Nonviolent Action as Spiritual Practice
This article originally appeared in Conscious Choice magazine.
This spring, New York City hosted a series of events to commemorate Mahatma Gandhi's movement of satyagraha, "truth-force," the use of non-violent activism as a political technique. Gandhi has become one of those saints from the distant past whose name is frequently invoked without thought to the nature of his achievements. When we consider the violence saturating the world today, it is remarkable to recall that satyagraha triumphed over the British Empire, winning independence for India. This victory required great sacrifice and acceptance of privations, violent attacks and imprisonment on the part of many thousands, Hindus and Muslims alike, who joined his movement.
Gandhi's spiritual practice of active nonviolence is very different from the passive doctrine of ahimsa, "nonharming," that has gained popularity in the yoga community of the West. Ahimsa is ideally suited for a situation where nobody is seeking to cause you harm. If you find yourself in imminent danger, or caught in a larger system of oppression, different measures need to be taken. Techniques of satyagraha can include protests, strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, civil disobedience and so on. "No government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill," Gandhi noted.
Gandhi believed spiritual concepts had no value unless they were directly applied to our situation on the earth. "Without a direct active expression of it, non-violence, to my mind, is meaningless," he stated. The New Age movement in the West has allowed for a convenient schism between personal practices and principles. Among the privileged elite, many people who profess spiritual beliefs succeed within a system that violates their ideals. Among people I know, it still seems "cool" to be a yogini and vegan while modeling for cosmetics companies with shoddy environmental records, or practice Buddhist meditation while writing ad campaigns for corporations that use Third World sweatshop labor.
At St. John's Cathedral near Columbia University, an evening was dedicated to satyagraha and climate change, featuring music by Phillip Glass and Odetta. The suggestion of this event was that the nonviolent methods developed by Gandhi could be used to oppose governments and corporations that have failed to address this great threat to humanity. Such a movement does not seem to be arising at this present time, and instituting it presents unique challenges.
While racism or imperialism are obvious enemies, many of the issues facing us now are more intangible. As Buckminster Fuller wrote, "No human chromosomes say ‘make the world work for everybody' - only mind can tell you that." It would be reasonable for people to demand a far more equitable distribution of wealth and resources, reduction of labor time, immediate world peace, public oversight of science and technology, and a rapid transition to sustainable practices and alternative energy sources. A global "Marshal Plan" to reduce carbon emissions and stabilize the climate system is needed, along with a deployment of techniques to reverse pollution of the biosphere. The universal nature of such demands makes them seem unrealizable, although their logic is not hard to grasp.
When we consider the digital networks that spread information and ideas across the planet instantly, the chance for a global satyagraha movement to arise cannot be dismissed. The vast protests against the Iraq War in 2003 appeared suddenly, and disappeared just as quickly. Another inciting event, such as a war or tactical strike, might incite a wave of popular resistance that would not end after a march or two, but swell into a real movement of civil disobedience.
Nonviolence can only succeed when peace is converted from a passive wish to a constant activity. As Mark Kurlansky writes in Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, a well-organized nonviolent movement poses a greater threat to an oppressive power than any other form of resistance. As appears to have happened recently in Tibet, oppressive regimes will seek to provoke nonviolent resistors into violating their creed, so they can take drastic reprisals. "History teaches over and over again that a conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument," Kurlansky writes. "The lesson is that if the nonviolent side can be led to violence, they have lost the argument and they are destroyed."
We now know the earth's climate system does not change slowly, but goes through radical and sudden breaks. Glaciologists found that "roughly half of the entire warming between the ice ages and the postglacial world took place in only a decade," writes Fred Pearce in With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change, with a temperature increase of 9 degrees during that time. In the past two centuries, humanity has increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere by about a third. Our continued tinkering runs the risk "of producing a runaway change - the climactic equivalent of a squawk on a sound system."
In the United States alone, tens of millions of people now practice spiritual disciplines such as Buddhism and yoga, shamanism and Qi Gong. If this conscious and privileged subset were to band together, we could apply our spiritual ideals in a social movement. We could use the techniques of active nonviolence practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King to confront our out-of-control military complex and corporate structure, and demand the changes necessary for the safety of our children and our own future survival.
Image by streetart# courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 6-11-08
- Daniel Pinchbeck's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Respect Party
Hi Daniel
With respect, only a slight correction, the anti war campaigners in the UK did not ‘die out quickly – on the contrary the Stop the War coalition gave birth to the Respect party which went onto win a seat in Parliament (in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) after ousting the entrenched (for 40 years) Labour party – it was a real example of popular ‘revolt’. This only occured due to the type of organisation you alluded to.
Politics changes nothing
I have seen too many politicians wave the peace banner when it's suits their needs. In the end the fall prey to the system of power and money and big corporate interest.
I somehow don't feel that the way to change things is at the ballot box... besides the point made above, with electronic voting system we now have a system that can be easily corrupted.
Somehow this change must come from the soul of humanity itself.
But how?
Meow
Ahh the respect party - so much promise. Shame about George Galloway rolling around pretending to be a kitten on Big Brother..
"Be the change you want to see through internal alchemy"
bull's eye
This post really hits a nerve for me. In my work as a photographer I am confronted constantly with the insidious dilemma that the only way I have found so far to make a living with my craft (and love of the art form) is, in one way or another, to propagandize the cheap trinkets, consumer ideology and enforcement of the status quo. It stuns me how many of my colleagues are faced with the same quandary and the degree to which we all rationalize it.
Recently this has come to trouble me with such intensity that I feel nearly paralyzed.
I am actively pursuing viable options for a way forward, including, seriously, dropping off the grid and dedicating myself full time to activism.
No kidding, I've really had it. Anybody care to join me for a march to the sea?
Daniel thank you very much for your usual clarity and salience in keeping this conversation lively and relevant. (!)
Peacemakers Inherit The Earth
“Peacemakers inherit the earth!” I cried.
That was my trumpeting truthful call
To all who believe in power through war
Should know it's the peacemaker
That inherits it all
For I thought the peacemaker
Was the crème de la crop
Better then all, greater then everyone I saw
They’d inherit the grand mountains
They’d inherit the rumbling seas
They’d inherit the fine sand
They’d inherit the strong geese
They’d inherit the rolling rivers
They’d inherit the clear cool springs
Peacemakers would inherit everything
And everyone else gets nothing at all.
Was I sadly misdirected?
Did I read it wrong?
At a round table I sat
Besides several peaceful souls
We were all discussing what to write
On a banner to be held large and high
For a rally on a town square…
A theme for peace
Blurting from my poor being
Before a soul could say a thing
“Peacemakers will inherit the earth,” cried I
“I don’t think so” said one of the souls
“We’ll try for something else”
“No!” I quickly exclaimed
“This should be it, the truth it is filled with.”
“I don’t think so,” said the soul again
“Let’s hope for other good things”
Then I said demanding
Let us write that the peacemaker
inherits the land!"
"Peter" replied the gentle soul
“It is not the peacemaker inherits
The land or earth
It is blessed the peacemaker
A child of God he shall be called
For it's blessed are the meek
they shall inherit the earth.”
I fumbled and fidgeted for some great answer
Meekness, just a tiny drop of it, I could not find
And sat thinking moved to kindly want
Meekness that would have silenced
My selfish pride about to do wrong
Unto a great theme of peace...
”Peace is to me is… finding."
I agree
If this conscious and privileged subset were to merely find each other, we could apply our spiritual ideals in a social movement that would become a force that would be unyeilding.
And there's enough of us now
and we do need to come together...
united and peaceful and meek.
But how?
Why not start here...
I'm having an open discussion
for all this Saturday at my kitchen table.
Everyone that is searching
is welcome.
I'll supply the donuts --
you only need to bring meekness.
For more details email...
sunturtle@cinci.rr.com
Love to...
...But I don't live in Cincinatti, and am dirt poor in terms of monetary wealth.
However, I would dearly love to have something like this get going. It seems I can never find people around my area that connect with these issues strongly enough to do anything about it, and I myself lack the resources to engage in it alone.
Primarily, I rely on non-cooperation to the extent that I am able. I am working towards purchasing land, and to have to made into 'church property', and thus not pay taxes.
Then found a commune, and build infrastructure to host spiritual gatherings each year, relying on the donations (and actual donations, not the mandatory 'love donations' I see at so many gatherings. I guess even enlightenment is only for the rich, in this country) to keep the place going and 'make a living'. Ideally, we will be growing most of our own food, so costs will be minimal.
I would love to just go live in the woods, but no one wants to go with me, and I don't want to go all by myself. Maybe one day. =P
Still, if anyone lives in the south east (I live in north Georgia) and wants to begin organizing something, please feel free to email me at chibi.cory@gmail.com.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Tiger Woods and Child Labor
"Among people I know, it still seems "cool" to be a yogini and vegan while modeling for cosmetics companies with shoddy environmental records, or practice Buddhist meditation while writing ad campaigns for corporations that use Third World sweatshop lab."
I really think you hit the nail on the head with this Daniel and it reminds me of your exchange with Sharon Gannon (about letting these practices give us peace of mind while we rape the planet).
Too many people have the attitude, "Well, if I don't do it someone else will. So I am going to get what I can while I can." Or even worse many of us just don't think about the consequences of our actions, like our species is in a state of suspended adolescence.
Perhaps if we stop participating in these institutions they will disappear. Idealistic, I know. But, more people see what is going wrong than we think and too many go along out of fear and complacency.
On a side note which might seem contradictory, I have had this idea for a while, but have never really had the forum to get it going so I would like to present it here:
Tiger Woods likes to talk about his work with children and the charities he has created, but seems unaware of the children who work in the sweatshops that make his Nike clothing. So, how about a campaign to get an athlete to force Nike to change their labor practices the next time they negotiate. Tiger Woods would be a great candidate because of his work with kids. Have a letter writing campaign where we convince Tiger to ask for less money next time he negotiates with Nike (lets say 15 Million instead of 20, I don't know how much his last deal was). In return Nike would give better wages and working conditions to the people making the clothes. If he did this perhaps other atheletes would follow, which would be a real achievement.
In times like these, where
In times like these, where violence and dominance overrule all else, I think that the only way a truly sane person can answer is with pacifism in it's finest. Pascifism, or satyagraha, to it's most radical points is the only thing that can catch the eye of those who know not the benefits of such a technique. Although most of the world see's no winning in being walked on, in the eyes of a person of awareness it is a victory of the divine sorts. All it asks is that when confronted with a potentially violent or aggressive situation, realize that giving up physically by walking away is in no way giving up your soul.
With regards to fellow journeyers
don't walk away
An important correction: What Gandhi put out was not "walking away" but the opposite: staying put and opposing directly (but nonviolently) the oppressive force. "Walking away" allows the oppressive force to continue to grow.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
what do we do?
The next question not discussed by the essay is how would one go about organizing a nonviolent activism movement at a sufficient scale so that it would become, almost immediately, a force to be reckoned with?
I was thinking one way to do this would be to go to large-scale advocacy groups and nonprofits such as Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, Amnesty, large unions, etc., and have them create an agreement now that any strike against Iran would be met with a mass walk out and work stoppages. Perhaps you could get companies such as Google to sign up for this - what if Google and other major technology companies (Apple, Microsoft) agreed to freeze their technology for as long as "preemptive" strikes against Itan continued?
It might be interesting to begin training in nonviolent civil disobedience techniques via meetup.com and through our evolver social network once we have it running, hopefully within a month.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Keep on trying
Well, I know the one thing that truly keeps me from getting anything done. That thing is fear.
Fear of persecution; fear of ostricization; fear, basically, of being alone, and of suffering. There is a reason that shunning and banishment were such effective methods of punishment in early times, and why solitary confinement continues to be one now.
Don't get me wrong: working to the point where these things no longer stop me is exactly what I hope to achieve...but I would be dishonest if I said I was there yet. I have learned to do without most of the niceties. I make barely enough money to live on (actually, I make less than that. It is only the union of my finances with those of my girlfriend that allow either of us to avoid homelessness.), study primitive survival techniques and innumerable schools of philosophy and spirituality...and hope that, one day, my practice will evolve within me the courage and the strength of will to do as Gandhi did: walk away from it all, and convince enough others to follow me there that it makes a difference.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, i think this could be
Yes, i think this could be a really telling move. A petition to this effect done on the net would garner the kind of gravitas in terms of number to not be ignored by google, microsoft, etc and would further show where strings either are or are not being pulled if you catch my drift? This would be a positive action whatever the outcome!
Great article Daniel! as someone else here said i think, your clarity is both salient and reassuring
Excuse my fatalism.
Its all well and good to establish such a movement, but what is the overarching point?
Sure, we can start a threatening campaign to slow the wheels of the economy should the D.C. Regime choose to flex its muscle in Iran, but this will turn into nothing more than the need to constantly develop threatening campaigns to stop our Imperialist Tsars from executing their agendas.
Its not enough, its not sustainable, and its not going to work.
I apologize, but aside from the small percentage of concerned and informed folks that populate a handful of websites like this one, there is not enough steam to build any kind of revolutionary movement right now.
The only way the Juggernauts of capitalism and nationalism can be stopped is a by a worldwide uprising of the masses of people. And, of course, the United States, with its near monopoly on execessive force, must be one of the main forces in that movement. However, the U.S. massess are either too exhausted, ignorant, or fat and complacent (or some combination of the above) to, at this point, ever rise up against the soft despotism under which we all currently exist.
The seed is planted deep in America
Alot of Americans can be motivated if we attempt to awaken them to the truth they already know. Gandhi says: "Jesus was the most active resister known perhaps to history. This was non-violence par excellence." Martin Luther King jr. believed that non-violence was simply the Christian way of dealing with social injustice. I believe in the American people (since I am one myself I better believe in Americans). Faith has become dead in America because of our lack of good works. I believe in the potency of Jesus as a guiding light to America.
In the United States alone, tens of millions of people now practice spiritual disciplines such as Buddhism and yoga, shamanism and Qi Gong. If this conscious and privileged subset were to band together, we could apply our spiritual ideals in a social movement
This exclusive kind of mentality puts off most Christians in America. These practices are not the only lifeline for America or the world. Embrace Christians and teach them how they already believe in non-violence, goodwill towards all men (including your enemies) and resisting injustice. This will be the key to winning over America.
email_address@excite.com
'If this conscious and
'If this conscious and privileged subset were to band together, we could apply our spiritual ideals in a social movement '
Good point, but a social movement torward what?
I believe that man made global warming is still an issue that we don't fully understand, and may be a myth. As far as war in the middle east, is it safe to promote peace?
So what do we protest about?
Destruction of the tropical rainforest seems sensible, the rate that is being cut down and the consequent rate of species extinction is totally unacceptable.
Or should we put our minds together and do what we are taught to do, that is meditate and pray for peace and enlightenment in a directed and conscious way.
wisdom = foresight
Hi Richard,
Part of our evolution in consciousness means developing our capacity for forethought, and then acting based on our ability to see the future consequences of our present actions.
If nothing is done to prevent ecological cataclysm, our children may not be able to live out their lives - or if they are able to do, it will be on a world so reduced by decimation that their future will be contracted to survivalism. If we act now, we could forestall the negative consequences of continued non-action.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Together, there is strength
The grass roots movements are growing by the day, with more and more people becoming conscious citizens. However, there's a systemic problem at the top - a government beholden to big business, oil industry, insurance and Wall Street, and maintaining status quo.
A bit on the drastic side, but if it were up to me, I'd fire all the bums in government and elect entirely new (non-career politician) people to gov who are conscious of the environment, of people, and will truly represent people, and not themselves or their pals, or the lobbyist/corp that offers the best perqs.
A unifying theme/goal would be to support the Green Party, and its Ten Key Values - it's always been environmentally conscious and green. Green Party candidates also renounce corporate contributions, so they do not have the conflict of interest, between representing Wall Street-big biz-oil-insurance industries and regular people. It's not about a career for Greens, it's about representing Americans and making the nation a better place for all people.
Check out the platform at www.gp.org
Wouldn't work.
It is not the people in the positions that are the threats to liberty, justice, and equality. It is the positions and the institutions themselves.
It doesn't matter who you put in the White House, on Capitol Hill, or in the Supreme Court.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Acton
We don't need politicians, we don't need leaders, we don't need formal, institutionalized, central government. We're not infants, we're not children, we're not dependents. We're humanity. We can take care of ourselves.
The more we continue to believe this dream that putting the right people in office will save us, the further from any kind of real progress we will get.
yes but...
Yes we don't need leaders but how do you organize society without them ? We may have an inkling or intuition of how to do this but not a developed model. There are going to be a lot of very complex decisions that need to be made at an extremely rapid pace - creating wilderness corridors, resettling environmental refugees, dealing with the gigantic problems of toxic and radioactive waste created by our society. How do these decisions get made without a leadership structure?
When tribal societies are functioning properly, leaders or chiefs are always provisional and subject to having their position revoked - this is what Pierre Claustres describes in "Society Against the State". This sounds good to me, but what do we do about the vast mass of people who are deeply ignorant and only trained to look after their own interests?
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
deceit
I think to protest people have to be mad, and what maddens me is being lied to.
Maybe Dennis Kucinich is onto something here -
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581
sufficient scale
As I read through these comments I see many good points and valid opinions.
For myself what it comes down to is this: whatever the conditions are, whether there is an effective, organized movement or not, whether I end up homeless, in jail, dead, or all three, my life is moving in the direction of what I believe, of my faith. Of course I will do, am doing, what I can to be as effective as possible and not suffer too much. But I'd really rather suffer the indignities of being totally marginalized than drink the toxic koolaid of "business as usual".
So far, I'm happy to report, every day has presented real and sometimes rapid progress toward genuine transformation. Some days the change is fun, others it's depressing, lonely and frighteningly uncertain. Sometimes it shows up in something as simple as a conversation, as bitter as confronting a life without health insurance, steady income or access to credit, or sometimes with really exciting breakthroughs, discoveries and opportunities.
The information shared by the community on this website is a significant part of the equation.
You bet I am available for action. Or non action. Right now. Whatever it takes.
There. I said it.
From Jonathan Schell's "The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People":
"Individual hearts and minds change; those who have been changed become aware of one another; still others are emboldened, in a contagion of boldness; the 'impossible' becomes possible; immediately it is done, surprising the actors almost as much as their opponents; and suddenly -almost with the swiftness of a thought- whose transformation has in fact set the whole process in motion- the old regime, a moment ago so impressive, vanishes like a mirage."
frighteningly uncertain
'Some days the change is fun, others it's depressing, lonely and frighteningly uncertain.'
Maybe it's worth bearing in mind (or maybe not) that according to Calleman's model of the mayan calendar we're currently in Night 5 of the 'galactic underworld' meaning 'destruction', it was predicted to be a difficult time - in November (just after the American election) we move into Day 6 - 'flowering' and 'goddess of birth', with more optimistic predictions.
Calleman's hypothesis
Calleman has admitted in an email to me that he expected this year to be far more destructive already. Looking at the evidence, I suspect the next few years are going to be far more threatening. I will be happy to be proved wrong, of course. But it seems a lot of different factors are creating feedback loops that intensify each other.
The "flowering" and "goddess of birth" may refer to the institution of alternative support systems and the beginning of a shift to off-the-grid communal living as people prepare for a deeper shift in their social reality.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
barbara hand clow's predictions
I've been reading barbara hand clow's 'The Mayan Code' which is mostly about Calleman's hypothesis.
She wrote it mid 2006, and makes predictions about the remaining years of the calander. It seems her predictions are too extreme, yet rather than disprove the theory, I feel that maybe things just won't be as intense as expected - which seems quite a good thing, considering how things already seem to be getting hectic.
Maybe 2012 will be nothing more than a subtle tipping of the balance, away from deterioration, in favour of progress torward the good, because at the moment it seems they are almost neck and neck.
Maybe the big changes are happening on other dimensions.
I like Calleman's theory because it reminds me of the timewave theory, the way history repeats itself on different levels, and time accelerates.
communal living and self sufficiency
'The "flowering" and "goddess of birth" may refer to the institution of alternative support systems and the beginning of a shift to off-the-grid communal living as people prepare for a deeper shift in their social reality.'
There's no reason why people can't already 'live the dream' of self-suficiency.
For instance, in the UK I lived for a few years in an organic-farming co-operative. An old apple farm was divided into a dozen plots with a family on each. It was quite idyllic, people kept goats and chickens and grew vegetables, occasionally we had a big fire to roast a kid...(apologies to the vegetarians).
But the council eventually evicted us because they thought our polytunnels were an eyesore - I think their cars and roads are an eyesore.
Anyway, there's nothing to stop a group of people from putting their money together to buy a farm and being self-sufficient - no law against it.
So what is it that keeps us living in these ugly boxes, next to ugly roads?
Maybe there could be a land purchasing co-operative, put into place, so that like minded people can get together and buy a farm with the intention of being self-sufficient?
That is a great idea. If I
That is a great idea. If I can help in anyway let me know. Or if you get anything up and running let me know.
"Be the change you want to see through internal alchemy"
Two Issues to be Cautious About
The idea of nonviolent resistance is a great step up from violent resistance, but there are still two really big issues to be cautious about that I've discovered in researching the criteria for collective enlightenment. An examination of the global warming challenge provides a perfect example of both of issues.
First is the issue of making sure that nonviolent resistance is targeting a worthy target, and in particular, making sure one does not target a faux target. In short, Daniel's perception of the possibility of great sacrifice in the course of nonviolent resistance is quite accurate, hence it behooves one to not throw their life away on a target not worthy of resistance. While global warming might seem like an ideal target given the potential seriousness of what could happen, it is in fact a faux target due to the extent that this issue is being manipulated by the UN and other global elites.
In short, exceedingly powerful solutions to global warming (that I have personally researched and verified) are being withheld to better feed the power lust of the UN and "green" politicians like Al Gore, divert us from other truly serious issues like sweatshops and ecosystem destruction, indulge racist campaigns of third world population reduction and continued third world exploitation, and pander to Malthusian idealists who feel that a mega-scale human sacrifice is needed to restore balance to the Earth.
The details for these solutions are beyond the scope of this comment, but suffice to say that even a worst case global warming scenario could be easily (if not trivially) resolved without any carbon emission controls whatsoever, with immense benefit to the environment. Having said this, one might think I'm a shill for the coal companies, but in actual fact, this approach is so powerful that one could have enough leverage over the coal and oil companies to extract win-win deals from them.
Which brings us to the second issue, namely that a win-win deal is even better than nonviolent resistence. And in researching the criteria and parameters for collective enlightenment, I have discovered that there are an immense number of win-win deals waiting to be claimed, deals that will specifically empower those committed to collective enlightenment. I will share them in future posts.
Peace
write a feature
hi chitanand,
your comment: In short, exceedingly powerful solutions to global warming (that I have personally researched and verified) are being withheld to better feed the power lust of the UN and "green" politicians like Al Gore, divert us from other truly serious issues ..." is very provocative!
Would you like to write a feature for Reality Sandwich where you discuss these withheld "win-win" solutions? If we want to find our collective points of agreement, all information needs to be out on the table.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Re: write a feature
I'll be happy to do so.
I'm busy through the weekend, and hope to have an article ready by Weds. or Thurs
You'll be in for a treat.
Global Warming and Mythology
Since global warming is impossible to prove either way it should be evaluated as a myth. What are the consequences of believing it to be true? What emotions does it transmute?
Fear of apocalypse into self restraint?
Love of our children into respect of our environment?
Won't less reliance on fossil fuels help ease conflicts between nations?
Talking of evaluating myths. The myth of a malicious global elite conspiracy - What good does that achieve? Not a myth you say but actually a literal truth? A literal truth can be assessed by empirical evidence. Prove it.
"Be the change you want to see through internal alchemy"
global warming is not a myth
Phoenix writes: " Since global warming is impossible to prove either way it should be evaluated as a myth."
Global warming is proved, according to all known mechanisms of logical evaluatoin. A vast preponderance of the world's climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that human industrial activity is a major contributing factor, releasing masses of carbon into the atmosphere. The handful of climate scientists who disagree with this are usually directly funded by oil companies who have been "outed" as having large budgets dedicated to spreading disinformation and confusing the issue. There may be other contributing factors - the Sun heating up, for instance - but human industry has definitely added masses of carbon to the atmosphere, over 6 billion tons per year, as I recall. Recent scientific studies in all areas support the global warming hypothesis, as glaciers are melting quicker and polar ice caps receding faster than predicted even a few years ago.
Anecdotally, when my mother was a kid, the Hudson River would freeze over sometimes and could be walked across. When I was a kid the Central Park pond would freeze over and could be walked on. Over the last years, this is no longer the case and snowfall has decreased precipitously in NYC. I imagine most of us have similar stories if we were to go back into our family history.
Phoenix writes: "The myth of a malicious global elite conspiracy... Prove it." Whether you want to ascribe malice to the "elite conspiracy" or not, the existence of secret meetings by powerful groups that influence politics, finance, and society is well established. There is the Bilderburg Group, the Council of Foriegn Relations, etc. Our monetary policy is handed off to a private cartel of bankers, The Federal Reserve, with no democratic or public input. The Seattle protests in 1999 were against the secretive and non-democratic proceedings of the WTO, which determines policies that directly impact the lives of billions of people.
If we are not capable of reaching a basis of agreement on such large and obvious subjects, then our potential for meaningful collaboration is almost zero.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Global Warming is a maybe, but tends to be overblown
Daniel,
Your statements here are, from what I have learned, misrepresentative. It is simply not true that global warming has been proved. As far as I am aware, the majority of climate scientists would not claim global warming as fact, nor would they claim sufficient evidence to indicate that humans are a primary cause. Even if they did, the majority is not always correct, and there are numerous historical examples of the scientific fields in which a very small minority of scientists were correct in their assumptions while the majority consensus was flat wrong.
No legitimate scientist would dispute that humans have an impact on climate. Human activities are responsible for both warming and cooling, and they most certainly have a global net effect. However, it has not yet been identified whether the net effect is warming or cooling. Furthermore, scientists have not identified whether net global temperature is warming or cooling. Most climate scientists hypothesize that the human-induced effect is warming, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that the warming is significant enough to pose a future threat to human beings.
We ought to not only be mindful of the causes we choose to fight for, but also of the tactical solutions we seek to implement. A pollution-free, sustainable civilization is an exceptionally worthy goal, but hasty solutions could bring about economic crises far more severe than the environmental changes of a moderately warming planet.
Ice melting = warming
It really amazes me how successful the oil companies have been in their efforts to obfuscate the issue of global warming. "...scientists have not identified whether net global temperature is warming or cooling."
I can tell you from both my personal experience and from the evidence (huge ice shelfs falling off of Antarctica, last year the Northwest Passage was completely open, Greenland's ice cap is rapidly melting, glaciers have been steadily diminishing worldwide, and on and on) there is NO DOUBT that the climate is warming. Just look out the window the next time you are in an airplane at the horizon to horizon human impact on the environment! I've flown from Paris to Moscow, and from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle. I've seen satelite pictures of every continent. Only pockets of the ecosystem that allowed us to originally evolve remain. There is NO DOUBT that global warming is the result of human intervention.
My grandfather used to say that smoking was not really bad for you. He died of cancer after two heart attcks.
oh come on
please check out the ipcc report - summary for policymakers is a good place to begin:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
there really is little debate within the international community of legitimate scientists, and if you think there is, i hate to say it, but you have most likely been preyed upon by disinformation.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Little debate indeed...
The IPCC is often hoisted as the golden standard or the ultimate source for scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. This is really hardly valid. Many of the so-called "authors" of the IPCC reports do not agree with all of the claims made in them, others are downright opposed, still others are no longer members of the IPCC or withdrew from it based on disagreement, and there are even individuals listed who are not even scientists. Even if this wasn't the case, I hardly see how it can be claimed to represent the majority of the scientific community.
I also think there is quite a double-standard when it comes to the skepticism about certain opinions regarding climate change. If you're a scientist who has a more moderate opinion about climate change or is reluctant to conclude that global warming is the result of human activity, then you must be on the big oil money train. If you're a scientist who is more of an alarmist, then suddenly you're opinion is legitimate.
Are those on the more alarmist end of the global warming debate not susceptible to exaggerating or leaning toward a particular opinion in favor of THEIR own interests? Are they impermeable to agree with certain statements in order to receive more research funding? Might they not skew their statements/data to boost their return on investment in renewable energies?
It is absolutely true that scientists with opinions that are in conflict with the idea that human activity is definitely causing global warming are paid by oil companies, but that can only be said for the scientists whose ties to oil have been evidentially verified.
Now, onward...
There does seem to be little debate, but the consensus seems to follow the opinion that global warming is moderate, not catastrophic, and that the sum effect of human activities on global climate change is still not certain (in terms of the evidence presented) but the generally accepted theory is that it is warming (mainly because things like greenhouse gas emissions and the urban heat-island effect cause warming and are more prevalent than activities that are known to cause cooling, such as the growing of certain crops). Note that there is a very big difference between a climate scientist agreeing that humans have an impact on climate change or global warming and another agreeing that humans are a primary cause of the warming trend that we are currently witnessing.
Furthermore, the global temperature increase that has been measured and agreed upon generally by climate scientists is actually smaller than the generally accepted margin of error for evaluating global temperature, and the rate of temperature increase is stable (also not accelerating by a relateable proportion to the increase in the human output of greenhouse gases over the past century).
The most recent warming trend actually began prior to the widespread output of carbon emissions by humans. But even in just 100 years, this warming has not been continually increasing. In the 1970's, predominantly, temperatures actually encountered a downward trend.
Now, there is no doubt that ice core data has revealed an utterly undeniable relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, but it does not reveal that CO2 increase precedes temperature increase. In fact, it is just the opposite. Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase, typically by about 800 years or so. When temperature begins downward trends, CO2 levels continue to rise for several hundred years before they follow behind temperature and start to drop again. Therefore, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be said to necessarily cause warming. Of course, we are aware, there are other factors at work besides greenhouse gases. Solar energy and magnetic polar variations have a well-known and significant impact on global climate.
Now, please be aware that I am not in any way suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions and the overall impact of human civilization on the planet are of little concern. On the contrary, we should be VERY concerned with the human impact on climate, PARTICULARLY because we do not yet understand it sufficiently.
There is no doubt in my mind that we can NOT indefinitely continue to pour greenhouse gas into the atmosphere like we are doing at present. Nonetheless, even the most severe projections (as agreed upon by legitimate scientists) for the next 100 years show a slow-changing climate that we will be able to adapt to with relative ease. I am certainly in favor of clean, renewable, and sustainable energy. I think we're getting there, but I do not see the need to rush it.
Sure, adopting and enforcing the Kyoto protocol would probably speed up the process of reducing emissions, but at what cost? If the United States were to adopt the Kyoto protocol, the economic ramifications would be severe, and it would be the poor who would suffer the most from it. THAT would be the real catastrophe.
Personally, I think we've begun the transition quite nicely. The notion of "being green" has pervaded the culture. Consumers are starting to make more conscientious choices about the products that they purchase and the habits they live by, and the market is responding pleasantly. "Green" has become profitable, and businesses are bending over backwards to be "greener" than their competitors. Now, some businesses are deceitful and simply try to appear "green," but as the evolution matures I am confident that these deceits will be difficult to persist.
Global Warming Myth
Daniel writes "A vast preponderance of the world's climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that human industrial activity is a major contributing factor."
Unfortunately appealing to any authority is not sufficient evidence for the paranoid amongst us as evidenced by the comments to this article and the fact that debate exists at all. With so many authorities competing to literalise their myths many just turn a deaf ear to them all.
Daniel writes " Anecdotally, when my mother was a kid, the Hudson River would freeze over sometimes and could be walked across...
Appealing to personal anecdotes? Well if scientific evidence fails to convince..
Daniel writes "Whether you want to ascribe malice to the "elite conspiracy" or not, the existence of secret meetings by powerful groups that influence politics, finance, and society is well established. "
I understand that there is a pyramid of power. I doubt their malice and I seriously doubt that a pyramid of power would not exist in any system of social orgainisation. However, regardless of whether it is true or not it always seams to be used as an excuse for inaction and apathy. It creates an illusion of helplessness.
Daniel writes "If we are not capable of reaching a basis of agreement on such large and obvious subjects, then our potential for meaningful collaboration is almost zero."
It was a basis of agreement that I was seeking. If we can not agree on the literal truth of man created global warming then perhaps we can agree that it would be beneficial for us to behave as if it is true regardless.
"Be the change you want to see through internal alchemy"
'If we can not agree on the
'If we can not agree on the literal truth of man created global warming then perhaps we can agree that it would be beneficial for us to behave as if it is true regardless.'
That's all very well, but to believe that we are mainly responsible for global warming is a heavy weight to have hanging over us.
'Recent scientific studies
'Recent scientific studies in all areas support the global warming hypothesis, as glaciers are melting quicker and polar ice caps receding faster than predicted even a few years ago.'
According to this - 'Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.'
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent/
“Recent summaries of station data show that, aside from the Antarctic Peninsula and the McMurdo area, one is hard-pressed to argue that warming has occurred,"
'Incredibly, if you are interested in Antarctica temperature trends from the present back to 1982, the region has cooled. If you go from present back to 1966, the region has cooled. Like it or not, over the past four decades, and during the time of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases, Antarctica has been cooling!'
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/05/antarctica-warming-cooling-or-both/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%e2%80%99t-cooperating/#more-312
I just want to keep an open mind about the debate.
Peace
We must come to the reality that we're all the same.. pass it on
Imagine... if one powerful person not only sang it
It all starts with one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0F_6plYyTM
You.
Pass it on to all others.
Imagine.
non-cooperation
Maybe we should all be sovereign and unorganized. Either you're chill or not. A lot of it's at a psychological level. The body isn't interested in ideology, and group think only helps those who want to control it. Meditation's a good way out. The elite don't like open minds. Oh well.
Non-violent resistance is violent because ideas are violent, and perception is violent.
Quietly resist.
ahimsa is anything but "chill"
Gathering strength waiting for proper timing is wise. But refusing to act in the most extreme non-violent manner possible at the precise moment of greatest effect because someone might get their feelings hurt if you prevent them from killing or abusing in a truly inhumane fashion is nothing but cowardice. I hope I am never a chilly little hippiecycle. Screw quiet. Resist with the power of thunder at your back, with Heart of Sky and Hurricane, tremble the ground like Earthquake and flash the fangs and bristled feathers of Kulkukan. Chill is for cocktails and smoothies, not social change...
hopefully this is chill enough that it doesn't get deleted like some of my other comments. ;-}
I have meditated and chanted consistently for over 20 years so that when the time comes to act or speak out I will not hesitate, pull back or shrink in any way...
Of course,
sovereign is good though, read the P2P article
Looking for allies
The strength will come in numbers. From a practical point of view I think we should be organising talk groups, academies, local forums etc. I live in London but just how the hell do you connect with the right people – take out an ad in the Evening Standard?
My problem is that I’m not much interesting in trippy-hippy star gazing (or naval gazing for that matter) which merely advocates vapid new-ageisms or buys into commercial ‘spirituality’ marketed by mainstream publishing or showcased at alternative expo’s. I’m not against gentle pacifism or hang back dreaminess by the way, but in times like these....anyway it’s not hard to find new agers.
However, what I want is real open minded conversations about how to formulate practical solutions to our problems. Yes, I believe in human consciousness as a multi-dimensional potential, poised on the edge of advance, yes, I understand the limited nature of our day to day senses and the flood of ‘real’ information just waiting to be recognised when we decide to ‘tune in’ and I’m very interested in finding answers to the questions not even addressed by empirical science or mainstay politicians.
The task is a huge one but maybe by using methods borrowed from such disparate sources as the renaissance humanists and their academies (simply talk shops to share their enthusiasm for a classical revival) and Mckenna’s idea about an archaic revival (as in reshaping our attitude to the natural world), we could mix up new thinking and invent the new connections necessary to rewire this shorting out society. As Jim Morrison put it ‘we’re getting tired of hanging around’ – so let’s galvanise ourselves into action, start small and network it all the way up.
meetup.com
you could try meetup.com - also the evolver social network will hopefully serve this purpose when we launch it in a few weeks.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Start small...
Starting small is a key idea. The now well known notion of local and increasing to global and so on. I certainly hope to effect some change that way myself, or at the very least create new channels of discussion and thought where there previously were none.
As has been discussed on other articles on RS, there is also a problem in terms of who knows what about what and who is wiiling to act on what they know. There is still a large majority of people who are 'asleep' and even know they are and are happy to be.
I think any kind of action with true intention is good. Especially consumer actions. And this is where the peaceful bit comes in. It is possible in lots of small ways to kick up stink so to speak but without throwing fists or rocks. One way I hope to start this soon is by removing all the completely unnecessary plastic packaging from foods bought at supermarkets and leaving them for the store to deal with. Thats an example i would say. Also the previously discussed idea of getting companies and celebrities to speak out. A double edged blade that would cut either way it swung i think. If we do these things and they fail, we can't say we didn't try it out.
As for myths of global warming and corporate elites...it doesn't matter what the 'truth' is as such. The practical way towards a peaceful and harmonious existence on this planet lies in being able to live sustainably (or as you put it once Daniel, thriving as opposed to sustaining).
Actions, small or large, with true intent from the people here and out there with similar awareness is always preferable to almost anything else. Yes, we must have an awareness of the repercussions they may have but, again, this is where the non-violence bit comes in. Leading others quietly by our peacful actions or non-violent protests. We're all anxious and afraid and i'm no exception but we've got to try and make the effort and that starts in small ways.
Informed Choices
Gandhi wrote, "I have found that a mere appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long and based upon supposed religious authority. Reasoning has to be strengthened by suffering and suffering opens the eyes to understanding."
Also, I often consider the idea that Jesus' choosing the “way of the cross” was a careful, strategic decision intended to galvanize the revolutionary elements in his society, and perhaps within human consciousness as a whole. It seems that many Tibetans and Burmese buddhists are walking a similar path. Can we realistically expect a similar movement to emerge from the largely secular and narcissistic western “New Age” movement? I don't like to hold up Jesus as an exemplar, but what about those monks and nuns? They are braver than I am, thats for sure.
That said, it seems that if a Gandhi inspired non-violent movement does not emerge soon, then the only alternative is likely to be localised clandestine “french resistance” style groups, targetting factories, pharma labs, dams etc. Great for fans of war films to envisage, but if that ever becomes necessary, then it means the war is lost, and the dream of liberty become a nightmare of control.
The pressures on the individual seem to be intensifying to such a degree that some form of action becomes inevitable – the choice seems to be stark: do we choose immediate individual health and keep our grazing heads down, or do we choose long term health of the global tribe, and stick our heads above the parapet. The choice is definitely there though, and thats interesting. We can't plead ignorance. We do have to choose one way or the other.
Informed choices: Individual intention impacts the collective
In regards to this topic I think of Ghandi's quote: "Become the change you wish to see in the world". There does not have to be an extreme, or "absolute" choice: "do we choose immediate individual health and keep grazing...or choose long term health, global tribe etc." The choice is that you do both. By working with concious choices you can embody both "extremes". Just because they sell it, doesn't mean you have to buy it. How or what you consume and what you give your energy towards on the practical worldly level is a powerful form of revolution.
On the deeper level, work with your own energy and conciousness and raise your vibration.
Daniel makes a good point, that many so called yogis or yoginis are not living fully the truth that they may have the awareness of. If we can be concious of the choices we make, not just satisfying our ego's (whether they are nutritous, spiritual or carrer oriented), and live to that standard of awareness, then we are doing our work. Then we are becoming the change. If we can integrate the collective issues in our individual journeys, we have a tremendous impact in the global scheme of things.
We cannot all become bodhisatvas over night (although many of us are and have forgotten). If you work with what is clearly negative within yourself, in the right now and seek to improve this, you are making progress for all of us. By integrating yourself and incorporating your awareness towards all other beings on this earth; you are BEING the change.
Clear altruistic intention, consistant practice, concious networking and aware consuming are many powerful tools in this revolution. Bodhi svaha!