Posted by Mia McPherson on December 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Wow, that took courage.
Posted by Ron Bielefeld on December 13, 2009 at 5:50 AM
A very powerful talk by a young woman and she was right on many counts. Unfortunately, she only silenced the world for 6 minutes. That was 16 years ago and not much has changed. The problem is, that was only one girl, one child. The problem is, we who care about the natural world and understand that without functioning ecosystems we too will disappear from this earth are too apathetic. The only way the leaders of this world will make the changes in the paradigm needed to start turning this plant around is if tens of thousands of children do what this one girl did; only if thousands and thousands of adults stand with them. Not for 6 minutes, but year after year. Unless the message is strong and lasting change will be too slow or nonexistent on most fronts. Just my educated opinion based on 20+ years working as a conservation biologist.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 13, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Not only has not much changed, in many respects it's gotten worse. It probably will take imminent catastrophe to get people to pull their heads out of the sand--hopefully it won't be too late then.
Posted by Jim Bullard on December 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Most people prefer to ignore such things. Watching the video, when they panned around the room, I noted that most of the delegate seats were empty. On the bright side they did reverse the ozone hole problem. It's shrinking. There is hope.
The only way the leaders of this world will make the changes in the paradigm needed to start turning this plant around is if tens of thousands of children do what this one girl did; only if thousands and thousands of adults stand with them. Not for 6 minutes, but year after year. Unless the message is strong and lasting change will be too slow or nonexistent on most fronts. Just my educated opinion based on 20+ years working as a conservation biologist.
Ron, not even millions of children and millions of adults standing with them, asking the leaders of this world to make the necessary changes, will achieve anything meaningful. The leaders of this world, in the way the dominant culture is organised, are not just extremely unlikely to want to make these changes because their not making those changes will benefit their short-term self-interest, but they are also unable to make them because they would instantly lose the support from multinational corporations who really decide what happens in the world. This system isn't built to save the world, it is expressly made to kill it, although the word usually is "Development". Development ultimately means converting living animated organisms (animals, plants, mountains, rivers, oceans, rocks, air, soil and all else, into dead products to sell and waste. Gouvernments' main task, as it turns out throughout history, is to make this process as efficient as possible, because supposedly it is good for economy and thus for humans.
In short, the necessary changes will not be brought about by politicians, corporations and shareholders, all out to make development run as fast as possible. It will be brought about by people. Not by people asking leaders nicely to do what is good for the world, because that is like asking a lion not to take prey: it goes against the nature of the 'beast'. It is going to be achieved by people very actually fighting for their very lives, the lives of their loved ones and the life of everything around them. Author Derrick Jensen comes up with a great alternative version of Star Wars to explain why asking nicely is just not going to work:
Here's the same girl again, a few years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXGwqbI37Ks. Some good ideas in there, and one of the most vital ones is the idea that we should downscale again to living locally in every possible way. Small communities, where everyone knows each other, very much connected to their landbase on which they depend for survival, will take much better care of their landbase and each other than the dominant culture's gigantic nations of billions led by one person who doesn't care about each of them personally, and who doesn't answer to each of them personally. Of course that is not a choice you get when it's election time again, but sometimes we should recognise that there are more choices than the ones directly offered to us. We don't have to choose Mr. A or Mr. B, but always within a certain system; we can also choose for something completely different. We can choose to stand up for ourselves and for all we truly deeply care about. That's the great task of the people alive today I think.
Posted by John W. Wall on December 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM
There are twice as many lawyers in any good-sized commercial law firm as there are in all the nonprofit environmental organizations in the country put together. If you like having the odds stacked against you and are looking for a challenging environmental career, or know someone who is, you might check out the field of public interest environmental law.
Posted by Roger Rouch on December 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Ah-ha... the daughter of prominent world-renowned Canadian Geneticist- Dr. David Suzuki? A great speech indeed. Thanks for sharing.
I'm pretty discouraged by the progress we make on environmental issues. As a mostly hobby photographer, I have to say that the community of outdoor photographers needs to look at their carbon/environmental footprint. How they travel, how far they travel, and how significant is the impact of their work. And the practice of aquiring the lastest in printers, papers, inks, cameras, and such. We all have to make big changes. Though folks are probably all a little defensive on these issues, the bare fact is that there are not a lot of nature photographers or photos that end up making a significant impact. I don't think publication in OP counts as making a difference? I've tried to travel less and travel closer. Maybe even that isn't enough.
I've spent part of my career as a fisheries biologist. Over the last ten or fifteen years, the depletion of the large ocean fish and the affects of man on habitat, invasive species, and diseases among fresh water fish has been incredible. I have to think that the next generation of people will never know nature as we have.
In 1900, there were 1.6 billion people on the Earth.
In 1950, 2.5 billion.
In 2000, 6 billion.
Now, at the beginning of 2010, ~6.8 billion (12/10/2009)
Estimates of the 2050 population are at ~9.2 billion.
Think if we all buy a Prius and recycle our Starbucks cups it'll help?
Posted by Stan Rose on December 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Think if we all buy a Prius and recycle our Starbucks cups it'll help?
Individually, nope, won't make one iota of difference. Of course, if we make decisions en masse that stear the market in a more environmentally conscious direction--then that is a good thing. But as you point out--the numbers are stacked against us--until we convince the world as a whole that our society is a runaway train and that unchecked consumerism is soon to earmark our planet for the recycle bin, then I'm not too optimistic. And, unfortunately, I dont know of an easy solution.
John--as an ex-lawyer who toyed with the environmental law field--i can tell you the regulations are nightmarish, makes the tax code seem like an easy read.
Posted by Roger Rouch on December 19, 2009 at 6:26 PM
There is an interesting test to determine your ecological footprint based on carbon use, food consumption, housing, and goods and services. It's not perfect..but interesting. I took the test and found out that if everyone on earth had my lifestyle, it would take 3.24 earths to sustain. I think the typical American would require something like 5 planets. Of course, not everyone has my lifestyle, but there are many third world countries who are trying very hard to get it. (I didn't enter my email and it worked just fine).
Posted by David Cobb on January 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM
If you look at the contents which killed these albatross on Midway Atoll (2,000 miles from anywhere) you'll see how much crap we create. I think Chris Jordon's photography does make an impact and give one pause to think and change: http://www.chrisjordan.com/ . These aren't pretty pictures, but they are powerful ones.
The problem is never going to be solved. I am therefore very much in favor of DNA sequencing all species on earth to eventually resurrect. We need more national parks to conserve what little ecosystems we have left.
The test was interesting, but buying carbon offsets does not decrease the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the air. I believe in climate change, not global warming (at this point in time) to be fair.
Discussion
13 repliesThen check this out:
"The girl who silenced the world for 6 minutes!"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6m0fc_the-girl-who-silenced-the-world-for_news
Ron, not even millions of children and millions of adults standing with them, asking the leaders of this world to make the necessary changes, will achieve anything meaningful. The leaders of this world, in the way the dominant culture is organised, are not just extremely unlikely to want to make these changes because their not making those changes will benefit their short-term self-interest, but they are also unable to make them because they would instantly lose the support from multinational corporations who really decide what happens in the world. This system isn't built to save the world, it is expressly made to kill it, although the word usually is "Development". Development ultimately means converting living animated organisms (animals, plants, mountains, rivers, oceans, rocks, air, soil and all else, into dead products to sell and waste. Gouvernments' main task, as it turns out throughout history, is to make this process as efficient as possible, because supposedly it is good for economy and thus for humans.
In short, the necessary changes will not be brought about by politicians, corporations and shareholders, all out to make development run as fast as possible. It will be brought about by people. Not by people asking leaders nicely to do what is good for the world, because that is like asking a lion not to take prey: it goes against the nature of the 'beast'. It is going to be achieved by people very actually fighting for their very lives, the lives of their loved ones and the life of everything around them. Author Derrick Jensen comes up with a great alternative version of Star Wars to explain why asking nicely is just not going to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhL4Lc1VNo
Here's the same girl again, a few years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXGwqbI37Ks. Some good ideas in there, and one of the most vital ones is the idea that we should downscale again to living locally in every possible way. Small communities, where everyone knows each other, very much connected to their landbase on which they depend for survival, will take much better care of their landbase and each other than the dominant culture's gigantic nations of billions led by one person who doesn't care about each of them personally, and who doesn't answer to each of them personally. Of course that is not a choice you get when it's election time again, but sometimes we should recognise that there are more choices than the ones directly offered to us. We don't have to choose Mr. A or Mr. B, but always within a certain system; we can also choose for something completely different. We can choose to stand up for ourselves and for all we truly deeply care about. That's the great task of the people alive today I think.
I'm pretty discouraged by the progress we make on environmental issues. As a mostly hobby photographer, I have to say that the community of outdoor photographers needs to look at their carbon/environmental footprint. How they travel, how far they travel, and how significant is the impact of their work. And the practice of aquiring the lastest in printers, papers, inks, cameras, and such. We all have to make big changes. Though folks are probably all a little defensive on these issues, the bare fact is that there are not a lot of nature photographers or photos that end up making a significant impact. I don't think publication in OP counts as making a difference? I've tried to travel less and travel closer. Maybe even that isn't enough.
I've spent part of my career as a fisheries biologist. Over the last ten or fifteen years, the depletion of the large ocean fish and the affects of man on habitat, invasive species, and diseases among fresh water fish has been incredible. I have to think that the next generation of people will never know nature as we have.
In 1900, there were 1.6 billion people on the Earth.
In 1950, 2.5 billion.
In 2000, 6 billion.
Now, at the beginning of 2010, ~6.8 billion (12/10/2009)
Estimates of the 2050 population are at ~9.2 billion.
Think if we all buy a Prius and recycle our Starbucks cups it'll help?
Individually, nope, won't make one iota of difference. Of course, if we make decisions en masse that stear the market in a more environmentally conscious direction--then that is a good thing. But as you point out--the numbers are stacked against us--until we convince the world as a whole that our society is a runaway train and that unchecked consumerism is soon to earmark our planet for the recycle bin, then I'm not too optimistic. And, unfortunately, I dont know of an easy solution.
John--as an ex-lawyer who toyed with the environmental law field--i can tell you the regulations are nightmarish, makes the tax code seem like an easy read.
David M. Cobb