Main

May 1, 2007

Book Review: Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson

I've previously written about Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent science fiction novels that incorporate environmental themes. Well his latest novel, Sixty Days and Counting, is absolutely outstanding. In it, he continues the story started in Forty Days of Rain and Fifty Degrees Below about abrupt climate change. But in Sixty Days, we move beyond the abrupt climate change event itself and into the realm of political and cultural change, technical solutions and global environmental mitigation.

This is a book that is entirely about creating a positive future vision. It's about imaging what is possible if we were all working together really address the social and environmental crisis all around us. Having been interested in, and actively studying environmental issues for about ten years, and having studied sustainable business practices in the MBA program at Bainbridge Graduate Institute, I have a respect for the complexity of environmental and social issues: it's usually not as simple as banning this or that, or engaging in confrontations with big corporations. We can't, for example, look at logging as solely an environmental issue when it is also an issue of wasteful business practices, personal choice, and worker's jobs.

It feels as though Kim Stanley Robinson has been reading all the same books I have, been in the same book groups, taken the same sustainable business MBA classes, studied systems thinking extensively. Sixty Days and counting seems to tackle so much - so many issues, the political aspect, the business aspect, the cultural impacts, local impacts, global impacts. It's hard to imagine what someone would make of this book who didn't have the same background. It is even possible to grasp all the incredible concepts on this book? Reading the reviews on Amazon, people definitely do have strong opinions on the book.

Some of my favorite parts of the book are U.S. President Phil Chase's blog posts. Here's one long example, from page 361:

I think for a while we forgot what was possible. Our way of life damaged our ability to imagine anything different. Maybe we are rarely good at imaging that things could be different. Maybe that's what we mean when we talk about the Enlightenment. For a while there we understood that the ultimate source of power is the imagination.

"Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into the service of
economic royalists. It was natural and perhaps human that the priviledges princes of these new economic dynastics, thirsting for power, reached out for control of government itself. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happines. Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could only appeal to the organized power of the Government."

That was Franklin Roosevelt, talking as president to the nation 1936. In the same speech he said, "There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

But then we forgot again. We went back to imagining that things could only be as they were. We lived on in that strange new feudalism, in ways that were unjust and destructive and yet were presented as the only possible reality. We said "people are like that," or "human nature will never change" or "we are all guilty of original sin," or this is democracy, this is the free market, this is reality itself." And we went along with that analysis, and it became the law of the land. The entire world was legally bound to accept this feudal injustice as law. It was global and so it looked like it was universal. The future itself was bought, in the form of debts, mortgages, contracts - all spelled out by law and enforced by police and armies. Alternatives were unthinkable. Even to say that things could be otherwise would get you immediately branded as unrealistic, foolish, naive, insane, utopian.

But that was all delusion. Every few years things change completely, even though we can't quite remember how it happend or what it means. Change is real and unavoidable. And we can organization our affairs any way we please. There is no physical restraint on us. We are free to act. It's a fearsome thing, this freedom, so much so that people talk about a "flight from freedom" - that we fly into cages and hide because freedom is so profound it's a kind of abyss. To actually choose in each moment how to live is too scary to ensure.

So we lived like sleepwalkers. But the world is not asleep, and outside our dream, things continued to change. Trying to shape that change is not a bad thing. Some present that making a plan is instant communism and the devil's work, but it isn't so. We always have a plan. Free market economics is a plan-it plans to give over all decisions to the blind hand of the market. But the blind hand never picks up the check. And, you know-it's blind. To deal with the global environmental crisis now without making any more plan than to trust the market would be like saving, We have to solve this problem so first let's put out our eyes. Why? Why not use our eyes? Why not use our brain?

Because we're going to have to imagine our way out of this one.


Highly recommended!

April 16, 2007

Jesus Camp

Sentient Developments, an excellent blog I recently found (via Open the Future, via Rebecca's Pocket), has a very powerful and (freaky scary) post on Jesus Camp, a documentary about an evangelical summer camp. Some excerpts from the post:

The paranoia and sense of fanatical mission is palpable throughout Jesus Camp. The struggle to spread the Good Word has escalated beyond door-to-door evangelizing. The spread of liberalism and scientific naturalism in the U.S. has forced evangelicals to take it to the next level. They've declared war against their enemies and assumed ownership of the United States; they are working to reclaim what they see as God's country...

Evangelical parents and teachers are unknowingly applying memetic and neurolinguistic techniques in their practice. They teach their children to frame the world in a very specific way -- and they do it in such a way that they become 'locked-in' to that frame.

They teach and reinforce complete submission to God and are told that people are nothing more than vessels. As a result, children learn to see themselves as tools rather than free thinking agents. They are taught that independent and 'out of the box' thinking is deviant behavior and a sign of evil or weakness...

Indeed, the evangelicals know exactly what they're doing and they're consciously going about the business of not just conversion but of refining their techniques as well. "I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity," says Fisher, "lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity."

Highly recommended but scary article.

April 11, 2007

The Overton Window

Rebecca Blood has a good blog post on the Overton Window, an important concept I think we should all be familiar with. From the Wikipedia article, the concept:

"describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison."