Getting a Grip on Technology, Government, and Change
admin November 28th, 2007
(Mark, Media Marketing Director) Bernie Sanders posted an interesting article on global heating on The Nation today. It’s worth a visit, but the gist is: we can fix our climate problems with new technology.
“[T]he situation is by no means hopeless.”
I resonate with the content of Sanders’ article, especially the need to keep a positive frame of mind and to strive after solutions that are substantive, not what Frances calls “random acts of sanity,” but which are genuine efforts made with every belief that we are, indeed, hope in action. Still, there is an even deeper need I fear Sanders doesn’t address.
Sanders speaks of the problem as though it were simply technological. Yet, we have long had the technology and known solutions to the manifold problems facing us, including global heating. Sanders speaks about new technologies, but ignores the one emerging development which has been the missing element.
Getting a Grip is about an emergent worldview, a frame shift taking place all around the world. While we can call it a “movement” the term doesn’t really work. We need a new term: Living Democracy.
As Frances explains, developments in knowledge and networking have joined with similar changes in our understanding of human dignity and our ecological “foundation” to create an unprecedented opportunity in many parts of the world; and these forces are spreading. As a result, individuals are breaking the fetters of disempowerment; they are realizing that change begins with the individual.
Gandhi’s genius was not anti-violence; it was that antiviolence had to begin with an individual, with him. By showing those around him that everyone—not only the rich and famous—had the power to choose and to act on their innermost values, he shook the foundation of Empire.
In an American Prospect post in mid-October, Robert Reich editorialized:
“[D]on’t expect corporations to lead the charge on global warming. That’s the government’s job.”
This sentence is taken out of context, both from the post (which you should read) and his theory of Supercapitalism. However, I think the echo of this statement rings true with his argument.
That is a very different understanding from mine, and from that mapped out by Frances in Getting a Grip.
Yes, the government is an important factor. Sure, corporations that are single-mindedly entwined in one-rule (return to existing wealth) economics are more likely to look out for their shareholders first.
Like Sanders, though, Reich has forgotten the radical and essential importance of the individual, the citizen. It is neither the job of corporations nor the government to fight these problems, as Reich asserts. Nor is it the job of scientists and new technologies, as Sanders implies. It is MY job.
My values ARE important. Your values are important. We are the nexus of power. It is only for us to realize it, and to take that power back from those who have usurped it.
In partnership with tens and hundreds of millions of other individuals, we cannot but succeed.
Technology is on our side, but without the fundamental frame shift towards individual empowerment—towards Living Democracy—all of the technology, all of the governmental regulations and oversight, all of the high ideals of non-violence will fail to reverse our direction.
You and I are the critical components of change.
Peace, Mark
