Purpose Articles Books Websites -NEWSLETTER- Subscribe		March 22, 2005 www.SustainableWays.com Newsletter #23 In This Issue: -Mother Culture Says -Changing Our Worldview -Ending the War ::MOTHER CULTURE SAYS:: This past month, I started to realize how crucial belief systems can be in tipping the scales towards sustainability (or extinction). In the Ishmael series, Daniel Quinn warned that “Mother Culture” is everywhere, whispering into our ears, feeding us the beliefs that we need to keep this civilization going. The messages are subtle, and barely even noticeable, but they are powerful. I was sitting in a philosophy class, and we were discussing the issue of abortion. The question came down to this: When does a separate human life begin? The anti-abortion view will say that it’s at conception, and the right-to-abortion view will say that it’s at the end of the second trimester. But for some reason I felt unsettled, as if we were ignoring something. “If we’re not really sure when human life begins,” I asked, “is it okay for a person who consensually took the risk of getting pregnant to kill what could potentially be a human life just because it inconveniences her (as in, does not directly threaten her life) for 9 months? If she can do whatever she wants with her body, does it make it morally permissible for a woman to get an abortion because she found out her baby is going to be a girl? Or because the baby’s going to have brown eyes?” My professor answered with something like: “Whether a woman had sex consensually or her reasons for getting an abortion are secondary concerns. What it really comes down to is when human life begins, the idea being that if it’s not human, she can do whatever the hell she wants with it.” At that very second, I realized that I had just witnessed the expression of our civilization’s worldview: The taking of human life for any reason is bad. We must preserve human life at all cost. But, the taking of any other life for any kind of reason is completely acceptable, because if it’s not human, it has no value except in how we can use it or what we can gain from it. In this perspective, there is no difference between a fetus, a cow, a tree, a forest, and a rock. If it does not directly contribute to the proliferation of human life, it has no value. It has no right to exist. That’s “Mother Culture” for you. ::CHANGING OUR WORLDVIEW:: Since the survival of the human species directly involves life and death, you can’t seriously entertain the idea of sustainability without tackling some sticky questions about what you believe (and what you don’t believe). That is, you can’t effectively change the way someone (including yourself) treats the world without changing your worldview. Let’s take the beliefs I uncovered during the discussion on abortion, which came down to this: “If it does not directly contribute to the proliferation of human life, it has no value.” There are two key words here: “directly” and “proliferation.” Proliferation puts an emphasis on numbers. The more humans, the better. In this game, it’s quantity over quality. So, if it directly increases the number of humans on this planet, it’s valuable. It deserves to be protected. But what if it INdirectly contributes to the QUALITY of human life? Sure, that’s nice and all, but not a priority. Take a rainforest, for example. If the forest itself does not directly contribute to the increase in numbers of human life, then it will be cut down so that the land underneath it can be used for something that does. Even if that chunk of rainforest supports a population of humans, such as a tribe of hunter-gatherers, it will inevitably be destroyed if a use can be found that promotes the existence of MORE human lives (i.e. agriculture). Sure, it might be one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Sure, it might provide some valuable ecosystem services that we won’t miss until we’ve lost them. And sure, there might be some medicinal herbs in there that could cure cancer and indirectly support the expansion of human life. But, again, the land’s value is derived from how well it can DIRECTLY support the proliferation of the human species. Ishmael summarized our general policy in this way: “Kill off everything you can’t eat. Kill off anything that eats what you eat. Kill off anything that doesn’t feed what you eat.” (p. 132) So now that we know how this belief plays itself out in the real world, how can we change it? ::ENDING THE WAR:: Here’s how I see it: Life is life, and no matter what kind of life it is (tree, cow, bear, etc.), I won’t kill it unless I have a damn good reason. And the only good reason I can think of for destroying another life is for my own survival (and that of my family). If it’s not directly threatening my life, I have no right to deliberately destroy it. If I go camping and there are bears in the area, I won’t go out and hunt them down because they MIGHT attack me or my family. But you can be sure that if it’s standing there in front of me and shows no signs of backing down, I’ll be ready with a shotgun. Likewise, if a fly comes around and tries to ruin my food, I’ll swat it away, but I won’t kill it. But if a mosquito comes around, which by its very nature is trying to suck the life out of me, I have no qualms about killing it, especially since I’m allergic to bug bites. On a more personal note, I can’t see any good and justifiable reason for having an abortion, unless the fetus (whether it’s human or not) directly threatens my life (like if it has a blood type that, when mixed with mine, causes fatal implications). Having an abortion because I want to go to college, for example, is no different to me than cutting down a forest because it makes my commute to school more difficult. There’s a fine line between survival and inconvenience when judging whether life should be taken. In general, my conclusions mirror what Daniel Quinn called “the peace keeping law” which is: “You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war.” (Ishmael, p. 129) The “war against terror” is not the only thing we have to worry about, people. The war we’re waging against anything that does not directly support the expansion of human life is not only scary, it’s futile. And the only way to end this war is to see that there’s more to life than HUMAN life... Till next month, Krystle C. P.S. - Please don't take my views, especially those on abortion, personally. If you have a bone to pick, feel free to reply. A good way to keep things civil is by asking questions, like "If you believe this, then what about...?" I look forward to hearing from you! This is an opt-in newsletter. If it's not working for you, or it's been sent to you in error, please reply to this e-mail and write "Unsubscribe" in the subject area to be removed from the mailing list. All content is protected by copyright law. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.