 Last
night I had a strange and vivid dream. I was invited by a future
unnamed president of the US (why he/she chose a Canadian was not clear)
to work as part of a special team to save the world. I was ushered into
a huge room filled with books where the president's aides (all female,
for some reason) began to brief me about why I had been selected and
what was expected of me. The conversation went something like this:
Aide: We are very
impressed with your creative thinking, and your ability to transplant
ideas from one area of intellectual exploration or study to another,
but we're concerned that you're a bit of a defeatist, or perhaps you're
too tired to really think things through because of your insomnia.
Second Aide: And you
seem to use your idealism as an easy way out, an excuse for inaction.
Basically we think you're on to something with your systems-thinking
chart about how nature works and why civilization doesn't, but you need
to pull it together with your ideas about The Cost of Not Knowing, both
insofar as they relate to our failure to prevent catastrophes and our
imaginative failure at not being able to conceive of better answers or
better ways of living. Since you quoted him on your weblog, we assume
you accept Lakoff's thesis that we are incapable of thinking beyond
what our embodied brains permit. But we need -- you
need -- to do your utmost to synthesize all of the ideas you have been
kicking around and apply the result to coming up with some truly practical ideas that we can implement to save the world.
Aide: You have a
tendency to let everyone down after some hugely creative mental leaps,
by leaving your reader with suggestions for action that are just plain
inadequate, such as your terribly modest 'What You Can Do' article on
saving the world, which you certainly must realize is just not enough
to bring about the enormous changes needed, or alternatively,
suggestions for action that are hopelessly fatalistic, cop-outs, we
would suggest, such as your hysterical 'Plan B' post that advocated
sabotage. Surely a mind like yours can do better than that?
Me: Well I did say that
what we need is some biotech wizard to develop some airborne substance
that would reduce humans' ability to conceive drastically but in a
non-discriminatory manner and not affect other life species...
Aide: Oh, come now, Mr.
Pollard, there you go again. Surely you must realize that we already
have a phalanx of scientists working on just such a virus, but the
science isn't there, and probably won't be for another century, by
which time it will be too late. And with respect to your related idea,
we're also working on a virus that will make livestock unpalatable or
dangerous to eat, that won't hurt the host animals but will encourage
people to become vegetarian, and hence free up the 75% of arable land
that's now used for grazing and animal feed -- that will take just as
long to develop. There must be some better answers, some more practical
answers that we can implement now?
Me: To reduce per-capita
consumption we could do several things. We could create a new,
responsible, sustainable economy that would undermine and destroy the
old, wasteful one, and which would improve upon and use solar and wind
energy and similar renewable energy sources...
Second Aide: This is
exactly what we're getting at when we say your thinking is initially
brilliant but finally fuzzy, even, dare we say, lazy. Let us make this
clear. We have billions of dollars that can be galvanized in moments to
implement any bold, practical idea that warrants it. But to warrant it,
an idea must be doable, now, without having to invent difficult new
technology, without political upheaval or dismantling of economic or
social systems. So use your imagination. We have lots of money but very
little time. Tell us what to do.
Me: I think we have to start with the children, to teach them that the way we live is unsustainable, that there is a better way.
Second Aide: Let's take
a look at what you, yourself, have already written about how change
occurs. You've acknowledged that the political system, the tax system
and the legal system are basically designed to maintain the status quo,
and that trying to bring about dramatic change in a short period
through political or legal means is a waste of time. You have also
acknowledged that educational and social change is cultural change, and
that culture changes slowly. Unless, of course, something extraordinary
happens that everyone can see -- as you've said, you teach people by
showing, not by telling. What are you going to show billions of
children that's so extraordinary it will get their attention, and
change their behaviour from that of previous generations, quickly?
Me: Well, I've talked about building Model Intentional Communities that could show children a better way to live.
Aide: Good, we like
that. It's concrete, its globally translatable and it has a potential
memetic, viral quality that could pick up steam and spread fast. We're
quietly funding several such Communities already, and we're going to
expand the program. It's actually very inexpensive, as government
programs go, and these programs can therefore operate well under the
political and media radar screens. By the way, we also like your Save
the World Think-Tank idea, and we've acted on it as well. You'll meet
the other Think-Tank members soon. And we like your novel, The Only World We Know, with the stories set in an ideal future world that teach people how to live better and more peacefully. [With a wink, she added]
Something quite similar was tried about two thousand years ago, and
worked exceedingly well at bringing about major social change. Perhaps
too well. Imaginative, well-developed models and collaboratories and
stories that develop and demonstrate radically different, viable
alternatives to the status quo are the most effective means to achieve
major social change. So we like some of your ideas. What else do you
have?
Me: If you're going to
limit me to new technologies, and social change programs propelled by
radical models and revelations, then I have to go back to my Plan B
stuff that you've already dismissed.
Second Aide: What we didn't like about some of your Plan B ideas is not that they were too radical but that that they were ineffective
-- blowing up dams and pipelines won't get people to lessen their
reliance on these technologies, and such petulant acts tend merely to
entrench people's thinking, make them change-resistant, and undermine
your credibility. What do you have that will work, big time, fast?
Me: OK, then we're back to disruptive technologies. How about new drugs that make it easier not to
conceive and easier to die? Like an abortion drug or self-sterilization
drug that you can take that works painlessly, instantly, anytime? Or a
suicide pill that's simple, cheap and painless? Or some drugs that feel
really good but aren't addictive, expensive, or dangerous. If people
can feel good easily, they'll be less prone to violence, jealousy,
greed and all the other negative emotions behind many of today's
problems, and less preoccupied and paranoid about personal possessions,
most of which are extravagant wastes of the planet's natural resources.
Of course these drugs would never be approved by any government, but my
experience is that if a technology is invented and made available
affordably and people want it, it will find its way around.
Second Aide: Now you're rolling. Some ethical and tactical issues there, but go on.
Me: How about a very
cheap, tiny camera that anyone can plant anywhere and broadcast
wirelessly on the Internet to show the world what goes on in backrooms,
in abusive homes, in factory farms, in old age homes and prisons and
refugee camps and war zones and other places where atrocities depend on
restricted access or closed doors and privacy. Not government
controlled, but something anyone
could buy at Radio Shack, or at least over the Internet. It would of
course mean the end of privacy, but perhaps if the world could see what
goes on in these places of horror they just wouldn't tolerate the
atrocities and would cede their privacy as a difficult but fair
trade-off -- to deter and drastically reduce human violence and crime
everywhere.
Second Aide: Everyman as Big Brother. Terrifying but fascinating. Could backfire but perhaps not. Don't let me stop you.
Me: And how about a
technology that lets people understand what animals are saying, so that
we could realize that our fellow creatures live lives as rich,
emotional, sentient as we do, and that they therefore have every bit as
much right to a fair share of the planet's land and resources and a
life free from harassment and suffering as we do. That might convince a
lot of people of the intrinsic value of biodiversity and of wilderness,
and the need to use land much more carefully, delicately, sparingly. Or
how about an inexpensive technology that jams electromagnetic fields,
so that we could literally take back the air from the internal
combustion engine, and the airwaves from the oligopolistic media, by
rendering these technologies sporadic and unreliable, and hence cause
the vast majority of people to abandon them for cleaner, more reliable,
less oligopolistic alternatives.
Second Aide: Now you're
wandering dangerously close to science fiction. These last two ideas
are intriguing, and might work, but they would probably take longer to
develop than we have. But you're on the right track -- disruptive
technologies that don't rely on political will or laws to make them
effective, that are essentially voluntary technologies (which people
can choose to adopt without coercion), and that yield drastic, rapid, healthy social change.
Aide: OK, so we have Model Intentional Communities, the Save the World Think Tank, The Only World We Know,
instant and cheap abortion, self-sterilization, suicide and feel-good
drugs, and mini-cameras to blow the lid off nasty behaviour. Three
social and five technological ideas to save the world. Not bad for a
start. Let me show you your quarters so you can rest up for tomorrow's
session.
[At this point, I'm ushered through the library's huge doors into an
incredible forest full of life and colour, but the light is blinding,
and... I wake up].
I have rarely had vivid dreams, and when I do they are never this
intellectual in focus and content -- they usually depict wondrous,
deeply emotional and stimulating, memorable environments and events.
When I awoke I started scribbling down what I remembered, but it wasn't
necessary -- it's like the image and text of the dream is
semi-permanently etched in my brain. The ideas described above, both
those that I've talked about on these pages and those that I've never
conceived of, were all present in the dream. Gotta get more sleep -- I
feel like I've been channelling aliens of the third kind.
And all day I've been thinking about "disruptive technologies that don't rely on political will or laws to
make them effective, that are essentially voluntary technologies (which
people can choose
to adopt without coercion), and that yield drastic, rapid, healthy
social change" -- the first words I wrote down, verbatim, when I awoke.
(Iris photo courtesy the inestimable and still blogless Steve Raker)
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
