The American Dream

This post is going to require a bit of work:

1) go to: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf
2) then go to page 21
3) on this page you'll see figure 22

What you're looking at is a graph which plots human development index (HDI) on the x-axis, and ecological footprint on the y-axis. HDI takes into account literacy, education, GDP per capita, and life expectancy. Naturally, one would expect that the greater a nation's development, the greater its ecological footprint. And surely that is what we see here.

However, what I find amazing in this chart, is how wide the spread of data is amongst the developed countries. For example, of the nations that are above the 0.8 development index, the Latin American countries seem to be the most sustainable, the Europeans next, and much much higher up (i.e. greater ecological footprint) is Australia, Canada, and the US. In fact, Cuba is the only nation that actually falls within the WWF (that's World Wildlife Foundation - not wrestling federation!) sustainability box - that is having a high HDI, but a low ecological footprint.

Which begs the question - why are we North Americans leading development projects, when we clearly don't have nearly as much of a clue what sustainable development even looks like compared with the rest of the world? Why aren't we seeking to learn from Cuba, other Latin American nations, and European nations to find out how it is they are achieving higher sustainability scores without compromising their economic development?

I've heard many people and articles theorize "how horrible the world's environment is going to be when China and India become fully developed". I think this graph illustrates well how much closer we need to first look at ourselves and consider whether we might adopt some changes by learning from more sustainable nations - before sensationalizing potential future risks posed by other countries. Rather than using environmental concerns to legitimize the poverty and underdevelopment of other parts of the world, let us instead seek to deligitimize our own excesses by first acknowledging how obscene we are in our consumption here in North America.

A musing on toothpaste and bland food...

I was having a conversation with a colleague today about the origins of spicy food. She made the observation that historically, people in warm climates put spices in their meat to "cure" it, so that it didn't go bad. I'd heard that before, and it made sense, so I really didn't give it another thought.

It was only later that I wondered: why do we ask the question "Why do Asians eat spicy food?", rather than asking "Why do North Americans eat bland food?". I found it interesting to note that embedded within these rather benign questions, lies assumptions about what is normative, versus what is the "other". We expose our bias of what demands justification, versus what can be simply accepted as legitimate and "baseline".

The example above can be explained through cultural familiarity. But there are other things in our lives that we simply accept as "correct" or "better" just because they are normative. For example, noone asks a meat-eater why they eat meat. But a vegetarian cannot count the number of times they have had to answer this question. Someone who decides not to have kids is questioned as to their reasons - but noone ever asks people why they chose to have kids. In short, we assume that normative behaviours are lacking in choice and hence are passive actions, while we assume that alternative behaviours are borne of active choice - and therefore we seek to understand one's reason's for making such a choice.

Now perhaps if we switched it around, and looked at every action as a choice. Discarded the assumption that normative behaviour is without choice, but rather recognized that inherant within every action there lies a choice. What if we each went through an entire day and questioned (not rejected, but just questioned) every single normative action we participated in. Starting with "why do I use toothpaste on my toothbrush?" and ending with "why do I sleep in a bed, rather than on the floor?".

It would be an intellectually exhausting day, but it may just begin to open up our minds enough to recognize how many possibilities are out there, if we took nothing for granted! We might realize that being politically apathetic is as much an active-choice as being politically engaged; we might realize that driving our cars to work is as much an active-choice as choosing to go by public transit. We would recognize that even in doing what is normal and what appears to be passive, we are still making active choices, and that it is within our control to choose otherwise. Most exciting however is that once we remove the veils of assumption and normalcy, and look at the world afresh, the solutions to our major societal problems may even become startlingly clear.

Or perhaps we'll just realize that we really do prefer bland food..

Secular Fundamentalism: good intentions with harmful consequences

Somewhere deep in the heart of the average development-oriented NGO worker, lurks a missionizing spirit. A spirit not so far removed from the old missionaries of British colonial times, or of the Christian settlers who preached and converted Indigenous populations in the newly "found" Americas. Somewhere deep inside this charitable, peace-loving soul, lies a reflection of an ugly past - a past paved by good intentions but riddled with skeletons of brutality and cultural dominion.

Today’s missionary is masked behind the cloak of international development, and foreign aid. The goal is no longer conversion to Christianity, but rather embracement of secular democracy. The scripture is no longer the Bible, but rather sacred contemporary scriptures such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The creed is no longer monotheism, but rather atheism in matters of the state. But the message is the same: we have the Truth, and we must bring this Truth to the "less enlightened" corners of the world. Indeed, secularism – in its most fundamentalist interpretations - is the new religion of “missionaries”:,and secular democracy the new creed of colonizers.

Secularism is an ideology which is defined by the absence of theologic principles in its world view. The absence of God in this world view, does not necessarily confer an absence of faith-based assumptions at its core. Even scientifically-based world views, have at their core, basic assumptions which are no more provable than the resurrection of Christ, or the existence of Nirvana.

Take for example the basic scientific principle that one’s senses are accurate measures of the material world around us. Or the precept that time is an actual entity that is linear in nature and measurable. These are amongst the many basic assumptions upon which many scientific theorems are built. However these are assumptions for which there is no method of proof or calculation, and thus they are principles which must be taken on faith. As such, the theorems upon which they are built represent incomplete truths – resting upon a foundation based upon faith itself, rather than upon immutable proofs. Over the centuries, many a scientist, philosopher, and theologian have thus posited that non-theological world views are in fact faith-based “religions” much like the theologically based religions themselves.

One of these core assumptions, the linearity of time, ironically has its origins in early Protestant thought. The conversion of St. Augustine to Christianity brought about a dramatic shift in time-perception within ancient Greece from that of cyclical time, to that of linear time. Embedded within the ideologue of linear time exists the sense that humanity is moving forward in time in a unidirectional fashion, toward some inevitable and desired destination. In this the concept of “development” is intimately intertwined. One who is closer to this ultimate destination is clearly the more developed, and hence a hierarchy of social evolution is established.

At around the same time period as the development of linearity of time in Western thought arose, a second social phenomenon emerged – the rise of capitalism. Max Weber linked the rise of capitalism to of the rise of the Protestant work ethic which embraces self-discipline in work, but which denounces participation in worldly materialistic pleasures. This situation ultimately results in the generation of sizeable income, with no socially-sanctioned manner in which to spend one’s earning. The logical outcome of this is re-investment of the profits into one’s own business, thus giving birth to an infantile form of modern-day capitalism.

While the concepts of God and Christianity have now been disengaged from secural western thought, the concepts of capitalism and linear social development continue to be revered as sacred chalices from which all human happiness must surface. Indeed the generation of capital has in turn itself evolved into a goal, perhaps even the ultimate destination along the linear continuum of time on which we believe we are traveling.

Thus we come to modern secularism. A world view whose foundations are rooted on faith-based principles (for as discussed above, even science at it’s core rests on faith), which believes in linear social evolution, which has an ultimate stated destination, and which has non-theological scriptures codifying its values and creeds which are believed to contain absolute Truths and “Rights” applicable universally to all people. Indeed secularism could be poised to be one of the most tolerant, and respectful of all world views, would it have the wisdom to avoid the errors of the religious groups that came before it. Unfortunately, fundamentalist interpretations of secularism are becoming increasingly mainstream, and as such secularism seems to be slated to walk down the same ill-fated paths of religious eras gone-by.

Currently, we are entrenched in a war that claims to have been waged in the name of secular government, free capital markets, and in the name of liberation from the clutches of religious fundamentalism. It is being waged in the name of the human rights, which are codified in sacred documents revered by secularists. The name of economic and social development has also raised its head. US leaders have stated explicitly that this is not a religious war. I would argue that it is a war between two opposing fundamentalist world-views: the religious fundamentalists of the Islamic world, and the secular fundamentalists of the Western world. The ultimate goal being the replacement of a theology-based society with a secular society – a society which will hold sacred all of the ideals, values, and customs considered palatable to most western secularists. Thus success would result in the propogation of one world view, and the diminution of another.

Currently, there are thousands of international development organizations working in countries around the world. The stated goal is to enhance individual liberties, improve capital potential, and enhance material well-being. The goals of the agencies are intimately intertwined with a secular values and are tolerant of local customs insofar as they do not contravene codes of conduct set out in secular scriptures. When such contravening customs are noted, the aid immediately becomes contingent upon altering local beliefs and practices to be more in alignment with secularism.

Take as an example practices such as child labour, or female genital mutilation – both are clearly practices which contravene sacred secular beliefs in universal human rights, and both are amongst practices which are likely to be linked to the cessation of aid should governmental efforts to quell these practices not be made. Thus a value-judgement is made upon the validity of one world view versus another. Practices which honour tradition are dismissed as based in superstition. Secularist belief in the linearity of time renders one to believe beyond a doubt that customs based in ancient tradition and theology are socially lower along the development spectrum, and that one must strive to move forward along the continuum of social evolution towards non-theologically based practices. Assisting another community through this process is, with few exceptions, considered a noble act by most securalists.

Coming from a feminist western secularist school of thought myself, child labour, FGM, child marriage, wife-burning, etc. don’t sit very well with me personally. Similarly, to a strict muslim the concept of women having unlimited sexual freedoms, and dressing in revealing manners must not sit well with them either. A similar reaction could be expected of a strict Catholic, at the thought of legalized abortion.

However, the key difference between a fundamentalist, and a moderate is the belief in relative realities. The ability to see the grey spaces. The ability to be passionately self-critical about the validity of one’s own beliefs before setting the microscope upon the beliefs of another. In practical terms it means recognizing that the gold-standard of ethical human behaviour is not found in any one world view, and that human truths are relative rather than absolute and immutable.

The coercive application of one faith-based non-theological world view, over another theology-based world view is unfortunately a practice which is becoming more readily accepted by mainstream western secular societies. The belief that we are further along the social development spectrum, closer to the ultimate goals of human development, and that we ought to share our evolved understanding of the world with others who remain entrenched in tradition and religion are explicitly and implicitly ingrained into secular thought in the western world. Unfortunately however, these beliefs and assumptions are mired with the same fundamentalist ingredients that were present in the colonialists and Christian missionaries of the past - and these are the same beliefs which in the past contributed to centuries of oppression and slavery.

Though well-intentioned, our international development efforts will continue to carry forward the seeds of colonialism and cultural dominion until we are able to separate ourselves from these fundamentalist mantras which cloud our secular framework. Until that time, we cannot remain confident that history will not look back at us, and marvel at the stains of bloody oppression on our hands.

Torture a dog, torture a cow...

I just read an article about a guy in Costa Rica who tied up a stray dog in a museum and left it to starve until it eventually died. This was supposed to be an art exhibition - the dog itself and its death were the piece of art.

I don't know if this is true - or if it is urban legend - but I do know that there are several online "petitions" to denounce this artist's actions.

My first impression was that of severe repulsion and anger. But first impressions are not necessarily the most valid, and so I sought to explore this issue further.

This fellow stated as his reasoning for doing this: "The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought. Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big of hypocrisy in all of us."

This leads me to pose the following questions (for which I have no real answers):

• if one's intention is that of greater awareness and understanding, is the sacrifice of one individual acceptable?
• are such utilitarian ethics even applicable when the species for whom utility is being sought (in this case dogs) has no means of communicating what they would consider utility, and what they would consider a fair sacrifice?
• with what authority do we protest another nation's choices? While such an exhibit would be illegal in Canada, it may be legal in another country. Do we call for the sacrifice of a nation's autonomy to protect the autonomy and safety of an animal? To what extent do we respect cultural relativity?
• we torture cows and chickens on a daily basis in mass-production commercial farms in Canada - through overcrowding, limited movement, and diseased living conditions - how is this any different from torturing this single dog? I don't see people refusing to buy mass-produced meat. Our protest of this artist, would be akin to people in India protesting our treatment of cows. Would we view such petitions with equal legitimacy?
• this artist clearly saw his work as a "harm-reduction" strategy - reduce harm to the greater dog population, by exposing the suffering of one individual dog. Can someone external to a context (i.e. us) truly understand the necessity of harm-reduction strategies that are context-specific? Do we not also have harm-reduction strategies which may seem bizarre and even oppressive to those external to our context? (e.g. needle-exchange, abortion policies)

No answers...lots of questions...

China/Tibet versus Canada/First Nations - are we looking in a mirror?

Like much of the world, I feel sadness and disappointment in China’s reaction to protests in Tibet, and applaud those who have the courage to stand up and voice their dissent publicly. My question however is this: would we create the same rousing protests if the Olympics were slated to be held in Los Angeles? Would the US government’s human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay compel us to stand up with equal vigour and call for a boycott of the Olympics being held on their soil? And the US occupation of Iraq, which has been found to be illegal and unwarranted, and which has resulted in uncountable human rights violations - would these human rights violations be sufficient to call for a boycott of a US Olympics, much as some are calling for in China?

I would hope so. Any other reaction would prove so inconsistent that we would need to step down from our self-appointed role of moral policing, and admit that we embrace a double standard in our view of global morality.

However in reality, the dwindling voices of dissent around these issues bear testimony to the realities of our world today: the level to which a nation is held morally accountable for their actions in inversely proportional to their global economic power. And while China’s economic power is sizeable enough for world leaders to hesitate upon overt condemnation; it does not yet have the superpower immunity the US enjoys that allows US leaders to unilaterally invade nations unprovoked, without fears of international calls for economic sanctions, and boycotts.

The same holds true for Canada. How many of us in Canada see ourselves as illegal occupiers of Aboriginal lands? The reality is, the lands upon which we now build our luxury suburbs were previously occupied by people who never actually ceded their land to us in any legal manner. We simply came in, slaughtered those who dissented, and planted our flags on their soil. Our continued occupation of this land, and the close to 1000 unsettled land claims which exist today here in Canada bears more resemblance to China’s occupation of Tibet than most of us would feel comfortable admitting. A closer look reveals that protests by First Nations people around legitimate land-claim issues have been dealt with by the Canadian government in a manner that also mirrors China’s response to Tibet.

Many of us will recall the Oka crisis of 1990 in which sacred burial ground rights came up against the private interests of a golf course’s expansion. The result was a bloody and violent confrontation that resulted in the use of military force by our government in an effort to suppress the protests. The world’s attention was called to the human rights violations committed by our government, and the deaths of Aboriginal protestors that were caused as a result. Similar struggles on a smaller scale continue across Canada even today.

Have we really done much better than China at dealing with dissent and uprising from our own occupied territories? Do we really have any moral authority with which to judge or condemn China given our own human rights violations where Aboriginal rights are concerned? How would we react if one-day people in say Rwanda decided to stand up and protest Canada’s treatment of our Aboriginal people? And if this protesting fervour spread through the rest of the African continent causing nations like Zimbabwe and Kenya to stand up and point accusing fingers at us citing human rights violations and calling for a boycott to the 2010 Vancouver Olympics - would we listen? Or would we laugh? How could we take these protests seriously in light of the human rights violations those countries themselves have participated in recently.

Similarly, we must ask ourselves this same question. Do we have a record of moral behaviour that is so pristine that it allows us to stand behind a pulpit of moral superiority and dictate to other nations how they should deal with internal dissent? Or should we instead focus our attentions first towards ourselves, and look critically at our own shortcomings in this area before we begin to interfere in the autonomy of other nations? The reality is that we in the West have the luxury of viewing the actions of other world nations through a lens that focuses on their flaws of governance, and focuses on the negative consequences of their human rights discretions. While at the same time, we view our own government’s actions in a way that minimizes our perception of our own human rights violations - legitimizing them, and normalizing them through utilitarian paradigms.

I admire the intentions of the activists who are standing up passionately for what they believe in, and I feel immense sadness for the suffering of the Tibetan people. However, I also recognize that like Canada and the US, China will as an autonomous nation likely make the mistake of continuing to deal with this uprising in a heavy-handed manner. The question that I have is whether we in Canada actually have any moral ground upon which to judge China’s actions, while we continue even today to suppress dissent from lands that we illegally occupy.

I would challenge each activist to look within him/herself and ask whether they will extend the same moral abhorrence toward their own country. Whether in Canada, or in the US, we all have reasons to ask difficult questions of our governments and to demand that they answer for their behaviour.

We can either take this opportunity to promote the usual rubric of western libertarian thought and point fingers at other nations; or we can embrace this opportunity to critically examine our own poor track record of human rights in Canada, and begin to move forward in a manner consistent with our outwardly preaching. Rather than resting on our heels, confident that our status as a developed and westernized society protects us from external scrutiny in the area of human rights, perhaps we should be aware that similar calls for boycotts thrown our way could be almost as legitimate as today’s calls for boycotts toward China. And with the 2010 Olympics around the corner, what better time to start asking than now?