Let's Get High on the Gift of the Trees

Why is it that when an amoeba splits in half, the two have no desire to keep it touch or “roll” together? They’re entirely apathetic to eachother’s success. Yes, ridiculous and obvious why not—but, an important point about humans is raised through this. Think about it. A mother gives birth to a child and nurtures it usually until it reaches 18ish years of maturation and that child will keep contact for the rest of its life. We as humans tend to measure our success as a species (as a civilization etc…) by how well we are caring for our fellow humans. Again, very obviously, when people are dying at the mercy of war, starvation, disease, etc… we are not succeeding as a race.

However, [note: brace for this absurd conundrum] we ultimately we cannot even hope to succeed as the human race if we do not survive. This turns survival into our principal goal, and puts our needs above those of everyone else. So as much we want to help everyone else to be a great species, we CAN'T because we’re too busy focusing on ourselves and securing our own survival. Objectivism.

Founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, wrote “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” SOURCE

I must be honest, I do not want to rigidly defend Ayn Rand as her points go too far for my likes (Man is so independent that not even God is necessary—things like that [arrogance] piss me off).

In any regard, I believe that people always act in their own best interest. Whenever they do something, they are subconsciously and consciously discerning how their decision will benefit themselves, doing countless cost/benefit analysis. This starts with biology and the innate desire to survive and live as long as possible. However, this moves forward into our material lives and monetary benefit. In whatever facet, we most often do not act unless we will benefit directly or indirectly.
[[Comment with a situation where someone would NOT act out personal benefit in some way]]

In a utopian world, this would most certainly not be the case. The aforementioned is my analysis of us as humans, and not necessarily me condoning the inherent philosophy of humans. People would act for the good of the world, in order that most people possible could benefit. Everyone would act in this fashion, so that everyone receives the same help they gave. One social example is revamping the medical and education industries in order that it is not profit driven, but rather propelled by a demand for service by those who only have so much money.

What then is a healthy way to approach progress as civilization as a whole? Utopia suggests that nothing can be flawed. In that case we are going to need some New World Order shit to take the world population way down because this bus is too damn crowded to prosper further. I digress, people ought to be concerned with maximizing benefit from less use of the natural world. I believe that this is a huge step toward a sustainable life. If we can make less of our resources go farther or reap more benefit from the resource without increasing amount used, we are succeeding.

I also believe in a small governing body over these resources. I think that they need a strong legal presence and a bad-ass reputation like Navy Seals or Army Special-ops (people you would never mess with). I would hope in a Utopian society, people trying to cheat the system wouldn’t happen, but it might. People, with fear as an incentive, would have to respect the natural world that gives us so much. Back to Objectivism, people would respect the laws because if they didn’t, they would be seriously adversely affected in a way unwanted to them. They don’t desire that, so they would comply.

In addition, I feel like people need to take on a more horizontal relationship with earth as opposed to the vertical one we maintain here and now. We dominate nature and this world as though we are rightful “landlord;” however, we thought of ourselves as just more trees, plants, flowers, birds, etc… we may be more inclined to maintain it all—after all, we are dependent on the “gift of the trees” (Xavier Rudd—awesome Australian aboriginal rights advocate & musician).

Pricele$$--It'$ alway$ about money

A Conservationist Manifesto.

By: Scott Russell Sanders.

Whoa.

First and foremost, this book is phenomenal and Sanders is brilliant. If there is anyone contemplating their purpose in life with regards to society, I would highly recommend this book. Actually, if there is anyone who wants to have their mind
blown or rethink their ideology—check this book out.

After reading only 35 pages, I felt as though my beliefs were shattered and I was left in a mental disarray. The writing is so prolific that I truly bought into everything he proposed. I agreed with perhaps the most left-winged author I have ever encountered. Unheard of. Nearly unacceptable. I apologize for ignorance, as your beliefs should be under constant scrutiny in order maintain that they are always what you currently believe and stand for. The language, examples, and logical connections are beautiful. It is more enjoyable, provocative that anything I have ever read. It truly challenges me and my beliefs.

I have on more than a few occasions yelled at the pages of the book on the fourth floor of the west tower in Wells Library as though Sanders is there to accept my criticisms. I wonder if he would appreciate somebody disagreeing with his points. He seems really into what he is saying—which only increases his credibility (He should probably endorse what he’s selling, so to speak). However, does he sympathize with the other side: the people out there to exploit the environment for profit and personal use? He probably straight-up condemns them to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.

Let me first summarize for you what Sanders’ objective is and what mentality he solicits to us.

Sanders begins his book with a brilliant extended metaphor connecting the biblical story of Noah’s ark and the great flood to people who today working toward the good of the environment. He calls these people ark-builders, people who live lightly and do their part to promote the interests as a member of the earth as a community. The deprecation of the environment and eventual demise of it relate to the flood that God sent to abolish the evils from the earth. God does this for the good of humanity.

Sanders denounces consumption in excess and connects the pitiful state of our environment to the attitude of reckless consumption and our insatiable need to devour left and right 24/7. This devouring—shopping, quick-paced life style, wastefulness—is an American ideal and is solely profit driven. It is the need to profit combined with human’s need to conform that results in a mindset of man over nature as opposed to man coexisting with nature:

Humanity/Nature (as a fraction) vs. Humanity <—> Nature

The difference is extremely visible. Sanders writes that the “American way of life…is bad for us and bad for the earth…we need a new vision of the good life (25).” His book in total, especially ‘Part 1’ promotes the need for an absolute altering of priorities in lifestyle and culture within our society.

He believes strongly in government intervention, but his ideas and solutions do not stop with the government; his answers trace back to the people and what they should be doing and believing in order to be successful. Scott Russell Sanders very clearly explains his belief, “Of course we need wise legislation at the local, state, and national level to protect our rivers and the rest of our common wealth. But what we need even more is a change in mindset (38).”

He is adamant on reestablishing the “common wealth.” This is to say, preventing the privatization of anything that falls under something belonging to community as a whole. “The common wealth...embraces all those natural and cultural goods that we share by virtue of membership in the human family (28).”

The best solution and protection according to Sanders “is a citizenry that clearly recognizes and fiercely defends the common wealth as the prime source of our wellbeing, and as our legacy to future generations (40).”

Sanders supports the earth because we coexist with it. It is our duty to do what we can to help it so it can help us. As world leaders, Americans ought to embody this principal certainly better than we do now, and better than most of the world as we are all about setting precedents. Quite frankly, thus far as Americans, we have relied on money and technology to bail us out of trouble as though when the problems ensues, the solution also makes its way conveniently out of the woodwork. "No amount of money can insulate us from a degraded society of devastated landscape (48)."

Flat out, I have some serious respect for Professor Sanders.

Despite this seemingly overwhelming infatuation I have with this man. His book is not 100% happy go-lucky fun fun with me. In fact, I struggle to really see eye to eye with him in limiting economic growth and the suppressing human desire to profit and not share. I—refer to My ideology that is only 7/10th’s correct—believe pretty strongly in working hard for your personal success, and if you work harder than the next person and earn more capital, that you should be able to spend your money however—even if that means living in a higher fashion. Sanders points out that work for community is essential and that groups such as the Iroquois and Amish are chiefly concerned with how any of their actions will affect their community and their future generations (49). If they conclude that either will result negatively, that idea is denounced. He connects equality to the practice of cooperation and states that in a true democracy, we do not look to a distant government to meet a community needs; but rather people “roll up their sleeves, join in their neighbors, and set to work (42).” I propose that people word hard for their personal benefit, consciously or subconsciously. If individuals do not join, they will be shamed by society for not doing their part. Since that individual does not pull their weight, they are useless to that community and will be ostracized. When eliminated from society, they will struggle to survive and die quickly. Individuals, as a mode of personal survival, contribute to the community as a whole.

I have a few other issues with Sanders…

The slippery slope fallacy creeps into his claims and writing more often than I think necessary, and as a reader—especially a reader with an opposing ideology—I do not feel fairly represented in his book. I must credit him for including the other side; but, he makes us (people with an ideology that aligns with conservatives more so then his) sound like it is our intention to “devour as much stuff as possible (17).” Seriously, whose aim is it to piss as much money away as possible and screw over the earth best they can...? I’m not on board with being grouped with whoever may embody that. I would personally kick someone in the teeth who thinks like that—Chad “Ocho-Cinco” Johnson. On that same page his language suggests that people buy tickets to the latest craze in place of taking walks and talking with loved ones. He too clearly draws lines that start with interests and end with party affiliation. There are far too many externalities to be starting a fight by calling another side out.

Lastly, Sanders creates a conflict by establishing an “unfettered marketplace” and a “beautiful, harmonious community that draws energy from wind and sun, [and] meets many of its own needs from local sources” as competing opposites. Please. They are so no enemies, nor even fighting. These two do not replace one another, but must balance one another out, so that we have a healthy and functional world to live in.

Quite frankly, I love the book for what it is, a book. I have a tremendous amount
of respect for Professor Sanders, his brilliance, and eloquence. His logic and points are cohesive and make so much sense. I quite simply, do not buy into them 100% because I question the practicality. I’m not sure a fundamental change—especially in American minds and hearts—is happening anytime soon. As sobering as the results are, baby steps appear to be the best solution at this point. I’m extremely excited to continue reading. It’s a damn interesting read regardless…

NOTE: At this point, I’m fully prepared to give this book as a gift many times over this holiday season, so as to evoke thought from relatives and friends I know will absolutely buy into everything he says and others who will want to punch Sanders in the face and completely denounce him.