Thanks for this. I think you're right that our unexamined underpinnings often lead us in destructive directions. Now many folks will say that it's too late, or that nothing can be done. But on Easter, I'm leaning in the direction of hope.

Blessings–

Greg

it is also interesting that you mention the "shock and awe" theory of social change. naomi klein's relatively new book THE SHOCK DOCTORINE talks about this–but in ways that are quite scary (the use of disasters–like Katrina, the tsunami, the war in Iraq, to destroy the social fabric–and replace with corporate capitalism.)

ultimately in a world so large with such comlex problems perhaps it is Jesus who said it best with all of his talk about the Kingdom of God. We don't have to wait, the better world is already here. we just have to build it through our community.

I don't disagree that it's the past 100 years of incremental change that have gotten us to where we are. Nor do I disagree that a sudden, dramatic change could spur people to action. I do, however, disaree that a suddent, dramatic – even violent – change is necessary. I've been reading a book by Steven Kelman called "Organizational Change." The book is a case study of something totally unrelated (procurement policy in the USA), but directly addresses the issue of whether sudden change / "shock and awe" is better able to create, sustain and consolidate organizational chnage. Kelman ends up NOT being in favour of shock and awe because of the damage it can do to relationships, to structures, etc. Instead he's in favour of the slow and steady approach, in which a "change vanguard" (and a few leaders) slowly gains recruits until change is accomplished.
Now that's a vision of change we can all buy into, eh? What I like so much about it, is that it means that your actions – and the actions of every other – to change shopping habits, etc. MATTER.

Good points in #'s 8 and 9 above.

How about widening out the reason for wanting change to 'improved quality of life'? Not everyone thinks it is evil for corporations to make a profit or to market their products. Not everyone believes it is wrong to use, or even use up natural resources. But just about everyone world wide would rather have fewer respiratory problems, have more clean water, have more money available, and work less. All those things can happen through conservation efforts. If you want lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds and belief systems to conserve, present it as a way to make their lives better. If you want a "holy" few who are willing to put their convenience on the alter in front of mother earth, present conservation as a "sacrifice" we SHOULD be willing to make.

I do not agree that the U.S. is automatically the country to be blamed for wreaking environmental havoc, although we have done our share for sure. We DO waste a lot. But I also think we have made progress in how we handle our waste which, when compared with the practices of other countries, suggests that they ought to look to themselves instead of pointing fingers and doing nothing. We should ALL–and I include the U.S., AND every other country–clean up our own backyards before pointing the finger at anybody else.