And it is the content, even more than the style, that is so objectionable.  Do those of us who hope for a "bright green future" really support this relentless anthropocentrism?  Is biodiversity as a value, our fundamental wish to preserve the community of living creatures, not worthy of mention?

Really, these texts, however we may wish to characterize them, and whatever function they are supposed to perform, are a good bit developed beyond the "principles" stage.  Certainly they fail as rallying cries.  At best, they are talking points for professional activists who already know all the names, and know what all the names have been up to.  There is nothing "grassroots" about these texts at all.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Gee, Wiscidea, I hope the answer to your question is this is April Fools from someone with a bad "sense of calendar"!  Or maybe a bad dry joke in any season?  This is definitely one of those 'make sure you have a gallon of water per day' deals.  

This whole thing seems written by an out-of-work English Lit. major (we got millions) who read Arthur C. Clarke or Bucky Fuller and thought, 'Yeah, I can do that.'  Junior-grade bullshit.  

One section is on 'ecological footprints': admirable but weak, but then followed by a section on ecological services?  News flash!!  Nature DOES NOT exist to 'serve' humans!!  This has to be among the lowest lows in presumptuous, anthropocentric, lowest-common-denominator thinking.  

Another piece is titled in part "...Virtual Water...".   Next time you are thirsty, try a 'virtual tumbler' of water.  This is crap.  Water is real, essential, and vital, not something to use as a screen saver.  Water is embodied in every single item we use or consume.  Treating it as a cyber-commodity would be laughable if these idiots weren't so pompous and serious.

Roberts has turned into a middleman for tripe which could only hopelessly aspire to mediocrity--but it wouldn't.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

I briefly read through your page on "spirit," and found it very interesting.  I would quibble with your characterizations of Christianity and paganism on the subject, but whatever.

Beethoven is not my favorite composer, and that experiment of listening to all the symphonies one after the other is not something I would be inclined to try.  Nevertheless, the Seventh Symphony, especially the second movement, is one of the most sublime pieces of music ever written.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It never really occurred to me that we might all need the same world view, or that works for them is invalid because it does not work for me.

(I don't actually feel very aligned with WorldChanging, but I see them supporting good projects.  That's enough for me, and I support them for that reason.)

From "Offsetting":

It's an unfortunate truth that many of the things we routinely do in our daily lives hurt the planet or other people. And we all want a certain degree of prosperity, most of us hope to have that affluence be guilt-free -- to be able to live a good life without a sense that we have become bad people -- and this can seem an insurmountable challenge when we look into the backstories of the things we buy.

Wah wah wah!  Is this a tap dance? Or banal sophomoric nonsense?  It sure ain't principles!

This may be called "green", but certainly not "green" with any substance.  Clearly found to be hot house flowers, GMO creations that would not survive without fertilizers, pesticides, precise conditions, etc.  Probably would not last past a season, weak annuals whose beginning and end is hardly marked in the larger world.  Hah!--probably has Terminator Technology!  ADM/Cargill/Monsanto has gotta luv ya!

What is needed are tough perennials, dark leafy green plants with substance and sustenance.  Ever try any Leopold?  Muir?  Thoreau?  Try that and you will be nourished for LIFE--Principles for all seasons.  Try that: harvest it every day or once a year and you will know an essential feature of sustainability of an intangible sort.  Try that and you can harvest them until you yourself drop dead at the end of a long healthy productive substantive life.  

Look at it as the difference between vastly over-processed foods with a ingredient list of chemicals that should/would snap your eye holes shut or better make you drop it and run, and wholesome real food, with an ingredient list that is short and pronounceable.  

This stuff called 'principles' (oh, and by the way, not "principals") is "green" only in the most superficial manner.  Somebody (maybe many) need a remedial lesson in substance.    

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Imagining the future, then, paradoxically makes us more innovative and effective in the present.

>>

Gevalt!  You could preface a recipe for flan with such stuff.

I appreciate the respect that DR, GarnetDavid and Odograph may have for these people and their words of wisdom.  And who can fail to agree with Odograph's thing about how what works for you is not at all invalid just because it does not work for me?  (Though unser lieber Herr O'Dog has perhaps something huger in mind when he talks about different world views.)

Clearly David SG makes terrific sense.  Appealing to the environmentalist classics cannot be done enough.  I probably follow him with his choice of "banal," but probably not with his choice of "sophomoric," only because I am myself the most sophomoric of sophomores, and am reluctant to judge disparagingly the work of people about whom I know little.  Inasmuch as I have criticized them thus far, it is solely on the basis of the words by them that I have seen.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I didn't want to so thoroughly excoriate these 'principles' without offering what I believe to be real principles.  And to acknowledge GMunger, the real "green" literature is far more broad than I can name.  You can stick with potatoes, tomatoes, carrots and peas (organic and heirloom of course), and do quite well, but there are squash (yellow, zucchini, spaghetti, etc., etc.), Fabaceae, and all the Cruciferae you can think of, and likewise there is a rich, substantive, nutritious field in environmental literature, too.  

The problem with this and many other things is that people try to rehash and reword and update them, and at each step they lose some clarity and truth.  They also succumb to situational ethics--creeping shades of grey.  From a purist, independent, traditional, iconoclast point of view, all of this is unnecessary and unwise.  We need principles to be clear and absolute.  

So, first are some very simple ones.  Some of you may feel these are condescending, some may condescend to read them, but most will secretly knock themselves on the forehead for forgetting them.

"First, do no harm."  (From the Hippocratic Oath, for doctors, to which they need to reintroduce themselves.)

"Do unto others as you would them do unto you."  (As in the New Testament, but the principle is universal, in virtually all religions, and in most cultures, so the Bible-thumpers did not invent it--bless their hearts.)

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any [hu]man."   (William Shakespeare in Hamlet.  This chunk of pure gold dropped out of his pocket, and can be picked by all for eternity.)

"In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity."  (Yeah, I am unabashedly borrowing this from BioD.)

"Be the change that you want to see in the world."  (Mohandas Gandhi is one of those, when you say his name, the heavens should open.)

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root...."  (Henry David Thoreau--clouds open.)

"In the end, we will save only what we love; we will love only what we know; we will know only what we are taught."  (The essence here of Baba Dioum's statement, is EDUCATION!)

I mentioned Aldo Leopold in an earlier message, and I would like reinforce my recommendation with a few of his best.  I cannot open "A Sand County Almanac" without crying, for me it is that powerful: sheer and direct strength, and unapologetic beauty.

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

"That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.  That land yields a cultural harvest is a fact long known, but latterly forgotten."

"...[O]ur bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy."  

"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence.  An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct."

"There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.  Land, Like Odysseus's slave-girls, is still property.  The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations."

"Individual thinkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted that the despoliation of land is not only inexpedient but wrong.  Society, however, has not yet affirmed their belief."

There is a vast range and number of observations and opinions, and more detailed principles in, "A Sand County Almanac", much of it too personal for me to uncover here, as well as a good lesson in ecology.  I encourage everyone to find it and read it.  For $15-20, you'll discover it to be priceless.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

No Bible-thumper am I, but it has been observed that, yes indeed, most religious traditions of the world seem to include somebody saying something to the effect of, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you"; but it is only Jesus who, in the Synoptic Gospels, puts it in a positive way, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  The commands are clearly related, but not quite equivalent.  Many Christians, whether or not they are thumping their Bibles, will probably think that the Christian form is superior.  Could be; but actually the negative form is IMHO more simply comprehensible.

What in the world is Aldo Leopold saying about Odysseus's slave-girls?  Presumably he is referring to the chilling event that takes place toward the beginning of Odyssey 23: After Odysseus has slain all the Suitors who had for so long been hanging out in his palace and eating up his wealth, which takes place in Book 22, he then assembles his slave-girls, who he hears were fraternizing and collaborating with the Suitors; seeing that they were therefore traitors to his house, he simply hangs them.

Leopold would then seem to be saying that just as Odysseus can treat living beings as mere property, whom he can put to death for any reason that pleases him, so does our civilization treat the Earth.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Arrrghhh... you folks are determined to make me give up consumption of meat! But you're right. It's what mindful living is ultimately about, I suppose.

"Do unto others as you would them do unto you."

 I find this principle a fairly good way to identify acceptable moral behavior. As in... shooting people willy nilly because you disagree with them is not a good idea, expecially when you realize there are people who disagree with you. Or dumping toxins in their water supply is only okay if you don't mind being poisoned yourself. Though the prinicple fails if the person following it is self-destructive in some way. A variation: "Now what would the world be like if EVERYONE did that?"

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any [hu]man."

I'm not sure how this helps the environment, though perhaps people would generlly behave better if they were happy and satisfied with what they do in the world. A lot of destruction of the environment probably emerges from frustration and feeling it is the only way to get ahead in the world.

"In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity."

Absolutely true. And I consider this a core environmental or conservation value. The more parts there are, the more likely nature will protect us from ourselves. Biodiversity provides flexibility for adapting to climate change. If we ever end up with just a few species and they are all sensitive to cold or heat or dry weather, et cetera, we will be totally screwed if the climate suddenly shifts toward the other direction.

"Be the change that you want to see in the world."

I'm not succeeding, but I am trying. For example, annoyed by all the wild parsnip growing along the local roads, I was almost ready to give up. Like, what's the point? No one else appeared to be doing anything and I have other problems to solve. Now is the time to mow it if you want to prevent the development of more seed and further spreading of the vile weed. But then I noticed a neighbor eliminated it from his ditch. Then another neighbor's parsnip was cut. So I had someone mow the parsnip on my property... and then a spent several hours on a search and destroy mission looking for the remaining plants and lopping them off one at a time. It feels good to do my part to preserve biodiversity. Maybe someone else will be inspired to do the same after noticing that I did something.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root...."

Still trying to find the root. I think it has something to do with our education system, loss of our interest in studying history, loss of direct attachment to the land, and entertainment the numbs the brain.

"In the end, we will save only what we love; we will love only what we know; we will know only what we are taught."

See above. I care more and more about endangered ecosystems as I learn more and more about the various elements and how important it is to have an intact web of life. Nature recycles everything. There is a lesson there. One organism's waste is another's food.

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Sustainability.

"That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.  That land yields a cultural harvest is a fact long known, but latterly forgotten."

Without community, there is nothing. Think about what a human being's life would be like is they lived alone. Nothing can exist independent of everything else. I believe this is a basic Buddhist concept. It seems reasonable to love and respect that which provides you with everything you need and asks nothing more than that you demonstrate your gratitude by providing others -- humans, other animals, plants, et cetera -- with what they need. Thomas Paine said it better, but I'd rather not search for his book right now.

"...[O]ur bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy."

Yes, we have lost touch with the foundation of economic health. As Al gore pointed out in "An Inconvenient Truth", a stack of gold bars is of little value if you find yourself standing on a dead planet.

"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence.  An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct."

I'll leave this to caniscandida to discuss.

"There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.  Land, Like Odysseus's slave-girls, is still property.  The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations."

We are still living as though there is an infinite supply of unoccupied land, that the atmosphere and oceans are large enough to dilute our waste, that there so many fish that we can scoop them out of the water with our bare hands (according to first English to arrive in North America), that there are so many mastadons that we can kill them without worrying where our next meal will come from. This could be the fundamental problem environmentalists and consevationist face. And it MIGHT be genetic.

"Individual thinkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted that the despoliation of land is not only inexpedient but wrong.  Society, however, has not yet affirmed their belief."

So many have pointed this out and so many cannot imagine it to be true. I recently read a book by a Roman named Lucretius and he mentions that the older farmers often point out that the land was once better, the yields higher, but their children view it as legend. Their children could not comprehend that humans could lower the productivty of the soil. The history is there, not just via scientific investigations, but actual written accounts! We have the documents. We know "despoliation of land" is a really bad idea.

I agree with SG Dave that everyone should read "A Sand County Almanac". We should all incorporate Aldo Leopold's land ethic into our own lives and share it with friends and children, preferably by being the change you want to see...

http://www.aldoleopold.org/about/landethic.htm

Peace.

[Arrrghhh... now I feel like I have to be more responsible!]

It might be nice have a pretty list of bright green principles, but what does it all boil down to? What's standing in the way? What has to happen such that everything else will fall into place? What do people need to know so everthing will suddenly make sense to them and they will demand transparency, justice, clean water, sustainable food, clean energy, et cetera?

Ironically, the long speech in "Hamlet" that includes the famous "To thine own self be true" is spoken by the old minister Polonius, as he sends his son Laertes off to school, with a whole lot of moral advice.  What Shakespeare's intention was is unclear: Is Polonius a wise philosopher?; or is he a boring, verbiose dullard?  He is played differently by different actors.  Anyway, he is the one who is hiding behind the curtain in the bedroom of Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, during Hamlet's crucial nighttime visit to her; Hamlet hears someone lurking there, fears a spy, thrusts his sword through the curtain and so kills Polonius: a most inglorious death.  And if he was in fact a spy, does he deserve it?  And if so, does that discredit what he said earlier in the play?

As for the pair of sentences that you turned over to me, it should be noted, first, that "ethic," used as a singular noun, is a usage that has developed in English rather recently, but seems to be clear enough: a consistent standard of conduct based on a certain system of principles.

Secondly, the second sentence, "An ethic, philosophically, ... ," is very well written, and is in fact very close to the original Greek meaning of the ancestral noun "ethos."

But thirdly, the first sentence, "An ethic, ecologically, ... ," is rather harder to puzzle out.  "Limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence" suggests as its context a crude para-Darwinian worldview on the one hand, "survival of the fittest," "nature red in tooth and claw," and all that, doesn't it.

On the other hand, Leopold seems to be insisting that although we human beings are major players in that worldview dominated by self-interest, competition and violence, we are also essentially ethical beings, who feel the moral compulsion to restrain our selfishness and will to dominate.

That certainly seems consistent with what Leopold is saying in his famous description of the wolf, shot and dying, in the Gila Mountains, the vision of the "green flame" in whose eyes changed his life.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.