[Wildspeak] I think fear-based sustainability isn't so different from fear-based monotheism

[moonvoice]

Fear-based thought, and ethics.

When you're within a religious or government structure, where you're governed by fear-based thought: I.e. 'I better not do that, or god/Mum/my boss/the police will be angry with me,' then personal ethics aren't as important as following - preferrably unquestioningly - the dogmatic moral structure being passed down through those authoritarian sytems.

Fear-based ruling does have its place, as much as it doesn't promote the development of personal ethics or the questioning of current laws or morality models. After all, most people in society have latent fear-based thought-patterns relating to the society's laws (better not steal that TV, I could go to jail), and society's rules (better not tell my friend I hated everything she served for dinner tonight, or I might not be invited back and I enjoy her company), even society's media (better not put on any weight, or I will be shamed / shamed more).

People who are afraid of what will happen to them, when it comes to fear-based thought, are generally perceiving the world in a self-focused way when it comes to these specifics laws, rules and morals. You can put almost all of it down to this question: How will it affect me? And will it make me feel bad? It's not about the relationship between oneself and the outside world in a way that promotes empathy or compassion or even connectedness. It suggests that there is one right way to act, and within that, the implication is you'd better do it, or else there will be consequences, in this world - and, according to some religions - in the afterlife.

Constructing personal ethics, however, is the act of living in the world and eschewing fear-based thought for the active questioning of laws and moral-systems and even Gods, in the search for continued authenticity and honesty. Everyone's personal ethics are different, generally, though you begin to see some commonalities. Most people with a personal ethical system want to respect themselves and their environment, many also want to be authentic, or find a way to be true and uncompromising to who they are, in a way that still allows them to respect their safety.

Personal ethics systems can often clash with dogmatic and moralistic contemporary systems. Personal ethics systems are often not wholly compatible with religions and governments that ask for fear-based thinking. A person with a strong personal ethics system often prefers to step away from 'whoops, better not do this, or something bad will happen to me,' and move towards reasoned thinking, such as 'am I being true to myself if I do this? I may be ostracised for outing myself as asexual, but is this something I need to do? I must take some time to think about the price of this act of authenticity and balance it with my desire to create safe and nurturing environment for myself. After all, I seek to live in a world where there are no barriers in representation for sexuality. How do I serve this, myself, and this situation in the best possible way?' It is far away from being mindless.

Active thought means a constant dedication to and re-structuring of the personal ethics system, and people move away from the mindlessness of fear. After all, fear is an emotion; it is not cognitive. And fear-based thinking has - at it's root - an emotion designed to preserve the self (and others close to the self) at any cost. Governments and some religious systems exploit that because people who are afraid are easier to control. Anyone with a fear-based disorder like PTSD, knows how very much that fear-based disorder controls what you do, when you do it, how you do it, and how you feel about it.


Fear-based thought and sustainability.

Within the idea of sustainability - the philosophy that our actions when we interact with or take from the world do not reduce the tenability of that aspect of the world - there is a great deal of fear-based thinking. Here's a few examples:

'We'd better save the rainforests or there will be nothing left for our children.'
'Over-population means the earth will be angry at us.'
'Mother earth is doing all these horrible things because of global warming, we'd better cut it out.'

I have even seen this:

'I can't eat battery farmed hens, because they will be mad at me.'

In this, you can see a transference that applies moralistic constraints and therefore fear-based thinking onto sustainability. Don't get me wrong, I love sustainability, it's one of my favourite words and concepts. But I don't love the mindlessness of fear-based thinking (I think it more has its place in mental disorders, and also, in areas where an immediate instinctive fear-based decision must be made; such as recoiling from a lunging snake).

It's self-focused and egoistic, under the guise of being concerned about nature for nature's sake. The reality is, this sort of fear-based thinking, located in sustainability and its philosophies, is actually more about the self and has very little to do with a genuine inter-relationship and inter-connectedness with the world around us. And the latter, of course, is where you start to find a true internalisation of the spirit of sustainability. Making something more tenable because you're acting from a place of compassion, empathy, understanding and respect, is very different to desiring to make something more tenable because you're really, really scared of the consequences.

It's okay to be afraid that bad things will happen if we don't look after our environment. Bad things are happening. But there's very little personal ethics in the form of using fear-based thought to be sustainable. Saying 'you'd better not eat meat, or else this horrible thing will happen,' is not really very far away from, 'you'd better believe in this god, or else you'll go to hell.' It allows people to judge unfairly, it allows for ostracisation and the ignorance that people are on an individual, personal path and this reality is inviolable and deserves respect. Fear-based thinking allows - of course - for societal control.

So what?

I guess, the point to this post is that I've located fear-based thinking regarding sustainability within myself and - perhaps ironically - it is not really a productive, sustainable form of thinking. I do not want to save the rainforests 'because otherwise there will be nothing left for our children.' I want to connect with that rainforest and then make the decision, 'I want to save that rainforest because in and of itself - regardless of my own investment in the matter - that rainforest is important, has my respect, and I care about what happens to it.' I want to shift the focus from being about *me*, to being about me AND my *sustainable relationship* with other animals, plants, land-masses, places, and so on. I want to make personal, ethical decisions based on reasoned, non-reactive fear-based thinking.

I don't really locate fear-based sustainability as a massive problem within myself, but I did realise - upon thinking about it last night - that I do see it everywhere. Fear-based thought runs as rampant in adherents of sustainability as it does within any adherent of a religion that promotes fear-based thinking. To be honest, for those who are used to a fear-based structure but believe they've questioned the government and religions enough to no longer be moralistic or dogmatic; they may just be substituting one 'big scary authority' with another. In this case, the shift from being scared of big, scary governments and Gods, to the big, scary planet.

Now, the choice to be sustainable is a choice. A personal one. Sometimes a deeply personal one. It can also hopefully be an ethical choice that is less kneejerk 'oh god, something bad will happen to me or the future,' and more 'I care about myself and this planet and my relationship to it, so I will act from this position, which means - pretty innately - I'm going to be sustainable where I can.' It also makes it easier to make sustainable decisions regarding matters that don't personally affect you.

If all the Critically Endangered molluscs in the North American freshwater rivers die, I have nothing to fear, there will be no direct consequence to me; but I will be saddened, because they are alive now, and my relationship with them is such that I would like it to continue. But how many people care about those Critically Endangered molluscs? How many people even know about them? And why would you want to, if you only want to be sustainable from a place of fear-based thought? After all, hardly anyone eats them. If they disappear, it wouldn't really directly impact anyone's lifestyle, except people who study molluscs.

Shifting from fear-based thinking to ethical thinking also takes people away from mindlessly (and fearfully) judging others and instilling fear in others. Considering how often I see people judging and ostracising other people for: not eating meat, not bicycling more often, not eating organic, not eating additive-free, not eating whole grains, not eating raw, not eating paleo, not putting money into saving rainforests, not using hybrid cars, not using low-wattage bulbs, not saving on their water use, and so on... well, it would be nice to get to a supportive, rather than a fear-based place about all of these things. Not just 'nice,' it would be - imho - far more productive than trying to intimidate people into 'doing the right thing.'

It's important for me on my own personal journey to understand that I have a lot of fear, but that my personal ethics is not a fear-based structure, based on feeling and therefore instilling fear in others about my beliefs. I'm not perfect, and I get it wrong, but this is definitely an area where I'd like to change. It's also an area I'd be interested in hearing about when it comes to other people.

Do you have a fear-based relationship with sustainability, or aspects of it? Have you encountered projections of other's fear-based thoughts regarding sustainability and felt judged? How would you choose to be sustainable in a personally ethical way, from a place of compassion and interconnectedness and relationship?

*

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Comments

[feralkiss]

This is brilliant; thank you for sharing. Will you put it up the Wildspeak?

[moonvoice]

I'm not sure if it'll go up on Wildspeak! But I might make it public. :)

[hrafn]

I want to buy this post a drink bar and paint it on a million billboards with big lit up signs flashing ****THIS**** surrounded by fireworks. And make everyone read it until they /get/ it.

I probably have some fear-based thoughts related to my environmentalism/sustainability, but mostly I am motivated by a desire to make things better, because they deserve to be better. Yeah, it won't affect me personally, really, when another species on the other side of the world, that only exists in one small ecosystem goes extinct, but I find that so crushingly tragic that I just can't. So much of what's been broken has been so utterly unnecessary.

Whatever badness happens because of anthropogenic climate change, I will probably be able to escape the worst of it; I'll likely be dead of old age before the -really- bad times kick in, for one. But I wouldn't be living in truth to my love and reverence for life if I didn't recycle or buy second-hand clothes or organic/local food or do all those other tiny little things that are about the only thing I can do to reduce my impact while simultaneously living in one of the worst offending countries on the planet.

I felt much more motivated to study architecture once I learned about sustainable design, because I knew I wanted the work I do to be good for the rest of the world, not just good for the human community. (Obviously humans benefit from sustainability, but I have always been SO SICK of human-centric thinking I can't even.)

Which is part of why I am just beside myself with joy for having found a deeper, more meaningful and frankly terrifying in ways spiritual path that looks like it will fit just -perfectly- with so many of my pre-existing attitudes (oh I have ESSAYS brewing).

[moonvoice]

I'm sure I still have some fear-based thoughts re: environmentalism and sustainability. I just think that, for me, I want to be really cognisant of that, and make sure I'm aware of it when I actually make *decisions* about how I want to be sustainable. It's understandable that people will feel fear about something as worrying as environment and sustainability. I suppose my distinction is that... when trying to be sustainable entirely under the framework of fear, the earth becomes a monotheistic punitive 'God.' I.e. - everything the earth does that is wrong, or bad specifically for humans, is because 'we weren't good enough.' It is really hard to be ethical in that framework.

Looking forward to your essays!

[skyfiery]

Thank you for writing this! It is extremely insightful, and there are many things to digest about a fear-based lifestyle or belief.

[moonvoice]

there are many things to digest about a fear-based lifestyle or belief.

There definitely are! I think I'll be thinking about it myself for some time to come.

[ariestess]

Oh how fascinating! I need to read this again and process it a bit. I think I may fall into aspects of this fear-based sustainability, which doesn't feel right now, after reading this. Hmmm... Time for some thinky-thoughts, I guess...

Thank you for sharing this.

[moonvoice]

I definitely still have fear-based thoughts regarding sustainability. And I don't actually think once you're aware of what they are, and how they might be self-serving, they're necessarily bad or destructive; but in that case, they then become another component of an ethical choice. Mindfulness can really help, in that respect.

[ariestess]

*nods* I've been really trying to move toward a more active mindfulness place in the last year or so [primarily since I've been living in 2 places due to watching my nephew and having to deal with so many changes/disruptions to my schedule every couple of weeks]. Thankfully, I think it's FINALLY started to push my kind of dormant spirituality toward the foreground again, and it's morphed more along the eco-sustainability type lines, which is all good with me. So your post here was kind of a right place, right time situation for me, even if it means I have to think about it some more. *g*

[faolchu_rua]

This really is an incredibly important essay that you've shared with us. It almost immediately started me wandering down a particular train of thought, which may seem a bit of a tangent, but I think I'm going to go ahead and write it out on the off chance it becomes useful for the discussion.

I remember once, a staunchly Republican friend of mine (who I remain close with mostly due to childhood ties as the gap between our beliefs has widened decisively over the years) asked me: "What would you do if tomorrow you won a million dollars, tax free?"

I don't remember my precise response, but it was something along the lines of sharing a portion with family and friends in need, but also donating a significant amount to research organizations or charities.

And his response to this was, "See, that's what makes you a liberal. I would give it all to my immediate family, because I know them, I have connections with them, and you just hand it out to people you don't even know."

Now obviously this conversation was fairly lighthearted and his use of the term "liberal" a somewhat ridiculous generalization. That said, at least in America (and a brief apology here to the author and other readers from outside the states for keeping the focus of my response on the issues of my own country) we see this frequently from people in positions of political power whose policies tend to go against conservation/sustainability efforts, this focus on themselves and the areas they are immediately and directly affected by. Arguments made by oppositional groups that we "should" cut back on emissions to save such and such a species, or we "must" enact stricter policies regarding recycling are not going to get anywhere with people whose focus is on the results for themselves.

While I recognize that your post here is mostly directed towards efforts on a smaller scale, I feel like it's incredibly important for those working on larger problems as well. We can't enact change unless people respect the planet and its myriad lifeforms and wish to assist them based on that understanding and compassion, as opposed to fear of the results.

...anyway, long comment is long and perhaps not entirely relevant, but again, thank you for writing this. I do hope you might consider posting it in other locations, I feel that it would do a great deal of good.

[moonvoice]

I'm going to make this public, so feel free to link if you like. :) There's still some things in it that feel 'unfinished' for me. Things I want to keep thinking about and turning over. But as an initial sort of foray into this arena, I feel like - at the very least - it's got me thinking.

We can't enact change unless people respect the planet and its myriad lifeforms and wish to assist them based on that understanding and compassion, as opposed to fear of the results.

Yep, pretty much what I think as well when it comes to fear-based sustainability. I like looking at a smaller scale because I think that's more accessible for people. The big picture is intimidating.

[fred_mouse]

I am having difficulty separating out fear based vs long term issues in my head. What you are talking about would be for many a paradigm shift, and without a clear sense of ther existing paradigm, I think many would struggle with it. One of the aspects I'm having difficulty with is trying to frame despair, which is frequently my mind set with regards discussions of sustainability and the long term viability of existing ecosystems, as either fear or mindfulness, and finding that in a short period of time, I just can't do it.

[moonvoice]

What you are talking about would be for many a paradigm shift

I think it very much would be. Especially for pagans who fundamentally want to get away from a mindset where traditional monotheism asks for moralism and in many cases fear; I think it's a challenge for pagans to actually truly *separate* from what paradigm they've been raised in, in Western society. So you find thinking patterns (like fear-based belief systems) in areas of sustainability, just as often as you might in a Catholic church, or

That's problematic, because much of paganism is generally an individualistic path that privileges the development of a personal ethics system over following a pre-ordained moralistic doctrine, and ultimately seeks to move away from fear. Viewing the earth as a punitive force (especially if one doesn't do 'the right thing') is pretty much just substituting one form of scary God for another.

But anyway, for some people, choosing to follow proscribed morals and laws over a personal ethics system is preferrable (and certainly easier), and the issue is certainly much bigger and toothier than I could ever cover here. Especially when it comes to matters of despair (which this post doesn't really address; since I think that can be quite a different matter). But I do wonder how many people - pagans in particular (which is why the post is under this filter) - have accidentally dragged remnants of their upbringing into the subject of sustainability, in a way that puts fear-based sustainability on a pedestal, and therefore neglects other forms and approaches towards sustainability that are more mindful, towards the self and towards others.

[hrafn]

So coincidentally I found this in the past two days, too:

"Paganism And Nature: Getting To Know What We Call “Sacred”" which is more or less about getting to actually know your local ecological system and figuring out practical aspects of living in a sustainable manner.

[jensurvivor]

This is similar to the mindset that Transition tries to cultivate, which is rather than basing our actions on avoiding a terrible future, what we want to do is envision a goal and an ideal future to move towards. For example, we cultivate a vision of a future in which we can feed our children and then figure out how to move towards it.

This is still ego-based thinking, but it is perhaps a step toward what you are talking about. Faolcha Rua, if I have read correctly, is saying that maybe some people aren't ready to move beyond thinking of themselves and their families because they are scared and insecure. When it comes to our ecological situation I think this is a rational place to act from, if not the most helpful.

I agree with hir that it might be most effective to get people to do the right thing by the Earth by acting in their own self interest, and that maybe acting for the Earth because that is consistent with right living, and for the Earth in its own right, and because it is beautiful, might be a step each of us has to take for ourselves.

[jensurvivor]

I agree that this approach of seeing the self in the other, the Earth, is a good way to get pagans engaged in environmental thinking. A surprising number of pagans don't think the ecological movement doesn't apply to them, in my experience. And yes, it's all means to an end for me.

[moonvoice]

is saying that maybe some people aren't ready to move beyond thinking of themselves and their families because they are scared and insecure.

I'm not sure acting from a place of insecurity and fear is ever a rational place to act from; since fear by its very nature isn't rational. The act of wanting to protect oneself and one's family is a biological one that makes sense in terms of biology, but there are a lot of things about us that are biological that we transcend every day (including, but not limited to, how we alter our sleep patterns en masse to deal with the western style working week).

But I'm not advocating that people get rid of their fear; I don't think that's possible. Fear is *understandable.* It is the consequences of fear-based thinking that worry me. It's one thing to feel fear, it's quite another to base one's entire approach to sustainability from a fear-based place. People may still get something out of it; a lot of people get something out of fear-based religion, especially when they feel like they'e done the right thing. I prefer an ethics-oriented lifestyle (which tends to shift away from fear-based thinking for a few reasons) over a morals-oriented lifestyle, and in that sense, it really is each to their own. Especially when there is room for the experience of fear within personal ethics; just a difference between being ruled by it, and being able to consider it as just another component in the sustainability equation.

[jensurvivor]

I prefer an ethics-oriented lifestyle (which tends to shift away from fear-based thinking for a few reasons) over a morals-oriented lifestyle, and in that sense, it really is each to their own.

So do I. And I do hope that everyone can move away from a place of being ruled by fear. Perhaps what I meant was more in the sense of meeting people where they're at.

I do still think it's rational to feel fear when we sense or comprehend the situation that we're in. I agree that one's actions arising from that place would be unlikely to be rational in themselves.

[jensurvivor]

is that a real photo of noctilucent clounds? Those are wild!

[moonvoice]

I think so; though it's Tumblr, so anything's possible. Chances are the contrast was upped a bit on the photo. But as nacreous noctilucence has been seen increasingly over the past few years (not really a great sign overall, in terms of climate change / pollution, despite their prettiness), it wouldn't surprise me if it was a real photo. :)

[jensurvivor]

I've never seen them so bright here

[copperbeech]

What you said. Definitely encountered the fear-based approach to sustainability. I don't feel it that way, though with regard to pharmaceuticals, I still have to weed out (pun) fear-based thinking and judgements for using allopathic medicine. I still carry beliefs that if I would just get X Area of Life right, I wouldn't be in pain/tired, I'd be happy, etc. And it's BS. I realize that it is intellectually, but they still crop up. So I carry guilt about taking Rxs. Not so much after not being able to breathe over the fall and winter. That clarified a lot of need for Rx, but still. It's in there.

[cherrydaiquiri]

This is really interesting, because as you said, it's everywhere -- in religious ideals, in how we administrate laws in society, in the ways our parents/teachers show us to behave, etc. And I had never thought of it this way, as being so unsustainable because of how it allows people to consider all actions in an extremely self-centred way, in terms of an action's value being determined by whether or not it harms oneself. This is very well put and I'm not sure I have anything meaningful to add to it in terms of how we affect nature without attributing a real sense of value to it. I recycle, for example, because I don't want to harm the earth, and I would feel bad if I threw a can in a garbage bin. But is that because I feel a real sympathy towards anything in nature, or because I've been made to fear not undertaking certain behaviours? I'm honestly not sure.

It seems like it should be obvious how a fear-based system isn't completely relevant, because as people grow older, we tend to learn that many of the actions that we take that are to our own advantage harm other people/things, and those other people have feelings, or those things have value/importance. But then, I suppose if most of the world around us is administrated in this fear-based way, it's easy to lose sight of that and forget to attribute value to others so long as we don't directly feel the negative consequences of what we've done. The Internet and other tools/technologies we can use to distance ourselves from our opinions and actions make it even easier to say or do things that can be extremely harmful without having to face the backlash directly -- or, conversely, to feel like we're doing something useful without significantly improving much at all. And that's dangerous, I think.

Anyway, I'm not too environmentally relevant, sorry, but there are some thoughts that were thought because I really liked your article, thanks. :)

[spider_fox]

Speaking of sustainability, how is the OBOD thing going?