Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Some Pruning, Some Picking, Some Provocation

S ustainability is at the core of today’s most crippling and intriguing conundrums. It is
  the keystone for future environmental (and truly life-sustaining) success, and
  among the most pressing anthropological necessities. But what I want to talk
  about for a moment is societal sustainability. It is obvious that improving, 
  preserving, and investing in the environment serves a very personal and self-indulgent goal of allowing our species to continue its existence (or rein of terror) on the earth. But what happens when society cannot sustain its own structure? What will become of this blink of an eye that is the human experience, when the cornerstones of our societal order no longer stand by their grounding pillars?

To switch gears for a moment, I’d like to present a definition, in its raw form, for you all to mull over:
Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
Okay, now think of a group that you would deem a “fundamentalist” group. Think of the ideological notions from which they are founded; the activities that they as a group carry out. Think of the message they send out to the world and how they spread that message. Create a mental picture of fundamentalism.

Great, now consider that based on this definition, the Amish are fundamentalists. They are extremists for their theological underpinnings. They reject a majority view and oppose secularism. They pass on their views to their children and isolate themselves in homogenous diasporic communities. Push back on this all you want, the point you are making in your head against me is one of connotation, not of definition.

So why would I prompt you into such a thought exercise? The most straightforward answer is because I’m disappointed in humanity and I don't have much else to give right now. I don't have investor lobbying power or political weight or 20 years of experience "in the field" to create a conventional wave of change.

But I do have a voice, and for now, that's enough.

So what's my point here? I have words that form sentences that convey some flighty too-young-to-have-an-opinion-that-matters thought. What does that do for you?

I was struck today by a few articles that I think demonstrate some of my frustrations. The first was from the New York Times coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing investigation. The article states that federal authorities are facing what they have "long feared: angry and alienated young men, apparently self-trained and unaffiliated with any particular terrorist group" -- which suggests that federal authorities fear every male over the age of 14 and under the age of 35 who has ever felt like they didn't fit in (i.e. every person as they grow up). This neat thing called the internet, which was preordained to bring great power but also great destruction, is a fantastic resource for bomb making and homegrown hatred. You can watch videos of white supremacy calls to action and even see a step by step tutorial on how to make a nuclear weapon (pending your access to large quantities of Uranium). But this is also beside the point.

Let's zoom out for a second. What were the first photos and videos taken on after the bombing occurred? Oh right, smart phones. What makes your smart phone function? Among many other things: tantalum, tin, and tungsten. Those, of course, coming from the cheapest possible sources because of this other new fangled thing called globalization and outsourcing. So where can you find all 3 of those rare metals / alloys? If you said the Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling war-torn communities, you'd be right.

Bear with me here: our federal government is invoking post 9/11 hatred, swell behind a "common evil," and a group-think that is supposed to make you feel like "normal" "ordinary" people just like you don't commit acts of extreme violence, while genocide (UN labeled "mass killing" because this is not a religious or particularly political killing spree) breaks out in the DRC over resources and turf so smart phones can continue to be created with planned obsolescence. Here's a news flash: anyone can commit an act of extreme violence. And in fact, it is we ordinary people who commit genocide, mass killing, and acts of violence the most. If you're confused, you should read this social psychology book by James Waller all about this topic. 

Which brings me to one final piece--Everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule. And not to sound too  "you are not a unique and beautiful snowflake" about it, but a majority of people choose to believe that given difficult circumstances, they would somehow rise above or defeat whatever obstacle they are presented with. Think about how you would react if you were suddenly in a hostage situation. If you're anything like me, you're playing the "what if" game right now--playing out how you would cut ropes using exposed nails or leave clues for the people who are trying to rescue you. You want to believe that you would fight and win because failure and death continue to be such stark societal taboos.

Let me climb onto my soapbox for a moment. Our peers, our fellow American citizens, people born and raised in this country are being alienated because of the way they look, the higher power they pray to, or the clothing they choose to wear for their beliefs--and you mean to tell me that YOU, a "normal", unique snowflake, who could never commit an act of hate or violence because you're too ordinary or too caring or squeamish or strong willed. NO, instead of setting off a bomb, you're letting your operation take on a grassroots approach. You're reading media about "fundamentalists" and the blanket statements about all those "extremists" who spread hate, while you look down upon anyone outside your realm of spiritual or cultural understanding as if this country is not also theirs. You are silent, 12 years after the 9/11 attacks shook our government's understanding of guerilla warfare and hate infected a country founded upon the theory and strength of a melting pot.

I can spout problems all I'd like and carry on about how believing in the environment is the only honest goal I can fathom, but to what avail? Is there a solution in this overwhelming madness? Is there such a thing as societal sustainability? 

What I really want is for the world to prove me wrong. I want people to read and listen and absorb with a grain of salt. I want words that aren't spoken to carry meaning. I want religious identity to be only a tiny piece of how we perceive one another. I want humans to be humane. 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Where the Present Meets the Future

N ot to be too scattered, but the discussion of Pinchot, Muir, and Leopold will   
 have to wait. I’m delving into Susan Cain’s book Quiet, and I think that 
 argument would be better suited in conjunction with a more thoughtful 
 examination of introversion culture.

What I would like to discuss is how ridiculous the world of sustainable development and transparency in the market has become. There is this stunning new initiative that would bring to light company information on “climate change, diversity, employee relations, environmental impact, government relations, human rights, product impact and safety, and supply chain” that has been presented to NASDAQ by investors. The purpose of such a bold release of information for public/investor consumption is to increase awareness and allow the market (*I believe in the market*) to make more informed, transparent, and sustainable decisions.

And before you roll your eyes and shake your fist at those granola-crunching, hippie investors, consider that the London, Sweden, and Denmark stock exchanges already have minimal requirements for transparent reporting of corporate responsibility—that’s weird, the U.S. is behind other nations in seemingly obvious and forward-thinking concepts? That has never happened. I present to you, as exhibit A, in all its thickheaded, proud to be an Amurican glory: Kansas.

Otherwise known for its revolutionary idea to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools in 1999 (yes, 1999, as in a time in recent history—apparently the “theory” of evolution skipped over this group of Homo sapiens sapiens), the agro-based economy state is proposing a bill that would OUTLAW sustainable development. I would like to pause here for a moment of silence in memory of all the brain cells and IQ points everyone who has read House Bill No. 2366 has lost.

So what is sustainable development, anyway?

There are many definitions of sustainable development, including this landmark one which first appeared in 1987:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
—from the World Commission on Environment and Development’s
(the Brundtland Commission) report Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

I’m paraphrasing a bit from the Capital-Journal here, but the man who brought this bill to the House Energy and Environment Committee (which he is conveniently the chairman for) claims that he saw “no conflict of interest in the fact that he is a contracted geophysicist whose client list includes 30 regional oil and gas companies.”

It’s always nice to see people like Rep. Dennis Hedke taking a stand for future generations by proposing a block of public funding for a fundamentally progressive (and conceptually historical) development goal. And what’s even more interesting is that from what I've been able to uncover, he as kids of his own. Which strikes me as hilarious and terrifying seeing as he clearly underestimates his own life span in comparison to that of his children and potential grandchildren. Hey, remember that time a House Representative lived forever in a world that was unchanging? Me neither.

I like to think I’m telling you things you already know. I like to think that this is an obviously appalling and inexcusable use of elected power and monetary incentives to pursue personal gains. I like to think that everyone can see this as blatantly and excruciatingly clear as I can. But the truth of the matter is that not only was this man elected and placed in a seat of power (questionable—so questionable), but he was educated as a geophysicist in our education system, made the chairman of a state committee to promote environmentally sound governmental decisions, and he also sits on the committee for education. WHAT.

So hats off to you, Kansas, and especially you Mr. Hedke, for proving that despite investors (representing the market) attempts to improve corporate responsibility and forward motion toward a more sustainable future, communities, individuals, and indeed entire states (representing society) like you have made only one thing perfectly clear: nothing is for certain about the future of sustainability.

My advice to U.S. voters:

  1. Educate yourself on the full story—or for that matter, read at all (props if you've made it this far in my post, unfortunately, that likely means you’re not the audience who should be reading this part) 
  2. Don’t compromise progress, no matter how tempting (and self-serving) the immediate returns might seem 
  3. Follow the money trail—and in that vein, think about where you’re spending your own dollars; they are like little votes toward what you want the future to look like 
  4. Think about the children (intentionally cliché, but seriously, do you want your future spawn to grow up as we Millennials have—facing the seemingly insurmountable environmental (economic and political) consequences of our past generations neglect? That’s what I thought)

Well, that's my rant for today. I hope it has brought some balance to whichever side you've been leaning toward on the sustainability and environmentalism scale.

With love,
J

Thursday, April 11, 2013

How To Change The World When You Hate People

 I’ve tried to come up with words to describe how I can want to influence society for the better, while also harboring serious distain for people in any type of collective. The best way I have been able to start explaining myself is by laying some groundwork:

        • I believe in the environment. 
        • I trust the market. 
        • I don’t believe in society. 

So go ahead and call me a Hobbesian and a pessimist, but what I’m saying is that in every conceptualization of “ideal” scenarios that I can think of, people mess it up. Let’s talk Communism for a minute—on paper it can’t be beat. Any sociology major today will tell you that once you've read the manifesto, the idea actually has some merit; people sharing ideas, capital, commons, workload, hierarchical advancements (or lack thereof)—what could possibly go wrong? Where it fails is the intrinsic necessity to involve a human element. The equation is never linear in goals and the concept of power play is not going away.

If I can take it one step further (and one step more controversial), I would venture to say that religion, especially the historical monopoly of Catholicism and Christianity, has been ideologically flawed by human influence. Religious texts are great and all, and I obviously see the logic in writing something as meaningful as spiritual and religious truths* down to share with others, but my problem stems from the possible agendas that each of the dozens of writers could have had (reads: very likely had). The Koran, Bible, teachings of Buddha, and even Greek mythology (which to someone, at some point, was recognized wholly as truth too) all have the same tragic flaw: people. Okay, now I’ve offended you. But will you think about what I’m saying before dismissing the main point? I’m not saying communism and religion are on the same playing field, but I am pointing one big finger at the problem-child of all great ideals: US.

Now, what is this you’re saying about the environment? To get back on topic, I decided a long time ago that if I was going to invest my life into something, it would be for an indisputable greater good and thus, an environmentalist was born. But how, then, does one remove society from the environment? The straight answer is that you don’t. You can’t.

So I devised what I thought was the perfect plan. Here is my abbreviated logic: society is regulated by the law, the law changes slowly based on the market (comprised of societal supply and demand, if you will), the market self regulates (even if it takes a whole lot of time and stupidity: ladies and gentlemen, I give you the housing bubble), and thus: if I am to change the law, I must play by the market’s rules. Who controls the market? Which, of course, is really asking: Who controls the capital, clout, and influence? This is a gimme: Corporations, Multi-nationals, Big Business.

So I set out, hell bent at 17 years old to prove that by using conventional methods of achievement—getting a BS, going to law school, and weaseling my way into some in-house council position of a large multi-national—I could force the stare decisis of the courts to slowly work in favor of environmental protection by showing it’s merits to said multi-national. Am I so crazy to think that I could win a game and not believe in the rules at the same time? In short: yes.

But why won’t this work? My persuasion skills aside, the law market has shifted to a business model over the past 5 years, and I dare say it is an industry in crisis. In what I have been describing as a blended mix of the pharmaceutical gridlock and the housing market inflation, the might and capital of biglaw today is troubled indeed: coping with blocks in sharing information and firm structure, and the rapidly climbing price of service. When did it become okay to charge $800 an hour to proof read? I’m sure top newspaper editors everywhere are choking on the coffee they had to get themselves at that one. But that’s the reality of this industry and it’s startling.

Fast forward a few years, I am humbled, cynical, and have graduated early, pre-law degree in hand. But the burning question: What Now? I have a great job that I enjoy, loving friends to adventure with, and new continents and cultures to explore—but what do I want to be? How will I continue to chase my dreams in reforming the staggering pull of major corporations in making governmental, legal, and societal change?

My newest venture: corporate responsibility and sustainability. It’s a simple enough plan, but in order to get there I will need to jump through a few more hoops, follow up on a few more passions, and ultimately obtain some important pieces of paper telling big business that I know what I’m telling them I know (i.e. it’s time to play by the rules again). I’m looking at masters programs for Environmental Management/Science at big name schools like Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Duke, and Princeton (look, another system that has changed to a business model…another talk for another day). I might be bold and naïve enough to pull this off in a few years—pending the master’s education market doesn’t take a turn for the bizarre and overly corrective, like the law school market has. (*I believe in the market, I believe in the market*).

Just what changes I’d like to make in the global theater of rising sea levels, industrial farming, environmental pollutants, and anthropological impact, you will have to wait and see.

Until next time,
J

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Why Are You Here?


U nfortunately, this is not a post about your existential meaning. In fact, if you're searching blogs for that, I'm taking it upon myself to tell you right now that you will never find that answer on the internet. Look up at the stars, stand next to the ocean, maybe even turn off your computer monitor. Okay, life-advise from the peanut gallery aside...


I have some feelings I need to put out there about the world. No, not "the world"--in the sense of "I have the worst singing voice in the world"--this is bigger, but much more refined. I recently graduated with a bachelor of science in a field that quite literally tries to encompass all matter, something called Society & Environment. Well great, Berkeley, way to encompass all living and non-living things in existence and call it a major--you all sure have some presumptuous goals for your grads. And after years under this umbrella of hard, soft, and prickly sciences, I have some lingering questions and lofty suggestions.

The question that lies in many hearts, but far fewer mouths is how do I change the world? Whoa, hold on there a minute, what world are we talking about? To get back to my more "refined" world, I'm talking about physical space, time, and matter; I'm talking about flora and fauna and culture and urban sprawl and nuclear energy and technological divides and history and scientific uncertainties; I'm talking about the future. I might sound over-indulgent, but I need to impress upon you that I don't mean my own world--the things that make my personal day to day life go around--I'm writing about something bigger, because I'm dreaming of something bigger.

I want this intro post to be over-arching, because my blog will cover many, many things. On the docket for this week is a discussion on why going to law school for environmental law in order to influence corporations and the environment may be the worst possible decision of any young grad's life. But why? Don't law degrees give you a societal stamp of approval stating that you, Mr. or Ms. law degree holder, are superior and rollin in the post-grad school 6 figure salaries and signing bonuses? My dears, you will soon learn that the legal field is, after all, a business, and big business comes with big risk.

Also up this week, the time-honored debate over conservation and preservation. Is preservation a relevant argument in modern society? Are humans capable of sustainable harvest and conservation in the age of drought, food shortage, and uncertain global climate change? Fine questions, warranting thoughtful unpacking.

And lastly in the coming week, I will be addressing Susan Cain's concept of the introvert and what the heck that has to do with the environment as we understand it today. Some things to look at for homework: did Gifford Pinchot "win" the Yosemite Valley debate against John Muir because he was an extrovert? What about Hetch Hetchy Valley? More on this here.

Okay, mull that over and check back in tomorrow. Also, feel free to let me know what you think I should talk about regarding environmental science, management, policy, and law--I'd love to hear from you.

-J