This is a nice enough article, and I do appreciate the compelling language. But at its core, there's not much new here. The essential message is to be cooperative, rather than selfish; do unto others as you would have them do unto you; listen to others with respect; preserve our natural environment.

Good advice, all of it. But the problem is determining how we get there! It appears that we don't have the luxury of a lot of time to save the planet, or even our own country, so I don't know if waiting for these infinitesmal shifts of consciousness is going to do it.

Philosophically, the essay is great, but what are the practical steps to encourage this transformation?

Inanna:

You commend Koehler for an "inciteful" perspective. Insightful, too, perhaps?

Koehler: "A "power over" or domination mentality is what we know and how we see pretty much everything, and it's an existential cul-de-sac. A "power with"...is... unexplored in our present circumstances and definitely not our default setting "

The physicist Robert Zubrin once expressed a philosophy of the importance of 'frontier' to societal thinking, a philosophy that has greatly informed me. The basic idea is that, absent a frontier, society would be absent that 'surface area' through which the real business of society, i.e. with its environment, is transacted. Such societies turn and grow inward by adopting, I suspect, a 'power over' philosophy. Methods are developed and widely adopted that are seen eventually to have constituted a kind of 'predation' of one segment of society over another. The most obvious of these is the aristocracy and its attendent religious-authority class. The promise may be salvation in the next world, but its consequence seems to be damnation in this one. Just examining the effect on Europe (Middle Ages): the serf eventually found himself displaced from his land by no less than 'God' himself. And if Zubrin's idea is correct, is it any wonder that the eventual pure expression of democracy would come from a country that was 9/10ths frontier? The New World's frontier constituted a magnificent 'safety valve' through which the preyed upon multitudes of the Old World could pass transformed (de Tocqueville). Zubrin argues that the New World Frontier made modern EUROPE possible (even that half of Europe that never even walked on American soil). That transformation continued until quite recently and some would argue that some immigrants are STILL being transformed by the 'new world'.

For those who would say that the American frontier was already populated, I would argue that it was largely depopulated BEFORE active, formal migration of Europeans onto formerly Indian Lands. The best estimates of native dieback from Western diseases was 90%: the expansion of chicken pox, etc, into native lands largely depopulated them BEFORE Europeans expanded onto their lands. The native dieback would have been seen by both natives and invaders as a 'Manifest Destiny' that favored the newcomers. I believe that, were it not for the disease factor, Native Americans would have easily held onto their lands against the invaders. It should also be understood that the impetus of disease could easily have gone the other way (and in the case of Tuberculosis and Syphilus, did). If 90% of Europeans had died as a result of their encounter, there is no question in my mind that much of modern Europe would have a distinctly Native American cast to it.

But the American frontier closed some time ago (1960s). Should we wonder that we now seem prey to all the ills that plagued Middle-Ages Europe? Europe, meanwhile, has now incorporated a level of socialism that prevents such predatory behavior, and which we would be wise to incorporate. Yet, Zubrin argued, even THEY need OUR frontier. Where is our new frontier, now that the old frontier has closed? I would argue that the oceans are an enormous physical resource that constitute a new, easily available 'frontier'. And, since they constitute 80% of earth's surface, much human expansion could take place. If this expansion enabled human societies to be less dependent on fossil fuels, the result would be a potential SAVING of the ocean biodiversity versus our current system. We must try not to confuse the obvious areal impact of our presence over the earth, with our actual physical impact. Low impact societies exist, even over the ocean.

However, Zubrins argument was that a space-directed human civilization will open up the 'final frontier' upon which all the BEST attributes of American frontier democracy (which de Tocqueville famously observed) would once again be encouraged. Given the energy cost of getting out of Earth's gravity well, that would seem to be a tall order. But consider the following: ALL the fossil energy humankind has used in its entire history, to build us up to where we are today, is EQUALLED or EXCEEDED by the sunlight falling on the Earth... EVERY DAY. And the EARTH, only receives about one-billionth of the sunlight the sun puts out... EVERY DAY. Clearly, if energy is what drives civilization, which it is, than a SOLAR civilization is civilization on hyperdrive. And a civilization actively engaged in expanding just into near-earth SPACE, is a civilization that has unlimited power and possibilities at its fingertips. A "power-with" philosophy is inevitable for a society engaging such a frontier, as it was for the early Americans (people being rare against such a frontier, they are correspondingly dear). Failing the engagement in such frontiers, I believe as occurred in Middle-Ages Europe, a "power-over" philosophy must naturally engage, and remain engaged until SOMEONE (perhaps the Chinese or Indians?) opens that frontier up.

Excellent article, Mr. Koehler.

When the hippies came on the scene I thought the world had woke up and would follow the light from then on.

It could have been more than just another fad---it could be still.

Turn on Tune in and Drop out. Tim Leary where are u dude when we desperately need u?

from the article:

How do we make the world, once again, sacred?

get naked, acknowledge personal unity with world
obtain food, water and shelter directly from living world
more sex more often with more partners
widespread cannabis use
occasional psilocybin use
be physically active
be quiet

"What commands my attention these days is not the major policy change that could alter the national direction but just the opposite, the almost infinitesimal shift in psycho-social consciousness that suddenly transforms the way we see the world: that gives the world depth. How do we make the world, once again, sacred?"

I would start with the almost infinitesimal shift involved in beginning to see the corporation as an easy but dangerous and destructive way to accumulate financial capital and to provide economic development and improve human welfare. Corporations are to sustainable economic development and the improvement of human welfare what crack cocaine is to sustainable individual happiness and good health.

"The mentality that we're tourists in the natural world is, I believe, a facet of the massive, unexamined alienation of our consumer and spectator culture."

Come on, isn't there any author out there courageous enough to speak the truth: Organized Religion is at fault. Organized religion is institutionalized "US vs THEM" and "WE ARE THE CHOSEN ONES". THAT'S the mindset that underlies the attitude Americans (and others) have that this author is too cowardly to admit.

Until organized religion is seen as being as repulsive as organized slavery (mental slavery) then we'll always have the ills the author speaks of. As a first step, I suggest Christians rip their bible in two, and throw away the Old Testament. Then cut out everything from the New Testament other than the few lines remaining that can truly be attributed to Jesus. THEN, drop the notion that Jesus was a god, and just go with the good advice he had. That'd be a start.