Preaching to the choir

As a novice activist, I have realised that not many people are concerned on a day-to-day basis about the environment and this Earth, and are ambivalent about how their individual choices affect the environment. Yes, as individuals, we do have agency. We have the power to make differences. Pressure must constantly be applied, so that when the earthquake happens, it is because of the constancy and unabated and unswerving pressure that has been applied from all angles, for a long time. I have written about this at length, several times.

Yet we see that in light of all of this ecological degradation, all of this unsustainability, all of this injustice, that the masses are barely moved. As environmentalists and activists, we preach to the choir, and this blog is complicit in that, I suppose. I do not want it to be this way, but of course, it is hard to deny that it is this way. While it is important to surround ourselves with people that agree with us and challenge us (especially because we are a minority), as a recent comment from Tanny said, the divide to those that are unconcerned must be overcome.

Last night, I got to know Avik, my Argentine tango dance instructor, a little bit more. He completed his undergraduate and master's degree in electrical engineering, but then switched gears and got a Ph.D. in environmental policy and behaviour...and he is of Indian descent. (Awesome! That is so nice to see. There are very few non-White people in the environmental movement. It is not hard to see then that many people think the movement is elitist.) He said that for all that the environmental movement has done, it has not been able to move the masses and reach across the divide. Of course when the Cuyahoga River was burning a few decades ago, people took notice. But he said that the reason why people haven't latched on to the movement is that impacts of people's choices need to be felt immediately, and with environmentally-conscious choices, it is very difficult to achieve this. For example, when someone buys a car, the "positive" impacts of that choice are felt immediately - you gain mobility, and accessibility, and the ability to drive cross-country on a whim. (Of course, we would rather have it that you don't need a car to be mobile and to have access.) But what if you don't buy a car out of some environmental awareness? Are the positives of that choice evident to you immediately? Likely not, unless you choose to bike, you become healthier, you feel better, have better endurance, eat healthier, and so on. All of this can take a while, though, and it requires effort, and every day awareness.

It is not as if the negative impacts of environmental choices aren't felt directly or tangibly. They are, to those people that are least capable of defending themselves. Environmental justice can be a framework under which it is possible to mobilise the masses. But how do you take the masses to Delray? Can you take them all to a landfill? Will everyone watch Waste Land or Gasland? And when there is success in getting to the mainstream, as Al Gore did with An Inconvenient Truth? How do you tell the masses about the heroes that win the Goldman Environmental Prizes?

How much has the middle class been adopting environmentally-guided behaviour in their lives, then? Not much, apart from maybe switching out light bulbs and calling it good. All of these people live in comfort. Unemployment may affect them a little bit, but in all seriousness, the middle class is well off in suburbia. How do you connect to these people, those that form the bulk of the population, and those whose choices have massive implications in legitimising large corporations and corrupt governments?

I have thought to myself that environmentalism is a spiritual journey, that in our effort to reduce our ecological footprints, that in our efforts to tread lightly and respect this Earth and its creations, we realise more about ourselves as individuals - our fallibility and our power as ethical beings. Yet Avik said that discussion about ethics and morality outside of the contexts of religion can be very academic. I agree with him to an extent, and yet I have still held on hope that people can more holistically think about and understand their choices, through morality and ethics, and contemplate the influence that their lives have on other people and this Earth.

There are a couple of forces at play here. First, the powerful have put up boundaries and barriers between those well-off, those that serve in the interests of their existence, and those that face the negative outcomes of our collective actions. They have set up physical barriers (like highways and dams and bridges) and mental barriers ("Those that are not well-off are so because of the way that have chosen to lead their lives."). But as individuals, we too have set up mental barriers ourselves so we don't have to deal with challenging situations. Think about the barriers we put up when we are approached by a homeless person asking for money.

How come there were only one thousand people that got arrested in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline between Alberta and Texas? Why not ten thousand? Or one hundred thousand? How do we not preach to the choir? How do we make discussions about environmentalism less academic? How do we move the masses? The masses are powerful, because they have the capacity to take down oppressive systems. I will try my fullest to write in a manner that appreciates Avik's thoughts, because he makes very valid points.

On meaning

A four day break from writing has been refreshing, and I am happy to say that there are so many thoughts running through my head that there is plenty to write about for the next few weeks.

I went to the Michigan Social Justice Conference yesterday - there were several fascinating panels and discussions, with issues ranging from divestment and sex trafficking to the power of allies and workers' rights. There was also a workshop on the social justice issues of trash and waste, which Sherri and I were grateful to help with. The keynote speaker was writer and activist Derrick Jensen, whose essays I have been reading in Orion. He has written more than a dozen books and has thought deeply about issues of social injustice and the environment. He talked at length about the root causes of all social justice issues - as I have tried to articulate previously, most all of the problems we face in the world stem from the same moral and ethical deficiencies. One of the key roots he said, was the issue of meaning.

Jensen is influenced highly by Native American cultures and traditions. These cultures had survived for several thousand years in harmony with their environment (let's avoid discussion about the ecologically noble savage here). He talked about how having lived in a place, these people assigned meaning to everything around them, from the trees to the salmon. The meaning that is assigned to these different sides of nature shape our perceptions of what it is that promotes harmony and unity. For example, while walking through a forest, someone who thinks that trees fill a pivotal niche in the environment, by providing habitat for birds and animals, will treat it differently than someone who sees trees as a way to make paper and money. In one case, the broader environment is at the centre of consideration, and in the other case, the economy may be at the centre of consideration.

Jensen mentioned that what organised religion has done (one of them in particular he dislikes) has been to take meaning away from the visceral and tangible to the arcane and unphysical, i.e. god. This, he feels, has led to a meaningless worldly presence, and the domination of nature because of it. In the same way, he feels as if science has had that same domineering quality, which allows us the ability of violence against nature. This is interesting, because it wasn't even a few days ago that I heard on an episode of Being that before the very notion of god existed, only the notion of the other existed. What dominating notions of god and science have done have taken away the nuances of understanding of place and time, and the consequent designation of meaning to them. The constructs of science and many organised religions have embedded in them the notion just two things - right and wrong.

This past year has made me think a lot about place and time and the meaning of everything that surrounds me. Each one of us will assign different meanings to different sides of nature. That is okay. I just hope that there is a convergence of the outcomes resulting from these meanings.

Speaking of meaning, how much this past weekend has meant is immeasurable and beautiful.

To sacrifice is to make sacred

I have been asked several times about what I have had to "give up." People wonder whether it is it even possible to have a fully functioning social life by living trash free, or even trying to. Am I an annoyance to others around me, with my constant requests? I would like to think not, and I can attest to you that this project has not negatively impacted my social life the slightest bit. In fact, it has made interactions more interesting, more provocative and more meaningful.

Back to the conversation at Crazy Wisdom Tea Room with Laura, Laura, Sherri and Katherine. The issue of sacrifice was brought up, and Laura (Smith) said one of the most profound things I have ever heard. She said, "To sacrifice is to make sacred." It is hard for us in a culture of consumption and excess to take a step back, pause for a moment, and think about what is truly important to us. Many of us don't have the time to reflect like this, as we move from one instant message window to the next, multi-tasking while eating dinner. But there are some people, that every now and then, especially around religious holidays, that do think about sacrifice. Indeed, I would like to think that traditions such as Ramadan and Lent exist to make us realise the importance of what we choose to give up. Being hungry or thirsty, even if for a day, makes us realise the importance and sanctity of food and water. It is hard for one to have these realisations if they haven't gone hungry or thirsty. But once someone does have a realisation, I would hope that it is so impactful on them that they cannot tolerate food or water being wasted. (Of course, I am not talking about leaving a little bit on your plate if you are full...)

We are constantly surrounded by news of ecological degradation, oil spills, miners trapped underground (not only in Chile, mind you, but also in China and Ecuador) and fish being caught in plastic bags. To sacrifice the things that are causing these harms is to recognise that our Earth is sacred.

People think of sacrifice as a negative word. But many fail to think about all we have to gain through sacrifice. Sacrificing watching TV allows one more time to talk with my housemates. Sacrificing fast food makes one eat healthier, and feel healthier. Sacrificing a little bit of sleep allows you to go to a late night showing of your favourite movie. It all comes down to what one thinks is important. If you say to yourself, "Soccer is one of the most important things to me; I will do everything I can to play for an hour everyday," then you make other things in your life flexible, and sacrificial, because you have recognised the importance of something (maybe something else) in your life.