With knowledge comes responsibility

What is the point of learning about the world if we live for ourselves?  What the is point of research and of generating knowledge if we do not take what we learn to heart?

Scientists and engineers occupy a unique and powerful position in this culture, and they always have.  While kooks and quacks no doubt exist, scientists and engineers do important work in chemistry, atmospheric sciences, biology, physics, ecology, building and designing.  But if you're a scientist or engineer reading this, it is likely that you have been educated to (or at least told to) just doing the science and engineering, and leaving the decisionmaking that stems from it to others--policymakers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, many of whom do not have the best interests of people and nature at heart.  Scientists and engineers thus leave it to others, others who many not fully understand the implications of this knowledge, to decide what should be done about what we know, so scientists and engineers do not lose their "objectivity," so they do not cross the supposedly strict boundaries between scientific, reductionist research and the murky world of "values."

But in this glacier-melting, toxic tresspassing, obesity-inducing, mass-species-extinction, large corporate culture, scientists and engineers can no longer sit on the sidelines of decisionmaking.  Traditional means of scientific communication have led, for example, to politicians undermining and denying climate science (although in this episode of This American Life, it becomes clear that many politicians fully accept climate science, but just do not admit it).  Instead, given the incredible diversity of thought, skill, and knowledge they possess, scientists and engineers must take full responsibility for what they know and do, and that is to become front and center the faces of the radical social, political and economic change needed to align this culture and its laws with ecological holism and peace.

Fortunately, there are a handful of such brave men and women out there already, and Sandra Steingraber heads the list of courageous scientist activists.  A poet, essayist, author, environmentalist and ecologist, Steingraber has written extensively (in Orion magazine, among other places) about the links between industrial chemicals released into the environment and human health impacts, specifically cancer.  Recently, she has been intimately involved with the opposition to the extremely destructive practice of fracking, for which she was jailed.  In a conversation with Dick Gordon on The Story, Steingraber says,

In the absence of a powerful human rights movement behind the science, I don't think we can move this forward.  The world's most powerful industries are standing in our way.  And so I think science needs to be coupled with a kind of activism, similar to what we saw with [the] Civil Rights [Movement], similar to what we saw with the Abolitionist Movement.  And so, I feel inspired in the work that I do not just by the power of the data, whether it's on climate change, or on the growing evidence that we have linking childhood asthma to crummy air, [but also by how] Martin Luther King Jr. did what he did, and how my dad, at age eighteen, had to go off and fight global fascism even though at the time it looked like an overwhelming task...People under very desperate circumstances rose and said, "This is wrong." 

I carry around this German name, Steingraber, and my dad [was] also German...and what I learned from my dad was to not be a "good German."  If you see something is wrong because you have evidence, whether it is the kind of evidence that the French partisans had or whether it is evidence like I have as a biologist, we have a moral obligation to make sure that that evidence [leads to change].  You don't just say, "Here's the evidence," and that's your job, you're done.  But if nobody is coming to take the evidence and turn it into change, then you have to do that yourself.  It becomes your own responsibility. 

I hope to continue to develop these thoughts on the blog over the days and weeks to come; they formed an important part of my dissertation, and continue to be something I write about more academically.  I hope to translate more of that writing here.  I am sure many of you have thoughts on this very important issue, and I welcome them in the form of comments and even guest blog posts.  Until then, I encourage you to listen to Gordon's full conversation with Steingraber, which I have posted below.  You can also find the conversation on The Story's website, here.

Part 1 of Gordon's conversation with Steingraber.

Part 2 of Gordon's conversation with Steingraber.

The right, the wrong, and the other

It is not difficult to see how environmentalism can be infused with righteousness. This righteousness is just like sexual harassment; it doesn't matter what your intention is, it is what is perceived that is what matters. In our advocacy, how do we deal with coming off to others as elitist and righteous?

This is something very difficult to deal with, especially because environmentalism stems from a judgement - the judgement (based on experience, on seeing, breathing, living, and, well, science) that what we are doing to the planet is destroying its ability to sustain the ecosystems that have characterised it. Unfortunately, however, this is the way we've structured almost all of our social interactions - we are judgemental. Some people are ostracised because of the way they look, some people aren't taken seriously because of stereotypes. This judgementalism we see throughout the most important of social processes - politics. The Republicans seem bad to the Democrats, and the Republicans think that the Democrats are bad. We think that what we are doing is the right thing to do, what the rest do is the wrong thing to do.

But things weren't this way in the past. Of course, they couldn't have been. Because before politics, the politics that stem from a society like ours, there was the notion of the other. There was nothing right or wrong about actions, because all human life tread lightly on this Earth. Groups of people tread in different ways, but all in ways that are unique to place and time, and all in ways that at the very least leave minimal damage to ecosystems.

It can be difficult to tell people that what they are doing, in all sincerity, is detrimental. But if we don't do it, then the behaviour continues. Treading the line then between righteousness and passivity is a delicate balance. It is important that the ethics that guide our actions do our utmost not to alienate by branding some thoughts as right or wrong, but rather as those that have the most potential to reduce the tradeoffs we make on a day-to-day basis with the environment and people's lives, those that have the ability to allow us to accept, respect, and see the other side. There is an honesty and humility with which those that care about the environment must operate. While we do partake in this culture, out of an unfortunate coercion at times, we mustn't identify with it. Yet, we must pass our judgements with humility, in knowing that this isn't a competition or a race, but rather a meaningful attempt to tread lightly on this planet, to keep it a safe and enriching place for this generation and the next, of everything, not just humans.

Paragraphs on patience

With the urge to fill your time with other things, you can buy microwave dinners every time. You can convince yourself quite easily that your time is better spent doing other things. In fact, cooking can take a while, especially if you don't do it often. If you lose your touch, or never had it, it can be intimidating to enter a kitchen. Sharp knives surrounded by heavy metal. Hundreds of potential ingredients, more than a thousand degree difference between the flame temperature and the room temperature, and infinite combinations of amounts of ingredients. What do caramelised onions look like? When is the pasta al dente? When are the beans done? When will the beans be done?! It just seems like it would take a lot of effort to make a meal. A meal just fills your stomach. A meal just takes your mind off of hunger. On the go, there are things to do. There are other things to experience.

In fact, a meal sustains. A meal heals. A meal brings you close. Cooking brings you closer - to your friends, to your family, and to your food. Why not be patient and learn? Why not be patient and cook? Why not see how long it takes for pasta to go over the edge? Why not see how long it takes for water to soak into beans? Why not wait to see the dough rise? There is much to be experienced through patience. You don't have to be idle. You can observe, and learn. You can learn, and impress. You can impress, and be full. Patience reveals nature. And you won't have to throw away that microwavable container.