A daily meditation

My lab life consists of a deeply satisfying ritual. While fully taking apart and cleaning my experimental facility after each experiment, I listen to The Story (or On Being if I've listened to The Story already). A couple of days ago, I listened to the story of Angela Walters, who has been collecting pictures of the lives of the people of Joplin, Missouri, the town that was demolished by a massive tornado six months ago (see video below). Her effort has been trying to get these pictures back to the people of Joplin, in an effort to preserve the history of the place.



Walters mentioned in her interview that the one thing that people regret most when some event like a tornado occurs is not the loss of their material objects, but rather of the memories captured in photographs. I found this to be so poignant, as obvious as it may seem.

We live our daily lives doing things that aren't really important to us, materially and spiritually. When it comes down to it, what we value most in our lives is not that we had an iPod or the latest computer, but the times we spent with other people. Why then, do we continue to invest vast amounts of time and effort doing things we do not want?

We are stuck in a mindless slavery and cycle of our daily lives. I find it disappointing that it must always come down to a calamity or some freak event that makes us reorganise our lives and our priorities. Think about how much more lightly we could tread on our Earth, how much more community we could build, if we constantly reminded ourselves that what matters most is not materialism, but rather good time spent with people we care about, not engaged in material exchange, but rather, just being? How might this unfold on the world that is beyond our immediacy, both in space and time?

I believe it would be powerful for us to have a daily meditation on what is most important to us, and act accordingly, as much as we can. The effects of such a meditation, of a change in our behaviour cannot be expected to be immediate, but they might be. We won't know if we don't try. If you are to tell yourself each morning that what is most important to you are your family and your watershed, then you will act accordingly. You may not buy that make-up or eye-liner or chemical bathroom cleaner if we think that those things will contaminate the water you drink. If you were to start all over again, as the people in Joplin may have had to, where would you start? How would you proceed? How would we proceed?

On encouragement and reinforcement

It is natural for us to want to be told that what we are doing is good - hopefully, we want to be viewed as responsible, caring, loving and respectful to (at least some part of) this world. Some people will take this to mean that they will do whatever it takes to support their families, some may take this to mean that they will do whatever it takes to combat social injustice. Regardless, people want to be told that they are right, that they are doing good for themselves, their families and their communities, and hopefully our world. I would think that those interrogating new technologies want the encouragement of their peers and colleagues, even though to some of us those technologies as environmentally degrading. But it is clear that many if not most of our actions and behaviours are degrading the environment. How is it that people should be told that their actions are actually not in the best interest of the greater world outside of their families? How is it that we can change how people behave and change the social norms of what is acceptable?

Trash is a wonderful example of this. Many people may think that just making sure that your trash is thrown in a receptacle is good enough, and that that is the responsible thing to do. Putting trash in a receptacle means that you aren't littering, and that the containment of trash doesn't aesthetically degrade the surroundings. But trash is not a good thing, and the act of trashing is not a good thing. Poonam had the wonderfully simple idea of changing signage on trash cans - instead of having them say "Trash," she proposed that they should say "To Landfill." It seems like just a change of words would have a huge impact on people's behaviour and perception of their actions. I arrived at Georgia Tech just a couple of days ago, and one of the first things I noticed was this...

How wonderful! Not only are words being used, but pictures, impactful ones, are being used to hopefully get people thinking about their actions. I contacted the building manager, and he has now put me in touch with the administrator in facilities and operations to see what it took to do this, and how this change has affected behaviour of people using the receptacles.

I do believe that it takes "negative" images and thoughts and problems to encourage us to action. That is not a surprise. But how might we be open to criticism in our responses to these problems? This is a fundamental issue with environmentalism. In a technologically driven world, in a world based on natural resource extraction, our approaches to solving environmental and social issues are founded on these very principles. By encouraging these approaches and making people "feel good" about them, we reinforce ideas that just aren't sustainable. I struggle with this, and I wonder where the balance lies between the positive forms of encouragement ("What you are doing is good.") to negative forms of encouragement ("What you are doing is not good."). How do you tell people? How do you convince people? 

First of all, of course, I must be open to such criticisms, and if you have any, please, please tell me.