It's a good question with several undertones. To maintain global stability and to assist in bringing political justice to other countries, it is in our best interest to participate in bringing social and economic justice to less developed countries. Moreover, the presence of poverty in developing countries also often degrades the environment. Isn't it, therefore, pragmatic, as well as moral, to encourage developing countries to have what we have, provided they work hard to get it as we in the Western world think we have done? Lurking underneath these thoughts of the developing world getting more is the fear that perhaps we'll have to give something up to maintain the environment at its current, already unhealthy, level. Understandably, we don't want to shrink the life we have worked so hard to obtain.
Underlying this maelstrom of thought is the reality that maiming the environment as we have been doing while raising our standard of living is no reason or excuse for continuing to degrade the environment. As we maim the environment, we maim and cripple human physical, mental, and spiritual development in the future. As each person on the planet gets more, we approach the Tragedy of the Commons, recently covered in an article by Gather member Bert Bigelow. To continue living in the mode of recent times appears to be suicide for the life of the planet.
How do we get out of this bind? As Albert Einstein is reputed to have said, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." To meet planetary needs we need to let go of the old and discover the new. We need new thinking and new approaches to today's global problems, and environmental concerns. I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that we include the following approaches as we tackle the significant problems the planet faces:
Â
- Use a systems method to identify and consider all known areas affected by both the problem and the potential solutions. This would encourage holistic, system-wide solutions and help identify potential problems with proposed solutions before they occur.
- Look at short- and long-term effects of proposed solutions.
- Provide long-term incentives for developing and using new technologies to stimulate investment and improvement. Incentives, however, should taper off and end at some point to avoid vested interests and stagnation of improvement. Â
- Develop multiple and diverse technologies for important areas, such as energy production, to avoid vested interests and economic meltdowns if the sole technology is found to have serious drawbacks.Â
- Set up and support infrastructure to support new, less destructive technologies.
- Monitor social and health effects of new technologies and new products to catch problems early, ensure public safety, and minimize costs related to the problems.
- Provide a safety net and opportunities for workers and businesses displaced by new technologies to avoid their resistance to improvement.
- To develop self-awareness and maturity, encourage transparency, ethics and self-regulation.Â
- To minimize environmental degradation, especially in developing areas, bypass old technologies and products in favor of newer, less destructive means. Doing this would also be a disincentive to construct infrastructure that would soon be outdated. The newer technologies should be vetted for short- and long-term safety and effectiveness and be phased out if it's found they are unsafe for humans and nature.
- Develop safe nanotechnologies to cut use of resources and reduce pollution.
What do we say to developing countries? What do we say to ourselves? It's not just what we want and think we need, it's also how we get it. Giving up something may primarily involve giving up old mindsets and in the process gaining a better life that is more aware and more connected to nature and to each other. Do we have the courage to let go of the old ways of doing things to explore, to create and to discover new ways?Â




Comments: 10
I have thought about this too. The American lifestyle is admired...and emulated...by people all over the earth. But what would happen if they all had it?
Disaster is what would happen. The earth simply cannot support more than a small fraction of the nearly 7 billion humans living at our level of consumption and pollution.
But poverty and ignorance breed violence, instability...and terrorism, of course. So we have a vital interest in raising the standard of living of all those unfortunate people.
We are on the horns of a dilemma. The only solution I can see is one that we fortunate few are not going to like. For their standard of living to go up, ours in the developed world must come down.
Technology, conservation and a change in values can limit our loss of quality of life, though. We won't have as much "stuff," but do really need it?
Take care.
I hope our decadent American lifestyle changes definition as we (hopefully) begin to turn inward and look at the choices we make each day: personally, locally, globally. Maybe then it'll become something admirable.
John, you're right--developing countries shouldn't repeat the mistakes the Western world made out of ignorance because we know better now. I'm not sure why they use old, polluting technologies. Political, vested interest, easier?
Rhonda, I think we raise our awareness as we make choices. I agree we need to develop an inner life to make more holistic choices.
Verie, this is from the top of my head as I read your article. I have not given deep and prolonged thought to it as you have. I do get irked, though, as I struggle to give up my handy paper towels,while I'm overwhelmed by pounds of printed and unsolicited trash mail that comes to me through my Post Office for my disposal. I think we need a national affort before individual efffort is significant.
You put down many commendable thoughts, but I personally am wondering about the long term health effects of many of our gadgets that caused the output of electro-magnetism.
As far as our helping undeveloped nations, we first need to make sure the aid gets to the people and is not used to repay bank debts. The BBC had a great story about this, but our press was more concerned about Bitney Spear's underwear. Programs you suggest can't work unless there is honesty and everything is put on the table for all to see. No secrecy, no gimmicks and there are realistic timetables from implementation to measurements of success.
Until our government and our media start showing honesty and integrity there is little hope for the USA to lead in anything except maybe in giving out work visas.
Yes, the government and the media, because of their power, often give us skewed interpretations of what's happening. That's why I consider my point, "To develop self-awareness and maturity, encourage transparency, ethics and self-regulation" extremely important in finding new ways to do things.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, I agree. The US needs to get over its hubris that sees itself as always the best, always a leader, if for no other reason than it's not true and other countries know it's not true.
I think the country has a better chance of dealing with the many issues facing us and the world with Obama as president because Obama works in an inclusive way, he is a diplomat, and he inspires. Because of this, we will have more people concerned about issues facing the world and us, and more people working on addressing these concerns. Also, Obama, unlike his predecessor, is a good listener, which means that issues will be addressed with broader input. Broader input is likely to make our solutions better for more people.
The ball-and-chain we carry is we've lost time and resources in the last eight years because of the mismanagement and lack of leadership of the previous administration.
I find it odd that we can study the dissolution of great civilizations like the Romans and not realize that it could happen to us.
Thanks for the comment. It was good to rethink what I had said.