How easy is today walking in the mountains with my children, find a clear spring –so transparent that the stones under it are wonderfully crisp-, and have my children drink from its fresh water? How easy it was 30 years ago? How easy will it be in 10 years?
What chance of survival has a species like the Jaguar, when her habitat is destroyed and transformed into agro-industrial use at high speed? It is not only big businessmen who seek economic development, also the poorest people legitimately aim to succeed economically, for example cutting down another acre of rain forest to use it for livestock. This economic pressure for progress (for some), or for subsistence (for others), how intense was it 30 years ago? How intense will it be 10 years from now?
Obviously, the pressure to transform what remains in commercial activities will increase exponentially. Do you think that it will stop with better laws? With better politicians and businessmen? With better technology?
Serious, honest and well - intentioned intellectual reasoning can lead to decisions and actions that are destructive. Being rigorous, having ethical integrity and good intentions does not guarantee a healthy use of the human mind.
Even with the best of intentions and with an honest concern for the welfare of all life, it is possible to reason and conclude again and again that a little bit more destruction of nature is acceptable in order to promote economic development.
Conventional thinking says that economic progress is going to solve our economic problems. It is difficult to find in the mainstream anyone who questions that economic growth is desirable, and that using nature for this purpose is reasonable. I have never heard a political candidate do it, for example.
Perhaps many of my readers here would like that with the force of reason we convince others of their mistake to think economic progress must continue. The problem is that this is not possible: They are right!! It is not lack of intelligence that makes them think so, nor, in the end, is the problem a lack of honesty or ethics. Perhaps many readers are disturbed to read this; surely some think it is unacceptable that I say it. We are so accustomed to the narrative of "good against evil". So hard and intolerable our current reality, the self-destructive course of our civilization, that our very legitimate response is indignation.
The narrative of "them", the ambitious, corrupt politicians, the elite who abuse us, all that is trite. It is simply no longer useful, even if it were true. "Super heroes, LET’S FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!" said some cartoons I saw as a child (actually it is full of movies with the same narrative, a clear reflection of our inner state). Not long ago I realized the absurdity, and all the energy I wasted "fighting for justice", and the little or nothing that I achieved. There, in that realization, another intelligence begins to appear, another justice, which is not what one expects.
Let us change the narrative. The narrative of separation, where some of us are "good" and others are "bad", is precisely the narrative of contemporary culture, where a child is rewarded for behaving "good" and punished for behaving "badly". As much as the intention is to change the system, if we do it from its own narrative, we only strengthen the status quo, the existing narrative.
If we organize a protest where our speech is against a large company and the government that supports it, obviously those others are invited to participate in the event as adversaries. That is what they will do: be adversaries. The police will repress the protest, and the company will strengthen its speech in his favor, rather than review it. While it is true that some beautiful battles have been won by way of the solidarity of the people, the current state of affairs speaks for itself: battles abound where nobody really wins, everyone loses and what is worse the status quo not only remains but is intensified. (Incidentally, can there be a battle where someone loses and someone really wins?). What if activism made a different invitation, born from the recognition that all are part of our being and that no one is separated?
Using exclusively masculine intelligence, certainly it is very possible to argue seriously and honestly that a little more destruction of nature is desirable to promote economic progress. I know economists who think so; they are serious and good people, concerned about the environment, concerned about future generations, by poverty, by inequality. People like them are tired of being ignorantly accused of lack of intelligence or lack of ethics. You cannot dismantle the system using the same tools the system. You cannot dismantle the current economic system using as a means the power of reason.
I invite you to consider as an example the hypothetical case of a hydroelectric project, planned for a river located in a virgin forest. To make the point of my argument, suppose that all participants in this example are honest and well-meaning, and use exclusively masculine logic intelligence to argue and make decisions.
Environmental activists want to stop the project. To defend their position, they present rational arguments supported by scientific evidence. Proponents of the project do the same: use rational arguments and science to base their position. (In the post HUMAN REASON I argued that the intellect can seriously be used to defend any position you propose). The essential argument between the proponents of the project is that "our cities are growing and people need electricity. We have to produce it one way or the other. This project would produce a lot of electricity for a large population, at the lowest cost among all alternatives, with a relatively limited environmental impact."
Environmental activists dispute that the environmental costs of the project are actually high. They argue that a unique ecosystem will be destroyed and that a number of species will be affected by habitat loss.
A government authority is to make an impartial decision, comparing the advantages with the disadvantages, seeking the greatest possible benefit for society. Finally the project is approved under some observations in its design, specifically say that a certain portion of the forest must be preserved. In short, a ‘midpoint-type’ solution, typical of linear logical intelligence, where an argument is counterbalanced with another on the same scale. What you lose on one hand you make up with the biggest gain on the other side.
I'm talking about a completely idealized process in order to make myself understood. Are we supposed to be satisfied with this final outcome? I say no! And here there was no lack of logical intelligence, nor there was any corruption, nor the motive was ambition. Do you realize what I'm saying? We will not stop this system using the same tools of the system. We will not stop the destruction of nature no matter how many victories we attain in the "war against evil". It does not matter if this ‘war’ exterminates corruption, dishonesty, ambition, and stupidity: the destruction of nature would continue.
This final result implies that a volume of destruction of nature is acceptable to the extent that the benefits for the people are sufficiently large. And the point is not to argue the benefits of destruction are not sufficiently large, because they actually are. Imagine you are the president of a country like Brazil, are you aware of what it takes to really stop the destruction of the amazon’s jungle? Are you willing to cut down your poverty alleviation programs, your education and public health programs, your hopes of economic development in general?
But how many native forests do we have still available to continue destroying? If the destruction of nature does not stop now, when will it end? You realize that this is not an issue of numbers or logical arguments. It is a feeling of the heart.
Of course someone might insist that other sources of energy should be developed. However, the point is to realize that this argument can be as reasonable as the argument supporting the project. Indeed, all known forms of producing electricity are costly, both environmentally and financially. Therefore it is always possible, even with good intentions and taking this issue very seriously, to conclude that a step further in destruction is acceptable. Consequently, this discussion could never achieve a comprehensive and long-term solution. This is the limitation of linear, separate thought.
When do we stop the destruction? Logical reasoning can forever accept to destroy one more forest as long as the expected benefits for society are high enough. I'm not talking about a dishonest use of this argument. It is the honest use of this argument that interests me. If the beneficiaries were a large population of people of low social strata, with a great need, is it then acceptable the destruction of nature? The answer that comes from the exclusive use of masculine intelligence can be yes, even if it is an ethical use. So why waste energy using linear masculine intelligence to stop the destruction? It is not reason that makes us feel that destruction must be stopped now.
In the center of the spirit of any human being there is a profound capacity for compassion that allows people to simply feel the reality and magnitude of destruction. People who are disconnected from the center of their spirit cannot access this capability. They can observe, analyze and evaluate the facts as best they can, but do not know to what extent nature has already been destroyed.
The spirit of a human being can easily distinguish between that which leads to destruction from that which leads to life and creation. These two things cannot be traded-off. For example, you cannot "mitigate" the destruction of the Amazon rainforest by planting a forest elsewhere.
It is time to speak the simple truth of the heart. Myself being a scientist, I wonder why should I waste energy on endless logical arguments to say "I love life", to say "I do not accept any more destruction"? Why should I scientifically prove something that is absolutely obvious in the heart? We cannot continue destroying the planet, period.
Sacred economics is the vision of a utopia, a dream. It cannot be controlled. To describe it in a model is like trying to cram the divine within a box. I think the only model is to expand the Self. Transform the conception of the separated being to the being that has everyone and everything within her, and all that she is able to create is a reflection of her interior.
