One of my favorite information websites, ScienceDaily.com, has a plethora of articles on new energy technology. Here are some of the headlines:

• Engineers Use Aerospace Approach to Design Wave Energy System - The ocean is a potentially vast source of electric power… Now, a team of aerospace engineers is applying the principles that keep airplanes aloft to create a new wave-energy system that is durable, extremely efficient, and can be placed anywhere in the ocean, regardless of depth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119111329.htm

• Mechanical Engineers Create High-tech Solar Panels - Photovoltaic panels have a new design: concentric circles that focus the sun’s rays on miniaturized modules. Having the panels automatically sense sunlight and turn towards it also makes these high-tech solar cells more efficient. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0507-bringing_sunlight_inside.htm

• Green Heating and Cooling Technology Turns Carbon from Eco-Villain to Hero - Carbon is usually typecast as a villain in terms of the environment but researchers at the University of Warwick have devised a novel way to miniaturize a technology that will make carbon a key material in some extremely green heating products for our homes and in air conditioning equipment for our cars. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111111257.htm

This article was also rather impressive:

Spain’s windfarms set new national record for electricity generation -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-national-record-power-windfarms

… and yes, it is true: For the amount of energy the Sun gives to the Earth in one hour, this is the amount of energy ALL humans require for EVERYTHING in ONE YEAR.

With all the information and technology at our fingertips, aren’t there better ways of harnessing energy for our needs? Why haven’t we adopted better, cleaner, more efficient means of energy production? I think people who are honest with themselves know the answer to this. However, expecting change from “above” is pure fantasy because it is the exception rather than the rule.

Large corporations or large structures of government are the last place we should look for fast and efficient change. These big institutions did not get that way from focusing on efficiency, but from spending energy on enforcing policies that took months and years to enact. We cannot expect them to make decisions that are effective with any great speed. Quite realistically speaking, that is not how they are designed.

(However, there are some government and corporate organizations out there that are trying to provide aid to the fight against pollution and climate change. It is the deep-seeded cynicism of many people that prevents them from noticing these resources.)

The model for Change, historically speaking, comes from individuals, small groups, or small communities. These parties make a choice and implement it. Once everyone sees the advantage of these decisions, many people follow. You can look at any subject in modern living and see this is true.

So it comes down to what you as individual can do for yourself. You can also start talking to people about “Going Green” and see what they have to say. Obviously you want to speak to people you think will be receptive to the idea, as with anything. There are some people who will have a change of heart only when they notice over half the neighborhood is doing something.

We are at the cusp of the conversion to renewable energy . We perceive the possibilities. Now we need to actually utilize some of that potential.

How We Think & What It Means for the Future, Part 6

In previous articles the topics have briefly focused on the disparity between our desire for positive results and the negative thinking that has hindered achievement of those results.

When it comes to the subject of man-made climate change, we could bring up an endless number of finer points regarding this and debate them endlessly. This does not serve us very well, since time and energy are limited resources (we could debate that, too, but the given conditions of how we perceive and utilize the Quantum Field, this is off the subject).

We could also discuss more climate change data and what it means or might mean. We should not be “starting to decide” what needs to be done or debating on “what needs to be done”. We need to decide what needs to be done and take action.

Our current ways of doing things are very wasteful. Internal combustion engine technology is over 100 years old and even modern engines have an efficiency of 20% at best. Feeding our power plants and vehicles with hydrocarbons (“fossil” fuels) requires a tremendous amount of energy. It does not make sense to search form of energy that you need just run the machines that extract the source in the first place.

Under current production methods. over half of the clean water in America is used to generate electricity!

Using one of those “green recycle bags” at the grocery store or department store will save one tank of gas in a year. Recycling one aluminum can is the same amount of energy it takes to power your television for three hours. The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours. If you recycle one plastic bottle you create an energy savings of 50% because another bottle does not need to be created and the old one does not need to be thrown away.

Now multiply this by the population of the United States. This is for just one item.

Now think about the number of aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and paper bags that are used by each individual in the United States in one year. What happens if these items are thrown away? How can these resources possibly be replenished in time for the next generation?

Learn more about energy used in transportation:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml

Learn more about conservation through recycling (figures from the University of Utah):

http://www.usu.edu/recycle/factsFigures.htm

An article on the energy needed to grow beef cattle:

http://www.whiteoakpastures.com/article-mideastoil.html

The First Step To Change  -

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” - Miyamoto Musashi

The imbalance that humans have created in the Earth’s ecosphere is the most serious problem we face.  However, we cannot solve our problems if we are arguing about the solutions.  Even worse is denial that a problem exists.

• “To ignore the evidence, and hope that it cannot be true, is more an evidence of mental illness” - William Blase

• “The worst lies are the lies we tell ourselves. We live in denial of what we do, even what we think. We do this because we’re afraid.” - Richard Bach

• “Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.” - Charles Tremper

• “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” - Oscar Wilde

• “Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.” - James Arthur Baldwin

There has been a climate of negative thinking in our society, but we have seen where that thinking has taken us.

• “There is a lie that acts like a virus within the mind of humanity. And that lie is, There’s not enough good to go around. There’s lack and there’s limitation and there’s just not enough. And that lie has people living in fear, greed, stinginess. And those thoughts of fear, greed, stinginess and lack become their experience. So the world has taken a nightmare pill. The truth is that there’s more than enough good to go around…” - Michael Bernard Beckwith

• “I am determined to be cheerful and happy in whatever situation I may find myself. For I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition.” - Martha Washington

What exists before us - who we are as individuals, communities, nations, as a World - are the result of choices.  If we choose a new direction, we can achieve whatever we set out to accomplish.

• “Some of you may be thinking, ‘Well, that’s very nice but I can’t do that.’ Or, ‘She wont let me do that!’ Or, ‘He’ll never let me do that.’ Or, ‘I haven’t got enough money to do that!’ Or, ‘I’m not strong enough to do that.’ Or, ‘I’m not rich enough to do that.’ ‘I’m not, I’m not, I’m not, I’m not, I’m not, I’m not!’. Every single ‘I’m not’ is a creation.” - Dr. Fred Alan Wolf

• “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him” - Buddha

• “If you realized how powerful your thoughts are, you would never think a negative thought.” - Peace Pilgrim

So where do we go from here?  Even if you are unsure of how to proceed…

• “Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

• “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” - Mahatma Ghandi

• “With your entire ‘focus’ on your goal, you will reach levels of achievement that you never thought possible.” - Catherine Pulsifer

• “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” - Gloria Steinem

• “The future is not some place we are going, but one we are creating. The paths to it are not found but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination.” - John Schaar

• “For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children’s futures, and we are all mortal.” - John F. Kennedy

“Climate change is a global problem and needs a global response. Involvement by the public - you and me and everybody - is crucial if we are to meet the reductions in greenhouse gasses we are facing. The message is clear: (1) it is urgent, and (2) everyone can make a difference.”

–A message to CoolPlanet readers from Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister of Climate and Energy and President of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit

Get involved!

http://www.coolplanet2009.org/

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

http://www.theclimateproject.org/

Official site of 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference:

http://en.cop15.dk/

Negative Thinking versus Positive Thinking -

We have a difficult task ahead of us in the problem of man-made climate change. This problem is a direct result of humanity’s negative behavior. Negative action comes from negative thinking.

Negative thinking is at the root of the current trouble with the Earth’s environment, yet it is also responsible for the skepticism and denial that there is any problem with the Earth’s environment at all.

Negative thinking is all around us.

Not exactly a positive idea, I know, and forgive the pun but it’s true.

When people say “think positive”, why is it even necessary? Shouldn’t we be thinking “positive” already?

“..It’s like positive thinking. It’s a wonderful idea, positive thinking. What it means is that I have a little smear of positive thinking, covering a whole mass of negative thinking. So thinking positive is not really thinking positive. It’s disguising the negative thinking that we have.”

- Micheal Ledwith, Ph.D.

Western culture and society have been built on many things. Several of the most pervasive ideas in this society do not encourage positive behavior or thought: the quest for resources, dominion over Nature, and especially - taking resources from your neighbor (your neighbor could be the person living next door, another country, or another society, etc.).

Modern civilization understands so much more than we did even 100 or 200 years ago. Why do we cling to “old” ways of thought?

Perhaps it is because technology has moved much faster than the changes in human biology. That still does not explain why we cannot change our ways of thinking. If we simply choose a new direction, why can’t it just happen?

Much of our thought is concerned with “right now” instead of what might happen a week, a month, or a year from now. The Future is intangible. If you really ponder this idea, it becomes easier to see why many people assume that tomorrow will be much like today: we don’t have to worry.

Unfortunately, while we don’t want to worry, we DO worry… and often. We worry about every conceivable thing that can go wrong. We worry about what
might go wrong. Look at the undercurrent of obsession with the “End of the World”. It is the “perfect scenario” for generating anxiety.

Of course “worry” and “anxiety” are other words for fear.

This is not surprising, considering that for much of human history we have been engaged in warfare or conflict of some kind. Western culture is also full of accounts where people of every economic and social group lie, deceive, manipulate, and bully others to gain some sort of money or power. Honor and integrity only exist for some people when it serves a purpose, so we are used to looking over our shoulder for the “Boogie Man”.

The social climate where this began is largely out of date, however, but it is troublesome to get rid of old paradigms.

As I said in Part 3 of “How We Think & What I Means for the Future”, many people are obsessed with their own self-interest. If people do not pull themselves out of negative ways of thought, then it is easy to stake a claim as a “victim”. As a “victim” it is easier to say that someone “owes reparations” rather than look at one’s own actions or thinking as a possible cause of problems. “Society” is the perpetrator, but people are involved in an endless cycle of finger-pointing.

All of this negativity is counter-productive to enjoyable living. Negative ways of thinking are disempowering. Negative ways of thinking have a strong effect on a person and their health. Prolonged negative thinking is, in essence, a poison to the body. It is the “placebo effect”: a sugar pill has little to do with self-healing - it is in the Mind. Negative thinking is the opposite of self-healing - it is self-created disease.

“You may be giving yourself negative messages about yourself. Many people do. These are messages that you learned when you were young. You learned from many different sources including other children, your teachers, family members, caregivers, even from the media, and from prejudice and stigma in our society.

“Once you have learned them, you may have repeated these negative messages over and over to yourself, especially when you were not feeling well or when you were having a hard time. You may have come to believe them. You may have even worsened the problem by making up some negative messages or thoughts of your own. These negative thoughts or messages make you feel bad about yourself and lower your self-esteem.”

- Article titled “Building Self-esteem, A Self-Help Guide: Changing Negative Thoughts About Yourself to Positive Ones” from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/SMA-3715/changing.asp

“For the average person in the World who lives life and considers their life boring, or uninspiring, is because they’ve made no attempt to gain knowledge and information that WILL inspire them. They’re so hypnotized by their environment through the Media, through television, through people living and creating ideals that everybody struggles to become - that:

• no one can actually ‘become’ in terms of physical appearance and definitions of beauty, and valor - [they] are all illusions -

• most people surrender and live their life in mediocrity - and they may live that life and ...their desire may never really rise to the surface - so they may want to be something else -

“…but if it DOES rise to the surface and they ask themselves ‘is there something more’, or ‘why am I here? What is the purpose of Life? Where am I going? What happens when I die?’ - they start to ask those questions - they start to flirt and interact with the perception that they may be having a nervous breakdown - and in reality what they’re doing is that they’re old concepts of how they view their life and the World start to fall apart…”

- Joe Dispenza, D.C.

If we change our pattern of thought, we can change our pattern of behavior.

Negative thinking says “it can’t be done”, and effort to make a difference is a “waste of time”. Negative thinking does not see the possibilities - it only sees the limitations. Negative thinking is self-pity and lack of motivation.

Under this kind of thinking, critics of the man-made climate change concept are essentially saying “go away. We’re too apathetic and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Positive thinking is the idea that “I CAN do it”, and “I CAN make a difference”. Positive thinking never ceases to keep trying new approaches to a challenge. Positive thinking is valuing one’s self and being inspired.

Under positive thinking, the advocates to stop man-made climate change say “if we work together, there is no challenge that can stop us.”

It really comes down to a choice. I hope to see you in the company of those who want to make the Future a brighter place.

Right Thinking will lead to Right Action.

If you are on Twitter.com, you will find that Al Gore, the former Vice President of the United States, has an account.

On November 12^th his Twitter post reads “Let’s have a constructive debate.” The debate he was referring to took place on Saturday November 14^th at the Minzer Park Ampitheater in Boca Raton, Florida.

According to the Sun Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, FL, he was greeted by protesters. Unfortunately, the protesters felt they needed to be disruptive in order to get their point across. They “booed” Mr. Gore as he took the stage. Others were outside the ampitheatre with “drums, bullhorns, and posters”.

One [poster] read “Practice what you preach,” accusing Gore of not living a green lifestyle. This accusation is the fallacy Ad Hominem – attacking the person instead of the issue. It also called Poisoning the Well – if unsavory information about a person is brought up, then whatever that person says must not be true. Whether Al Gore is the “perfect model” of “Green and Sustainable” living or not, this should not make the issue of climate change irrelevant.

“Another poster read ‘The masses follow the asses’…”. This is a play on the phrase “The masses are asses” - an odd choice for people who are behaving rudely. This argument is simply a Red Herring – diverting attention from the topic - saying that the “real” issue is about the general population’s common sense.

Some of the protesters believed Mr. Gore’s view would “eventually lead to increased taxes and flawed business legislation.” This is an Appeal to Fear – the protesters are trying to generate opposition by claiming any action taken in favor of Mr. Gore’s concepts will be undesirable.

To assume that people would rather have lower taxes than be more responsible on the social level - Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum). It is also assuming that any legislation passed would be ineffective because the legislation is designed with counter-measures to climate change. This is a Straw Man argument: exaggerating the situation and then attacking the exaggeration.

Overall, the whole approach of these protesters was an Appeal to Ridicule – mockery is not a substitution for a solid line of reasoning.

The situation was not what Mr. Gore had in mind when he said he hoped the debate would be “constructive”.

Opponents of Al Gore and other Sustainable Living advocates want to argue that their “facts” are “more relevant” than the proponents of “Going Green”. This is a Genetic Fallacy – supposedly, facts supporting global warming are flawed because they are not “in line with standard patterns of traditional thinking”. To say everything must conform with previous patters is another fallacy – Appeal to Tradition.

Another strong stance taken is that man-made climate change might be true to some degree, but not as bad as “alarmists” claim. There may be a concession that human impact on the global environment exists, but significant consequences will not happen in our lifetime. This is called Middle Ground, or The Truth is in the Middle – if there are two sides with different viewpoints, the truth must be in the middle.

The global ecosphere is not going to wait for humans to moderate amongst themselves.

Some want to claim that man-made climate change is a “belief”. Therefore you can “believe” it is true or not true. Even if this False Premise is approached, how can you associate “belief” with something that is “TRUE or FALSE”?

It is extremely frustrating when an issue cannot be discussed in a reasonable manner. Falling into heavy displays of emotion clouds the communication.

Those who do not want to accept man-made climate change need to do better in pleading their case. If one side becomes belligerent, it is no longer a debate, it is a grudge match. So I say to those who are opponents of “Going Green”: you’re doing it wrong.

To read the Sun Sentinel article by Sofia Santana, click the link below:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-al-gore-boca-20091114,0,5503886.story

“Where’s the proof humans are having a negative impact on the Earth’s environment?”

Jellyfish swarm northward in warming world

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_09_jellyfish_menace

Also, read any of the articles posted at the global warming site for The Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

I recently read a comment on the internet that explains global warming in a no-nonsense fashion.

Basically, the idea is, add a few ice cubes to a glass of water. Eventually the ice cubes get smaller, but the temperature of the water remains the same. After all of the ice has melted, the temperature will start to rise. The temperature of the water will continue to rise until it is in balance with the surrounding conditions.

Consider that the polar ice caps and glacial ice floes are melting at an increasing rate. The ice concentrations on the Earth’s surface are melting as the Earth tries to balance the existing conditions. The overall temperatures of the Earth’s oceans have increased slightly, but this is because the glacial and polar ice is taking the brunt of the change.

Once the glacial and polar ice concentrations are gone, what is going to happen to the Earth’s oceans…?

The Cult of the Self -

“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” – Ayn Rand

In no way am I attempting to detract from Ayn Rand’s contribution to philosophy and reflections on society. Her quote simply serves to illustrate my point. In our society we are competitive, but we have become overly competitive.

As I said in Part 2 people usually want to be “right”. This leads to all manner of arguments, both with other people and within one’s self. Because we tend to weigh things in an “either/or” frame of thought, if one person is “right” then the other person must be “wrong”. So a person who is “right” is a “winner” and a person who is “wrong” is a “loser”? This is an false conclusion.

It is a self-serving approach to view “right and wrong” as an “either/or” proposition. The mentality becomes the oft-used phrase “it is a dog-eat-dog World”. To say someone is “wrong” by an assumptive extension allows the person who is “right” to assert “victor’s rights” over the “loser”. Under this illusion of thinking, conflicts will arise if everyone wants to be “right” because no one wants to be “wrong”.

This frame of thought certainly takes the modern way of life for granted. The abundance of freedom, health, and comfort that comes from technology has served to drive people apart. People have undergone an objectification, feeling they are becoming more like automatons in a mechanized society.

It is the cult of being “on time”, the cult of the workplace, and the cult of recreation to alleviate stress.

The mechanization of society into dull, repetitive routines has made people feel devalued. They lash back by becoming driven by self-interest, but this drives down the level of compassion - or empathy.

“The social institutions that reified, propagated and administered empathy have imploded. The nuclear family, the closely-knit extended clan, the village, the neighborhood, the Church – have all unraveled. Society is atomized and anomic. The resulting alienation fostered a wave of antisocial behavior, both criminal and “legitimate”. The survival value of empathy is on the decline. It is far wiser to be cunning, to cut corners, to deceive, and to abuse – than to be empathic. Empathy has largely dropped from the contemporary curriculum of socialization.”^†

As the trend of greater individual freedom creates a high focus on of self-importance, the “either/or” way of thinking begins to devalue others and the community at large. The community one lives in becomes perceived as a means to support the individual. Strangers start to be viewed as irrational “boogie men” who stand in the way of what a person wants. It starts to become acceptable to believe what other people want is irrelevant as long as you get what you want.

So many people feel alienated they lack the desire to change. They would rather fight tooth and nail for what they can eek out of modern living than change their way of living. People want someone to assist in their struggle but are not willing to help the next person.

It is small wonder then, when confronted with the specter of man-made climate change and global warming, that many people are not interested because it does not serve there desires. This attitude comes from a profound lack of gratitude, having been replaced by greed or the idea that the World “owes them something”.

Let’s face it: those who are rich and powerful are perceived as “winners” by social standards, and people who are poor are perceived as “losers”. However, if a person has “won at ‘the Game’”, are they more often “right” than “wrong”? Deep down if you really think about it, the answer is most likely “yes”. We need to re-think how we view success.

Many people falsely assume to change our way of living now, in this mental atmosphere of “right versus wrong”, would be admission to being “wrong” - to living “wrong”. It is a selfish and self-absorbed approach to responsible living and responsibility to human sustainability on the Earth. Preserving the Earth’s environment for future generations is not about “winning or losing” during the present generation.

To stop pollution of the environment, to stop man-made climate change, to stop this carcinogenic way of living – we need to realize that the situation is not about any one individual. The problem involves all of us. Becoming responsible for changing our society’s bad habits does involve compromise, but it is not saying we have “lost”.

The truly wrong way of addressing the situation would be to say “it is not just about YOU”. This is the old way of thinking. This devalues a person.

Actually, the problem confronting us IS about you. In the new way of thinking, you must value what others have to offer. You must value your own contribution. Everyone can contribute. It just takes a little effort, but if you really look around, you will realize that you are not alone.

Right Thinking will lead to Right Action.

^† Quote by Erin Kelley-Soderholm, M.Ed., Article on Empathy at Cassiopedia.org

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Empathy

Reason versus Fallacy –

We tend to move forward, ignoring what is inconvenient and focusing on what is desirable. We do what can to convince others (and even ourselves) that our actions are justified based on the circumstances. We want to be “right”.

This desire to prove one’s self correct – or go against ideas with which one does not agree – has seen an increasing use of fallacies. (Fallacies, of course, are arguments that appear logical, but upon a closer look the arguments do not make sense.) Fallacies can be part of an argument the opposition must face, but they are also used to support ideas we favor.

We see the use of fallacies in commercials, politics, and news reporting. The basic premise of any commercial is to make the viewer desire the product, using social cues to turn the consumer to their favor. Part of the strategy used by politicians is to appear as appealing as possible while making their opponents appear as outlandish as possible. The news agencies inflate the seriousness of situations to raise concern in the public so people will rush to watch, read, or listen.

When the issues of climate change, environmental pollution, or global warming are discussed, there are those who want to dismiss them. The argument is that these things can’t possibly be happening at the levels that scientists claim. The scientific community tends to be rather somber, referring to data and sources coming in from all over the globe. The opposition usually is self-assured, animated, and very colorful in their opinions. Apparently if some people feel confident that climate change is a sham, it is just as strong as any evidence to the contrary.

When observing the opponents of global warming you might notice a group of people who are used to having control over their surroundings. Things usually happen in their favor, so the idea of something outside their control is distasteful. Opponents of global warming ask “where is the proof?” but they feel they are sole judges of what data can be used and what data should be thrown out.

People can argue over the issues of climate change and global warming until they are blue in the face, but ultimately the argument of the opposition is that these issues are a matter of perspective and belief. The discussion becomes absurd - people against the idea of global warming sometimes even argue the argument.

Here are some fallacies promoted in opposition to climate change data:

1) Man-made climate change and global warming are opinions, and everyone can have their own opinion, so if someone says climate change and global warming are happening, I can disregard it.

1) Fallacy: False premise – You must start by saying global warming is not fact, but opinion. Starting with a false premise leads to a false conclusion.

2) Man-made climate change cannot be proven.

2) Fallacy: Begging the Question – The conclusion has been determined in the premise.

3) The Earth’s climate is always changing, so how is this time period any different?

3) Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition – Just because something has occurred in a pattern does not mean the pattern will continue.

4) The winter of Earth’s Northern Hemisphere had unusually low temperatures in 2007 and 2008, so global warming is not happening.

4) Fallacy: Misleading Vividness – Data from one particularly unusual year cannot outweigh the significance of statistical evidence taken over a long period of time.

5) The people who support the idea of man-made change of the Earth’s climate use inaccurate terms and concepts to describe what is happening, therefore the entire reality of man-made climate change can be questioned.

5) Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule – Finding fault with how something is done does not make the conclusion false.

6) Computers are seldom used to predict climate change, because people who believe in climate change want us to believe in climate change, too.

6) Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem & False Premise – The statement assumes that people who understand climate change to be real are actually obscuring the facts because they want people to side with them. The statement also assumes climate change is a belief.

The Scales

The concept of a scale being used to weigh ideas is a metaphor that has existed for thousands of years and be found in cultures all over the World.

The idea of two scales being held by Justice – the Roman goddess of balance - has become a common symbol of equality in Law. It is the first image that comes to mind for many people when they consider the value of ideas. However, we need to understand that the image of the Scales is rooted in Dualism – the concept of the “either/or” argument. The Scales have two sides, so the ideas that go onto either side tend to be opposites.

We tend to think in “opposites”. This way of thinking is expressed all around us: concepts in politics (Republicans OR Democrats), concepts in religions (Holy OR Evil), concepts in voting and opinions (For OR Against), the court system (Guilty OR Innocent), and the list goes on.

It is true that most things have an opposite. In Western thinking, we often assume that if the conditions for one situation aren’t favorable, then the opposite must be true. Unfortunately this assumption has become commonplace in modern debates. As an example, Republicans and Democrats attempt to stonewall each other under the assumption that they must be
opposed to everything the other party has proposed.

So what does this have to do with Environmentalism, Sustainability, and “Going Green”?

Generally speaking, when speaking of “global warming” the positions advanced are in the “either/or” mode of thought; you either are FOR the idea that global warming is happening, or you are AGAINST the idea that global warming is happening.

The trouble with arguing FOR or AGAINST global warming is that both sides feel the need to convince the other side they are wrong. As is too often the case, there is no compromise. Going even further, once a person or group has decided to support one side, they do everything they can to stop the opposing viewpoint.

A tremendous amount of time and energy has been spent arguing over the idea of global warming. Difficulties arise out of pride, out of bias, and out of viewing exceptions rather than inclusive ideas. Being for or against the idea of global warming often has more to do with underlying motives than reality. Motives come from perspective.

When it comes to preservation of the Environment, a person can do two things. They can either put their personal interests first for the sake of comfort and ease of living, or they can contribute to the overall well-being of humanity and the Earth. These are the choices to weigh on the Scales, the opposites in our dual way of thinking.

In future articles we will look at different aspects of how modern thinking has had a negative impact on the environment, and what we can do to shift that thinking towards more constructive attitudes.