The Death of Hope

Derrick Jensen's "Beyond Hope" (pages 27-31) argues that hope is an impediment to action. The only people willing to act are the people that have gone beyond hope, that have taken responsibility into their own hands, and who have shed the crippling influence of society.

If you look at the definitions of "hope" and "optimism," you find that their meanings are very similiar:

Hope (n)-- "A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment"

Optimism (n) -- "A tendency to expect the best possible outcome or dwell on the most hopeful aspects of a situation"

I strongly disagree with Jensen's basic premise. In reality, he's just a pessimist who sees the world as gasping its last breath, with his mission to bring it back to life.

For all of the Earth's problems, it's not gasping. An exaggeration of the problem helps no one, and neither does looking through a pessimistic lense.

Jensen denies the distinction between "false hope" and "hope," but there is a real difference. The idiom "hope against hope" means "To hope with little reason or justification," but that's not what hope means. And hope doesn't mean that you are giving up the right to act.

In fact, people act from hope, and I'd much rather act from hope than despair. Action and hope are not opposites, and hope does not equal powerlessness.

Even in this political cycle, politicians have mocked Barack Obama's audacity to promote the idea of hope.

Perhaps Jensen was right in one regard. Perhaps he and his supporters really are dead, and that's not the compliment he would have it to be.

Corporate Personhood

Jeffrey Kaplan's "Consent of the Govern" (pages 14-26) provides a history of how corporations have developed the rights of "personhood" over the last 100+ years. I haven't studied that issue much and don't really have a position on it, other than to note that Kaplan seemingly would like to go back to a time when corporations dissolved every-so-often -- so that they wouldn't have time to amass money and power (15).

The article also promotes the idea that local governments are somehow more "pure" than state or federal governments (or international organizations). Why? Maybe because people tend to care more about their immediate living areas than they do about other states, regions, or countries.

I'm not intentionally trying to find fault with every essay, but here's what I have trouble with in this essay: the idea that a local government can thumb its nose at state or federal law. In other words, some local governments have said that corporations are not "persons" in their districts (20). Again, this sounds kind of dangerous to me. Who else might they claim are not persons? Or what other rights might local governments take away if they had such authority?

Kaplan's article expresses the idea that people should have a real say in governing themselves. Unfortunately, he seemingly fails to realize that state and federal officials are, at least in theory, elected by the people. And any international trade agreements go through a ratification process. In other words, the people do have a voice at all levels. Kaplan would argue that the Corporate "person" has too much power at higher levels of government. That makes me wonder, why are real people so powerful at the lower levels? What would stop Corporations from running local governments? And what stops real people from running state and federal governments?

Human-centered Environmentalism

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but should the main concern of Environmentalism really be about what's best for humans? Let me explain:

Peter Sauer's "Reinhabiting Environmentalism" (pages 5-13) seems to pine for the good old days of the 1960s, before the Vietnam War caused everything to derail. Now, Sauer says, "movements" fight against one another, when in reality, they should be working together. I'm sure that makes sense, but I'm still a bit concerned about how human-centered the agenda seems to be. Sure, it's a good thing to be concerned about humans, but what's wrong with setting aside land for conservation, for protecting species, etc.? Does such an approach really limit total "buy in"? Is such an approach really inappropriate or off the mark?

Maybe the most interesting portion of the essay is the doctrine of the "precautionary principle" (12). Boy, I don't know about that one, though. I'm trying not to get too political here, so forgive me in advance, but didn't President Bush utilize his own doctrine of the "precautionary principle"? Acting in advance sure sounds good, but the consequences of following such a principle could be dangerous, couldn't they??

First Impressions

Not much time to write, but I did have a chance to read through the Acknowledgements and Introduction.

Emerson Blake's Acknowledgments details how the articles in the book are organized into six specific sections: 1) Action, 2) Refugees, 3) Boundaries, 4) Reverence, 5) Monsters, and 6) Native. Nothing too controversial here. Blake cites the purpose of the book as providing articles that "point toward a fuller understanding of the world and the possibility of the future" (vii). Make sense to me.

Barry Lopez writes the Introduction, and the language becomes a bit more charged. On page ix, he quickly suggests that we receive a "daily message" that "we don't know" everything. That, I think, is an important acknowledgement to make. On the following pages, though, Lopez makes some pretty definite assertions: 1) business is bad, 2) government is bad, and 3) civic groups are good.

The problem is: he sounds as though he believes business and government have no role in developing solutions to environmental issues. This fails to acknowledge that people run businesses, and people are elected to government offices. These same people may be involved in "social movements" too. Can't businesses and government encourage or lead social movements?

An interesting line: "Civic society has no staff, no address, no nation, no religion, no stake in commerce or policy making" (xi). First, I'm not sure that statement is entirely true, and second, even if it is true, what does it mean? Sounds very organic, but it also echoes of the ultimate goals of Marx. Am I wrong on this?

As you read, feel free to post your own impressions. If you want contributor status to make your own posts to this forum, please let me know.

Bret

Next Year's Common Book -- The Future of Nature

Hi all,

RCTC has selected next year's Common Book, and that book is: The Future of Nature

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Nature-Writing-Ecology-Magazine/dp/1571313060/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208203510&sr=8-1

Please see me or Katherine Hanson if you need a review copy.

As I read the book, I'll post my thoughts and comments here. And, I hope some of you will want to do so as well. Please contact me if you'd like contributor status to this blog. That will allow you to post your own messages.

Bret