Health and Diet Scottish Recipes Ferret for Ferrets


[pf] Sources of ideas; role models and shades of green; complexity.
by David MacClement
22 November 2000 02:06 UTC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

· I see no reason to respond to the christianity thread on Pos Fut except
to say that there's rather too much pigeon-holing going on.

· I'm an atheist, probably a sceptic (another pigeonhole), who doesn't
agree with any of the schema by which people organise their understanding
of "the way the world is and how it works". 

· IMO _none_ of these are a reliable guide:
mainly science;
mainly spirit;
mainly god or gods;
mainly our leaders;
mainly The Economy;
mainly X, Y or Z philosophy - - none of them.

· Each has its place. 

· Even talking and reading about these things is of no more value than
reading a novel - each is just one of a very large number of sources of
ideas from which the individual chooses, to apply to whatever they're
considering at that moment.

· Many (most?) people feel the need for an external source of validation,
approval, support. At minimum that's the good opinion of your family,
friends and acquaintances, but for most you have to feel you're "doing the
right thing" as seen by your peers, the members of your church, mosque or
temple, your nation, or the WTO (reference to this in a radio news item
this morning quoting a presentation to our Royal Commission on Genetic
Modification).

· If you're Christian, you need Christianity. If you're defending science,
then you need science to be "right". And so on. But this is solely the
choice or preference of the individual - no-one else's opinions or beliefs
are of any significance beyond being one more source of ideas.

· The rest of this is (again) my opinion, about goals and the focus of a
person's activity. Diversity of opinion, multiple ways of action.
  Complexity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
06:48 Monday 20/11/2000 +1300, I (David M.) wrote to GreenViews-NZ:

· I've not read much of the thread about The Body Shop.
  However, I do have an opinion, and since I'm almost certainly the most
anti-consuming person on this GV-NZ list, I'll tell you about it.

· I recognise the value of role models, for people who are uncertain about
what is possible - if it exists, it's obviously possible. They're also
valuable for people with little experience, like children and other people
who live in a mental ghetto.

· But I certainly don't see role models as desirable in general, for most
people. The word role tells you part of the reason why. Implies one "right"
route rather than many.


· Now; about what seems to be the main focus: "Green Business", and the
various shades of green (from light greyish-green or blue-green to dark
green).

· This is where my views have changed over the last few years.

· I used to be scornful of lists including "turn out the lights when you
leave a room", "sort your rubbish into: food scraps and other organic,
re-cyclable, and other", and "combine car trips etc., trying to halve the
distance the car travels in the year".
  Although useful, they seemed puny to me in comparison to the distance we
need to go to live sustainably (now that there's 6-to-9 billion of us on
Earth).

· _But_:-

(1) When taking a new way, people are hesitant, possibly /very/ doubtful
about whether the changes they make will be sufficiently valuable (to
themselves or to others important to them) to be worth their effort in
making the change. So taking "first steps" and getting familiar with them,
is necessary and desirable, so long as it doesn't stop there.

(2) The commonest trap for a leader-follower group is to say "this is The
Way, the only way". But the world in general, and human nature in
particular, isn't like that. I have difficulty understanding why such a
large number of people (a majority?) look for a simple "answer". Complexity
is not only built into all nature, it is very necessary, IMO, for producing
a successful response to a changing environment. 
   So some people _should_ do things one way, and others another. /I/ would
like to bring The Economy to its knees, "chop it down to size", yet I
recognise that major changes take decades and altering business goals and
methods over (say) 15 years could well be another route to whatever turns
out to be the actual goal (rather than what I think is the goal).

   Much of what I say is informed by an understanding that there is a huge
distinction between reality and our interpretations of it, the explanations
or stories we tell ourselves to help us make sense of what we see and hear.
(Massey Lectures, Canada, being re-broadcast on National Radio late Sunday
mornings.) Such stories as are given major credence during wars hot and
cold, but also stories such as the US's "manifest destiny"; the
200-year-old idea of "Progress"; the idea that humans are the peak of "the
evolutionary tree" and are the masters of creation; and virtually all
dichotomies where it's "us" versus "them" - the goodies and the baddies
(e.g. Green communities vs. big Corporations; I certainly think of those as
goodies and baddies!).

· So it's possible that Anita Roddick's example, in the past, has nudged
many other business-people away from their "bottom line" fixation (by the
way, is that a tight-assed vertical line?), towards exploring other routes
to satisfaction.
· But, for that business to retain the admiration it attracted during the
first year or two, the Body Shop would need to work at reducing its
unsustainable functions, with a (say) 10-year plan to reach something not
far from sustainable within the organization as a whole. Little-p progress
in achieving a defined goal does exist, for individuals and organizations,
but I don't believe there is a defined goal (a pre-existing description of
a final state), i.e. a purpose, for the human race.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent to Positive Futures by David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz