I find this interview and discussion to be rich and important. We seem to be grappling with ever deeper, less obvious, more powerful layers of understanding here at PP.
I was struck by the idea of “choice architecture” from the interview. Don’t we run into that every single minute? The choices built into the architecture of industrial civilization are simply NOT the ones that would build “a world worth inheriting”. For example, though I can and do choose not to own a car, I still, even though the growing season I grew up with has morphed into a new and difficult beast here in the West Kootenays, get into a fossil-fueled vehicle of some sort many times a week in order to have money. The choices I need to make – make a living where I live or get to work without further damaging the climate – are not available. No wonder it’s an effort to decide to consider climate change.
On the issue of the climate change discussion here at PP:
Dr. M. says: “…what are the best ways of motivating people towards taking new actions? That is the work I care about.”
There seems to be a concern that long, loud, angry, overwhelming CC discussions will not help motivate people to start thinking and acting on any part of the 3 Es. Point taken.
Others call for a more public and completely rigorous acknowledgement of CC because that’s what we do here at PP. There seems to be a concern that we MUST take CC on because it is real and terribly impactful. Fair enough.
I don’t have a solution but can offer heartfelt understanding for both desires. I do not think they are in conflict with each other. Possibly we could find a way to be both really good at motivating people towards taking new actions AND excellent at coming to grips with climate change.
A related comment might be that no matter how urgent an issue is, an unprepared, unsupported, unskilled mind may nevertheless not be able to engage with it. To look at CC requires plowing through masses of data, and extremely heated, devious, confusing controversy. I have a strong mind and I can’t take it. I get there anyway by registering the images of retreating glaciers and icecaps, noticing how tomato plants can’t grow here in June anymore and recognizing that burning fossil fuels like we do is just inconsistent with my values. And if one is successful in finding data they trust, what task do they face? Acknowledging the possible end of the biosphere we know, love and utterly depend upon. This is a lot to ask! It brings me to my knees. My orientation to life on Earth has to go through deep and painful reorganization every time to let in the magnitude of the situation. I don’t wonder that many folks won’t think about it, and do wonder how we can become much, much better at helping people develop the inner resources that let this level of engagement happen.
Love, as Treebeard so often eloquently expresses, is the place I can stand in the storm. Love of biosphere. Love, though I cannot know if said biosphere will persist. Love, though I get it wrong every day (see paragraph 1). Let your heart break again love. Love it now, for what it is and has been for so long, our everything. I have been working on taking in that my most natural allegiance is not to this current, insane form of civilization but rather to the biosphere of my home planet. Even that is a few degrees off since the deepest truth I can occasionally experience is that I simply AM planet. “Merge” is an interesting new inner directive.
Sadly, my time is very constricted now with a new work situation, so I’m going to post this half-baked and incomplete. Much appreciation to you all for your mind-stretching posts!
Susan