We Don’t Have to Die to Protect the Earth

Posted on April 25, 2013 by zoeweil

In this powerful 5-minute video, “She’s Alive… Beautiful… Finite… Hurting… Worth Dying For,” we are confronted with the reality that brave heroes – some known, many unknown – have died to protect this planet.

As this short video ended, I found myself simultaneously feeling such gratitude for the courageous women and men who risked everything to do what was right and good, and also hoping that children wouldn’t watch this film. I wouldn’t want them to think that striving to do good is such risky business.

It shouldn’t be.

And if we raise a generation of solutionaries it won’t be. Protecting the Earth must become the norm, and if children grow up understanding this, no poacher or corrupt and greedy industrialist will have a chance against such a generation.

That’s the goal. Let’s make it happen.

Become a humane educator.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm; Above All, Be Kind; and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxYouth@CEHS “How to Be a Solutionary”

Continue the conversation! Leave your comment below, and “like” and share this post via your social media sites.

Filed under: humane education | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Gulf Oil Spill: Two Templates for a True Solution

Posted on May 21, 2010 by zoeweil

It’s been a month since the explosion on an oil rig set off the unprecedented environmental disaster that is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, and I’ve been so heartsick and overwhelmed, not to mention not-well-enough informed, beyond what I read in the media, to write about it.

But it’s time to write something. I want some good to come from this catastrophe, and all I can think of is how wise and wonderful it would be if this served as the catalyst for the U.S. to utilize the ideas in Peter Barnes’ critically important book, Capitalism 3.0, and to adopt the 28 words penned by Robert Hinckley in his corporate code of citizenship that allows corporations to pursue profits, “…but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees or the welfare of the communities in which the corporation operates.”

Please read Barnes’ book and spread these ideas. These thoughtful men have provided a template for a true solution to so many problems and potential disasters. If the oil spill serves as the motivation for a considered reassessment of how we conduct a healthy capitalism for all — humans, non-humans, and the environment — then perhaps we can live with the dire consequences and move toward a healthy future.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm


Image courtesy of NASA Goddard Photo and Video via Creative Commons.

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

Filed under: books, changemakers, citizen activism, Environmental Preservation, social justice, systemic change, third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Human Overpopulation: The Taboo Topic

Posted on August 17, 2009 by zoeweil

In a previous blog post, Desire ≠ Wisdom, Part 2, I mentioned the issue of people having more than two biological children. Before posting, I reconsidered. I worried that readers with more than two children might feel judged by me. Many of my friends have more than 2 biological children, so let me be clear: If you have more than 2 biological children, I don’t judge you! And I hope you won’t judge me for flying overseas for vacation, which I also mentioned in my post. I raised the issue to point out that there’s a slippery slope when we judge others and their choices; none of us is perfect, and the key is to try to make MOGO choices consciously and with integrity to the best of our ability.

But today I realized that if I refuse to speak about pressing issues like human overpopulation, and instead just use them as examples of personal choices, I run the risk of moral relativism at best, and participating, through silence, in potential environmental catastrophe at worst. So it’s time for me to speak about this topic directly. But let me be clear again: I am speaking to my educated, largely privileged, computer-using audience. I am not speaking to parents who are unlikely to watch most of their babies grow into adults, or who need extra hands to plow barely fertile soil, or who have no access to contraception, or who are raped. Around the globe, 1 billion people have no access to clean water, let alone contraception. Many African women spend 5 hours each day obtaining water. Hundreds of millions of people are malnourished. There is overpopulation in these countries and not enough basic resources for the citizenry. Yet one can hardly blame a family for having 10 children when the likelihood of even a few reaching adulthood is in question.

On average, a child in the U.S. will consume as much as dozens of children in poor countries, proportionally causing far greater environmental harm and using a vastly greater share of the earth’s limited resources. So, even though there is enough food and water in wealthy countries for the most part, overpopulation is an issue in rich nations, just as it is in many poor nations. This is no either/or. Some western European countries are urging their citizens to have more children because their populations are in decline, but surely these same countries could welcome more immigrants, and their citizens could adopt orphaned children — maintaining their workforce but not bringing more people onto a finite and overcrowded planet.

But human overpopulation has become a taboo subject. When Sarah Palin was named John McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate, her many children were considered a plus. She was seen as a good, loving mom of five beautiful and patriotic children. When the news recently reported that a California woman gave birth to octuplets, no one dared to raise the question of whether it’s ethical, seemingly through artificial insemination and technologies, to bring that many children into an overpopulated world, use that many disposable diapers, cause that much pollution, and use up that many resources.

I believe that a sustainable human population on planet earth requires far fewer than our current 6.5 billion people and growing. Yet, we don’t talk about this critical subject. We thank God for the blessing of each baby, and despite millions of orphans, dare not suggest that perhaps families who want many kids stop at two biological children and adopt others who desperately need good and loving homes.

This taboo must end. We mustn’t judge people for having more than two biological children, but we must have a spirited discussion and debate about this most pressing challenge and issue and provide the education and opportunities so that people can make wise, healthy family planning choices for themselves and the world.

I invite your comments.

~ Zoe

Zoe has been away on business, so this is a repost, originally posted 2/4/09.

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

Filed under: MOGO (Most Good), population issues, systemic change, third side thinking, U.S. policy | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Widening Our Criteria for MOGO Food Choices

Posted on July 15, 2009 by zoeweil

Food is in the news, and many people are considering what’s MOGO (Most Good) when they make their food choices. But making MOGO food choices can be complicated. Taking into consideration what’s best for people, animals, the environment, and oneself in a system that is extremely complex isn’t easy.

Periodically, a food movement will emerge that seems to answer the question, “What’s the MOGO diet?” For about two decades the vegan movement has grown substantially because it has made connections between the protection of individual health, world hunger, ecological protection, and animal rights. The organic food movement has also grown considerably, too, buttressing the vegan movement with another lens through which to make MOGO food choices.

Recently, the locavore movement has emerged, and its proponents argue that eating locally, including eating animal-based foods and choosing local over organic when local organic is unavailable, is MOGO, because local foods require less energy to transport and help communities create food security in unreliable energy times.

But then there are studies that show that eating foods considered local (within 150 miles) that are transported by small farmers in small trucks is actually less energy-efficient than eating foods grown further away but trucked in a single large vehicle, and still other studies show that local meat still contributes more global warming gasses than non-local non-animal foods. Such studies don’t diminish the positive effects of truly local food (within 20 miles for example), and the food security that can happen through sustainable, local agriculture, but they point out that local shouldn’t be the only lens for MOGO food.

I believe that when we grab onto a food concept, like vegan or local or organic and make all our choices through this single lens, we limit our capacity to make truly MOGO food choices. It’s much easier to choose foods through a single lens, and I understand the desire to do so to simplify such complicated choices, but instead, we can consider several lenses when choosing food.

My criteria for MOGO food, which I describe at greater length in my book, Most Good, Least Harm, are these:

As often as possible, choose foods that are:

  • Locally and organically produced.
  • Plant-based.
  • In season.
  • Produced through fair trade practices.
  • Whole and unprocessed.
  • Not overly-packaged, and if packaged, only in recycled and recyclable materials.
  • Low in saturated fats and cholesterol.
  • Produced without refined sugars and without hydrogenated vegetable oils.
  • Produced without abuse towards and exploitation of animals.
  • Not genetically engineered.

Bon appetit,

~ Zoe

Filed under: food and diet, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Beyond the Lens of Human Health: Let’s Ask Bigger Questions About the Impacts of Our Food Choices

Posted on April 1, 2009 by zoeweil

A friend of a friend, active on our food co-op board and an organic gardener and chef, admitted that she didn’t buy organic almonds because the shell protected the nuts from the pesticides; so, she wasn’t willing to pay the extra cost when there was an insignificant health benefit. I was surprised that she made the choice not to buy organic almonds for this reason. And I admit that I’m frustrated that the human health issue regarding organics is the one primarily promoted and/or debated in the media. Instead of discussing the impacts of pesticide use on the environment and on species other than ourselves, we focus all our attention on whether or not pesticides are dangerous to humans. If we get stuck there, then if it’s not proven by science to be dangerous to humans, we ignore everything else that’s dangerous about pesticides.

Personally, I don’t choose organic foods primarily for my health, but rather for the sake of the ecosystems my food choices affect. It’s the same issue with meat-eating. While I’m glad to know that my vegan diet is so healthy for me, my primary reason for not eating animals and animal products is to avoid causing unnecessary suffering and death to sentient beings. As soon as a certain animal food is touted as healthy or helpful in losing weight, it’s the primary lens through which people choose it. Like the e. coli and mad cow scares, once we’re assured certain foods are safe for us and the fear-mongering has died down, all other related issues are muted.

It’s important to make deeper connections and ask bigger questions about the impacts of our food choices. For example, whether or not organics are worth the cost for the potential health benefits to us, they are – assuming we can afford them – worth the costs to the water, air, soil, and all the species affected by pesticides.

~ Zoe

Filed under: critical thinking, food and diet | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

National Wildlife Refuge or National Wildlife Refuse?

Posted on March 30, 2009 by zoeweil

Recently, my husband and I spent a day at Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge in Steuben, Maine. This refuge, located on a thin peninsula in the Gulf of Maine comprises a few miles of rocky beach surrounding heath, bog, and forest. It’s a beautiful spot in a sparsely populated county in a sparsely populated state, and we saw no other humans during our 5 hour hike. (We did, however, see a large herd of deer, several porcupines, and plenty of shorebirds.) Despite the lack of people, the human impact was all too obvious.

Lobster fishing is a major industry in our county, and over the past decade wire traps, coated in plastic, have replaced the traditional wood traps. Traps periodically break free of their lines and wash ashore. Wood traps quickly fall apart, but the metal and plastic traps do not. Although these new traps haven’t been used for very long, there were many hundreds tangled together and lining the sea walls along the shores of Petit Manan (see photos).

There was plenty of other trash (lots of water bottles, plastic rope, and plastic containers), but the lobster trap refuse dwarfed everything. One can only wonder what another decade will bring.

Lobster trapping is a major source of income in coastal Maine towns where there are few job opportunities. These people need jobs, but our seas and our shores need protection, too. As we look toward a future with dwindling sea life and an end to abundant, cheap fossil fuels, we will need to create healthy new economies and jobs that meet human needs while also protecting fragile ecosystems.

I hope Petit Manan will remain a national wildlife refuge and not a place for wildlife refuse. But that won’t happen unless we think ahead and commit to creative solutions for a rapidly changing world.

~ Zoe

Images courtesy of and copyright Edwin Barkdoll.

Filed under: Environmental Preservation, systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Human Overpopulation: The Taboo Subject

Posted on February 4, 2009 by zoeweil

In my previous blog post, Desire ≠ Wisdom, Part 2 , I mentioned the issue of people having more than two biological children. Before posting, I reconsidered. I worried that readers with more than two children might feel judged by me. Many of my friends have more than 2 biological children, so let me be clear: If you have more than 2 biological children, I don’t judge you! And I hope you won’t judge me for flying overseas for vacation, which I also mentioned in my post. I raised the issue to point out that there’s a slippery slope when we judge others and their choices; none of us is perfect, and the key is to try to make MOGO choices consciously and with integrity to the best of our ability.

But today I realized that if I refuse to speak about pressing issues like human overpopulation, and instead just use them as examples of personal choices, I run the risk of moral relativism at best, and participating, through silence, in potential environmental catastrophe at worst. So it’s time for me to speak about this topic directly. But let me be clear again: I am speaking to my educated, largely privileged, computer-using audience. I am not speaking to parents who are unlikely to watch most of their babies grow into adults, or who need extra hands to plow barely fertile soil, or who have no access to contraception, or who are raped. Around the globe, 1 billion people have no access to clean water, let alone contraception. Many African women spend 5 hours each day obtaining water. Hundreds of millions of people are malnourished. There is overpopulation in these countries and not enough basic resources for the citizenry. Yet one can hardly blame a family for having 10 children when the likelihood of even a few reaching adulthood is in question.

On average, a child in the U.S. will consume as much as dozens of children in poor countries, proportionally causing far greater environmental harm and using a vastly greater share of the earth’s limited resources. So, even though there is enough food and water in wealthy countries for the most part, overpopulation is an issue in rich nations, just as it is in many poor nations. This is no either/or. Some western European countries are urging their citizens to have more children because their populations are in decline, but surely these same countries could welcome more immigrants, and their citizens could adopt orphaned children — maintaining their workforce but not bringing more people onto a finite and overcrowded planet.

But human overpopulation has become a taboo subject. When Sarah Palin was named John McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate, her many children were considered a plus. She was seen as a good, loving mom of five beautiful and patriotic children. When the news recently reported that a California woman gave birth to octuplets, no one dared to raise the question of whether it’s ethical, seemingly through artificial insemination and technologies, to bring that many children into an overpopulated world, use that many disposable diapers, cause that much pollution, and use up that many resources.

I believe that a sustainable human population on planet earth requires far fewer than our current 6.5 billion people and growing. Yet, we don’t talk about this critical subject. We thank God for the blessing of each baby, and despite millions of orphans, dare not suggest that perhaps families who want many kids stop at two biological children and adopt others who desperately need good and loving homes.

This taboo must end. We mustn’t judge people for having more than two biological children, but we must have a spirited discussion and debate about this most pressing challenge and issue and provide the education and opportunities so that people can make wise, healthy family planning choices for themselves and the world.

I invite your comments.

~ Zoe

Filed under: Environmental Preservation, human rights, population, systemic change, U.S. policy | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Invisible World Made Visible

Posted on January 21, 2009 by zoeweil

I have spent quite a lot of time in Acadia National Park (a short drive from my home) over the past 13 years that I’ve lived here, and I can easily count the times that I’ve seen wildlife other than birds and squirrels. I see deer now and then; a few times I’ve seen baby porcupines; twice I’ve seen hares and a fox; and one time each I saw a coyote and a bat (inexplicably snoozing on a rock).

I was in Acadia right after a snowstorm recently. It was breathtaking. The snow sparkled in the sun. There were walls of icicles hanging over rocks and a frozen waterfall. There were also dozens of animal tracks. I followed a fox track for miles, spotted countless deer tracks, mouse tracks, and snowshoe hare tracks. And then there were the several porcupine tracks that look startlingly like tire tracks in the snow. There were also myriad coyote tracks that had led to large coyote gatherings. And this was just one day after the snowstorm.

I only saw a few actual animals, and they were the ubiquitous squirrels and birds, but I realized just how many live in Acadia and walk the same paths as I. I wondered what it would take for me to actually see these denizens of Acadia. I’m sure I’d have more luck arriving at dawn or waiting until dusk, rather than coming in the (relative) warmth of midday, but even then, I would have to slow down and stay very quiet. My husband once saw tracks in the snow of an otter who had roamed up steep rocks and then slid down them, over and over again, criss-crossing a headland in Acadia that juts out into the Atlantic. But, he never saw the otter, despite having arrived before dawn to take photographs of the rising sun and its lovely light on the snow and ice.

I know now that these animals are always there. To see so many tracks within 24 hours of a snowfall revealed just how invisible they choose to be. I like to think I’ll become more observant, that I’ll hunker down and patiently wait. I like to think that the animals will show themselves if I watch and listen in silence.

What does this have to do with MOGO living? From our reverence grows our respect and sense of responsibility. When we fall in love with the natural world, we are moved to protect and restore it. The soft snow made the invisible visible and told me the beginning of a story that I hope to hear now in full. I care more because I’ve experienced more, because my heart sang with joy that day.

It’s so important that all of us leave the built world for the natural world now and again, and even more important that we ensure that our children do this regularly. It is in the real world of nature that we often find ourselves moved to make the MOGO choices for a sustainable, peaceful, and humane future for all species.

~ Zoe

Filed under: MOGO (Most Good), reverence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

WebSpotlight: Worldmapper.org

Posted on December 5, 2008 by zoeweil

I highly recommend a visit to World Mapper, where you can view a remarkable collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest.   Want to compare countries based on carbon footprint? Toy exports or imports? HIV/AIDS? Infant mortality? There are nearly 600 maps, and this fascinating, sobering, and revealing visual representation is not only personally useful for anyone involved in research, investigation, and changemaking, but for all educators (and parents) looking for new and interesting ways to share important information with students/youth.

~ Zoe

Map image © Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of Michigan).

Filed under: accurate information, resources | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

We’re Trashing the Planet, and We’re Not Even Having Fun: Reclaiming Our Happiness (and the Health of the Planet)

Posted on December 3, 2008 by zoeweil

During Annie Leonard’s and Andy Revkin’s talk, “How Many? How Much?”, at Bioneers in October,  Annie made the comment, “We’re trashing the planet, and we’re trashing each other, and we’re not even having fun.” This may sound like a flip statement, but it’s backed up with statistics from polls that reveal that happiness has been on the decline in the U.S. for decades.  Our contentment as a nation was highest during the 1950s, and it has been decreasing ever since. The irony is that, on average, we have way bigger houses, way more stuff, way more entertainments, and way more consumer choices.  But, as Annie says, we’re not having fun.

Given this reality, shouldn’t it be easy to create change, to stop trashing the planet and each other?  Since the consequences of our current actions are frightening, depressing, and potentially irrevocable, and we’re not even having fun, doesn’t it seem logical that we’d abandon a materialist, resource-depleting, toxin-producing culture for a community-, relationship- and service-centered society?  But it has not been easy to shift our trajectory toward simpler, healthier, more restorative living, and the reasons could be the subject of many a dissertation.  Since this is a blog post, I’ll only throw out a few potential reasons:

  • We’ve come to believe (through advertising, media, and social engineering and influence) that a bigger house, more stuff, the newest electronics, etc., will be fun — so fun that it will increase our happiness; thus, we act upon our (generally false) beliefs that stuff will make us happy, and we buy more stuff.
  • We’re collectors and hoarders by nature; just like a bower bird collects shiny objects, so do we — not because of wise examination of the costs and benefits, but from innate desire, and perhaps, instinct.
  • We’re competitive; seeing others with more sparks our desire and willingness to strive for more ourselves.
  • Our capitalist system is designed both to grow production and generate desires through persuasion, and we, being impressionable and malleable, are easily swayed, despite our best interests.
  • Transforming our current system, which has brought us tremendous benefits, takes hard work and is threatening.
  • We have trouble seeing beyond the here and now, so we don’t associate our newest gadget with exploitation of other people, animals, or the planet; we are more ignorant than uncaring or unwise.
  • Bucking the mainstream is personally difficult and unsettling; it’s easier to maintain the status quo.
  • Growing dissatisfaction and unhappiness are incremental; we simply don’t notice that our passion for more stuff is related to suffering and destruction, let alone our personal discontent.

So how to we address these factors?  Here are a few ideas:

  • Change corporate charters and revise capitalism so that we make it illegal for corporations to harm, oppress, and destroy others in the production and disposal of products.
  • Require that products print the true costs of production and disposal on labels, the same way we require that food labels include ingredients.
  • Stop subsidizing with tax dollars the pollution caused by production and disposal of our products and the destruction of natural resources involved in this system.
  • Outlaw the advertising of all products and foods which cause ill health.  Cigarette and hard alcohol TV advertising were made illegal; the same needs to happen for fast food and junk food, “boutique” pharmaceuticals, etc.
  • Bring humane education to all levels of schooling and society so that, in age-appropriate and relevant ways, everyone learns about the true price of the products in our midst, is able to separate fact from opinion and to think critically and creatively, and can analyze the media messages that seek to influence them.
  • Begin a gross domestic happiness index in every country (currently, Bhutan has such an index), making it a national priority to increase this index.
  • Replace the GDP (gross domestic product) with the GPI (genuine progress indicator) so that the costs of production are subtracted, revealing a true indicator of “progress.”

The list above includes societal changes that will address materialism at its source, but there are also choices we can make in our individual lives to take more control of our personal happiness and model non-materialistic fun.  Here are some ideas:

  • Turn off your TV, and gather with friends and family for conversation, to play games, make music, help with projects, build gardens, and share meals.
  • Volunteer and get active with organizations that help individuals and the environment, as well as create systemic change.
  • Choose to shop less; buy what you need and truly want, rather than fill time with shopping.
  • Spend time outdoors in natural settings and allow your reverence and appreciation for the earth to grow; this will undermine materialistic messages while bringing joy and restoring your commitment to make a difference.
  • Note the fun you’re having when you make these changes.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on solutions, too.  Please do post your comments.

~ Zoe

Filed under: consumerism, MOGO (Most Good), systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 436 other followers