Knowledge is important, yet it is far more important to never confuse knowledge with action - a mistake that is made far too often and with terrible consequences. Education and knowledge are less than useless and meaningless when they are confused with the moral application of knowledge. This is one of the major problems of academia. Those that confuse knowledge with action are the same as religious zealots that confuse knowledge of scripture with a holy life. How many Christians (not to pick on Christianity, but to make a point) have we heard of lately who quote scripture and admonish others to live a holy life, but behind closed doors they sleep with prostitutes and use drugs? This is the same mistake so many intellectual, well educated people make. This is the mistake Al Gore makes when he discusses the need to fight global warming, but persists in his extremely affluent, energy intense lifestyle. This is the mistake so many of us make when we discuss war, the environment, human rights, and so on, yet do nothing to change ourselves or apply our knowledge to our way of life.
Are educated people more responsible world citizens? Rarely. The average college graduate consumes more, travels more, wastes more, and pollutes more than the average drop-out. The average college graduate funds the U.S. war machine far more than a college drop out. Today, making money is the primary motivation young people have for obtaining an education. The average college graduate feels a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle - a lifestyle that is destructive to the biosphere and exploitative of disadvantaged people the world over.
When Ghandi was asked what he feared most, he replied “the hardness of heart of the educated.” So often it is the most educated people in the world who have the most callous attitudes towards the environment, human rights, equality, and justice. It was the most educated people who spent trillions of dollars to build nuclear arsenals consisting of enough explosive power to destroy the entire planet hundreds of times over (literally - we are talking maybe 90,000 nuclear weapons between Russia and the U.S. at the peak of the cold war.) So many jobs are directly involved in the destruction of the biosphere and the exploitation and killing of multitudes of people and animals. Much of this is carried out by the most educated citizens of the planet. Responsible? No.
We know that global warming is happening, and that a major reason it is happening is because of the excessive use of fossil fuels. We know the air quality is worsening (30,000 Americans die of auto-pollution every year.) We know the oil is running out and that wars are fought and many innocent people are killed (Not just in Iraq) to secure new sources of oil. We know that our agriculture (our food!) and our entire way of life foolishly hinge on oil. Despite all this knowledge, most people continue to travel more, consume more, eat unsustainable diets, and contribute to a growing population.
The world is severely over-populated. Clean fresh water, world wide, is being depleted. Forests are being removed to make way for more agriculture (so that people like us can have more meat, and so that marginalized people can have something to eat.) Fertile land is being exploited and used up, top soil is being eroded, and good land is becoming desert. China adds 1600 square miles of desert every year. As the human population rises, the ability to feed even the present population is decreasing. The water and the food are running out. Despite this, the affluent of the world continue to consume more, continue to waste more water (Intel, here in Albuquerque NM, uses millions of gallons of clean water every day in the manufacture of microchips), continue to eat highly wasteful meat based diets, and continue to reproduce (it is true that the population growth rate of developed countries is low, but the average American consumes 20 times the average African, easily making up for the lower population growth rate.)
We know the Earth is collapsing under the weight of humanity, and particularly under the weight of the affluent people of the world (ie. Americans in general.) We know people are enslaved and exploited so that the affluent people of the world can have the extravagant lifestyle of fancy clothes, cars, big homes, fancy technology, meat based diets, and so on. Wars are fought to maintain the extravagant way of life. We know this.
We know these things, but it’s not enough to know. It’s not enough to vote for a new politician who may or may not try to do something about it. We must apply our knowledge to our way of life. We have to change ourselves! If we can’t change ourselves, how can we expect anyone else to change?
To be responsible, compassionate world citizens, we must consume less (less technology, less energy, less meat, less water, less stuff), do less or no work for bad companies and bad governments, have fewer or no children, travel less, waste less, and pollute less. Don’t merely complain that the world is bad. Do your part to make it better. Don’t wait for someone else to do it for you.
We don’t need cars. We don’t need a shower every day. We don’t need meat with every meal. We don’t need constant climate control. We don’t need large homes. We don’t need constant technological distraction. We don’t need huge wardrobes and tons of consumer merchandise. We don’t need to make 20,000 dollars a year.
I would never want to be a millionaire. I would be ashamed to live that way, living so heavily on the Earth with so much worthless junk I don’t need while so many others don’t have what they do need.
Please, never mistake your knowledge with doing, and don’t confuse doing with being. Like Ghandi said, we must *be* the change we want to see in the world. An education is meaningless if it is not applied with compassion to our lives. Knowledge separated from action and compassion is meaningless and useless - quite possibly more harmful than good.
 
|
Micronesia, I appreciate your comments very much! Of course I put these things up for discussion rather than just a display.
1) As for sources, I do tend to neglect them... There are good arguments for them and some arguments against them. I would rather people actively seek out confirmation of what I'm talking about... that way they will solidify their knowledge more than if they just accept my source or read just my source. I see knowledge as more of a web and less of a tower built on a foundation. Anyway, this isn't a disagreement with you, just more a statement of my style.
2) Al Gore is doing a great service to the extent that he is educating people and inspiring people to act against environmental devastation and global warming. The problem I see is that Gore does not advocate the kind of sweeping changes that need to happen to avert catastrophe. Not only that, but he actively lives a lifestyle that most people can't even afford - full of wastefulness and consumption. Many people criticize Gore's IDEAS based on his own lifestyle, which is wrong, but understandable! If Gore did the same work he is presently doing, but made an effort to live in a very small home using very little energy, I think he could inspire much more people.
3) This third one is a heavy enough issue to write a book on it. I'll try to address it somewhat here.
First of all, there is the idea that "we can't go back" to a way of life that existed before. This is like saying that if you wind up in prison, you "can't go back" to the outside world. Simply not true. We have a range of options, including simplifying our way of life.
It is true that I tend to argue from a neo-luddite (anti-technological) position. I don't oppose technology automatically, but I believe in being highly critical and skeptical of new technology. We live in a very techno-friendly culture. People are much more quick to embrace technology than reject it. But in doing so, we overlook the consequences of many technologies. For instance, many technologies are meant to simplify and improve life, but often have the effect of making people dependent on outside forces while the new tech hurts the planet.
Take the car: it promises liberation and speed, yet for many people, by the time a car is paid for and maintained, it really moves at a speed of about 5mph (see Ivan Illich - Energy and Equity, I believe.) Not only that, but cars allow us to live further apart, making the not a luxury, but a necessity (a very expensive necessity - we become dependent on unpleasant jobs to support this necessity). Furthermore, cars kill, cars cover the Earth in asphalt, and cars pollute the air. The car was meant to be an improvement, but it brings so much destruction and dependence.
As for this culture - I fully acknowledge that many people do not want to give up the present lifestyle. If anything, they want to consume and waste more. That is why I try to speak of these issues. The planet simply cannot sustain the present Western way of life. Whether we like it or not, it cannot be sustained as it presently exists. We can hope for a new technology to come along and fix things, but the history of all technology thus far is a history of going MORE out of balance with nature, exploiting more land, causing more damage, and creating more problems. I
am happy to discuss this casually with you, and would be happy to see you do your own research.
So... it is important that people begin changing. Live like the Natives? Not necessarily. But downscale... Use less energy. Have less children. Buy less junk. Work less. Do this all at once? No... Take me as an example, I make positive changes when I can. It's a slow process. It definitely ain't a pissing contest.
Change is possible. There are examples of it. During WW2, America began using their lawns as gardens (even the White House lawn was converted into a "victory garden!") Driving alone was considered "driving with Hitler." People embraced bicycles and more plant-based diets. People restrained their spending and waste. Heavy society-wide change is possible, it just needs to be promoted and supported.
Please, continue to discuss as you please. I am happy to talk.
Nick
|
EPT
