------- Forwarded message follows -------
To: <Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Patrick Longfield" <patrickjl@optusnet.com.au>
Date sent: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:41:31 +1100
Subject: Re: [Civic-Courage] Introductions
Send reply to: Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com
Hi all,
I have been reading all that has been said since thing, whatever it is and whatever it turns into, has hit the waves.
--
Having read a lot of what has been said I would like to make the following comments. They are not in any order of priority, and some may not necessarily link to each other. However, I hope they all link to the spirit of what I am seeing and hearing. They do refer to some comments made but I do not link them - I hope no-one objects.
It takes courage these days to stand up and be counted. In particular, in this context, it takes courage to take a position on sustainability that challenges the status quo.
If there is such a thing as environmental ethics, then the current economic system is unethical. Very much so! After all money has no morals. Yet the type of economy we operate is not so much then problem but the symptom of a society that has got its values topsy-turvey or stuffed up, whichever way you choose to look at it.
It is my take on the situation that the conversation we are having, although often focussing upon technology as a solution, and in some cases the economy also, has nothing, at a fundamental level, to do with either. We are actually talking around the values by which we live our lives. For instance were we to build a desalination plant here in Sydney without addressing both population and consumption of water, then we are failing to address the situation at all. We are saying, 'business as usual'.
I agree we cannot really stay away from politics. We can though stay away from being political. I am not I hope splitting hairs here. But since politicians have agendas, and mostly they ignore the environmental problems we have created and continue to create, then we have to address that agenda.
Philip - how do you put red flags in. Good idea.
There is a danger of trying to be too wide and diverse in the target we set. Initially at least I would suggest a small and clear target. My preference is, given what I do, is around sustainability. It is an area covered to some extent, i.e. The Banksia Awards, but not really thoroughly.
I had a quick look at a dictionary.
Altruism: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. And, in Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behaviour that is detrimental to the individual
but contributes to the survival of the species. DOES THIS REFERS TO US!
Courage: The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution;
bravery.
Is it not reasonable that the more risky it is to take action, often the riskiest action may be more important one to take? The one that requires the greatest courage.
I know people who are doing things way beyond what their salary or whatever pay they get, expects of them. These are the people who one day will be recognised. They are often the thorns in the sides of business or whatever. They are seen often to be a threat to business, in particular some big business, because business more than often cannot opportunity in the change for which we are looking. But all business surly look for opportunity in change at some time or other, or they go out of business. Why is sustainability not seen this way but as predominantly a threat?
I am a Rotarian. We recognise, in all sorts of ways, people who do good by doing good, often selflessly. Many Rotarians I know act constantly this way. The idea Philip floated I saw as paralleling very much the model we use. For example this month my club is recognising apprentices who have risen to the top in their study or workplace. Next year we will go to local businesses and recognise those whose work is deemed by their employer worth being recognised as above and beyond their expectations. I am constantly amazed by the people who come along with their employers and are recognised publicly. They are not often the senior managers!
Finally, and in some way a summary of where I am at in this:
This conversation which ever way you take a look at it is about values - your values, my values, my neighbours values, my Member of Parliament's values. It is my belief that until we get the conversation around this, we will not make real progress.
I'll leave it at that and see what happens. :)
Have a great day all of you.
Patrick Longfield
------- End of forwarded message -------
To: <Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Patrick Longfield" <patrickjl@optusnet.com.au>
Date sent: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:13:51 +1100
Subject: Re: [Civic-Courage] Re: Question: change the economic system or not?
Send reply to: Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com
Philip,
In your email of 3.51pm today you make mention of "We shouldn't ... pursue sustainability or economic development in ways that generate major trade-offs.' (goto what Philip wrote)
I can interpret that as saying we need to search for those people who, in the work they do, act out a particularly high leverage activity.
We were doing some work on the weekend with a local council and their community. It was quite obvious that while there were many admirable suggestion as to what the council and the community could do, the most accepted ones were those that gave the greatest amount of 'leverage' - the biggest bang for the least buck, so-as-to-speak.
Two examples of these were:
- the creation of a Business Trusts (this came up in two rooms independently) in the council area - an idea from a member of the community - that had a specific ethical operating domain, and
- using the ecological footprint as a measure of behaviour change. Work on footprinting is being done at Sydney University.
I suppose a spin-off from this for me is that whatever we end up recognising or doing, must include some sort of real metric, over and above the 'feel good' story. There are so many of these feel-good activities that are really not getting deep enough amongst the real issues we are facing.
I remember Stuart Hill saying, we need 'radical' ideas - this does not mean damaging society, but being creative in a radical way, understanding that the current systems and thinking we have in place are not working.
Travel well all,
------- End of forwarded message -------
------- Forwarded message follows -------
To: <Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Patrick Longfield" <patrickjl@optusnet.com.au>
Date sent: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:24:39 +1100
Subject: Re: [Civic-Courage] Intro
Send reply to: Civic-Courage@yahoogroups.com
Della,
The other day I was introduced to someone as a person who is lecturing to a
group of surveying students about sustainability. He quickly replied, "Oh
you must be an economists."
I absolutely agree about your comments about the economy. I have some
slides that try to turn things around by making the economy the servant of
the people. Bit radical for some people that one!
But, I do not see how the task being undertaken by us and many other groups
around the world, cannot bring about a review of how the role of the economy
is seen, by economists.
Einstein said ?The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who
are evil; but because of the people who don?t do anything about it.?
It looks we are all here doing something about it yet realising it is not
yet enough.
Again, travel well
Patrick
Patrick Longfield
plongfield@ecosteps.com.au
EcoSTEPS - Sustainability Partner www.EcoSTEPS.com.au
02 9326 7218
0403 010 108
------- End of forwarded message -------