“It isn't the mountains ahead to climb that wears you out; it's the pebble in your shoe.” Muhammad Ali
Recently I received the Comment:
“You actually make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I find this topic to be actually something that I feel I would by no means understand. It kind of feels too complicated and extremely large for me. I am having a look forward for your next post, I’ll attempt to get the grasp of it!”
Some of the topics I cover are quite complex and it is too easy to get overwhelmed with in the enormity of the apparent challenges. I am trying to present the challenges in a way that makes it look like less about climbing a mountain and more about the small things (like a pebble in your shoe) we can do, once we are aware, to make the transition to sustainable living easier and more appealing. Transformation is not a climb up a mountain or a battle to defeat Goliath, but merely a step across a small gap by choosing to make that step. Part of my reason for this blog is to show that the transformation many of us desire is not that far from being a reality. It’s all up to you the reader – “Know the truth. Spread the truth.”
Some of my research as an academic focused on worldviews as a barrier to making the transition. To keep it really simple, what I found from one big study was that there were four main groups of worldviews. Bear in mind that these results come from an American Student audience, but if these students who live in a controlled hyper-consumer world are like this, then the promise for the rest of the world is positive. On a bell-curve continuum of Anthropocentric (human centered) to Biocentric (life centered) and Ecocentric (planet centered) the four main groups were:
- At the far left of anthropocentrism, less than 1% fit in a category that I named Absolute Utilitarians. They are completely anthropocentric (human centered) and believe that all resources are there to be utilized (used) for human benefit. Curiously, on follow up research, they tended to be business students or deeply religious fundamentalist, although this latter category was split based on their beliefs of dominion or stewardship of God’s creation. They supported sustainability principles as long as they supported business and profit generation. A much smaller number in this category didn’t care about anything but human needs and nature be damned. It’s not that they are ‘bad’ people, simply that they are so buried in the illusion of modern consumer living they cannot see outside their own limitations. Note that although not actually seen in this study, the Cabal (controlling hierarchy) are going to be in this group and they do not care about the rest of the world or anything with even approaching compassion. They are what I would call the most absolute of the absolute utilitarians.
- Still on the left-hand side of a continuum under anthropocentrism were a group of around 30% that I named Utilitarian Conservationists. While they thought that humans were the dominant species that needed resources from the planet, they thought it should be done mindfully with a long-term goal of conserving. This group tended to be more traditional and religious in their thinking yet, were willing to discuss social benefit as a primary goal. They agreed with the Utilitarian Conservationist mantra coined by Gifford Pinchot around 1906, “The Greatest good, for the Greatest Number, for the Longest Time.” They are well-meaning but just see humans as the top of the pyramid and the rest of life and the planet as subjugate to humanity.
- Now on the far right of the continuum is a large group (around 30% I named Ecocentrics) that identified with both Biocentrism and Ecocentrism. They tended to be die-hard environmentalists and preservationists to one degree or another (remember it’s on a continuum), and fully supported a transformation to a sustainable world, many (around 10%) regardless of what it would take to do that transformation. The far right 10% tended to support transcendentalist perspectives while the remaining 20% were a mix of religious stewardship and biocentrism/ecocentrism. On the whole they see the world as an interconnected web of life and are ready to be sustainable now!
- In the middle of the continuum was a group of 40% that surprised me. I eventually named them the Logical Idealists. They aspired to the ideals of the ecocentrists (and supported environmental causes through donations – Greenback Greens as an earlier Roper survey would name them), but the main difference was that they were reluctant to let go a western lifestyle to become sustainable since they believed that to become sustainable means to lose much of the comforts and luxuries that they enjoyed – a quite materialistic frame. Yet, logical as they might seem about maintaining their lifestyle, the idealism of an ecocentric future makes them a large swing group that can be convinced to accept a technological yet earth friendly worldview. They are buried in the illusion of consumer living yet long for a change to something better that they know ought to exist but they cannot see it yet. It’s up to us to show them the future with sustainability is a positive one.
Despite the popular thinking that people are separate from the natural world, I found the opposite. They are highly distracted and don’t appreciate it as something unique, but overall, I found that people are actually quite biophilic (more about this in another post). On follow up research with other students to understand how this whole group thought about the environment and the natural world, I was again surprised at how almost everyone was supportive of the natural world and it’s many eco-processes. Again, on a bell-curve continuum concerning environmental attitudes, I found that all my respondents fit into a narrow bell curve on the Support Environmentalism side of the continuum (from mildly environmental to die-hard environmental). When I asked them how connected they felt to the natural world, again the majority fell into a narrow bell-curve continuum on the Connected to the natural World side of the larger continuum. Only a few (about 2%) fell on the less connected side of the continuum, but they are still felt quite connected to nature in a more superficial kind of way (enjoyed sunsets, great scenic panoramas, and seeing wildlife in its natural setting for instance).
What I hope you see clearly here is that only 1% are the use and abuse mentality with overt mindless materialism as a focus in their lives. Curiously, I perceive that they tend to be the business and governmental leaders driving the economics on this planet. I want this to really sink in – over 70% are ardent supporters (at least in their prime worldview) of protecting the planet, and another 29% are ardent supporters of conserving and being mindful of all resources used to maintain a good lifestyle. What I am saying is that 99% would support principles for living sustainably if there were a decent basic lifestyle involved – and that includes everyone, the MDCs and the LDCs. We need to empower ourselves and create a NEW consensus reality. Knowing this, the important thing to take away is that it changes the messaging we use for the four different groups. In a nutshell, Group one (the 1%) are a lost cause and we just need to find a way to marginalize them and stop having them control our lives. Eventually, they will see that life in a sustainable world is better overall, but they are mired in fear and a need for control (see earlier posts on this aspect of control.) Group 2 need to see that we are not trying to save the planet at the expense of humanity, yet the interconnectedness of all life is critical to our human growth. Group 3 are already on board and just need information on next steps. Group 4 need to be shown that Sustainable Living is a better, more enjoyable way of living and still includes a decent standard of living with lots of personal freedom even as we live more locally within supportive communities. For all groups, the greatest test is to break through the fear that grips us and show people that sustainability is good for everyone even though it will mean big changes. We all have lots of reasons for why this change ‘might’ be hard – most based on misconceptions of what is needed and the fear of change to something quite transformational. So for those who put the mind before their hearts desires, a short poem
It’s impossible said Pride.
It’s risky said Experience.
It’s pointless said Reason.
Give it a try whispered the Heart.
Anon.
0 Comments