Category Archives: Big Picture

Nature Deficit Disorder

hunting for tadpoles is an important part of a balanced childhood.

So the first thing you need to learn about Nature Deficit Disorder is that it’s not real, but, like Ann Douglas‘s Maternal Distraction Disorder, it should be. The effects are real. The cause is real. But the diagnosis and all of the potentially expensive pharmaceutical treatments are not real.

What is Nature Deficit Disorder?

It is Richard Louv’s attempt to turn our typical thinking about the health effects of non-human nature on its head. All too often we think and act as if the baseline, default state of humanity is to live on concrete islands which we need to expend considerable financial and physical effort to leave in order to have contact with some mythical and highly idealized Nature that brings us above ourselves, elevates us. Whereas, in truth, our baseline and default state is to live in continual contact with non-human nature, and our concrete islands debase us, rob us of physical and emotional health, stunt our thinking, exhaust our spirits, and rob us of peace.

It isn’t that being in nature makes us healthy.

It’s that being OUT of nature makes us SICK.

Hence–Nature Deficit Disorder, or what happens to people when they grow up with asphalt and rubber and html and jingles instead of wood and stone and stories and birdcalls. It ain’t pretty.

Yet we keep choosing the concrete islands. They make us physically, emotionally and psychologically ill, and yet we cling to them as if a little bit of mud is the real threat. A mosquito bite.

Non-human nature isn’t a luxury or an add-on, like a nice pair of shoes or a new TV. It’s more like Vitamin C. You can try to live without it but don’t come to me for sympathy when your gums start bleeding. It doesn’t take much. Even an urban viewscape including trees or a houseplant indoors will make a difference.

You can improve your attention, your focus, your mood, your recovery from illness, your fitness level, your ethics and your decision-making ability all by remaining connected to non-human nature. It’s cheap: no one has yet figured out a way to market the sight of trees on a busy street or put a garden in a bottle. It hasn’t yet been licensed or copyrighted or patented. According to one recent meta-analysis it takes as little as five minutes–five minutes!–to be outside and active for long enough to make a cognitive and emotional difference.

Five minutes. That’s barely longer than it takes to buy a coffee, and you’ll get more from it. And it’s free. And there’s nothing to stop you from buying the coffee and taking it with you. There; I have officially eliminated all of your excuses.

Most importantly, for the parents among you, outdoor activity had especially strong effects on children.

Kids need to play outside.

Happy Earth Day Eve!

What can YOU do to Stop Global Warming?

For Earth Day this year I will celebrate by … doing almost exactly the same thing I do every day. Except for the lunch with colleagues to say goodbye, since Friday is my last day before a new job in a new town, and now I will draw a drastic halt to that line of thinking. Guess why I haven’t been posting much?

Big breath in, big breath out: onward.

I will celebrate by doing almost exactly the same thing I do every day.

I will walk my daughter to school, take the subway to work, do my bit in the office to make some parts of Ontario a little cleaner, eat lunch, take the subway to my daughter’s school, walk us both home, make us dinner, talk to my girl, play, get her to bed, run on the elliptical, tidy up a bit, and get to bed much too late to be of use to anyone on Friday. I’ve set my life up to be just about as environmentally benign as it can be within our current system so there’s not much that I can do on special days to make it moreso. On the other hand, I can ignore Earth Day with a clear conscience.

Bad people cut down trees and this kills the fishies in the rivers and then you have Global Warming!

Frances, on the other hand, will be celebrating Earth Day within the context of the Toronto District School Board, and I imagine there will be an Assembly and special projects in the classroom and lots of earnest talk about the end of the world. This I am not so fond of.

I took these pictures a few months back, grade 2 projects hanging in Frances’s school hallway. Grade 2.* Isn’t this a bit much? For seven-year-olds? GLOBAL WARMING IS SCARY WE MUST NEVER TAKE THE ELEVATOR AGAIN!

I’m not saying there isn’t value in that message, but maybe seven isn’t the time to deliver it.

Stop Global Warming! Compost!

Seven is old enough to understand that there is a serious disconnect between what we say and what we do on global warming and climate change (THE WORLD IS ENDING! THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING AND SEA LEVELS ARE RISING AND ANIMALS ARE GOING EXTINCT AND PEOPLE ARE DYING! IF YOU LOVE YOUR PLANET, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, RECYCLE YOUR POP CANS!) and to be terrified both by the problem and the ridiculousness and inadequacy of the solutions given in these public school pep talks. But they’re not old enough to question that disconnect or the inadequacy or to doubt their teachers or parents. Cognitive dissonance is a mild term for what must result. Ecophobia is likely a more accurate description for the wholesale terror of nature we inadvertently teach our children in our efforts to turn them into good little crusaders.

I don’t like it. I’d much prefer if public schools (are you listening to me, TDSB?) simply shared the beauty and strangeness and wonder of non-human nature with kids that age, woke up their curiosity and passion, and let Earth Day be a holiday where we celebrate how gorgeous and astounding life is. Leaving the apocalyptic lessons on disaster management via proper lightbulb selection for a more mature developmental stage. We don’t teach seven-year-olds about the holocaust or Darfur. If climate change is the end of freaking life on earth, why are we pounding it into their minds at this age?

The schools are not going to change their curriculum for me, or for Richard Louv or David Sobel apparently, so rather than beat my head on that particular brick wall, I will take Frances to a big lovely wilderness park sometime very soon and show her the trilliums and the bloodroot. We’ll listen for birds, look for turtles and tadpoles.

Because climate change may be the scariest crisis we’ve ever faced as a species, and the world might be ending after all, but there is still enough beauty left to lose ourselves in. And if we can’t–then what exactly are we fighting so hard to save?

~~~~~

*Though to be completely fair I am only deducing that they are by grade 2 students because they are hanging by the walls near the grade 2 classrooms. It could be a fluke. But I doubt it.

This post is part of Backyard Mama’s kids & nature carnival. This week’s topic: Kids & Earth Day. As always there are lots of good posts included, so head on over and check it out. Maybe you’ll see something to inspire you and your family on the 20th anniversary of Earth Day.

Political Interlude: Wherein I Get Angry

 
 

I never thought the end of the world could be so pretty.

You would have thought, given the way some people speak and write about climate change, that this is a moderately important issue, perhaps even a very important issue. Say, on par with the Iraq or Afghanistan War, women’s rights, health care, child poverty. (All very important issues.) Instead of, you know, the end of the world.

OK, look. I know we’re used to the apocalypse, in movies and text going way back to prehistory, screaming down at us from a blackened sky while monsters gibber out of newly-formed flaming holes in the earth. I get it. We’re not used to the end of the world looking like sea level rise so slow you need to measure it over a century, gradually rising temperatures that shift the zones of tropical diseases, a permanent dustbowl in the American southwest, the drip-drip-drip of 100 extinctions per day over hundreds of years, the oceans choking on CO2 and acidifying so that massive dead zones form–a gradual, barely perceptible, frog-in-a-boiling-pot apocalypse that most of us fail to see, absorbed as we are with our Very Important Issues.*

Where are the massive spaceships filled with evil aliens who will enslave and torture us? Where is the corrupt empire bent on conquering the world, bringing us to world war III? Where are the volcanoes spewing ash and lava into the sky, choking out the sun? Where is Ragnorak? Where’s the freaking asteroid? Where is the easily-identified enemy, preferably wearing a uniform but we’ll take a natural disaster or two if that’s all that’s on offer, who we can hurl ourselves at in possibly futile acts of desperate heroism?

There isn’t one. OK? Get used to it. This is a drip-drip-drip. The most heroic thing that most of us will be able to do, and just as futile as the small band of heroes in a Hollywood action epic throwing themselves courageously against an overwhelming foe, is write a couple of letters or emails, change our buying habits, choose better housing, make informed political decisions, beg, and pray. Your moment in the sun is not coming. Unless you mean your moment to roast in a sun-baked desert, newly formed as a result of climate change.

But here’s the thing:

Some people are working very hard on this climate change thing. I am not even a foot soldier in that army. Maybe a soldier’s symbiotic parasite. The all-I-can-do, which I am doing, means researching and writing articles and interviewing and blogging and volunteering in larger efforts wherever I can, and it’s not much. The actual foot soldiers work on this forty hours a week or more, holding rallies and lobbying governments and drafting legislation and fundraising and developing green technologies. They are burning out, incidentally. It’s probably a lot more than you do, Dear Readers, and I don’t blame you. You have your own issues, Very Important and otherwise, which claim your attention and divert your energy. All well and good. Not everyone needs to be a foot soldier, or even a foot soldier’s symbiotic parasite.

But do you think, as they march past trying to save your planet for you and your kids, that you could at least get out of their way?

Could you stop voting for politicians who shamelessly pander to coal and oil companies? Don’t you know those people think that their bank accounts are more important than your children’s and grandchildren’s lives? What better definition of evil are you looking for?

Could you stop placing your short-term comfort above the goal of cultural survival? Maybe? Look, I know it’s a pain in the ass and will involve some disruption and material loss, but the unassailable fact of the matter is that energy should cost us several more times what it currently does. If you factor in simply the human death toll per coal-fired electricity plant per year, it is estimated that the cost of electricity in your home should be fifty cents per kilowatt hour, which is approximately 10x more than you presently pay. Gasoline, too, and the entire driving culture, has been so heavily subsidized that any sane, rational future in which people have actual food to eat will mean that you pay much more at the pump than you do right now. Several times more. I’m sorry, I know you like your big house in the suburbs, but that world is dead and gone. Let it go. At the very least, be prepared to pay a fair price for it. Your electricity bill will triple. As a start.

And maybe could you also stop picking at insignificant details in climate science and reporting? The scientists working to define and solve climate change are getting death threats. For the love of god. Death threats. Somehow people have gotten into their brains that the big house in the suburbs with the big car and the walk-in closets full of cheap clothes made in China were inalienable human rights bestowed on them by Providence, and any effort to undo that is satanic and evil. Thus the very people working hardest to save the world now live in fear of being assassinated for it.

Anyone who reports honestly on the issue, too, is slandered, typically for bias. Look. Newspapers, news shows, news magazines, articles, etc., are not a child’s playground. No arbitrator is obliged to make sure each of us gets equal time in the sandbox. Nor is this a play-parliament operating by Robert’s Rules of Order. The obligation, the only obligation, of any writer or journalist in any medium is to understand the facts and communicate them as clearly as possible. They do not need to be nice to any politician or political party. They do not need to be equal in their apportioning of blame. They need to tell the truth. And the harsh, cold truth of the matter is that the right-wing in nearly every country I can think of has fairly earned more of the blame than the left.

The left ain’t all that great. I don’t consider myself a leftist, for all that I am so accused every time I open my mouth or pick up a pen on environmental issues. I am willing to do anything at all that looks like it might work, regardless of who thought it up and what their political affiliation is. It’s the end of the world! I’m going to quibble? You want to implement a market-based solution? God speed. A conservative has an idea to sequester carbon** that might mean some people profit from halting climate change? Great! Can you start last week?

Forty-four Democratic politicians in America from coal- and oil-producing states voted against cap-and-trade last year. For sure, they are as evil as any Republican politician doing the same. Jean Chretien dithered and procrastinated on climate change as only he could, and I hold him responsible for the failure of Kyoto in Canada. But get this straight: no journalist, no scientist, no academic, no writer, no author owes equal air-time or pissing-time to all wings of political thought. They are required to research and report the truth. If the truth is unflattering to one political wing or party, then that is what they will and should write. If you don’t like the way your politician or party of choice is reflected in the media on this issue, then first determine whether or not the presentation is fair and accurate. If all you can do is whinge and moan about how unfair the media is, how biased it is, how liberal it is, without having a clue’s shadow in the (newly-expanded) Sahara of whether or not it is true, then please keep it to yourself. The people researching, reporting, and working on this issue have more important things to do with their time than to defend themselves against groundless accusations of bias from people who don’t even bother to consider the facts.***

I so wish that all of the politicians so implicated, left and right, and their various funders and lobbyists, working so hard to smother the world in a blanket of heat and smog and who the hell cares so long as the share prices continue to rise?–I so wish, that each of them, every one, could be quarantined on their own separate section of the earth, to live out the results of their actions, the species collapse, the ocean collapse, the coral collapse, the heat, the desertification, the storms, the floods, all on their own, while everyone else got the rest of the planet the way it was and should still be. The completely fucked-up and unfortunate truth is that the people slaving away 24/7 to end the planet will continue to profit from their current actions while still enjoying the benefits of the sacrifices being made by others, even as they work to undermine, attack and slander the foot soldiers.

You don’t want, or need, to spend your days marinating yourselves in the realities or predictions on climate change. Neither do I. I know enough to lose sleep at night, I know enough to know the scale of the problem and the required solutions, and to be motivated to do everything I am capable of, and that’s enough. I enjoy spending my life in fear and anger as little as anyone else, and choose to devote my resources and energy towards every positive step I can think of and afford. So that’s fine. You want to spend your days thinking about your issues, Very Important and otherwise, while knowing that someone somewhere is taking care of this for you.

If that’s the way you want it, then the very least you can do is get out of their way.

~~~~~

*Nothing wrong with Very Important Issues! They are Very Important, and deserve our attention and action. They’re just not the END OF THE WORLD.

**The problem with carbon sequestration is that it is, at this point, a purely hypothetical and untested idea, commonly promoted by the coal- and oil-industries as a way of maintaining business-as-usual practices. There are, at this moment, no feasible or proven techniques for seqeustering carbon. If there ever are, I guarantee you, climate change activists and scientists will be rushing out into their backyards to build them out of popsicle sticks and duct tape, if necessary.

***And the truth of that is that we can now afford party- or affiliation-based worldviews and responses as little as we can afford suburbs filled with McMansions, drive-thrus and 3-car garages. Of course, because I stated here that the right-wing has earned more blame than the left, I will be accused of having party- or affiliation-based responses, as if the very concept of an unbiased assessment reaching such a conclusion is impossible. This is as sensible as the claim that “unbiased” classrooms should include “Intelligent Design” in the science curriculum because clearly any open-minded assessment must inevitably lead anyone to give ID equal time with evolution, as if UNBIASED by definition means a 50/50 split. It doesn’t, any more than UNBIASED courtrooms automatically lead to the acquittal of fifty per cent of cases.

Ignorance

What are we learning? I don't know. Something. But it's fun.

I know nothing about nature.

An odd thing for an eco-geek and professional environmentalist to confess, I grant you, but it’s true. I know nothing about nature. Oh sure, I have an undergrad degree in Environmental Studies complete with courses on ecology, biology, complex systems, remediation, and the history of environmental thought. And yes, I do have a bookshelf full of field guides, albums and hard disks crammed with nature photos, pictures on the walls, and a deep and abiding love and appreciation for the life cycle of the trout lily and the trillium. But that’s just it. Once you’ve learned that much, you know that you could spend the rest of your life doing nothing but learning about non-human nature, and at the end of your alloted threescore-and-ten, you would still know so very little that it would amount to nothing at all. Nothing of any significance. A mere fingernail scratch on the surface of our vast and collective ignorance.

I think it’s a cheat, personally, and am very bitter that I only get that threescore-and-ten to figure it all out. If it’s going to take me a millenium, then dammit, why don’t I get one? Anyway, that’s not the point. The point is, I know nothing about nature.

Which makes you wonder–and well you might, since it makes me wonder–what special form of hubris I must suffer under to think that I am qualified to teach Frances anything whatsoever about nature?

Good question. Umm … I don’t know.

Biologists used to think that there might be as many as three million different species on the planet, until an enterprising entomologist (Terry Irwin from the National Museum of Natural History) went and fumigated a single tree of a single species in the Panamanian rainforest. Just one. Underneath it, before the fumigation, he’d placed several overlapping metre-wide funnels, so that anything that fell out of the tree could be collected and classified. And from just this one tree–just one!–he found 1200 species of beetles, 163 of them specific to this one species of tree. Extrapolating from this study, Erwin estimated that there may be 30,000,000 species of arthropods in the world, let alone mammals and worms and birds and all the rest. It was a controversial estimate, but even naysayers now assume that there are at least 2.5 million and possibly over 10 million species of arthropods. Arthropods!  And here I am, teaching Frances about pine trees. Biologists now estimate that the earth may host as many as 100,000,000 species, and likely between five and twenty million. Of which we have classified 1.5 million (and many of those assumed to be duplicates).

That’s a lot. By the time we catalogue them all so many more will have evolved that we’d be starting from scratch again. As a species, collectively, we’ll never know anything more than the most basic information about nature. This doesn’t stop us from obliterating 100 species every day … but that’s another post.

I don’t know anything about non-human nature. YOU, dear reader, know nothing about non-human nature. Our most emminent biological experts know NOTHING about non-human nature. This is an insoluble ignorance. We might as well get comfortable with it.

So who do I think I am, taking Frances outside to teach her about nature?

Well. I do teach her a couple things, like acorns turn into oak trees, chipmunks are fiercer than squirrels, maple syrup comes from maple trees but not the kind growing out back, chickadees stay here all winter, that trillium is at least seven years old, this Queen Anne’s Lace is actually a wild carrot and not native to Southern Ontario, and other unrelated bits of trivia that I’ve collected over the years. It all adds up to … nothing, probably. Not even as much as she’d need to pass a highschool ecology test.

She’s not learning about math outside, when she’s with me, though we often count things we see. She’s not learning about art or aesthetics, though we often comment on the beauty of what we find. She’s not learning about biology in any practical way when I teach her about tadpoles and frogs, and she’s too young to be terrified of the natural world so I don’t tell her about the endocrine disruptors we’ve dumped so much of into the environment that many frogs are going extinct because they can no longer reproduce. Maybe she’ll pick up enough to be useful to her in her future academic or professional careers, and maybe not.

I don’t care.

So long as she learns to love it.

She won’t love it in the same way or for the same reasons I do. That’s ok. There are at least 5,000,000 good reasons to love the world (though falling fast); we don’t need to share them.

It’s so easy with kids. They have a natural affinity for animals and growing things. All you need to do is give them an opportunity and get out of the way. Just don’t tell them it’s gross or dirty or going to give them the plague.

But in another way, it’s so much harder than memorizing and reciting cool facts. I am teaching my daughter to love a dying world.

No one ever fought to save something they didn’t love first. She won’t fight to save our world–neither will you, neither will your kids–if she doesn’t love it first. So I’ll take her outside to teach her to love it, and let her figure out the rest for herself.

There are compensations.

Wood Song

Sarah Teasdale

I heard a wood thrush in the dusk
Twirl three notes and make a star.
My heart that walked with bitterness
Came back from very far.

Three shining notes were all he had,
And yet they made a starry call–
I caught life back against my breast
And kissed it, scars and all.

What if a bird’s song could do that for you, or your child?

The world is a big, beautiful place, even broken and hobbled as it is, filled with amazing and gorgeous things, most of which have nothing to do with us. One thousand two hundred species of beetle in a single tree in the Panamanian rainforest. And we think our cities are diverse.

It’s not hard to love it, and love’s not hard to teach. Kids can fall in love with a mud puddle, if you let them get dirty. Just take them outside and get out of their way, and everything else will fall into place.

~~~~~

This post is part of Backyard Mama’s children & nature carnival.  Looks like there’s a bunch of good stuff there already, so head over and check it out.

Tomorrow I am turning 35

I’m not one of those 29-forever types. I’m pleased as punch to have 35 years under my belt, considering that’s 18 more than I would have had with a type 1 diabetes diagnosis a hundred years ago. I get to be thirty-five–to have fallen in love, gotten married, had the world’s most adorable daughter ever (apologies to other parents-of-daughters in the audience … but it’s true), gotten divorced, and all of the other ups and downs and detours and loop-de-loops of life as an adult. Hurray!

Partly I offer this as an excuse for not being here more in the last week, as I have been occupied with real-life goings on and have not had a chance to upload photos of the spring sproinging up all over the place. For instance: the forsythia are blooming. No it’s not native, but it’s not invasive either, and it’s a flower that blooms in March. I like forsythia.

Partly I offer this as an awkward segue into positive psychology. I have been told that 35 should be freaking me out. I have been told that 30 should have freaked me out. I have been told that 40 will really freak me out, but as 30 and 35 have so far failed to make good on their threats, I am skeptical. When I turn 40, that will be a whole 22 extra years of living that by biological rights I shouldn’t have had. I’m expecting to enjoy 40.

I don’t have any of the things a woman is supposed to have crossed off her list at 35. I don’t have a house. I have an apartment and it’s a nice apartment with a small yard, but it’s not a house. I don’t have a job I love on a career track although that might be changing soon. I’m not married. I have a loveable, wonderful daughter who makes me glad to be a mother every day, but single-mothering one daughter was never my life plan. Needless to say I don’t enjoy being a type 1 diabetic, although being an alive type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump beats being a dead type 1 diabetic hands down. I could be really depressed.

But I’m not.

Which isn’t to say that I’m never a stressed-out, frazzled mess. You try being a type 1 diabetic single mother with a full-time job, a part-time freelance writing career, a handful of volunteer gigs, a boyfriend, a bunch of great friends, and a daily running habit without occasionally becoming a stressed-out, frazzled mess. I dare you. That’s also not to say that I don’t sometimes wish that my life with my daughter weren’t moving a bit faster towards what I want for both of us. Why is tomorrow too soon? What do you mean, I’m impatient?

I’m turning 35 … and that’s 18 more years than I would have had, not so long ago.

I’m turning 35, and I’m not married and I don’t have a house … but when I was married and lived in a lovely big suburban house I was miserable from living someone else’s life. It’s better to be slow and sure, and to make the choices that are right for me, rather than ticking off items on a list because it’s what I’m supposed to do.

I’m turning 35, and my work life is not all I want it to be … but I’ve made enormous strides towards it since my ex-husband and I separated just over three years ago. And yes, that does mean we separated a few weeks before I turned 32; and yes, I still enjoy my birthday.

“Positive Psychology, Andrea.” Right.

In the last few decades, some psychologists have turned their research efforts from pathology to health. Rather than continuing to investigate depression, anxiety, mental illness etc. and the treatment thereof, they study happiness, contentment, resiliency, and what makes people thrive. A number of things pop up consistently.

What makes people happy?

Optimism. The belief that one is a generally good and worthwile person with control over one’s life, and a good future.

Meaningfulness. The sense that one is alive for a worthwhile purpose and is making a contribution.

Curiosity.

Flow. Work, whether paid or not, that allows one to be completely absorbed to the point of losing track of time.

Strengths. People are happy when they are able to do what they’re good at and use their strengths and abilities on a regular basis.

Savoring. The ability to enjoy what’s good in your life: relationships, hobbies, entertainment, etc.

And a lot more, much like these.

You’ll notice what’s not included:

Money. Money mattes until you have enough to satisfy your basic needs. After that point, money makes less and less of a difference to your happiness, and has more of an impact when you spend it on other people than when you spend it on yourself. (This must be why I am always buying clothes for Frances and rarely for me.) 

Status.

Thinness/attractiveness.

Youth. In fact, most studies show that older people are generally happier than younger people.

Stuff. Studies consistently show that people are happier when they spend their money on experiences–trips, cultural events, etc.–rather than things.

Why stress about not having things that I don’t value and wouldn’t make me happy even if I did?

I’ll write a bit about what this has to do with the environment exactly next time, although I bet I don’t really need to. But not until after I’ve enjoyed my birthday and posted a couple of photos and some nature-love.

If Not Greed, Then What? or: what Darwinism never taught you

People don't just see pretty things and enjoy them; they record them for posterity. And then they don't keep those images for themselves but share it with friends, family and strangers via networks like Flickr. Face it: people like to share

Of course, people will often tell you that selling people on environmental change by appealing to their values is romantic, i.e. unrealistic, i.e. sentimental and doomed to failure. That human beings are innately and inherently greedy, i.e. selfish, i.e. competitive, and that any proposal that does not rest itself solidly on the human incapacity to care about anything beyond the pleasures and possibilities of the self is a futile enterprise.

Let’s pretend momentarily that there isn’t a substantial body of environmental psychology establishing that appealing to values works, and appealing to selfishness and greed does not.

Let’s instead spend a mini-post digressing into evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology,* in which cooperation is much, much more important than competition. I know, it goes against everything you were taught about evolution. Darwin was a really smart guy, but he did get a few things wrong (for instance, his bizarre belief that only the male of the species evolved through sex selection, predicated on his Victorian social values). Greed and competition are real, but there is plenty of scientific evidence for a much more hopeful view of human nature.

Think for a moment about reading this blog post.

In order to be able to do this seemingly simple act, thousands of years ago, groups of human beings had to cooperatively agree to all treat black squiggles of ink on parchment identically. They agreed that those squiggles would make certain sounds that had certain meanings, and that those meanings had to be arranged and interpreted in a certain way.

They used this newly invented system of written language to agree on a number of other things: codes of conduct, the price of bread or flour, how to define the angles in an isosceles triangle, dialogue lines in a play, how to grow beets, etc. Most of the things so defined and codified were carried out in groups: temples, tribes, families, neighbourhoods, schools, professions, guilds, theatres, cities, nations, schools.

After the discovery of electricity, western societies embarked on a massive enterprise to wire up their countries with standardized wires and outlets. The invention of computers was followed closely by societal agreement on programming languages and rules. There is a lot of cooperative behaviour underlying my production and your consumption of these paragraphs.

The internet is nothing but one gigantic cooperative venture involving millions of people. Competition takes place on the internet but it wouldn’t be possible without vast underlying stores and structures of cooperation.

We don’t always use our cooperative natures for good. We don’t always use hammers or crayons or purses for good either. We’re not innately, entirely good. But we are innately, basically cooperative. Even the most competitive of our modern ventures depend on mass cooperation, without which the competitive venture would be impossible. How would football get played if we didn’t agree what the size of the field should be and where the marking should be painted, if we didn’t work together to build the stadiums, install the seats, sell the hotdogs and tickets, and jump up to yell like idiots when a certain kind of ball passes a certain spot on the field? Even war depends on cooperation, as without it no tyrant would be able to coordinate millions of people and socialize them in the slaughter of other groups of millions of people.

Cooperation is so basic to everything we do, everything we are, everything we think, that it is utterly invisible, and so we focus our attention on the troublesomely rare competition. Which wouldn’t garner so much attention if we weren’t a cooperative species–lions spare no grief for the elimination of a rival tribe, groundhogs do not ruminate on the consequences of their consumption, bonobos–a social and cooperative primate species if ever there was one–don’t torture themselves with guilt if their behaviours eliminate the habitat for another species. (It’s unlikely it ever would, but if it did, bonobos would not establish organizations and hold demonstrations to save another species. They probably wouldn’t even notice they were gone, unless it was a species they ate.)

For a much longer, more thorough and more scientific treatment on the basic cooperativeness of the human species, I recommend Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s Mothers and Others, in which she argues that the human ability to empathize and intuit the emotional and mental states of others drove our ability to hunt, build, educate, worship, move, and even fight in groups, and was essential to the evolution of the human species and society. Pick it up and read the first chapter, ”Chimps on a Plane.” And see if that doesn’t permanently alter your view of human nature. 

When a wild animal adopts the young of another species, it makes headlines around the world. When a human adopts the young of another species, we charge them a fee and force them to get a license, it’s so common. When a wild animal feeds a member of another species, it inspires books and films. Whereas it’s so common for humans to feed wild animals that we need to erect signs in public places to discourage them from doing so. We put out birdfeeders, for gods’ sake. Can you see wolves putting out rabbitfeeders?

Yes, we cooperate because we expect to benefit from those efforts; but we also cooperate when we either won’t benefit at all or could even lose out. And we enjoy doing it–so much so that some people will argue that the only reason we extend ourselves and sacrifice to help others is because of that good feeling. Dear Readers, ants don’t feed aphids because of the good feelings that sharing gives them, and even our closest primate relatives lose Theory of Mind (the ability to intuit what someone else is feeling or thinking from their facial expressions and behaviour) after early childhood. We’re special. Get used to it.

So go ahead, advocate for human goodness. It’s just as much a part of our basic natures as selfishness, greed and competition–and evidence shows that it works. We don’t need to invent a human capacity for cooperation, we just need to dust it off and polish it up after a few centuries of being blitzkrieged by competitiveness and greed and channel it towards productive ends.

~~~~~

*I’d like to state in advance that I know that not everyone in those fields would agree with this statement.

Greed Stinks: why using self-interest to motivate environmental change backfires

This bee isn't actually greedy, he just looks like it.

If you go to enough environmental activist group meetings, you are bound to hear, at some point, “What we need is more education”; the assumption being that the general public is too ill-informed to know that their behaviours are causing Issue X (biodiversity loss, climate change, smog, ozone depletion, mountain-top removal, whatever), and that if only they knew better, true and correct behaviours would flow forth naturally from their hands and hearts forevermore.

This is bunk.

It’s interest and passion that drive the need to be well-informed, not vice-versa. Pouring knowledge, statistics and information into the cranium of an otherwise unmotivated person is precisely like pouring boiling water into a candle-mold: it won’t stick, and you’ll get them all steamed up.

More importantly, education does not transform behaviour without a great deal of forethought, planning, audience-targeting, message-crafting and follow-up–and even then, Dear Readers, it’s a tough slog. The general public is already overwhelmed with information that they perceive to be irrelevant to their lives, overly complicated or technical, outside of their control, or too frightening to be entertained. Your educational efforts on Issue X when directed towards someone who is uninterested or frightened will almost certainly go to waste, and may be perceived as harassing or worse.

Environmental psychologists have been puzzling over the interesting quandary of what exactly gets people to adopt pro-environmental behaviours (PEB–I do love good jargon) with increasing alarm over the past several decades. Are you ready? It’s not what you think.

It’s values.

OK, it’s not just values; but values count.

Researchers have divided value systemsinto three broad categories: egoistic (concerned mostly with the self), altruistic (concerned mostly with humanity) and biospheric (concerned with living things generally). Those with biospheric values were the ones most likely to adopt PEB even when it cost them in time or money; those with altruistic values could adopt PEB when they learned about how it affected human beings, and preferably human beings close to home; those with egoistic value systems would only adopt PEB when a specific environmental issue threatened them personally.*

But! Researchers also learned that they could manipulate a person’s value system: for example, by “priming” someone with exposure to nature, either through images or through going to natural settings, a person’s value system notably shifted towards biospheric orientations. Whereas priming someone with a message about how adopting PEB X–let’s say, compact-fluorescent lightbulbs, programmable thermostats and fuel-efficient cars–benefited them, their values shifted towards egoistic and they became less likely to adopt PEB in other areas, where it might cost them.

Your kindergarten teacher was right, and the geniuses in charge of Wall Street are wrong: greed is not good. Sharing is good. Greed is bad. Greed is the end of human civilization: the rampant and uncaring destruction of any ecosystem we personally can’t live in where we can derive temporary and short-term economic benefit by such destruction; the devil-may-care extinction of 50-150 species per day on the basis that we personally can’t miss what we never knew; the theft of a viable future from our grandchildren by wanton disregard for atmospheric physics today; the insatiable modern consumer appetite for stuff over any thing that might actually matter (more on that one next time); greed kills. Those who promote greed as an answer to any significant problem ought to be tarred, feathered, and lit on fire in a public square.

OK, not really (I’m too nice for that–I have a biospheric values orientation). But greed is not the answer. When you appeal to people on the basis of greed, you teach them to be greedy. I’m not claiming that greed has never motivated the development of a system or technology with the capacity to be a solution to our environmental problems; it has. But greed prevents us from adopting those systems and technologies in any useful way by encouraging us to spend our savings instead of saving it, as per the Rebound Effect. The Rebound Effect is greed in action.

Selling pro-environmental behaviours on the basis of perceived self-interest backfires, and it backfires spectacularly. Stop doing it.

If you want to save the world–or, if you’d like to move the general public a little bit closer towards a sustainable society on Issue X–move your audience closer to a biospheric values orientation.** The farther they shift towards caring about living things in a global sense, the more receptive they will be to your educational efforts and the more likely they are to adopt pro-environmental behaviours even when expensive or inconvenient.

Whereas when you sell the public on a pro-environmental behaviour on the basis of self-interest, that is exactly what they will do. And that is all they will do. When it’s easy. When it’s cheap. When it affects them personally. And nothing else.

*

Next up: why modern greed is the biggest shill ever devised, and how shifting towards biospheric values not only opens up space for rainforests, endangered species of frogs and impoverished third-world villages, but for happiness too.

~~~~~

*I’ve posted an annotated bibliography on my favourite papers on this subspecies of environmental psychology for the viewing pleasure of anyone interested in where to go for more information or to track down sources and statistics. Enjoy.

**What that means and how it works is a post for another day, but as a first step: encourage connections and identifications with non-human nature; talk about values–the kind of people we want to be, the kind of world we want to live in, the dreams we have for our children.

The Rebound Effect

Topsy-turvy and upside-down

Aren’t sales great? I wait all year for the hardcover sale at Chapters, book geek that I am. For one glorious week after Christmas, I can get hardcovers for less than the price of a trade paperback. So I do. I buy several. It takes me months to get through them all, but then they look so pretty on my bookshelves and the thought of being able to read them whenever I want (and cheap!) is a continual source of happiness.

I’ll bet you have a few sales you like to wait for, too. The grand opening at the newest electronics boutique so you can get the latest iPod half-price, so long as you show up before six a.m. Or your favourite clothing store with the perfect blue jeans that are thirty per cent off for one week in late April. And the best part is you saved so much money on the books/iPod/blue jeans that now you can also get a ______!

You know what I mean. Most of the time, if you’re anything like me or most of the other people I know, the extra thrill of a sale is not in being able to put the money you saved into a savings account. It’s in being able to spend that money on something else you want. It’s in this way that savings fuel more consumption rather than more savings, and this extends to other forms of savings, including energy and material use.

We don’t save it. We spend it. And this is the Rebound Effect in action.

You’ve saved so much money on your electricity bill by installing CFLs and energy-efficient appliances that NOW you can afford that huge flat-screen TV you’ve always wanted! Furnaces are now so efficient that NOW you can get a bigger house and heat it at the same cost! Car engines are so efficient (and gas still so cheap) that NOW you can get that truck! The net impact is that technological efficiences and advances that could save our environmental bacon don’t, and instead our per-capita energy and material consumption continues to go up.

I suppose I don’t need to point out that this is unsustainable.

And since you’re all bright people who have figured out on your own that this is unsustainable, I can skip over the middle arguments and leap right to the conclusion: technology is not the answer.

I’m not saying technology is a bad thing, or the devil, or that it can’t be part of the answer, as in using wind and solar to replace coal or replacing regular irrigation with drip irrigation to reduce water use; but, on its own, it is not the answer. On its own, given our cultural impulses, it fuels exactly the thing we need to avoid.

(Well done, everyone! Let’s pat ourselves on the back.)

This, in a nutshell, is why I don’t do product reviews here, except for very occasionally pointing you to something more energy- or materials-efficient when you actually need the thing in question. (In other words, no thneeds! But that is a Dr. Seuss post for another day.) When you don’t need the thing in question, the earth is definitively better off if you don’t buy it, no matter how eco-friendly “it” is.

In order for technology to be part of the solution, we need to start saving our savings instead of spending it. My theory about what that entails (not to put it too simply, but a basic cultural overhaul) is probably not going to fit into the epilogue of this post, so I’ll get to that another day. When I do, it’ll involve biospheric value systems, nature deficit disorder, pro-environmental behaviours, positive psychology and personal change. Maybe make that two or three posts.

In the meantime, when confronting a consumer decision in whatever brick-and-mortor or online venue you favour, instead of asking yourself whether you can afford the item in question, ask yourself: Do I need this? If I don’t need it, but only want it, what do I want it for? What do I expect it to do? Is it likely that this product or service can do for me what I want it to? How happy will it make me to have this thing in a week, a month, a year? When I’m done with it, how will I dispose of it?

Ask yourself, in other words, how well this thneed truly fits in to the life you have and the life you want.

I read a lot of books, so for me, books are almost always a good bet. They make me just as happy to read, mark up, reread, post about, review, read again, stroke lovingly on the bookshelf, and so on, as I think they are going to when I first flip them over to read the jacket copy in the bookstore. Books are a big part of the life I have and the life I want. Clothes, on the other hand–and new cars, big living spaces, fancy dinnerware, purses, jewelry, and what have you–aren’t. On those, I save my savings.

As a result, my ecological footprint is much lower than the average Canadian’s. Plus, I have no debt and a fairly healthy savings account balance.

Next up in this series: why that sentence is exactly the wrong way to end this post.

Journalism is dead; long live journalism

See…

I love writing. If perchance I have five free minutes on any given day, I will spend it either reading or writing, and this has been true since I was five years old.

Journalism–holding power to account, communicating important events and ideas to the public, being part of the public discourse that makes democracy possible–is crucial. Without it, modern societies cannot function in the way that they are designed to. Thus the demise of newspapers troubles many people: whither newspapers, whither democracy, whither freedom?

It’s the sort of thing that tends to get a girl using anachronistic phrasings for dramatic impact.

And yet, for those of us toiling away in the environmental trenches, stories like this make us wonder if we wouldn’t all be much better off if every newspaper office in the world went up in flames tomorrow.

Because the man is right. One of the most important reasons that needed actions to forestall or mitigate climate change are not happening is because that wonderful institution called the newspaper continually obfuscates and confuses the issue by publishing the ill-informed and fossil-fuel-funded rantings of a handful of self-proclaimed climate experts without enough peer-reviewed publications between them to start a decent-sized bonfire. Are we better off without newspapers, maybe? What should take their place?

I write. I publish smallish articles on environmental subjects in magazines. For entirely selfish reasons, I’d like to see the entire industry not come to a grinding, crashing, apocalyptic, ignominous end just moments after I try to join it. (Figures.) (Kidding!)

On the other hand, if this is the best that the fourth estate can do, maybe we should let it die and be replaced by something that actually manages to do what journalism is supposed to: communicate the truth to the public so they can elect responsible officials on workable, reality-based platforms that will contribute to the continuance of human civilization and all of its itty bitty working parts.

The ideal of journalism is so, so pretty, and so necessary, and yet the messy, human-infested reality of it is so often the exact opposite of what we need.

~~~~~

(For interesting, on-going coverage of the complexities of climate change in the media, see The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. Hopefully the Science Media Centre of Canada will help us locals out once it gets itself more established.)

Talking trees, extended metaphors and "The World at Gunpoint"

giant talking trees taking out industrial civilization, Tolkein-style

giant talking trees taking out industrial civilization, Tolkein-style

I have a love/hate relationship with Derrick Jensen. The first volume of his Endgame books has been sitting, half-read, on my environment bookshelf for years while I try to get up the stomach to finish it. Is it terrible? Yes. But not in the way you might think. It’s ninety per cent brilliant and insightful, nine per cent weird and one per cent shudderingly awful. So when I saw that Jensen was taking on a column at Orion magazine–one of my favourites–I groaned.

But.

I liked it, eh?

And it sure has stirred up a lot of controversy.

“The larger problem with the metaphor, and the reason for this new column in Orion, is the question at the end: “how shall I live my life right now?” Let’s take this step by step. We’ve figured out what the gun is: this entire extractive culture that has been deforesting, defishing, dewatering, desoiling, despoiling, destroying since its beginnings. We know this gun has been fired before and has killed many of those we love, from chestnut ermine moths to Carolina parakeets. It’s now aimed (and firing) at even more of those we love, from Siberian tigers to Indian gavials to entire oceans to, in fact, the entire world, which includes you and me. If we make this metaphor real, we might understand why the question—asked more often than almost any other—is so wrong. If someone were rampaging through your home, killing those you love one by one (and, for that matter, en masse), would the question burning a hole in your heart be: how should I live my life right now? I can’t speak for you, but the question I’d be asking is this: how do I disarm or dispatch these psychopaths? How do I stop them using any means necessary?”

After having read Endgame (or part of it), I’m sure that is exactly what he’d be asking himself. I’m equally sure that most people in that situation would be asking themselves, “How can I get to the phone to call 911 without being seen? If I wait for him to leave, will doctors be able to save my family?” His seeming assumption, that in such a situation most of us would kill the murderer ourselves, is untrue; but it is also true that we would not be cowering on our bedroom floors and wondering about, say, forgiveness, interpretive dance, or meditation practices.

(Another problem with the analogy, as comment #26 points out, is that we are not only the person cowering on the bedroom floor but also the raging psychopath and his gun; this complicates the notion of taking action. Do we shoot ourselves in the head? Wrestle ourselves to the ground?)

But at least this column gets us away from this eternal asking of  ”how should I live my life right now?” Your compact fluorescent ligthbulbs are great, but they are not enough. I’m glad you’re recycling–you are recycling, right? keep doing that–but it also is not enough. Reusable shopping bags and packing your own lunch and turning the thermostat down are all fabulous and necessary, but not enough.

What question would I ask instead? What if, instead of asking “How shall I live my life?” people were to ask the land where they live, the land that supports them, “What can and must I do to become your ally, to help protect you from this culture? What can we do together to stop this culture from killing you?” If you ask that question, and you listen, the land will tell you what it needs. And then the only real question is: are you willing to do it?”

I suspect the land is telling Jensen that it needs explosives.

But that’s not what I hear. I hear that I need to participate in repairing the damage that’s been done, in restoring habitats and knitting those torn ecological webs back together. I hear that I need to understand as much as possible what is going on and find ways to communicate that effectively to people who are more preoccupied with taxes and the price of gas. And I hear that I need to find sources of meaning and value other than “whoever dies in the biggest house with the most stuff, wins,” and “you are as big as your bank account,” because those values are utterly unsustainable regardless of our levels of technology (not to mention, they make even the winners of those games miserable).

I hear a lot of things, none of which have anything to do with blowing things up. But that’s ok. The ELF  and Earth First! have been blowing things up for a while now and, while they’ve been used as an example of environmental extremism by some to discredit the movement overall, it hasn’t made much of a dent in our respectability. I’ll just worry about doing my part.

If you listened to the land, what would it tell you to do?

We’re not all police and paramedics; you may not have the character or temperament to be a front-line environmentalist. And that’s fine. But how could you call 911?