Activism, the XL-Keystone Pipeline and Sociopathy

For the time being the Keystone Pipeline project is dead.  http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/
The reason stated is that the pipeline will not serve the interests of the United States of America and will contribute to the worsening of the environmental conditions around the planet. Environmentalists are pleased with the decision and know that to a great extent this decision was taken in part due to a huge political pressure created by activism. This phenomenon is been observed in other arenas of our political life, like the process in the selection of candidates for the US presidency currently in the way.

Activism is, has been, and should continue to be an honorable participation of the citizenry of any country. It is the only means citizens have to oppose the paramount force that multinational corporations have in the development, and progress of our society. We should hope that soon, through educating the leadership of these corporations, activism would not be necessary to oppose corporations as they will be directed by citizens and not, as most are today, by sociopaths. Sick of their minds these sociopaths are in charge of a corporate power that is working against the wellbeing of the common populace. Their decision making is based on an ill desire of wealth accumulation and not in the desire of benefiting the community. As with any illness, sociopathy has to be addressed by our society. The lack of proper education and mental medical attention has produced in our society a class of people (so called 1%) with a clear manifestation of an intense antisocial behavior. Worst than any other illness and disease, sociopathy is not recognized as an environmental disease. In fact those affected by it, do not recognize that they are sick. Intelligent as they are, they have found mechanisms for defense and are able to coverup their illness under a blanket of economic ideology.

You might not agree with me that these CEOs are sociopaths, but ask yourself:

Who would need more than 1 million dollars a month?

Why is the exaggerated income of these CEOs not challenged by those who can challenge it?

Finally, What are you going to do about it?

Comemmorating Chris

We were all shocked when Chris passed in such a sudden and unexpected way. Many of us who knew her immediately thought of ways to keep her in our thoughts and to keep her legacy going. Last Thursday (summoned by Dr. Dupriest) a small group of us gathered to brainstorm ideas about how to do it. Present in the meeting besides Dr. Dupriest were Dr. Martin, Prof. Dobrenen, Prof. Hartzell, and myself. Others who couldn't be there are also participating in this endeavor.
Among the ideas was one that everybody in the meeting thought was a great idea. Building a labyrinth in the Mt. Tabor campus of Warner Pacific College. The idea proposed by Prof. Hartzell has a history and is well argumented. The history goes back to when Prof. Hartzell and Chris during one of their doctoral classes at Concordia University had to read a book where the labyrinth was used as a metaphor for finding oneself. The 'life journey' that Chris was so much about.

St. Bertin labyrinth from www.luc.edu

We have to do a lot to make this happen, if we (WPC) decide it is the right thing to do. From getting the proper authorization from WPC to getting the funds to do it, but I feel that this idea is worth pursuing. This is why I am blogging about it because we would like to have your feedback and support. 

Of course it goes without saying that whatever we decide to do is going to be good for the environment! It will be something that represents Chris' stewardship.

Can give us some feedback?  

Chris

On the 17th of August (8 17 2015) I started writing this post by saying:
"It is a sad day today.
This morning I was notified that Chris had passed away.
So here in the blog that she started I want to pay tribute to her life and legacy.
Many years ago I met Chris as my student in the Adult Degree Program (ADP) of Warner Pacific College."

Then I stopped and couldn't continue.

Yesterday during our Community Meeting that is part of the celebration of the new academic year we remembered Christine Tokonitz, and heard about so many great ways in which Chris related to us, as a friend, colleague, and family. How she was a "go getter" " a doer" and she would inspire all to be the best. It was noted that she had a big heart, commitment to everybody specially her students and good humor in the face of adversity.
So there is not much I can add to what was has been said already, but one word that I didn't hear was: humble.

Chris was humble, even as she was making an extreme effort to excel, she would do it with a deep sense of humility. The reason I know this is because when I met her as my student in Environmental studies (Adult Degree Program, 2007) I learned that she would always ask for more, more from her peer students, and more from her teachers. So I was challenged! One day she asked me if there was a book "Stewardship for dummies" that she would like to read. Please note her humility (and sense of humor), she didn't ask for a book for experts even though she wanted the whole "tamale", she did not try to present herself as a "top" student even though she was. She wanted to learn as a "dummy."
As teachers do, I replied that I didn't know if there was a book called "Stewardship for Dummies" but we'll find out together during the break. When we found that there was not such a book I asked her: why you don't write it? She replied that she couldn't do it (again showing humility) so I replied saying "YES you can". Why you don't start writing a blog that would lead to the book. She didn't know how to do it so I showed her. We became co-bloggers and in March of that year she published it to the world!

To see her first blogs you can link here.

Life went on and she couldn't continue writing here (in fact she started another blog) so she asked me to continue it, and I did.

During yesterday's morning Community Meeting both of my dear colleagues Sylvia LaVoie and Roger Martin asked us to keep Chris' memory alive in our hearts, I will do that for sure but now I want you to help me keep her legacy going. Please add your thoughts about stewardship here. You can email me your contributions so I can post it.

For more information go to
http://www.warnerpacific.edu/celebrating-the-life-of-professor-christine-tokonitz/

How Far Do You Live From a Superfund?

Once again oil is appearing on the coast of California. But this time near Los Angeles as globs of inexplicable oil that apparently nobody knows where they come. Not far from the Santa Barbara spill of a few days ago this spills is just another reminder that is it extremely difficult to make those responsible for these incidents to be accountable. If you want to read more about these mysterious globs of oil click here.

With all the environmental disasters that are in the news these days we are confronted again with the poignant question about who pays. Who is going to pay or is paying for these disasters? But the question is not only referred to accidents, there is an inherent cost with any economic activity where some kind of industrial production is involved as chemical damage to the environment inescapably happens.

In last December issue of the National Geographic magazine we find an article about "Superfunds." In this article a dynamic map (click here for the map) is shown where you can find how far you live from a superfund. It is interesting to see how even in 'remote' northwest coast places like Portland OR we live not far from a superfund in fact I found out that I live near 7 superfund sites in a 10 mile (16 km) radius. Not all superfund sites are of the same magnitude, of course, but even a 'small' superfund is huge as they have to be in order to be designated with the prefix 'super'.

From National Geographic December 2014

The history, development, and implementation of the superfund program are very interesting subjects and raise interesting questions like: why was funding for the superfund program terminated?
In 1980 Congress created it to have funding for cleaning up of industrial pollution much of which was produced by corporations no longer existing and thus unaccountable. The stockholders and beneficiaries of the profits obtained during the time that pollution was created were long-gone and enjoying the riches of their industry. No where to be found and no way to be made accountable. That is why the US Congress created the federal program to deal with a huge environmental problem of abandoned sites contaminated with hazardous waste. (To learn more visit the EPA website for the superfund program clicking here.) The fund was to be financed by taxes paid by corporations now active in similar business. The philosophy behind this proposal was that if one of these corporations would go out of business, say by bankruptcy, the fund would provide for the cleanup of the hazardous waste. Including in this fund were the sites that were already identified which were produced by corporations no longer in business. Few places like the Handford site in Richland, Washington or Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville NC were contaminated by military activity so they are responsibility of the federal government i.e. us the whole citizenry of the U.S.

When the superfund program was created in 1980 taxes to the oil and chemical industry but in 1995 the US Congress let those taxes expire so then since 1995 the superfund has been supported by the 'general fund' of the federal government, which means that we all are footing the bill!

If the California coast becomes another superfund site will require massive amounts of money.

Would it be sensible to make those responsible (mainly the oil corporations operating using the California coast) pay?

Would it be sensible re-establish the taxes that were in place until 1995 to finance superfund operations?
  

Climate Change and The Economy

How many times have we heard that measures to meliorate drastic changes of climate will have a negative impact on the economy? or, How will drastic changes in climate will have a negative impact on the economy?

I started drafting this blog a long time ago and it looks that the question keep current no matter what!

Look at what is happening now in the south of US, flooding after a long period of drought, flooding that will for the short term very damaging for the economy but I have no doubt that in the long term it might be an economic boom. To read more about the current situation click here. It seems to me that in this case the sentence: "it all depends" is strengthened by the individualistic, egoistic nature of some humans. Can we say to those under the threat of flooding, don't worry if your lose all you have now because in the long run is going to be good for the economy.

Don't worry even if you have not enough insurance because in the long run the economy will be good. Don't be jealous or envious of those (the 1%) who benefit when the economy prosper and when the economy sinks. It is only a matter of life, and there is nothing we can do about it. Because if we try to do something about it we'll be working against a system that values freedom and "Freedom and Liberty" are the most precious values in our culture and society. We are fighting against the most basic principle stated by Darwinist who know that the survival of the fittest is the key in evolution.

Forget about what the anarchist Kropotkin wrote in "Mutual Aid" in opposition to this view. Where he mention that the way of defining "the fittest" is based on the idea of survival through intelligent collaboration and community. If you want to find more about Kroportin click here. So, you may be wondering by now, what is this related to how are we supposed to react in the face of a changing climate?

Here is the deal. Are we individuals facing climate change? Or are we a community facing climate change? No brainer, you might say is both! How can you have community without individuals? How can you have an individual without a community?

This new perspective has to be included in the paradigm of our economic system. As in a natural community, the stronger is the one that foots the bill with more. If our society can be made as a natural community, which of course I think we can, then we have to find out who are the "strongest" in our community. Some would say we are talking about the 1% who own about 50% of the wealth of this country. They should foot the bill for the costs of climate change!

Why not?

Ten Year Later and Still Leaking

It was during a storm in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004 that an accident happened in an oil installation of Taylor Energy. More that ten years after that accident it is found that the leak still continues.
For more about the accident and the aftermath click here.

This incident exemplifies the complexity related to oil production and the liabilities involved. How is responsible? And who is accountable in the case of an oil spill? For how long are these liabilities going to be maintained? What if the company involved disappears by going bankrupt? Are the assets of the owners (stockholders) at risk in case of the disappearance of the corporation?

In a few words: who should pay?

Well. one thing we know, we pay. Regardless of the monetary compensations or costs of cleanup that the oil corporations have to incur and the payment to those directly affected, we know that sooner or later we will all be affected. The damage to the environment is done as a whole as the environment is a unified, interrelated system. We as part of this environment will undoubtedly be affected. The question for me now becomes, so how much and how soon will I be affected? No doubt this is a tricky question, the answer of which is complex and, one would say, almost impossible to answer.

Some would then jump to the conclusion that because we don't know the extent of damage or the magnitude of the risk we should stop any and all exploration and exploitation of oil and gas. This is not possible due the need for these resources to satisfy our current needs for energy. But there is much more we can do to minimize risk and meliorate the impact caused by these accidents. We must remove the idea that the bottom line in these activities is 'profit'. We must make a concerted effort to satisfy our needs in a communal frame or reference. We must have the welfare of our society as the bottom line. This, as Naomi Klein claims: "changes everything". For more about Naomi Klein and her book :This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate" click here.

Our approach to the solutions must be holistic and optimistic. As Diane Ackerman guides us in her book :The Human Age. (Click here for Diane Ackerman's site.) We know we have changed our planet (at least the part where we inhabit) in every way. Humans have changed the conditions of our environment in such a way that can't be restituted to is 'original' state. For one reason alone: what is the 'original' state? We have changed (some would say messed) the environment in ways we are not aware, like the domestication of animals and the genetic modification of our crops. Even undomesticated species have changed due to human activities. Think for example about birds living in our cities that have learn how to sustain a living in the 'urban' ecosystem.

There is no way we can go back, so how would you think we should go forward?

What About the Common Good?

Once upon a time we (humans) worked and lived for the common good. At least it was understood that we should strive for it and that this common good would in some way or another be the framework for the wellbeing of us as individuals. There was no way we could be fine when our surrounding were not fine. But things have changed, we now have gated communities, exclusive clubs and societies where only members are allowed and a fake sense of security and wellbeing is nurtured, but is this situation sustainable?

For many years I lived in Mexico, in Mexico city in particular where about 20 million people (no body really knows how many) go about their daily lives. There over those many years I was able to witness a change in philosophy from a religious communal to an individualistic "pragmatic" and egotistic. Gated neighborhoods sprung all over the place and private policing and security became the norm. Even streets were closed to the 'public' and made in a way private to those living on it. In a way you could say this was a success for private enterprise and initiative, but the problem of insecurity was not resolved and in some way exacerbated as a more sophisticated delinquency developed and prevailed. Late news about 43 students that disappeared in the state of Guerrero is a clear indication that impunity is prevalent and insecurity is even greater now.

Not only personal security in terms of direct crime is a problem today in our society but a more tenuous, subterfuge, and deceptive face of environmental degradation. This environmental degraded situation goes beyond the physical arena of clean water, air, soil, and natural resources but includes our human society. We live in communities that are glued by policies based on ethical values and principles that are changing rapidly. These ethical values in many ways came to us through religions and in some cases from the "enlightenment" period in Europe (eastern and western.) That is how basic principles engraved in the United States of America's "Declaration of Independence" and "Constitution" relate to a "Common Good."

When considering environmental issues one thing is clear: all is connected. Some things are more complicated connected than others but the bottom line is that everything is connected. One can't thing of a single issue that can be resolved by itself. Thing for instance on 'transportation'. Once we set the issue we immediately see that you get into a complicated terrain as you try to define.

In his recent book "The (Un)Common Good", Jim Wallis explores in a wonderful, clear, and profound way how "The Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divide" exposing the realities that the pursuit of individual gain, of individual security, of individual wellbeing in general is completely blocked by the fact that there is not way that one can accomplish those without, as the Gospel indicate, being your brother's keeper.

Today is Tuesday March 24, 2015 and I am on my spring break. Catching up with preparing classes I am reading, taking notes, and thinking. Specially for our Earthkeeping course. This class brings human nature to the forefront of analysis and is a wonderful platform for exposing to our students the needs and challenges faced by our society. The class brings to the attention of students the connections and paradoxes within our society and outside with the rest of the world. We talk about connections and contradictions of our actions and our desires, we see how human nature is basically the context of our situation, our aspirations and of course our problems and their solutions.

Clearly, or maybe not, we must understand the paradoxical relationship between the "oneself" and the commune, between the individual needs and the needs of the commons. Great philosophers like Kierkegaard in his "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", and modern thinkers like Parker Palmer in his book "The Promise of Paradox" have articulated how the mere existence of the "oneself" is through and by the "other." One only is based on the relationship one has with others: the purpose of being is to be to others. As the paradoxical statement in the Gospel when Jesus said (Mathew 10:39): "Who ever find his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." What this means to me is that for the sake of Jesus is for the sake of the other. Being your brother's keeper then become the way to life.

Is there any other way?

 

More About Oil Spills

With increasing need for oil our society is becoming more and more vulnerable to accidents related to the extraction, transportation, and transformation (refining) of oil. The petrochemical industry including refineries are increasing their capacity to a level that is difficult to fathom. So it is necessary for us to be aware of the consequences of increasing activity.
The problem is that there is a disconnect between the regulators and the regulated. As we can see in the following article by Curtis Tate copied from The Oregonian today (January 28, 2015)

"Washington officials initially not told of oil spill

By Curtis Tate

   WASHINGTON — State and federal officials are investigating an oil spill from a railroad tank car atWashington state’s largest refinery last November, but key agencies were kept in the dark about it for at least a month.

   The delayed notification of the spill highlights gaps in communication and enforcement as more crude oil shipments travel by rail.

   According to reports reviewed by McClatchy, when the tank car arrived Nov. 5at the BP Cherry Point refinery, Federal Railroad Administration inspectors discovered oil stains on its sides and wheels. A closer inspection revealed an open valve and a missing plug. The car was also 1,611 gallons short, enough to fill the gas tanks of 100 Subaru Foresters.

   Neither the railroad, nor the third-party company that unloaded the oil at the terminal, however, could determine where the missing oil had spilled, making it likely that it had leaked somewhere along the train’s 1,200-mile path between the loading terminal in Dore, North Dakota, and the refinery, near Ferndale, Washington.

   The oil train route to Northwest refineries passes through national parks, along rivers and through the region’s populationcenters.

   An oil release of that size from a marine tanker, a refinery or a storage facility would automatically trigger a well-established set of notification requirements that would result in the information about the incident flowing promptly to local, state and federal agencies.

   There are state and federal hotlines for reporting an oil spill, yet the November incident was not initially reported to any local or state officials. The Washington state Utilities and Transportation Commission found out on Dec. 3 when it received a copy of the report BNSF Railway submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Railroads have 30 days to file such reports.

   Courtney Wallace, a spokeswoman for BNSF, said that the train “was not in transit, not on our property and not in ourcustody” when the spill was detected and that the company submitted the required reports to state and federal regulators. She also said that no one reported evidence of spilled oil along BNSF track, which follows the Columbia River and parts of Puget Sound and passes through at least five of the state’s 10 most populous cities.

   Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said the company “took this issue very seriously” and notified BNSF and Savage Services, which unloads the tank cars at the refinery. He added that federal regulators confirmed that the company had fulfilled its responsibilities.

   The information never reached the Washington state Department of Ecology, which responds to inland oil spills; the U.S. Coast Guard, which responds to oil spills along navigable waterways; or the Whatcom County Unified Emergency Coordination Center. All three first learned of the incident last week from McClatchy.

   The report BNSF filed to federal regulators indicates that no local emergency services were notified at the time of the incident.

   State law requires railroads to report any hazardous materials release to the state emergency operations center within 30 minutes of learning of the incident. The center’s 24-hour duty officer shares spill information with all levels of government. Karina Shagren, a spokeswoman for the state Emergency Management Division, said the department has no record of anyone calling to report an oil spill from a rail car at the refinery in November.

   State and local officials could have known about the spill sooner if it had been reported to the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Response Center hotline. The center shares information about reported spills to state and local agencies.

   Federal and state regulators are investigating.

   “If we discover that the shipper or the railroad ran afoul of federal safety regulations,” said Kevin Thompson, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, “we will take appropriate enforcement actions.”

   Kathy Hunter, rail safety manager at the state Utilities and Transportation Commission, said the commission is assisting with the federal investigation.

   The Department of Ecology also has launched an investigation.

   “There may have been a gap in reporting protocol,” said David Byers, spill response manager for the department. “We’re investigating to determine if there was one.”

   The rail industry and its regulators have been working to improve communication with state and local emergency response officials following a series of high-profile oil train derailments and spills in the past few years. Still, the November oil spill shows the kinds of hidden risks that continue to emerge in communities where the oil is transported by rail."

I didn't summarized the article because I think it is bringing important information that I wouldn't like to be out of context. My previous blog was about a pipeline now is about trains, it doesn't make any difference.

But the main point that I want to make is: If the people who don't want regulations are not able to regulate themselves, how can we as a society survive within a system in which the bottom line is profit, and not the wellbeing of the citizenry?

Oil spills and paying the bill

Accidents can't be prevented by definition. Everything we do as humans has certain degree of hazard. The hazardous nature normally come from the degree or level at which the human activity is realized. Of course the hazardous nature could be at a low level but the idea is that any damage can be contained easier if the amount is minor. Let's say that we are going to transport one barrel of oil and we have a spill, it is going to be easy to find a way for the clean up of this happening. But what if thousands or millions of barrels are spilled. It is going to be more difficult and costly to 'manage' and clean the spill.

So the question is: who should be responsible for the safe transport of chemicals like oil that if released to the environment are highly damaging?

Let's think about what is going on in Glendive Montana where thousands of inhabitants are not able to drink municipal water. To read more click here. Here you have a situation where many citizens are affected by multinational corporations doing business in our country.

Oil Spill under a frozen river

We know that these multinational corporations are employing people and by doing so they are supporting the communities in which they operate. But make no mistake, they are not giving anything back, they are getting much more of what they are paying to the community. They are recipients of 'rent" as Economy Noble Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz clearly explained in his book "The Price of Inquality"

Of course, the immense economic/political power of these multinational corporations are using our government for advantageous laws that allow them to externalize their losses at the same time that they maximize their profits by not paying fair taxes on the one hand and not paying for damages on the other hand.

It is little what we individuals can do to stop the damage to the environment by these huge corporations, and to help those that are directly affected by the overexploitation of  natural resources. But we should not be discouraged as we can do much if we act together. We should keep our enthusiasm as we are confident that at the end reason will prevail and we'll be able to have a sustainable economy.

What would you say about something you can do to keep this Earth livable?

Dire changes in the Earth

In the Washington Post (January 15, 2015) we can read an article by Joel Achenbach (for the full article click here ) that makes reference to a scientific paper just published in the journal Science by 18 researches. It sure is an interesting article that in simple words warns us of the dire situation into which we are putting our environment. The news that we are destroying our environment is not news any more, even though almost every day the most important newspapers of the world are publishing articles about the deep seriousness of the issue. The New York Times for instance has in the Jan 15 issue an article by Carl Zimmer (for the full article click here) with this image:

Dead whales and other mammals being found in the oceans of the world are a sign that, as the article mentioned, "Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction."

So if the news that we are destroying our environment are not news, what are we supposed to do?

  

Are we to become idle observers of the catastrophe? Or, are we supposed to become active advocates for taking care of our environment?

There are of course as many answers as are human beings, each one of us has to come to terms with each of our own answer. I know there are thousands of us that think that we are to become, and in some cases already are, advocates, activist defending our environment. Of course we have many ways of participating in this advocacy and many levels to engage in activism. Some can and will do it at a leadership level some other will do it as active members of a team where there will strengthen the effort by following the lead of someone else but always with the heart of knowing they are doing the right thing.

In his book "A Spirituality of Resistance" Roger S. Gottlieb states the dilemma of an ethicist expressing his concern that doing good for the environment is not simple, easy, nor immediate. Other issues like being against war, sexism (or sex discrimination), racism can be stated in simpler terms and one can (in a clearer way) be congruent with a position where our actions and our ideas go hand in hand. But, how can you do it when working in favor of the environment?

We know that burning hydrocarbons is creating a problem with our atmosphere, but how can we live without using our cars? We know that excessive use (or misuse) of plastics is also damaging our environment, but how can we live without the convenience of plastic? (As it is with many other 'conveniences' of our modern world.) This is the conundrum of the ethicist!

At Warner Pacific College we are teaching several classes that help us and our students clarify and address these issues. One course is Earthkeeping (HUM 212) that among other objectives has the one of describing the philosophic foundation of deep ecology. As we look at human nature from a philosophic perspective (with ethical and moral implications) we are able to see the need for balance and justice. Finding balance and justice in our actions and discovering that the problems facing our society come from a lack of balance and justice, becomes a central tenet of our conversation in class.

The need to continue educating our society on the dire situation facing our environment today will not end with a few words on a post like this, but we must continue spreading the word. Just look around and see how our society is not able to control the damage cause by our progress. I am thinking on what I see in the news almost every day. We hear about accidents and incidents, like the oil train derailment in  Galena Illinois yesterday that is until this hour burning. http://time.com/3735266/illinois-crude-oil-train-derail/ The issue here is that they are using the newly designed cars that are supposed to be safer, but as far as I know from the 103 cars loaded with oil from ND, 21 cars either exploded or caught fire and the blaze is so strong that firefighters don't have the means to fight the incident and are only letting it burn.

Can you imagine the damage to the environment?

Earthkeeping

Passionate Advocacy for Our Home in Space.

There is the Universe, everything we know is part of the universe thus everything is related. We (humans) are an integral part of Earth's environment, and therefore we have a responsibility to perform our activities guided by a sense of stewardship. This stewardship (ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources) has to be based on a deep understanding of how nature works. Including how human nature works.

At Warner Pacific College we have developed a hybrid (humanities/science) course called Earthkeeping that addresses the need to prepare students to be good stewards of God's creation. We look at both human and non-human nature. We teach the strong and intrinsic relationship between our human society and the natural resources that sustain it. As a Christ-centered, urban, and liberal arts college we base and foster our teaching on the liberal arts. We value service in and beyond the city therefore we promote active engagement. This means that teachers and students will have a dynamic participation during lecture times but we expect that participation will overflow to outside the classroom, both in space and time.

By asking fundamental questions about who we are; what motivations drive our actions; what is the connection between the satisfaction of our needs (biological and psychological) and the availability of natural resources; how can we balance individual and social needs (social justice); and more we establish a framework and a context that allows everybody to become an active participant that is holistically prepared to be an advocate for our home in space.

As we start the new semester this Tuesday, I am thinking about an initial question to ask. It is difficult to find one as so many are in my mind. What would be a question that you'd ask to start this conversation?  

Our Global Responsibility

This world of us is highly interconnected. There is not a single action that we take that is isolated from the rest of the world or the rest of society. There is no neutrality when it comes to our actions and the environment, including social environment.
When it comes to looking for our wellbeing we realize that our lives are interconnected within our spirituality, biology, sociology, and psychology with a greater sense of reality.
So one question we might pose is what is reality? As this question is too profound for me to be able to find an easy answer, it is better to translate it to: What is really going on with our environment?
In trying to find answers to the latter question I came across ideas that intertwine the physical with the metaphysical, that is the appearance of the connection between what we think and what we believe. In his book "A Spirituality of Resistance" Roger Gottlieb

makes sure that the reader find a strong sense of responsibility and accountability in connection to taking care of the environment. Using the way in which some Germans behaved during the holocaust Gottlieb emphasizes the strong need of humans to belong to society, to have a place in the 'production' line, and to be someone through what it is 'accomplished.' Gottlieb is direct in pointing out that we are guilty of harming the earth just by being complacent and unaware that with our daily routines we are contributing to an irreversible damage to the environment.
In the Oregonian today we read good news about an epidemiologist researcher at Oregon State University who is studying pollution at a global level. The article is a reprint from the Corvallis Gazette-Times. You can read the article here.

 

Perry Hystad received one of the Early Independence Award by the National Institute of Health. The $250,000 a year (for up to five years) will help Hystad continue his research correlating community with health risks. No doubt he will be able to get valuable information helping all of us understand how with our daily ramblings interact and change the environment. We will find for sure information that will help develop new strategies for social behavior, that will help all of us to have a much better life. Not only in the economic sense but in the holistic sense of spiritual, psychological, social, and material interconnectedness.

Have you ever thought about how your daily life is affecting the environment, and how you can change your lifestyle to have a positive effect?