Back on September 27, 2024, I posted a blog post titled “What Is My Website’s Achilles’ Heel?” In it, I give fourteen clues for guessing what I consider to be my website’s “Achilles’ heel.” Today, I will give you my answer.
Part I
Before you proceed to Part II, below, please read or reread Part I. (My “What Is My Website’s Achilles’ Heel,” Sept. 27, 2024 blog post.) It’s a short read.
Part II
I really didn’t want to do this. Not under any circumstances did I want to compose and publish a rushed, condensed version on such an important topic as this one. But something I read recently motivated me to do so. It had me chomping at the bit. But I’ll get back to that. Right now, I want to give you my answer.
My answer to “What is my website’s Achilles’ Heel?,” ties in with my ‘Underlying Causes’ page, where I ask:
How is it possible that a species of our intelligence — a species capable of designing a method of transportation to the moon — continues, daily, year after year, to cause great harm to the biosphere of the planet we wholly depend upon for our survival? How is it that a species of our intelligence, could have such little awareness or concern, about the extent of the damage we are wreaking?
I provide over two dozen thoughts, theories and ideas for why I believe that happens to be the case. Then conclude with “what I consider to be the single best explanation, or what I consider to be, at bottom, the root cause, of all our environmental woes.” That single root cause, I label “mind pollution.” And provide a long of examples of what constitutes “mind pollution.”
However, I have long felt that one of these in particular stands head and shoulders above all the rest (in terms of explaining what is at the heart of the problem, and what is most standing in the way). What is that one thing? It’s not something that’s easy to put into words, but here’s the descriptive I use on that page: “lack of a deep sense of eco-consciousness.”
What does that mean exactly? Well, for example, how many people can define the term ecocentrism? How many people can honestly say they’ve even heard the term before? As a species and as a society we are drenched in anthropocentric thinking. It’s like a sort of tunnel vision that blocks out any other way of thinking.
Anthropocentrism sees everything in terms of man. Human interest is of paramount importance. But with ecocentrism, it is understood that the biosphere, that is what sustains us. Without the biosphere, we don’t exist. Period.
Saving the planet requires humankind having a far deeper and more genuine sense of eco-consciousness. If I get funding, I’ll be able to talk about that extensively, sharing my original ideas on that very subject, week after week.
Finding people with a real, authentic, deep sense of eco-consciousness, is quite a challenge. Though many, I suspect, would be quite liberal regarding who they would place into that category. Personally, for me, in determining whether or not someone has a “deep sense of eco-consciousness,” I would probably want to ask questions such as: What are some of their biggest interests? How do they live? Where do they live? How big is their house? How often do they travel? How often have they been on a plane in the past ten or twenty years? (Where have they gone, and why?) How many children do they have? (Are any adopted?) What specifically have they done to make a difference in terms of saving the planet? What proportion of their income have they devoted to that? What are their thoughts concerning what it would take to save the planet? Do they think saving the planet will be easy? Involve sacrifice? Involve thinking differently? How so and in what ways will people need to think differently? What are some of the biggest obstacles getting in the way of that?
Whereas many environmentalists, I’m guessing, might suggest that over 10% of the population has a deep sense of eco-consciousness, I suspect the actual number is far less than 1%. Of course, that’s according to my interpretation of what having a deep sense of eco-consciousness should entail. But if you add another limiting qualifier, to winnow out just those who, additionally, possess a wealth of original ideas and strategies for how to save the planet, it would be much smaller still. Significantly less than 1%, of that 1%. In fact, truthfully, I think that number is probably equivalent to around one tenth the total number of chess grandmasters that are alive today: approximately 1,900, divided into 10 = 190.
Okay, now you might be wondering, if I’ve long felt that way, why didn’t I simply change the wording on that ‘Underlying Causes’ page to reflect that?
First of all, “mind pollution” isn’t actually all that bad an answer. Especially considering what I wrote concerning tunnel vision. And since that is a considerably more comprehensible concept for the average person to digest, why not just leave it as is?
That’s one way to solve the problem (of what to do). (Temporarily, sweep it under the rug.)
But even better, I came up with a simple way to make “lack of a deep sense of eco-consciousness,” visibly, stand out in a big way: I put it in bold green text. That made it stand out like a page in a pop-up book!
That seemed to “solve” the problem (if not sidestep the need to do so). And it worked for a period of time. Until my web designer brought to my attention that on some of my web pages, I sometimes used different color text. Text that someone with color blindness wouldn’t be able to read. She told me she was going to fix it. And she did. And I appreciate that. (Color blindness affects approximately 4% of the U.S. population.)
But then, eventually, one day it dawned on me: Uh-oh, that “lack of a deep sense of eco-consciousness,” no longer stands out.
Again, I opted for a simple solution. I made the print bold. That way it stood out. Not as much as when it was a completely different color. But still, it stood out in a way that set it apart from everything else on that whole page.
As to why I didn’t instead simply add a number to that ‘Underlying Causes’ list, then explain: This is actually the best answer (…), go back and look at number ’13’ in Part I of “What Is My Website’s Achilles’ Heel?” In other words, would it have really made any difference? I doubt it. Besides, for someone like me with so little free time, that solution (making one phrase stand out in bold print) fits like a really snug glove.
Okay, now let me get to why I decided to publish this rushed, short answer — rather than continue to put this off until I can produce something that more meets my approval (is more robust, has a lot more packed into it). Last week, while going through my Sunday (May 24th) New York Times, in the Magazine section I read the interview with Graham Platner. Platner is Maine’s Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. And that motivated me to write this.
I’m sure Platner is a fine person. A solid citizen. A loving husband. Would make a nice neighbor. Etc. Personally, I have nothing against him. The mere fact that he’s a Democrat and not a Republican, and from the Northeast and not from a deep red part of the Deep South, means I’m probably more apt to prefer him over many of the people he would be rubbing elbows with should he win in November. But still, I think he’s absolutely the wrong kind of person we should be putting in the U.S. Senate. (And of course, it should go without saying, that’s even more the case, concerning the incumbent senator I’d like to see him defeat.) Here’s his answer to the last question in the interview (the interview is condensed, longer versions are available online or if you watch The Interview podcast):
Question: The way you’ve discussed this is ‘revolutionary.’ You have talked about wanting to completely break the system as it works now.
Answer: We need a political revolution in this country. Bernie said it in 2016. It was right then, it remains right today. Whether it’s money, whether it is the way our democratic systems have been subsumed by corporate power, we need to change the structures of how this thing works.
Okay, now here’s my problem with this. Obviously, whole books can be written on the subject what is ecocentrism? And if you took one hundred people who self-identify as ecocentrists, no two will write the exact same book. (That’s why I want funding — details and specifics matter!) We do need revolutionary change. And revolutionary thinking. But we need it on a global scale. And ecocentrism needs to be the driving force. The cost-of-living crisis is real. And it should be addressed. But through an ecocentric framework. And there are ways to do that.
Again, of course I would prefer someone like Platner over someone like a Republican — especially those shameless Republicans from states where they’re rushing like crazy to gerrymander out all the Black votes. However, I still can’t help but shutter every time I see the types of people who wind up in the senate. Not one of them is an ecologist or climatologist, for example. Platner wanted to be a soldier since the age of two. And he became a soldier. He also traveled to Norway with his wife back in January for IVF treatments. I don’t understand why he had to fly 3,500 miles to do that — those treatments are available in all fifty states. Moreover, on a planet where we’re adding 1,000,000 people every 110 hours, I consider that irresponsible. Even more so, if you factor in there are millions of orphaned children in the world. Why not adopt one of them?
These are facts. And yet someone like him will get tons of support, tons of funding and lots of votes; and Ecoideaman, nothing.
I hope I don’t come across sounding mean in any way. I’m sure Platner cares a great deal about wanting to help the average person, and people struggling to pay their bills. That’s nice. I’m merely pointing out that saving the planet isn’t going to be possible if ecocentrism is nowhere on our radar. That is the only hope for mankind if we’re to survive and thrive on this planet for anything but the short term.