Thanks for visiting! I would love you to share your comments. Get free updates to my blog by subscribing to my RSS feed.

Claude and Medea: Mystery, Adventure and Youth Solutionaries

I’ve written six books. I don’t know if authors always have favorites among their books, but I do: Claude and Medea. I try not to shamelessly plug my books in my blog, but Claude and Medea – which won the Moonbeam gold medal for juvenile fiction last year – is languishing. Hardly anyone knows about it; it’s not in bookstores, and its sales are meager. This makes me sad, because when I wrote the first in what I hoped would be a series, I tried to create a great mystery and adventure that kids would love (they do!) and which would also inspire them to want to make a difference in the world.

In the first book, Claude and Medea: The Hellburn Dogs, the 7th grade protagonists solve the mystery of a rash of Manhattan dog thefts (I won’t tell you more, but there’s an evil vivisector, and intrigue and danger in the mix). I’m eager to write the next book, which will be about infiltrating a New York child slave operation in the garment district of Manhattan, but alas, the first needs to start selling better.

If you know of kids between 9-12, I hope you’ll consider sharing Claude and Medea with them. If you don’t want to purchase the book (you can buy it from Lantern Books, IHE, Amazon.com, and BN.com, among other places), the entire content can be read on the Lantern Books blog.

And if you like the book, please spread the word about it.

Thanks!

~ Zoe Weil

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Is Mindful Choicemaking Burdensome or Liberating?

Some fear that if they look too closely at their choices and discover that those choices have harmful effects on other people, animals, and the environment, they will experience a number of negative emotions. They may worry they’ll feel overwhelmed, despondent, hopeless, conflicted, disempowered, and even bad about themselves if they continue to make choices they know cause suffering or harm. This is why people will sometimes tell me that they don’t want to know about the effects of a certain food or clothing brand or charity (see last blog post). Ignorance is bliss after all.

But ignorance only appears to be bliss. If the world becomes increasingly dangerous, polluted, hot, crowded, conflictual, unequal, susceptible to natural disasters, deforested, desertified, and dramatically loses biodiversity, the ignorant suffer just as much as the informed (and maybe more), as do their unprepared children and grandchildren.

But even though ignorance does not ultimately result in bliss, it can seem “safer” if we think we’ll avoid those potentially negative emotions mentioned above. But is this premise actually true? Is it true that those who expose themselves to knowledge and deeply inquire about the effects of their choices (including food, products, clothing, work, changemaking efforts, and participation in democracy) are less happy and more burdened than those who don’t?

I explore this question in my book Most Good, Least Harm, and from my profiles of people who consistently pursue knowledge to align their choices more deeply with their values, I find that the reverse is true. While these people may say that they occasionally feel overwhelmed, they also report that they feel more empowered and much happier to be living with integrity and creating a better future for themselves and others. In Daniel Goleman’s new book, Ecological Intelligence, he discovers the same thing. He quotes Raina Kelley, a journalist who became a freegan (someone who finds and consumes free and otherwise discarded foods and clothes and products to sustain themselves) as saying, “I really thought that being mindful of my impact on the Earth would drive me crazy but, in the end, it was the most valuable thing I did over the whole thirty days. The more you know about where your food, clothing, entertainment, and shelter comes from, the easier it is to make buying decisions in line with your conscience.” (p. 97)

Goleman’s book is a call for eco-transparency, because when we know, we all become empowered — not just the consumer, but the producer as well. A new website, www.earthster.com, is helping businesses choose suppliers that make more ecologically friendly and socially just choices. Since most of the things we produce have a huge supply chain attached to them, this is a critical component in creating more sustainable systems and products. Individuals who wish to know more and choose more consciously, can visit sites such as www.goodguide.com and www.responsibleshopper.org.

Knowledge allows us to align our choices more deeply with our values, and doing this feels both good and liberating. When we are true to values we are less susceptible to others’ directives, whether from society, peers, neighbors, advertisers, etc., and more wholly and fully ourselves.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of Joe_Thorn via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Before You Support Causes, Even Good Ones…

Last weekend I participated in a breast cancer walk-a-thon. What I appreciated so much about this particular walk-a-thon was the choice of charities to which we could contribute. For years I’ve been asked to support breast cancer walks, and I always ask what organization the money is going to. Often it’s an organization that supports animal experimentation, and I choose not to donate to these, not only because I have ethical concerns about such research, but also because I don’t think it’s the best way to confront the epidemic of breast cancer. I would rather see money go towards prevention, ethical human studies, and direct help to breast cancer patients.

When I walked last weekend, I chose to have my sponsor dollars go directly to financial help (in the form of gas cards and such) to poor women in my state with breast cancer. I was delighted to be able to help in this way.

Most of us want to help others, and we are eager to join causes, especially when it’s easy to do so. If we can buy one product that contributes a portion of profits to a cause like breast cancer, many of us are inclined to choose such a product. But is this always the MOGO choice?

Here’s a sobering blog post to consider that discusses the carcinogenicity of cosmetics whose parent companies promise a portion of profits from sales for breast cancer, a disease their products may actually contribute to. Take a look and consider researching this important question (and its validity) for yourself.

When giving, as with everything else, it’s so important to make our help as aligned with our values as possible. In this way, we truly reap the joy that comes in service and ensure that we contribute as meaningfully and fully as possible.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Above All, Be Kind

 

Image courtesy of dbkfrog (Doug) via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Mushrooms, Monsters, Gay Marriage & MOGO: Fear of New Things

A couple of summers ago a large mushroom grew on the path to the ocean by our house. My dog Ruby and I walk this path frequently, but she’s often prancing through the woods and not necessarily paying attention to everything on the actual path. On the particular day that this story takes place, the mushroom had grown rather enormous. Ruby was trotting along in front of me on our way back from the ocean when she saw it.

The monster.

She stopped dead in her tracks. Her fur stood on end and she crouched down. She barked at the mushroom. She shuffled backwards. She barked some more. She became paralyzed. Holding back my laughter, I urged her to come along beside me, but she wouldn ’t budge. She was terrified. After more urging, she inched forward, sniffed the air, but then quickly retreated and ran a circuitous route to avoid the path.

Ah, Ruby. She doesn’t much like new things appearing on her path.

How many of us do?

Last week I wrote on my blog about the sad defeat of marriage equality in my state of Maine. Most people don’t seem to like new things in their path, and gay marriage is still too new for many. It’s scary. It seems huge and dangerous like the mushroom in Ruby’s path. I was quite dejected when I wrote last week’s post, but I feel a little buoyed by some statistics I’ve read since last Wednesday. At the University of Maine, a state school whose student body is comprised primarily of Mainers, the vote was overwhelmingly (more than 80%) in favor of gay marriage rights and against repealing the marriage equality law passed by Maine’s legislature earlier this year. For young people, gay marriageisn’t so scary. It isn ’t so new. They have gay friends who, unlike previous generations, admit their sexual orientation. They have friends whose parents are the same gender. They’re just not afraid of two same-gender people making a life commitment to one another and having the same rights as heterosexuals. It’s no big deal. It’s fair and right.

I bet that if we had big mushrooms sprouting up on the path every day, Ruby wouldn’t be phased by them. She’d lose her fear. So, too, we lose our fear when we grow accustomed to things in our path.

The challenge is to hold our fear at bay when we confront what’s new; to keep our eyes and ears open and receptive to new ideas; to seek to understand and make determinations based on a commitment to do the most good and the least harm. Then perhaps we won’t bark so insistently, nor cower in the face of the unknown, but respond bravely and wisely instead.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of Sonneteer via Creative Commons.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Invest in a Humane World & You Could Win a Humane Educator’s Library Worth $500

This past spring I was asked to be the speaker at our local high school’s National Honor Society induction. I invited the audience to analyze the effects a conventional, pesticide-sprayed, sweatshop-produced T-shirt had on people, animals, and the environment. I also asked them to consider what clothing and what new systems of production and distribution might do more good and less harm. I do this activity with many items, including a fast food cheeseburger, a bottle of imported water, and more.

After the talk, one of the inductees – a bright, hard-working junior who plans to be a physician one day – told a friend that my talk made her angry because, as she said:

“We should have been learning this since kindergarten!”

I couldn’t agree more.

In fact, here at the Institute for Humane Education (IHE) we believe that the very purpose of schooling should be to provide students with the knowledge, tools, and motivation to become engaged solutionaries for a better world.

We need your help to reach more educators, administrators and activists who will ensure that humane education spreads and infuses schooling everywhere. Your support will help IHE, our students and our graduates to make the creation of a humane world the overarching goal of learning and teaching. Imagine the world we can create together if we succeed.

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY: Any gift of $15 or more postmarked by December 7, 2009 will be entered to win an extensive Humane Educator’s Global Issues Library. This exciting collection of more than 20 book titles (such as Dominion, Consuming Kids and Rethinking Globalization) and 4 educational DVDs was hand-selected by IHE faculty and has a total value of over $500!

Donation Button - Give to Support a Better World

 

 

 

~ Zoe Weil,
IHE President
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Kindle Versus Paper Books: A MOGO Choice

Last month I bought a Kindle. I decided to get a Kindle for several reasons, and below you’ll find the pertinent information that led to my decision:

1) I read about 100 books every year – most are from the library, but often the books I want to read aren’t at my library, and I have to order them through interlibrary loan. I can order up to five at a time, and when they arrive I usually only have two weeks before I have to return them. When five arrive, I feel under the gun to read them all quickly.
2) I buy books I want to refer to or reread, but it’s often difficult to know which books these will be unless I have an awfully long time in a bookstore to read a lengthy portion. And I can’t peruse them enough on Amazon.com to make a determination.
3) I also buy books in airports rather than bring a heavy library book on my trips that I’ll have to return home with. Since I fly a lot for work, this means I frequently buy paperbacks I’ll never reread just to have something for the journey.

I reasoned that a Kindle would be a great tool to have for several reasons:

1) I wouldn’t have to order so many books through interlibrary loan.
2) I could get samples of any Kindle book and determine whether I wanted to buy the book at my leisure.
3) I could save so much paper (forests), fuel for book transportation, and prevent toxic inks from entering the waste stream and dioxins used in paper bleaching from contaminating rivers.

In other words, I determined that a Kindle would be a MOGO choice. On the whole, it would do the most good and least harm to me, other people, animals, and the environment.

Then my husband and I got into a debate. He pointed out that I really didn’t know the product lifecycle for a Kindle, the toxins inside it, the costs to people, animals, and the environment from mining the component ores, the recycling protocol, the lifespan for an average Kindle, and the effects on booksellers, libraries, and community bookstores. How many paper books, for example, would it take to offset all the costs involved in a Kindle? Although I felt pretty confident a Kindle was MOGO, how did I really know?

Well it turns out someone has done some of this analysis. The Cleantech Group researched a few of these questions and concluded that E-readers are greener in terms of carbon emissions than paper books. You can read a synopsis of their analysis.

I’m relieved to know that what I thought was a MOGO choice turns out to be one, at least in terms of carbon emissions.

I really love my Kindle.

And three of my books are available on it, which makes me happy, too.

Good reading,

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind (both available on via Kindle)

Image courtesy of goXunuReviews via Creative Commons.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

The Hazards of Meat-Eating Hit the Mainstream Media

I’ve been vegan for twenty years. As I learned about the plight of animals in modern agriculture from Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, John Robbins’ Diet for a New America and numerous undercover films that showed the conditions under which the great majority of animals are raised for food, I knew I didn’t want to participate in causing unnecessary suffering and death to sentient beings. What I learned from books and films was confirmed by my own experiences when I brought high school students to see factory farms for themselves; what we saw solidified my commitment to a plant-based diet. I know that there are farmers who raise animals more humanely, and slaughterhouses that kill animals less brutally and cruelly, but since I don’t need to eat animals — and thereby cause their deaths — I choose not to. And because the system is what it is, in dairy production — even at the most humane farms — calves are still removed from their mothers at birth so the milk meant for the calf can be collected for people; the male offspring are killed because they’re of no use to the dairy industry; and, the dairy cows are eventually slaughtered when they’re no longer producing much milk. And even the most humane egg farms cull (meaning kill) their unproductive older hens and purchase their chicks from hatcheries that destroy the males, who are of no use to the egg industry.

But there are other reasons I was happy to have chosen a vegan diet. I learned about the health hazards of the typical American diet and the ways in which animal-based diets contribute to heart disease, many forms of cancer, strokes, diabetes, kidney disease, and other illnesses. My own health improved when I became vegan.

I also learned about the environmental problems associated with animal agriculture, from global warming to deforestation to water waste to soil erosion to pollution. Then in 2006, the U.N. issued a report citing beef production as contributing more to global warming than transportation. This stunning finding was barely mentioned in the news. So, although I had learned about all these issues from many books, articles, films and research, rarely did I read about the problems associated with meat-eating and animal agriculture in the mainstream media.

Until now.

Quite suddenly, there are numerous articles, TV news reports and interviews, and op-ed essays about the problems associated with meat-eating and the benefits of vegetarianism, and no longer are these coming only from alternative media. They are coming from CNN, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Times (UK) and more. Here are just a few from the past few weeks:

Take a look and let these articles be food for thought as you consider the diet that does the most good and the least harm for yourself, other people, animals and the environment.

Bon Appetit,

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Hope in Little Things

I just watched this YouTube video of a wedding procession. (Click here if you can’t view it above.) It made me cry, which was an odd response to a rollicking, fun, fully bodied celebration of marriage, as the groomsmen and bridesmaids, ushers, and even the bride and groom, boogied their way up the aisle.

I think it made me cry because the video began with a web link soliciting donations for violence prevention, and because of the viral nature of such films, one couple’s wedding may result in much needed funds to prevent violence.

I think it made me cry because such a joyous procession was so unusual, which is actually sad.

I think it made me cry because it brought me such joy, and so my tears were also joyful tears.

I think it made me cry because it brought me hope, and genuine hope breaks my carefully constructed edifice of manufactured hope that often keeps me going when I would otherwise be hopeless, if I gave hopelessness any traction. And true hope, when I’ve been so busy keeping the specter of hopelessness at bay, is enough to make me tear up.

Why would a life-filled wedding procession bring me hope? Whenever people break traditions with something new and outside the norm, and whenever these are healthy and positive and exciting, I feel hope that we can break with other traditions – i.e. systems – that need new vision. There’s nothing wrong with a traditional wedding procession, but it’s interesting how rarely people diverge far from the tradition. The very act of breaking in a small way with any entrenched tradition reminds me that any system can be changed when we look at it fresh, with curious and critical eyes that seek new ways to make systems work better.

I want us to bring raucous, energized, enthusiastic innovation to “traditional” food, health care, political, energy, corporate, and even changemaking systems in order find exciting, practical, and visionary ways to do things differently and better. This short film reminds me that there are people everywhere with new ideas about how we do things.

Cheers,

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

The Defeat of Marriage Equality in Maine Isn’t MOGO

I woke up to very upsetting news. By a 53% to 47% margin, Maine voters repealed Maine’s new law, passed this year, that allows gays and lesbians to marry. I am so sad and embarrassed by my state. Many will be analyzing these results, pointing to the massive funding that the anti-marriage equality proponents poured into the campaign, discussing the misleading ads, assessing Maine’s demographics. But I want to look at this through the MOGO lens.

I have tried very hard to understand the perspective of those who oppose the right of gays and lesbians to marry, and the only way in which it makes sense to me is through a religious lens. If one believes that God condemns homosexuality then I suppose one would oppose gay marriage.

It’s funny that I should be posting this blog after several recent posts about faith and truth, including one about beliefs inhibiting critical thinking. This is a perfect (albeit, in my mind, tragic) example. If one’s belief in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is the only reason for opposing gay marriage, then one is likely to shut down any further consideration of the question and not even wrestle with other ideas and viewpoints.

I recently updated my Facebook profile. Under religion I wrote: “The MOGO Principle.” Although many might argue (and I would agree) that MOGO isn’t a religious precept, for me doing the most good and the least harm to people, animals, the environment, and myself is the guiding principle of my life. It is a practice not unlike many spiritual practices, but instead of being based on faith, it is based on critical and creative thinking and acting with integrity.

When I look at the question of marriage equality through a MOGO lens, it seems clear that what does the most good and least harm is allowing equal rights for those who happen to love and be committed to someone of the same sex as they. By sanctioning these unions legally, gays and lesbians do not have to worry that they will be excluded from hospitals and decision-making when their partner is ill; that upon one of their deaths, the other will be ensured the protections that come from legal marriages; that their children will be one step closer to inclusion rather than potential shame about their parents; that prejudice against gays and lesbians – and the concomitant violence and cruelty that often accompanies that prejudice – will be closer to being, if not eradicated, less tolerated. I could go on and on. This would all have created more good. Sadly, repealing the marriage equality law perpetuates harm that has been endured by gays and lesbians and their families for generations.

One final thought. I hope that those who use the Bible as a source of truth will watch the film For the Bible Tells Me So, which challenges the idea that Christianity should oppose gay rights based on the Bible.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of Bryan Bruchman via Creative Commons.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Outrunning Wildebeest?

A recent New York Times article, “The Human Body is Built for Distance,” (which follows several recent deaths of marathoners), has this to say about running:

“Most mammals can sprint faster than humans — having four legs gives them the advantage. But when it comes to long distances, humans can outrun almost any animal. Because we cool by sweating rather than panting, we can stay cool at speeds and distances that would overheat other animals. On a hot day, the two scientists wrote, a human could even outrun a horse in a 26.2-mile marathon.

Why would evolution favor the distance runner? The prevailing theory is that endurance running allowed primitive humans to incorporate meat into their diet. They may have watched the sky for scavenging birds and then run long distances to reach a fresh kill and steal the meat from whatever animal was there first.

Other research suggests that before the development of slingshots or bows, early hunters engaged in persistence hunting, chasing an animal for hours until it overheated, making it easy to kill at close range. A 2006 report in the journal Current Anthropology documents persistence hunting among modern hunter-gatherers, including the Bushmen in Africa.”

This seems a suspect conclusion to me. I’m neither an anthropologist nor a paleontologist, just someone reading this article quizzically and wondering aloud. My husband and I engaged in a discussion about it, and being the research maven he is, he attempted to find out whether a human could really outrun a horse. It seems that under the right circumstances, and over many years of trying, and with sixty plus people attempting the effort against a single horse who stopped for veterinary breaks, it can very occasionally be done with the human winning by a few minutes. Hmmm…. It’s hard to imagine early humans running miles and miles and miles with spears or some other weapon (since our teeth and fingernails would hardly bring down a big mammal) to feed the tribe. And how would one get the wildebeest back home anyway?

Humans are good long distance runners, but is there really evidence that early humans evolved to be this way in order to bring down much faster and larger animals, and that those of us who could outrun an antelope lived longer and produced more children with those genes? Could it be that we evolved to be distance runners because those that could run long distances could also warn their tribes of coming dangers? Could it be that bipedalism and hairlessness had a side effect of distance running?

Could it be that early humans ate a much more plant-based, easily obtained diet, with insects and small, slow animals to supplement fruits, leaves, nuts and seeds and scavenged the kills of more fearsome predators as we were able, running for any other number of reasons?

Just wondering.

~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Addendum: Since writing this post I heard an interview with an anthropologist (perhaps the person who’s been relied upon for the article’s expertise), and although I’m still not convinced, I’ll chalk this up to “not believing” until there’s more evidence.


Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.