What Are the Right Questions?

Can a 4 million year old species save a 4 billion year old planet? Is the species saving the planet for the planet's sake or for the sake of their own survival? If the specie's largest endeavors on the planet only rend forth resources and shed back poisons, is the species cooperatively living with the planet or systematically against it?

The species is people, and we are but an obsolescent surface distraction to our ancient home Earth, regardless the impression of our hubris.

To me these questions suggest a conflict in definitions and semantics. All the ecological talk going around is really about self preservation, and preserving a "non-negotiable" lifestyle. When did we begin believing because we could very possibly be capable of destroying life on the planet, we at the same time think we can also save the planet as well? Destruction and saving are two different pursuits, unless you are using Orwellian principles then they are one and the same.

What is GREEN about the current Gulf of Mexico oil disaster? What is green about depleted uranium munitions used in non-green wars? What is green about the process and marketing of consumer goods designed for obsolescence? Just to scratch the surface. Consider the choices made like this, how do we go about saving the planet?

Here's where it gets tricky.

The answers and the processes already exist. Everything is already renewable and green. The choices are in front of us every day. The compromises are minimal and the benefits far out weigh the costs. So what's up?

The problem is, the species trying to save all this is dissatisfied and discontent with it to such a degree that they live their lives through actions and choices totally incongruous with the environment they exist within. Not all the species, just some of them. Strangely enough its the societies that have attained technological abilities that allow them more choices than the majority of the rest of planetary society that seem to be the ones so discontent.

See, it's that choice thing that's a bit sticky.

At what point did the human species quantify and start literally, not metaphorically, selling their existence? When did we stop living within nature and start developing an artificial existence unnatural to the planet and environment we live in?

When did we start evaluating a quantitive worth and synthetic value of our lives instead of a living worth and spiritual value?

At what point did we collectively say: "identify it, label it, make it cheap,produce it fast, apply the process to everything, repeat. Reaping profits are the be all end all goal." The choices are never about just one thing and they don't happen over night. It's done in small steps when it's easier to say no and choose differently. But when the choices grow to a larger scale, then the decisions are harder and the consequences take longer to outlive.

Neanderthals adapted contrary to popular consensus, otherwise they couldn't have survived for over 200k years. Modern man terra-forms and trans-mutates in his adaption model and is having sustainability problems in under 45k years. Time to reevaluate the paradigm.

It's framed by understanding the difference between choices and innovative directions motivated by discontent or choices and innovation motivated by enlightened contentment with that which already is. Sometimes its seems like trying to get a small child to eat broccoli.

Start with simple choices suggested by the capabilities of the environment around you. Adapt and innovate using the same environment. Starting simple will lay a successful ground work for tackling the more complex problems and choices. You can slow down the compression of time by eliminating profit based strategies, eliminate resource domination, end ideologically motivated wars and practice conservation.

With the time that's now freed and social stress that's now been minimized, you can participate in changing the local permaculture, architectural redesign and rebuilding the family and community traditions of learning to learn. Those very few choices alone would establish a motivational template the world would recognize and in a totally different sense, the new, non-negotiable lifestyle would be followed and supported cross platform, around the world.