A weblog with random thoughts and reflections on society and ecology.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Complexity Theories & Social Change
Complexity theories (systems theories, chaos theories, fractals, gaia etc) has their origins in natural science. Still, they may offer important insights for us in understanding social systems and social change. Here are some key consepts and how they may relate to our social dimension:
- Humility
One of the main yields from complexity theories is a deeper sense of humility. Control is futile, and change is always unpredictable. There are many factors that creates this unpredictability. (a) All phenomena are aspects of one whole system, and thus intrinsicly interconnected. (b) Change is often influenced in a significant way by what appears (to us) as insignificant variables, and we cannot predict in advance which variables will be influencial and to what degree. Any real-life system is thus far too complex to be predictable.
- Partnership Approach
Complexity theories demonstrates the benefit of a partnership approach rather than a control/dominance approach: (a) All phenomena are aspects of one whole and intrinsicly interconnected. There is no us/them dichotomy, everything is "us". There is no outside. (b) Living systems are self-organizing and immensely complex. Attempts of external control is thus based on an illusion of seperation (us/them), and futile as systems tend to choose their own course, and adapt and respon in ways not completely predictable. Attempts to eradicate a virus leads to mutations. Attempts to eliminate terrorism with war leads to more terrorism. A partnership approach gives us the opportunity to engage in a dialogue, a dance that may lead to mutual benefits.
- Sensitive Dependence / Butterfly Effect
Change is often influenced in a significant way by what appears as insignificant variables. We cannot predict in advance which variables will be influencial and to what degree. A seemingly insignificant occurence (for instance a conversation) can change the course of events in a dramatic way.
- Sudden Changes / Bifurcation
Systems undergo sudden and dramatic changes. It may look as if nothing is happening for a long time, until the conditions are right and the change occurs faster than we expected. Again, we cannot predict accurately in advance which exact conditions are neccesary.
16:27
(0) comments
Shambala Prophecy
The Shambala Prophecy seems more relevant than ever. See the link for more information.
09:49
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Media - three worlds
International media presents the Iraq invasion in a dramatically different way from US media, and the Arabic/Islamic world presents it in a third way. Not surprisingly, it seems that the most balanced and critical information comes from the countries not directly involved in the conflict.
 Norwegian media, which I am most familiar with, typically: (a) Balance the views and information from both sides, with a critical analysis and making the biases explicit. (b) Give in-depth background information. (c) Is critical to and analyze the spin of US government and media, as well as that of the Iraqi government and media. (d) Emphasize the uncertainty and problems with the US strategy (both invasion and occupation). (e) Prior to the war, emphasized that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism, no evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and misleading insinuations and information from the US and UK. (f) Emphasize strongly the human view - the reality and horror of war and the suffering of the civilians - including (i) interviews with regular Iraqi people and those wounded and those having lost relatives, (ii) photage of the destruction, and (iii) photage of US Prisoners of War.
16:02
(0) comments
Democracy
The US is known for promoting democracy. At least verbally, and as long as it is within nations and not among them, and the democracy in question is aligned with US interests.
Tyrannies aligned with US interests are OK (East Timor, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait, and numerous other regimes). Democracies not aligned with US interests are at risk of being overthrown with support of the US (Chile in 1972 is one example).
Further, democary is OK within nations (with the caveat mentioned above) but not among nations. The US has consistently worked against the UN (only moderately democratic), and any attempts to make the UN more democratic than it is. Not surprising, as a truly democratic and strong UN is clearly against the interests of the US.
11:37
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Distractions
It is easy to loose the view of the big picture these days, to allow the US foreign policies to dominate our thoughts and conversations as they dominate the media. Still, there are other and far more important issues that need our attention, and these - not surprisingly - happen to be connected to the high profile events these days.
The main issue, as I see it, is the deep culture change towards a life-centered culture. A change that involves worldviews, language, and most of all our relationships - with ourselves, each other, the Earth, and future generations. Aspects of this change involves a move from control to partnership orientation, a shift of power from corporations to communities, and ecological sustainability on a large and small scale.
What we see today, with the aggressive US foreign and domestic policies aimed at intimidation and control, is the expression of the dominant system. A system that is control oriented, where policies and media aligned with the interests of large corporations, and where the interest of future generations and nonhuman species is ignored. Fortunately, there is an international grassroots movement creating a life-centered culture - and it is vibrant, creative, steadily growing, and fun! It operates largely under the radar screen of the media, so most of us only see glimpses of it, so far.
17:31
(0) comments
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Double Standards
The US government is a master in double standards.
Iraq and Israel both have weapons of mass destruction, and a history of oppression (respectively Kurds and Muslims) and human rights violations. Still, there is no discussion of going to war against Israel (not that I would want it, for either country). Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, as was much of their funding, but there is similarly no discussion of attacking Saudi Arabia. There is also the striking fact that the US government itself fits closely the criteria listed above, and it often sounds as if US officials are describing themselves when describing Iraq.
There is also a clear double standard in how the US regard treatment of prisoners of war. They demonstrate that they are willing to commit human right violation in how they treat their own prisoners of war, but demand a different and more humane treatment for US prisoners of war. For instance, the US government/media are eager to show photos of captured or surrendering Iraqi soldiers, while US officials now sharply criticize Iraq for showing photos of captured US soldiers. They say it is a violation of international law, which is Ironic as the US themselves have repeatedly and systematically shown disrespect for international law and agreements. One example is the most recent war in Afghanistan where they have admitted to torturing prisoners to death, and where other prisoners are taken to the Guantanamo military base in Cuba where their human rights are systematically violated - through inhumane treatment, holding of prisoners indefinitely without trail, and denial of access to lawyer.
14:35
(0) comments
Democracy & Dissent
A true democracy has several characteristics: a deep community dialogue on issues and solutions, media that gives a voice to all views and represent these views fairly, and elections that gives each candidate an equal opportunity to have their views heard. Of course, in the US, none of these characteristics are met. People are pacified by entertainment and a consumer lifestyle that leaves little room for community involvement, corporate media only allows certain views to be presented and regularly misrepresent alternative views, and the political system favors those candidates who are aligned with and backed by large corporations.
There is a need for dissent and critical analysis of policies and their effects at all times, but never more so than in a time of war. In a war, decisions are made that have a direct life and death impact on large numbers of people. Those decisions, and the assumptions and policies behind them, must be critically analyzed and questioned by the media and the population at large, and there must be a willingness to engage in civil disobedience at all level of society. Unquestioned decisions, especially in a time of war, can lead to tremendous tragedies.
11:10
(0) comments
Saturday, March 22, 2003
What is radical?
Looking at what is perceived as "radical" in a culture and at a particular time gives us important information about that culture.
Today, seeking deep culture change towards a life-centered and life-affirming culture, is seen as radical. Questioning the power of corportaions, and their control of the media and the political system, is seen as radical. Questioning policies of the US government is seen as unpatriotic, treason (Senator Orrin Hatch), and radical. Expanding true compassion and respect of life to nonhuman species is seen as radical. Wanting fair trade policies is seen as radical. Taking into account future generations in our decision making process is seen as radical. Currently in the US, supporting peace, nonviolent conflict resolution, United Nations, and international law is seen as radical.
What does it say about our culture...?
11:54
(0) comments
Consensus Technique
An effective technique for reaching consensus in (a) smaller groups (10-15) with (b) not too much polarization. As told to me by Brian Joiner.
Ground rules: (i) Willing to listen, (ii) Willing to change one's own position.
Method: Go around in a circle. (1) Each person says "what" (what they would like see happen, or a yes/no to a suggestion). Others can ask questions for clarification. (2) Then, each person says "why". Others can ask questions for clarification, to help them understand the reasoning behind the "why". Repeat (1) and (2) until a consensus is reached. This typically takes 4-6 rounds.
I noticed that there is a parallel with Nonviolent Communication: The "what" corresponds to strategies, and the "why" corresponds to needs. The process helps us clarify and differentiate needs and strategies. We clarify and differentiate our own needs and strategies, and clarify and differentiate our own understanding of the needs and strategies of each of the other people in the group. Further, it helps us to (a) more clearly define our own needs, (b) more easily let go of our attachments to specific strategies, and (c) creatively/collaboratively explore other strategies that can meet the needs of all involved.
10:37
(0) comments
Thursday, March 20, 2003
The most dangerous man in the world
Day One of the new Iraq war. More than 80% of the people of the world oppose the war against Iraq, including a majority of the nations on the UN security council. This again shows how the US verbally promote democracy within nations (although even that is questionable) while acting in a blatantly un-democratic way on an international level. Some thoughts:
- Threat
Iraq posed no immediate threat towards the US or any other nation, according to their neighboring countries, the UN weapons inspectors and the CIA. There was no reason to not allow the UN weapons inspectors to continue their inspections for a few more months, as they asked for. With more than 200 weapons inspectors in Iraq, and a close scrutiny by the world community, the situation was well contained.
- Misinformation
The US government has systematically misled the public and lied about the Iraq situation. They have insinuated that there is a link between the Iraqi government and past, current or future terrorism, and there is none (again according to CIA and other intelligence sources). There is also no indication that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, according to among others the UN weapons inspectors. Hans Blix has expressed it clearly, and the Norwegian weapons inspector Jørn Siljeholm, said that the US systematically lied on this topic. ("Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.")
- International Law
There are strong indications that the war against Iraq is violating international law [2]. Blair, Aznar, and other leaders actively supporting the war may well be tried before the International Criminal Court. The US opposed the creation of this court, saying that it could be used against them for political reasons. The reality may be that it could be used against them for systematically violating international law.
- Cost
The war on Iraq, and subsequent "nation building", is estimated to cost each US citizen $1700 ($500 billion divided on 290 million citizens - source). It will also cost lives and suffering on a massive scale.
- Terrorism
War and violence can never quell terrorism. War has a specific geographical focus, while terrorism thrive in loosely organized international networks. War, invasion, and occupation can only fuel resentment, anger and despair leading to further terrorism. It is profoundly irrational to assume that war will prevent terrorism. The situation in the Middle East is especially volatile, and further violence may lead it to spiral out of control.
- Invasion
It is likely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will run into a number of problems. The main one may be a persistent guerilla warfare. The history of the Iraqi people gives them strong reasons for resenting and opposing an invasion and occupation by the US and the UK. Some examples: (a) Great Britain invaded Iraq during WW1 and occupied the country for several years. (b) The US supported and created Saddam Hussein and supported and encouraged the Iraq-Iran war where large numbers of Iraqis were killed. (c) The US was responsible for a large number of civilian causalities during the first Gulf War. (d) During the first Gulf War, they destroyed the infrastructure (including water treatment plants) which led to massive suffering among the civilian population. (e) George Bush the First encouraging a failed upraising against Saddam Hussein, which led to thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's government. The US did nothing to help them. (f) The sanctions has lead to massive suffering among the Iraqi population, while Saddam Hussein and his government have not been harmed. (g) The current invasion and war is again bringing massive suffering to the civilian population. (h) They plan to dictate and control the creation of the new Iraqi government. To believe that the Iraqi population will welcome them with open arms is remarkably naive, and publicly expressing that assumption must be a willful deception or coming from a surprising lack of insight in human nature in general and the Iraqi history in particular. The Iraqis, no matter their view of Saddam Hussein, will most likely defend their country with any means available against what they see as an illegitimate invasion and occupation.
- Occupation and new government
Any attempt to install a US controlled government in Iraq is likely to run into massive problems, for some of the same reasons as mentioned above. The invasion, occupation and "nation building" process is likely to be long, tortous, and expensive (in terms of dollars, lives, suffering, and loss of goodwill).
- Democracy in the Middle East
It is ironic that the US (a) wants to control the Middle East, and (b) express a desire to see democratic governments in the Middle East. They must realize that truly democratic governments, responsive to the views of their citizens, would strongly oppose US interference.
I watched Good Evening, Mr Wallenberg last night, and was struck by some of the parallels with our current situation. During WW2, the Nazis saw Jews (and others) as not quite human, and disposable for the purpose of reaching a higher goal. Today, the US government is saying that a certain number of Iraqi civilian causalities is acceptable for the purpose of reaching a higher goal. ("An estimated 3,500 civilians were killed during the 1991 Gulf War. Crowder said the U.S. military weighs what level of civilian casualties would be "acceptable" depending upon the importance of a given target." source)
20:22
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Dialogue - breaking out of the insular patterns
During the Iraq situation I have forwarded news stories to likeminded people (on the lack of substance to the US view), had conversations with likeminded people, put up lawn signs that likeminded people agree with (and feel supported by) and others get annoyed with, taken part in peace marches and vigils with likeminded people, sought out news sources with views similar to my own (most of the international media and the US alternative media), written reflections here that likeminded people may mostly agree with and others won't, and taken part in Conversation Cafes with likeminded people.
Rarely, if ever, have I had the opportunity to engage in a sincere dialogue with people with differing views. And just that seems to be a significant issue in our time. We too often (a) choose to expose ourselves to that which supports our own views and (b) we choose to interact - especially when it comes to quality dialogue - with likeminded people. In a culture where debates and entrenched positions are expected, and quality dialogues among people with differing views is rare, we have few models for and little access to situations that encourage such an exchange.
A small step in the direction of sincere dialogue among people with widely different perspectives and backgrounds is the Commons Cafe, where people from different parts of society are actively recruited to take part in dialogue. Another, more formalized approach, is Citizen Councils.
I wish there was a news source that was widely inclusive of differing views. One with quality news reporting that honestly represent the strongest case of the different perspectives on a wide range of issues. I have yet to find it - although it may be out there. The closest righ now may be the Google news service, which draws on sources with differing views and from all over the world (although only in English). It is all automated, so no human editors are involved (although that in itself is no guarantee of lack of censorship).
12:03
(0) comments
Sunday, March 09, 2003
Control and Partnership
I helped organize a panel held at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference today. It's topic was "Community, Networking and Complexity", and included Alder Fuller from ProtoTista (complexity theories), Mark Williams from OPN/EFN (Open Source), Diane Brausse from Lost Valley (intentional communities), and Nick Routledge from Eugene Permaculture Guild (ecological design). Jair from Imaginify was the main organizer, and Wynn Swafford from Sunrise Facilitation Collective facilitated. It was a great experience, and I think we all had our minds tweaked, even those of us who have previously explored the connections, parallels, and possible cross pollinating among the different areas. They all have strong commonalities in terms of paralell patterns and processes, and a shared partnership and solution focused approach.
What came up for me the strongest was the difference between the control and the partnership views. The control view is embodied in the institutions and structure of modern society, including the corporations, proprietary software, mainstream media and genetic engineering. This is a power-over and a win-loose approach. The partnership view is embodied in systems theories, Open Source, intentional communities, and ecological design. This is a power-with and a win-win approach.
The difference is vital. The control paradigm operate from an intrinsically arrogant (and naive) assumption: we can control social and ecological systems. It brings a sense of alienation from ourselves, each other, and the Earth. The partnership approach is humble at its heart, and is from a realization that we are a small part of a vastly larger and complex system. Our only choice is to use a collaborative approach. It allows for connections and for feeling at home with ourselves, the larger society and the Earth.
The control vs. partnership views are also reflected in communication. When we operate from a control and win-loose view, our communication tends to be towards talking more than listening, and be tinged with fear, hostility, threat of punishment and much more that alienates us from each other and ourselves. If we instead learn to operate from a partnership and win-win view, our communication tends to be characterized by genuine listening, compassion and a more flexible and solution oriented approach. We can more easily untangle our needs and the strategies we have for meeting those needs, let go of our attachment to specific strategies (often habitual), and seek creative and maybe unexpected strategies that meet the needs of all involved. It is more effective, and more fun.
15:00
(0) comments
Friday, March 07, 2003
Fragments - Bush, Iraq & Hitler
Some fragments on hot topics:
It is interesting to follow the news these days - and especially comparing international vs. US media...
European media tend to emphasize the optimism and request for more time from the UN weapons inspectors, Iraqi cooperation, lack of evidence for illegal weapons in Iraq, and the lack of substance in the "evidence" presented by the US and UK. In contrast, US media reflects the Bush government's positions with not much analysis or fair presentation of differing views.
And on that topic, here is an interesting story from Norwegian media:
Arild Linneberg is a professor of communication and was recently interviewed by NRK2, a public broadcast TV station in Norway. Mr. Linneberg has analyzed and compared speeches by Adolf Hitler (prior to WW2) and recent speeches by Mr. Bush. He found strong similarities, especially in terms of rhetorical strategy and content, including the representations of their own position vs. that of the "enemy" (moral superiority and divine support), and justification for going to war (own country's security). To test his findings, he asked his students to identify the author of a speech. His students guessed Bush. In reality, the speech was by Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland in 1939...
A majority of Europeans see Bush as a far greater threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. I suspect that many are struck by the same as I am - when US government officials describe Iraq and other "enemies", the descriptions often seem strikingly appropriate for the US government itself... A classic example of shadow projection.
It is difficult to see how Saddam Hussein currently is a threat, especially considering the UN inspectors currently at work in Iraq... A war will most likely have numerous unfortunate effects, some quite dangerous for the region and the world. It will increase international resentment towards the US, fuel terrorism, bring further suffering to the Iraqi people, and may initiate an escalating and spreading cycle of violence in the region. It will also bring about a serious budget deficit in the US (through transferring tax money to the war industry), and cut into vital services (schools, health care etc). In the US, there seems to be unlimited amount of money for war, but very limited amounts for services essential to a healthy and equitable society...
A list of the questionable acts and policies following the systematic strategy of intimidation by the US government is longer than one person can compile. One example of the current mindframe of the US government is the torture ending in death of prisoners in Afghanistan. This is in addition to the secret arrests, denial of access to lawyers, and indefinite detention we have seen for the last year and a half.
23:36
(0) comments
|
|
| |
|
|
|
