"Michael Crichton on the latest religion: environmentalism"
Grok Headline matches for "Michael Crichton on the latest religion: environmentalism"
Crichton on Environmentalism
Crichton on Environmentalism12/11/2003 09:43 AM Michael Crichton on Environmentalism:"Because in the
end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow
science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the
Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild
prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better." via A&L Daily
E-serenity,
now!: This is cited as the first use of the new term "information
environmentalism" — something we could all probably use.
The newest polluters are not chemical manufacturers leaking toxins
into the air [...]
The information age, it seems, is data-contaminated. And it's not
just the volume of information that's worrisome; it's the lack of
context in which it's delivered.
At least that is the argument of a new and growing group of people
some call "information environmentalists." Their aim: to reclaim quiet
mental space...
Some of you are probably
wondering why I didn't follow through with my promise to publish my Green
Movement Manifesto on ChangeThis!,
the new and wildly popular site for the posting of manifestos and
other
lengthy and provocative 'thought pieces' on urgent and fundamental
issues. There are two reasons:
When I ran the Green Movement Manifesto by a number of
people, the 'environmentalists' liked it, the progressives who don't
have the environment at the top of their agenda were neutral to it,
and
the conservatives didn't like it at all. So I worried I was just
preaching to the choir.
When I went to ChangeThis! I found another
manifesto called The Death of Environmentalism
already there. As much as the title infuriated me, I read it and I
basically agree with the authors. In light of their arguments, which I
summarize below, the Green Movement
Manifesto needs some serious work.
The authors of The Death of
Environmentalism, Michael Schellenberger
and Ted Nordhaus,
have worked for various environmental organizations most of their
lives, and featured prominently in some of the environmental
movement's
greatest successes in the 1960s and 1970s, which brought in
legislation
that is only now being seriously undermined by Bush and others. They
have taken a candid look at the almost uninterrupted history of
failure
of the movement since the mid-1970s -- thirty years -- and its
increasing marginalization and inability to galvanize public opinion.
Though you should read the whole 50-page manifesto, here's the gist of
it:
Support for environmental protection is broad but
shallow
-- the large majority believe it's a good thing to do, but very few
list it in their 'top 10' priorities for needed change.
The
movement has erred by defining, in people's minds, the 'environment'
as a thing, separate and apart from the human world.
Framing
problems as 'environmental' problems doesn't work
since in most people's minds it has the effect of trivializing them,
making them abstract and impersonal.
Focusing political effort on technical remedies and
tactics
doesn't work -- it fails to engage people, provide a sense of urgency
and immediacy to the problems, or define them as political, 'people'
problems.
As a result, the three mainstay activities of
environmental
organizations -- analysis, organization and PR -- are increasingly
ineffective: In a world that is in a moral war over core values, our
rational appeal to be good
stewards of this 'other' thing called the environment just gets
lost.
The media therefore have largely stopped covering the
movement, so radical environmentalists (PETA, ELF) have used
anti-social acts as a means to get attention, and garnered some
(mostly
unfavourable) media coverage, while mainstream environmentalists have
been unable to get any media coverage at all.
While the
environmental movement therefore blames the media
(unfairly -- if the people don't care about the issue, why should the
media?), the consequence of the invisibility of the mainstream
movement
has been that nearly half of
Americans surveyed now agree that "most people active in
environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable
people."
Environmentalists, who are rationalists at heart,
have a
propensity to be reductionist and stop their analysis at root causes:
"The global warming problem is at root a carbon emissions problem, so
we must have legislation to reduce these emissions", when what they
should be doing is identifying the practical, real-world obstacles to
achieving such legislation, and how to overcome these obstacles, such
as:
the control of all three branches of government in the
US by the extreme right
trade policies that undermine
environmental protections
their own failure to articulate an
inspiring and positive vision
overpopulation
the
influence of money in US politics
failure to craft
'environmental' legislation that shapes the debate around core
values
poverty
acceptance of dubious assumptions about
what the real problem is, and isn't
In 1991, the
environmental movement stupidly agreed to
withdraw its drive for a much-needed US fuel efficiency standard in
return for an auto industry agreement to oppose drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (which is now likely to be drilled anyway) --
this was because of short-range, tactical thinking and mis-framing the
debate as about 'protecting the environment' when it should have been
framed as about salvaging the viability of the US auto industry.
The movement has been too short-sighted and
idealistic to
form practical alliances: The #1 reason the US auto industry is less
profitable than the Japanese industry is the exploding cost of health
care, which in the US is paid for by the industry ($5B/year by GM
alone), yet environmentalists have never considered helping the auto
industry lobby for universal public health care in return for an
agreement to raise fuel efficiency, because "health care isn't an
environmental issue".
So the movement is now in a quandary:
It's focusing its
effort on short-term, tactical efforts and technical solutions that it
believes could be politically successful even in the current US
political climate, while at the same time acknowledging that even if
these quick fixes and incremental improvements succeed they will be
far
short of the change that is needed immediately to avert ecological
catastrophe.
The authors co-founded the New
Apollo Project (which my fellow environmental blogger Richard Kahn
criticized
as idealistic) which they say provides an "inclusive and hopeful
vision" and is at least an intelligent first step to get
environmentalists out of the 'special interest' mold and into the
practice of building win-win alliances -- and not just with other
environmentalists and progressives. "It is our contention", they say,
"that the strength of any given political proposal turns more on its
vision for the future and the values it carries within it than on its
technical policy specifications".
The best way to achieve
significant change in the
environment is to focus less on regulation and more on investment:
Encouraging planet-friendly investments siphons dollars away from
polluting and wasteful investments.
What especially backfires
is environmentalists' PR focus on
raising awareness of the problem: Bombarding the public with bleak
news
when they are desperately seeking reassurance and less to worry about
(that's why I rarely report environmental set-backs and other bad news
on this blog -- it doesn't accomplish anything).
So: Vision and values first, and then build the movement and its
agenda on that. In my Green Movement
Manifesto
I really started with the agenda for what I described as a coalition
of
the disenfranchised. That agenda was about communicating, teaching,
recruiting, political (proportional representation), social (boycotts,
think-tanks, demonstrations) and economic (tax shifts, new measures of
well-being) activities, and creating Model Intentional Communities,
new
progressive media and Natural Enterprises. I used the term 'Green'
instead of Environmental or Ecology because I thought it was more
inclusive, more about us than
just about it.
Suppose we take a step back and describe the vision and values of the
Green Movement first, and then review the agenda and see if it
fits?
Yesterday I produced what I believe to be a statement of universal
human values:
Happiness as a product of good Health, Home (including Environment,
Belonging, Self-Sufficiency), Connection (Community, Relationships,
Family, Love), Discovery (Learning, Creating, Forming Beliefs), Work,
Peace (Freedom, Justice, Absence of Stress), Play, Awareness and
Self-Esteem. I freely admit that these may not be the best terms,
which, along with their organization have an implicit progressive
'frame' to them. But whether you want to combine Home and Connection
into one core value (as environmentalists are wont to do), or elevate
Family from an aspect of Home and Connection to a core value in its
own
right, I think you'll agree that this is a reasonable broad-brush
summary of human values (and, if you're an environmentalist, of the
values of all life on Earth).
If we're going to build a Green Movement on values and vision, do we
need to focus on or emphasize certain values, the ones that are
currently least fulfilled by today's non-sustainable and devastating
culture? The New Apollo Project report focuses on two values: good
jobs
(Work) and energy self-sufficiency (Self-Sufficiency being an aspect
of
Home). Its thesis is that two massive current problems in the US -- a
lousy job market and energy dependence -- can be solved by a single
set
of solutions, a single agenda. That agenda is about encouraging
investment in renewable energy innovation and development. Its
side-benefits include Health, a better Environment, and greater
security (Peace).
But New Apollo is a project, not a movement. It seems to me a movement
needs to be built on a strong and cohesive, relatively complete
set of values. So I'm tempted to keep the entire set. We need of
course
to go beyond the 'shorthand' of these one-word terms and explain
exactly what these values mean. So the first part of the Green
Movement
Manifesto should be about these values. We need to try to articulate
their meaning and reinforce their universality by expressing them in
new 'frames' that are compelling to all -- progressive and
conservative, libertarian, environmentalist, fundamentalist and
agnostic alike. No easy task.
The next part, the Vision, will be easier. The vision is ultimately an
achievablestory in which the Values are
realized and fully manifest. Hence, Manifesto.
The key challenge here is to create a sense of urgency. The Vision
needs to transport us into the realm of the possible, and make us long
for its realization, ready and eager to be part of making it
happen.
Another challenge will be ensuring that a wide variety of people
perceive the Vision to be achievable. We live in such a cynical
society
that it's become easy to shrug off our responsibility, and our lack of
courage, by simply saying "It can't be done, so there's no point
trying." An unachievable Vision is worse than no Vision, because it
merely raises anxiety and brands its authors as hopeless idealists.
The
line between a vision that is too incremental, and one that is
perceived to be impossible, is often a fine one.
Is that enough for the Manifesto? While setting out the Agenda would
certainly be beneficial -- it would show How the vision could be
achieved -- it would also be controversial because, as I mentioned
yesterday, the 'How' is extremely frame-dependent. My sense is that
we're over-burdening the Manifesto by putting the Agenda in it. The
Agenda is Stage Two. Besides, stories are subversive -- we may be able
to use the Vision as a tool to allow people with different frames to
see the 'Value(s)' of achieving the Vision -- and that Vision alone
may
be enough to get them thinking about other, imaginative ways to
realize
it -- changing their own frames.
And there remains the problem of the name -- Green Movement. I like
the
name, because it's simple, visual, positive, instinctively resonant.
It's also tailor-made as a brand, something people can associate with,
call themselves, belong to, talk about, even wear (a woman I know
makes
unisex bracelets, and is intrigued by the idea of making something
that
Green Movement members could wear, give, share -- a conversation
piece). And what's more, Green is neither Red nor Blue.
But it does have associations with the Green Party, which, in North
America at least, is associated with the left, with fringe thinking,
and with single-issue politics. We need to think about whether on
balance it's an asset or a liability, and if it's the latter we need
another name. We also probably need a logo and a catchphrase.
Why am I saying 'we'? Because tomorrow I'm going to present a draft of
a new Green Movement Manifesto, with a Value statement, a Vision, and
possibly a new name, logo and catchphrase. And no Agenda, at least
yet.
But I wouldn't presume that my draft will be more than something for
the rest of us -- you -- to
shoot at. If the Green Movement Manifesto is going to be enough to
galvanize a billion or two people into thinking about, believing in,
and striving for, a better, sustainable way to live, it's going to
need
an enormous amount of collaborative effort -- the Wisdom of Crowds,
the
Power of Many, and the Magic of the Collective Mind and Soul. From the
ashes of Environmentalism we will build something new. So sharpen your
critical and creative thinking, here we go!
Mariane Pearl with Sarah Crichton: A Mighty Heart02/10/2004 02:36 AM More satisfying studies than this book can be found, with the help of
Google, on the websites of CNN, PBS, the BBC and the South Asian
Journalists' Association ...
"Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball: More Distortions From Michael Moore (They Effectively Poke A Lot Of Holes In The Movie)"
medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/die_zeit_prsent.html#mo
re track this
site | 5 links
Religion
Religion09/22/2004 07:03 PM Redemption
and the Power of Man. In Christianity, redemption is
essentially an act of divine grace, the salvation of a sinful humanity
that is incapable of saving itself. In Judaism redemption depends
entirely on man, who is responsible for his own fate. To what extent
did Judaism influence the
development of progressive, pluralistic democracy?
What Use is Religion?
What Use is Religion?09/04/2004 05:17 PM Richard Dawkins discusses religion with a Darwinian outlook .. What
Use is Religion?
secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm track
this site | 4 links
What the world needs now: Another religion03/06/2004 01:59 AM Yoism is a made-up "open source" religion that replaces God with an
impersonal Divine Mystery that seems to be loosely defined as "The
Stuff that Is and the Scientifical Laws It Follows," so that the proof
of Yo's existence consists of saying that the universe exists. Yoism
pledges to build Heaven on Earth, and, best of all, without self
sacrifice! I'm confident Yoism is built on the best of intentions. I'm
just having trouble getting past the unintentional self-parody. I
guess that makes me a small person. Thanks to Ross Knights for the
link....
This issue of Topic in Depth explores the relationship between
technology and religion in today's world. This first website, from
PBS, features interviews with "a skeptic, a devout Muslim scientist,
and an expert in the sociology of religion" who address the question,
Can Religion Withstand Technology? (1). This blog from the Institute
for the Future discusses how religion is making use of technology (2).
One way that religion and technology interact, of course, is through
the use of the Internet in communicating religious ideas, as is
evidenced by this collection of websites listed on cybertheology (3 ),
which also offers a number of articles on theology and technology.
This next website from researcher at the University of Maryland (4) is
"dedicated to illustrations of the trends to refer to and use
metaphors from technology in conveying fundamental ideas in theology"
and presents some of the data collected so far as part of this
research project. In this article from TechNewsWorld (5), an associate
deputy of interfaith relations for the Episcopal Church discusses his
views on "the future of religion and technology -- and what he views
as their joint role in the survival of humanity." Wired offers this
perspective on how technology has impacted Islamic traditions (6). W.
Kent Fuchs, Dean of Cornell University's College of Engineering,
discusses the ways that religion and technology can help each other in
this short article (7 ). Finally, this website (8) offers a large
selection of articles specifically addressing Faith and Science from
the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science & Technology.
This will be added to Theology Resources Subject Tracer™ Information
Blog. [ From The NSDL Scout Report for Math, Engineering, and
Technology, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-2005. http://scout.wisc.edu/]
"Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)"
Justice, Religion, Sexuality05/19/2004 08:46 AM Here's a transcript of a speech by Justice Michael Kirby of the
Australian High (= Supreme) Court on his Christianity and
homosexuality. (Thanks to Vergil for the link.) Excerpt: So how did my
relationship with God survive this experience of self-discovery?
First, I never doubted for an instant the surrounding love of my
parents, my brothers and sister. I knew, in my heart, that they would
always love me as I was. For years we did not confront the subject
verbally. We did not really need to do so. When we did, it was exactly
as I expected. No big...
Low Power FM Religion Radio
Low Power FM Religion Radio04/06/2005 11:57 AM Religion
radio co-opts low power FM. Remember the fight over low power FM? It was
supposed to help establish community radio stations. It seems that
some Christian broadcasting stations have been snapping up low power
FM licenses to implement translators, which extend the broadcast area
of their main signal. Some groups have been speakingout
about this, yet the FCC only acted after it appeared that some of the
licenses were being obtained fraudulently for resale. (via Jorn)
Gimme that New-Time Religion
Gimme that New-Time Religion07/27/2004 06:10 AM By Dale Short (Birmingham Weekly) Posted with permission. It
may be no coincidence that every explosion we see in an action movie
nowadays looks the same. Destruction is no longer a loud bang and a
flash of light; it's become a stylized slow-motion ballet of jagged
fragments that tumble and ricochet outward from the explosion's exact
center toward the viewer and beyond, an artists perspective-drawing
turned nightmare. The destroyed object is no more, this surreal
display seems to tell us, but the ramifications of the blast have only
begun. Its chain of events reaches further into the future than we can
imagine, consequences as relentless as they are unforeseeable, but
already stirring in us some primal memory of doom.
Science Fiction and Religion
Science Fiction and Religion01/19/2004 10:41 AM I was reading an interview with Ted Chiang, and the first lines struck
me: All science fiction is fundamentally post-religious literature.
For those whose minds are shaped by science and technology, the
universe is fundamentally knowable. Faith dissolves, replaced by a
sense of wonder at the complexity of creation.What do you think of
this?
All religion leads to extremism
All religion leads to extremism06/05/2005 10:51 PM Salman Rushdie attacks an article in the Guardian by Dylan Evans which
proposes a moderate atheist stance. The problem with...
Karl Marx On Religion
Karl Marx On Religion03/19/2003 10:25 PM Perhaps Karl Marx's best known quotation is his description of
religion as "the opiate of the masses." This quote is often
misrepresented by those ideologically opposed to Marx as though Marx
were advocating immediate and total obliteration of all religions. On
the contrary, Marx viewed religion as the sole solace, often, of the
oppressed proletarian classes. He would not have dreamed of tearing
this away, their only consolation in life. Lutheranism was
the prescribed Prussian state religion, and career advancement for
non-Lutherans and especially Jews was difficult to impossible. But
for Marx, religion in general was merely a symptom of a much larger
issue -- the fundamentally predatorial economic relationship between
the bourgeois class and the proletariat -- rather than religion being
a fundamental problem in itself. As Napoleon put it, "Religion is
great stuff for keeping the poor from murdering the rich."
Religion Feeds Sudan's Fire08/22/2004 02:31 AM Political rivalries, ethnic strife and poverty have fueled the
clashes, but that has not stopped combatants from invoking religion
and challenging the devotion of their rivals.
"Forty percent of those teens who say that their faith is extremely
important to them report using the Internet to visit religious
Websites a few times each month or more often," said Dr. Christian S.
Smith, study principal investigator. "Another 20 percent who describe
their faith as very important also say they visit religious Websites a
few times each month or more."
Religion Experts Ask How Jesus Would Vote (AP)08/18/2004 08:46 AM AP - Just a few miles from George W. Bush's former office at the state
Capitol, a panel of religious experts weighed a question with
relevance to many people of faith: How would Jesus vote?
China rules on religion 'relaxed'
China rules on religion 'relaxed'12/19/2004 03:03 PM China has announced new rules on religious groups aimed at ending
discrimination on grounds of belief. Grok Description matches for "Michael Crichton on the latest religion: environmentalism" GrokA matches for "Michael Crichton on the latest religion: environmentalism"
"Michael Crichton on the latest religion: environmentalism"
The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry:
Some of you are probably
wondering why I didn't follow through with my promise to publish my Green
Movement Manifesto on ChangeThis!,
the new and wildly popular site for the posting of manifestos and
other
lengthy and provocative 'thought pieces' on urgent and fundamental
issues. There are two reasons: