Achieving Change

There are essentially two ways of effecting change on a large scale, and these are top-down and bottom-up actions. Top-down is the traditional way people think change occurs, which is where the government says, "Hey, you silly people, start doing things this way." This works fine in dictatorships, or for example feudal Japan, where the Shogun stopped problems of deforestation by placing strict controls on lumber cutting. In democracies, the government has no right to decree anything other than the will of the people. It should not, and generally cannot, tell the people to start doing something a different way. Activists often forget this when they think, "Oh, we just have to convince the government to do it and then that's that." The other problem with this kind of change is that corporations know that convincing a few politicians is easier than convincing the whole population through mass propaganda, so getting anti-corporate legislation through government is quite difficult.

The other type of change is bottom-up, and this is a lot harder to achieve but is ultimately the superior form, which involves communities banding together to make decisions for themselves. This is change that is enacted by individuals, and it ranges from a town deciding to act against development near the local natural reserve to entire cities of people rising up to protest social injustice (like the civil rights movement, or the privatization of water in Cochabamba, Bolivia.) This requires effort from large numbers of people, which is why, in comparison with forming a special interest lobbying group, this type of change is difficult, but it's ultimately far more effective than any government decree. (Unless this government is authoritarian, in which case it's arguable which is more effective.)

The purpose of activism is to engage enough people to convince the public to act against the problem, and thus motivate the government to take action on our behalf. Bottom-up change is all well and good, but it's hard to motivate an entire nation to change, and only the government had authority over all areas of the nation (or province, in the case of local governments.) The most effective way of achieving change is bottom-up actions leading to top-down policies. Unless we make the sacrifices and take the steps toward confronting a problem, however, the government will not magically step in and solve the problem. Change starts with the individual.

The Image of my Idealism

I do not consider myself a hopeless idealist, but rather a realistic optimist. I have strong ideas on what humanity is doing wrong, as well as not entirely coherent ideas on how we could do better. I don't have a practical plan for change, which is why I am not open about the ideals that I have. My older brother once frankly stated that I'm not passionate about anything. In a sense, he's right because, as you may have already noticed, I am introverted and generally calm, but on the other hand he's wrong because I do feel quite passionately about certain issues. However, passion without a focus is merely wasted, and so I present to you the focus of my passions, such as they are.*

We are at a pivotal moment in human history. Our actions at this point can lead humanity to a golden age of global prosperity, or to a bleak future with lower standards of living, a crippled environment, and continued inequality. No matter what, the status quo will have to change, whether through deliberate change, or global constraints forcing us in a certain direction. The Western rate of consumption cannot be sustained, and while we can choose changes that minimize the impact they have on our standard of living, there will be an impact. Economically, the inequality between the poor and rich in our society is troubling, but it's hardly significant compared to the inequality between the developed world and everyone else. Addressing these problems will require social change, such as better education and transparent government. But the very first step is the hardest one, and that is convincing ourselves that we can make a difference and pressuring our society to critically examine itself.

Obviously, I have not yet taken this first step either. The one concrete action that I could be proud of, eliminating meat from my diet, is now replaced by an only half-assuaged guilt that I tried and failed. (If this is news, then the reason I switched back is because I was losing weight, and I am already "anatomically impossible," as someone once told me.) However, I could not exist in the world, such as it is, and continue living without eventually having to confront it, and thus myself.

The world I envision is the only one that I view as sustainable in the long run. Sustainability is a concept that essentially represents environmentalism (among other things,) and so in this long-term society we will be producing and consuming at a sustainable level. That does not mean we go back to Stone Age style lives, but technology will be so refined that we will lives that are better in unpredictable ways. This is because technology grows exponentially, as one invention leads to the applicability of a current invention and opens the window for new innovation.

Part of the reform of our society will involve the improvement of public government and education. Currently, the very best form of government we've developed is still shackled to problems associated with money and the abuse of power, and transparency is the best way to improve these problems. Public education is also flawed, especially, it seems, in North America, and I have some concrete ideas about how to improve it, but our legislative bodies don't seem to concerned with fixing the status quo. This two actions will be necessary to improve democracy within our own countries, so that we can start having more realistic long-term foreign policies. The kind of policies that people outside of our world actually agree with, rather than resenting and often hating us for them.

We cannot have a model of society based on extreme exclusion with pockets of inclusion, and the majority of the world is rejecting our model and choosing policies that do not lead to mutual benefit. Cooperation for mutual benefit, rather than the benefit of the more powerful party, is the only way that a truly global society can work, unless you think that fascism is an acceptable way to run a planet. Therefore, in my ideal world, your likelihood of living, and eventually your likelihood of enjoying a prosperous life, will not depend in the slightest way on where you happened to be born.

It does not seem to me that this is a particularly far-fetched vision of the future, and I don't believe it is particularly subjective or dependent on political affiliation. There are certain requisites for our long-term survival, and I do not think that the fundamentals, like a robust environment or global equity, are debatable. Now that you know where I am aiming, in further posts I will outline how I plan to get there. The coming years should make for rather interesting ones- quite a time to be alive, wouldn't you say?

*- I'm passionate when I'm drunk. Fancy that! Drunken passions don't really count, though.