At a simplistic level, just about every sensory perception we hold, comes from Nature – up and down, fast and slow, hot and cold, safe or danger. And the more we age and “develop”, the more we seem to move away from the reality that nature is a fundamental need for our lives to continue. In the small space of life on our planet, nature has developed in so many intricate and connected ways that we forget it’s presence as we slice and dice our way through industry and profit. Examples are the easy ones – clean air and water; soil creation and enhancement; pest control and pollination. How could we live without them?
Einstein once said that “Smart people solve problems, while wise people avoid them”.
Throughout the existence of human life, we seem to have been too smart by half, and continue to roll from one problem to the next. This has come through those cultures that consider themselves superior to other life, and therefore capable of separation and dominion over other living creatures – even the bible asks for that one!
Those cultures that saw themselves as part of the earth, part of the living community, like nature itself, found equilibrium and balance, learning and understanding through generational knowledge and respect for what they had, and what they needed. Now was that a perfect life? I don’t know, but it certainly held a stasis and was sustainable over time when you consider Aborigines were living here in Australia for 45000 years, yet we are struggling with just 250 years under our belts!
Greed through the evolution of money and perceived personal value accompanied by no value mechanisms placed on nature and its’ abundance, resulted in abuse, colonisation, unfair competition, and a community unbalanced through impossible market forces that make it always impossible to have a level playing field – there is always imbalance and advantage and disadvantage, winners and losers and profits over costs.
RE-FRAME is a term I like.
It is about change, but it not about changing what I am doing now, it is about finding new reference points to hang my existing behaviour from. If resources are free and unlimited, I can continue to unload my rubbish and waste into the streams and not pay a cost for that process. However, the guy downstream also wants clean water, but now I have added to his cost by pushing dirty water downstream…is that fair and why does ONLY the guy down stream have to pay the consequence of my actions?
Well, we know that whole scenario has changed… or has it?
So, how would we RE-FRAME that scenario?Everyone has a right to clean water It is not FREE or OK for me to dump in the water which is used for factories and drinking water I need to RE-FRAME my idea of disposal this may add a cost burden that is now hard for me to make a profit with … choices are … stop manufacturing or change the process. And so the discussion can proceed under a NEW FRAME.
While this process is most probably far more complex, the basic premise is sound and worthy of consideration.