear of losing money on something unproven, city building codes and zoning, and most importantly social expectations about the good life and how we want to live.

I am in favor of a carbon tax to help move things along. There are already some encouraging developments. Many cities and professional organizations around the world have adopted the 2030 Goals already. Massachusetts is the first state to ask developers to estimate the carbon production of new projects. Things are moving.

We can make it happen: it is just a matter of will. The ingenuity is ready and waiting.

Brendan