I appreciate and feel Ms. Kleins's complex response to the damage to the Great Barrier Reef in my heart. I do not agree with her sense that the reason to preserve the GBR is to preserve an inter-generational legacy for her son Toma. On the surface it seems a wise thing to do leading to a motivation to save the natural world because its about our children. And yet in essence the whole reason is once again focused on the use or enjoyment of the GBR or any other part of the biosphere for human beings. The valuing turns around us, how the natural world is of utility to human beings rather relating to the biosphere as sacred and of value because it is what it is. This valuing can only come I think from a recognition that we are not above nature but interdependent with the living world, not the manipulators of nature through our use of science and technology, and the money that drives it all. This sees the Other, in this case nature, as being of value in its own right, not separate and soulless but with a soul. This moves us in the direction of unconditional love which would be for our children's future AND the biosphere, the living matrix which we are embedded in. Ultimately this is about the beliefs we have, the stories we tell about ourselves. Presently the stories are still mostly about us, our loss, our concern. As the biosphere dies at our hands, many of us intuitively know it, and so these stories are dying to us, leading to a loss of faith in our beliefs and the meaning of being human, we intuitively know this as well. Vast numbers of people suffer from, addictions, depression, anxiety and so on. Our separation is killing everything.
You completely missed the point. This was not about her son not being able to see the reef. It was put in such simple terms so people like you might be able to grasp at least a child's view. Apparently you were unable. People like you have lost the ability to actually think about what this damage means to the cycle of life the coral reef provides. They are not just a pretty site to see. I think maybe you need to do some research of your own and discover what the loss of the reef means to everyone instead of taking such a shallow look at the devastation.
It seems as though you've missed the point of mikedaniels comment. "People like you..."? Assuming you don't know the poster personally, do you see the arrogance of such a comment? Can you actually think you know that much about this person? His post seems to be asking us to move beyond our egocentric motivations for saving the planet for our children to one that understands this planet isn't here for us to enjoy for ourselves, but that we exist only due to our interdependence with it. It is far from shallow, perhaps above your own thinking. Though it seems that many are incapable of moving beyond the "Save the earth" mentality and actually are incapable of grasping that we are a part of the earth, not entities that control it or can save it with our egoistic desires. It seems mikedaniels gets that, you, not so much. Your arrogance was startling. I found his post to be soulful and simply asking us to go beyond. I can't help but think you simply didn't understand it. He was also not disparaging Klein's work in anyway.
Actually you have missed what I was saying and I do know of what I speak.
What I find deeply troubling is your use of words like "people like you".
Do you know me at all, in any way? And yet you have categorized me and
turned me in to the exact thing I speak about in my writing. My otherness
is intolerable perhaps? Just so you know. I care deeply about the reef and
the boy's future but our ignorance about what is actually driving this needs to be brought to consciousness.
What is a people like me? And before you answer just know what you seem to
see in me may actually be in you. Only you can answer that however.
I agree, but would take some of the edge off, Naomi is doing more than most of us, even those of us who think we're busting ass to do what we can.
One of my main gripes about climate change and, well, just about everything is how the obvious is so frequently avoided, namely human overpopulation. Here's some food for thought along that line, particularly anyone planning to have kids: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_daniel_g_061013_why_have_kids_3f.htm
Mike, I agree with your take on the piece and on humanity's relationship, for the most part, to the natural world.
I think parenting often provides a narrow view to reality. Some would say an expanded view to the future but in my experience, it is often about what their particular offspring will or will not have.
However, I do feel her rage at the shortsightedness of leadership. And their pathetic succumbing to greed when the issues were obvious so many years ago. And a bottomless grief at the treatment of what I feel are fellow beings on this planet and of course, the living planet itself.
I have followed what Naomi Klein and her husband have been doing for quite a while. I have read her books and follow her on Twitter, etc, etc. What I do sense is her deep caring about life. I feel sometimes she doesn't go deep enough but perhaps she simply is writing in a certain way. I can't know her deepest feelings/thoughts. I also value her work which is bringing more consciousness to such a difficult complex situation.
For someone pontificating on "unconditional love", seems to me you have nothing but judgement of Klein's intentions, and her own mission to make a positive difference.
I suggest you embrace her efforts, seek understanding of her actual philosophy, instead of projecting upon "the Other" what you think she believes.
Tell me oh non-arrogant and non-judgemental wise one, how dost one embark on a non-egoist campaign to slow and ultimately stop human caused greenhouse gas emissions?
So when I treasure the beauty of a pristine stream and wish to protect it for what "it is" relative to future generations I'm to be judged as not spiritually pure enough?
Talk about tedious environmental advocacy.
I'm fascinated by ppl seeing judgement of Klein in mikedaniels comment. I don't see it, at all. So what is going on? Are people celebrity worshiping? Why the need to jump to Klein's defense when it hasn't even been disparaged? Her work is clearly of extraordinary value and it seems obvious mikedaniel appreciates it. "I also value her work which is bringing more consciousness to such a difficult complex situation."
What is going on? Why the reactionary responses?
I'm new to commenting here, is CD always so loaded with reactionary responses to an incredibly insightful thought..."This valuing can only come I think from a recognition that we are not
above nature but interdependent with the living world, not the
manipulators of nature through our use of science and technology, and
the money that drives it all. This sees the Other, in this case nature,
as being of value in its own right, not separate and soulless but with a
soul. This moves us in the direction of unconditional love which would
be for our children's future AND the biosphere, the living matrix which
we are embedded in."
We are NOT above nature, it is not here for our enjoyment or for our children's enjoyment, it exists in its own right and we are not saving it or failing to save it. We are, on a daily basis, making choices that put ourselves above it or not. How we shop, what we eat, whether we have children or not, how do we travel etc...
My goodness, the anger and sarcasm. I'm so sorry you're incapable of authentic dialogue.
I stopped reading at celebrity worshipping. Go bug someone more stupid.
Oh goodness me, you can sure dish it out oh spiritual one.
Well, it seems you touched a couple of raw nerves. I loved your post and I am grateful for Klein's work. I also see a need for an expansion of consciousness that moves us continually beyond our egoic drive to "save" the planet. Have you read "Nature and the Human Soul" by Bill Plotkin? Pretty extraordinary in addressing our "pathoadolescence" and our need to evolve into authentic adulthood...anyway, cheers! gabrielle
Actually I suggested that she look deeper. If I were someone who hadn't
read her books, videos, movies or followed what she says and does would be
one thing then I would be commenting out of ignorance but I am not. I
embrace what she does and then I say she needs to go deeper. Perhaps you
might embrace that. And please note my previous comments. Please note you
are pontificating to me Psychedelic_Chicken.
I suppose you don't get the inconsistency of your initial argument. Go deeper.
Can the market forces Republicans, Libertarians and Conservative Democrats tout as a cure-all prevent mass extinction?
As demand for ivory, tiger parts, bear galls, tuna and coral dependent species rises and their supply diminishes with growing human population pressures, their value and price goes up. A recipe for mass extinction by market forces.
Can politicians fix the problem? Obviously not when their big money bribes speak much louder than environmental organizations that depend on donations and volunteers to function.
beautifully said - we are under a spell of "human centeredness/human aboveness". I have written over 20 climate change articles for Common Dreams and Huffington Post. I haven't been writing so many recently... this spell will not, I fear, even begin to loosen it's bonds until much more pain and suffering is visited upon our species and, even then, it will have to be visited upon the privileged among us (of whom I am one) to truly penetrate. Naomi is attempting to utilize our feelings of responsibility toward future generations - fair enough - and many have tried this. So....well.....the "solution seeking" drive in us is very, very strong. Again, fair enough. We are all participants and witnesses as the ecocidal consequences of our spells manifest.