Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
Walking in the rain down to the autoteller to get some cash, I saw
Sebastopol’s regular demonstrators, one group against the latest war, the other
supporting our troops, standing on the corner where the cash machine
stood. Not in the mood for
politics, when I noticed the bank was nearly empty I walked inside before I got
to them, preferring to cash my check there. But as I walked back out to the corner, I looked at the
signs behind me. The ones I
usually agreed with said “War is another form of terrorism” which seems pretty
accurate given the number of wedding parties and groups of civilians our drones
have shot up, while the other simply said “Support Our Troops.”
I mentioned I agreed with all the signs, which precipitated
a friendly conversation with the “Support Our Troops” sign carrier. Turns out her son is serving over
there. She was an open warm woman
who felt if we didn’t support them they should come home. I told her I strongly supported their
well being, had friends with children over there, and wanted them to come home. All true. I gradually got them all talking, and with a cheer for all
the signs, continued on my way.
As I left I thought about how the militaristic politicians
that infest this country, who almost to a man never served their country in
uniform, have done such a thorough job of turning Americans against one another
even when at root they do not always disagree that profoundly. Demonize the other side and it all
falls apart. Just like with rank
and file conservative Christians and their ruthless leaders. It’s very sad, a dreary thought on a wet and dreary day.
posted December 11, 2009 at 7:53 pm
It’s called a “false dichotomy,” Gus. There are only two possibilities. Either you support every aspect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or you aren’t supporting our troops. Either you approve of everything that President Bush does, or you hate America. Either you’re 100% for us or you’re 100% against us.
It’s one of the favorite rhetorical tricks that politicians use. If dissent is disloyalty, then dissenters can be ignored. Not only that, but they can, and should, be smeared, vilified, boycotted, fired, expelled, and even subjected to violence. Remember Valerie Plame—or the Dixie Chicks? You and I are old enough to remember the Selective Service System’s revocation of draft exemptions and deferments to punish outspoken critics of the Vietnam war.
So not only is dissent dismissed, but people hesitate to express dissent for fear of consequences. Which is exactly the result that the demagogues intend.
posted December 12, 2009 at 11:30 am
Gus, I have been part of a group standing on the corner every Monday for nearly 8 years now. Our signs say both: “End the War” and “Support the Troops: Bring Them Home” (and more — we have some very creative sign makers) There is no dichotomy between a desire to end the war and a desire to support the troops. The Lefties of my acquaintance understand that; the Righties, not so much.
Cheers from the Midwest Coast (Detroit)
posted December 12, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I wish more people had the kind of sane interaction you did with both sides. Here’s to more understanding and peace fostered between people.
posted December 13, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Likewise, I support the well being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and I am opponent of the conflict in which they fight.
I have a friend who recently joined the Army, who is currently stationed in the middle east and, while I wish him nothing but safety and success and in the peaceful aspects of his mission, I do have to question his judgment. I’ve told him this, myself.
We’ve been in this conflict for years now and anyone who’s joined the armed forces, particularly the Army or Marines, in the last seven years must have done so knowing that it was substantially likely that they would be made a part of it.
I’m not suggesting that anyone to have enlisted since ’02 is a warmonger. Individuals’ motivations and the realities of the world are so much more complicated than that. It does make it, in rare and reflective moments, difficult to support the troops with as much vigor as I’d like.