Reflections on Memorial Day

I googled "What is Memorial Day". "Memorial Day is a United States public holiday that takes place on the last Monday of May. It was formerly known as Decoration Day. This holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who died in military service for their country." The thought of this celebration made me uncomfortable. How come we celebrate individuals who get killed in wars? What is loable about it? I thought that my question was provocative, i thought how any family member who lost a beloved one in war would react to such a statement, that seems disrespectful of their pain. They have such a loss and I'm not even willing to honor it in a little, single day whithin a whole year!? I can hear them saying 'What kind of monster is she!? But then I continued thinking. There is something strange in honoring the cost of something that is a questionable practice to begin with. How would that be different from honoring those that died in a car race accident? Yes, i know the answer. One thing is to service the cause of peace, defense, human rights, soveraignty etc - and another to be a race car driver. It is different - if we assume that wars are the way - the only way- to handle issues of peace, defense, human rights, soveraignty. Are they? What a naive question. Of course it's not the BEST, but it's the only choice, as others are doing it too. Wait a moment. Does that make it right? Because everyone cheated on taxes in Argentina, did that make it right? Because everyone in Rome watched the individuals fight with lions, did that make it right? Because we used to smoke in airplanes, use asbestos in construction, throw polluted water into the rivers, sculpt elephant tusks ....? Does a habit make the practice right, just because we're used to do it? As long as we take it for granted and don't question it, it won't change. So that's why a Memorial Day is needed. I think we should have actually more than one. We should also have a Polluted Water day; a Torture Day; Polar Bear Extinction Day; an African Aids Orphan Starved Day; an International Homeless Day; a RainForest Memorial Day; an End of Oil Day...

Expanding the thinking, Part II

Continuing with Capra, whom I introduced in the previous posting, today the reflection is about cycles. He says that the cyclical nature is an important principle in ecology. But Í don't like the explanation he gives, so I reflect what this can mean and I come up with this: Nature has feedback loops, where things go in one direction until it's too much, then they bounce back to compensate or restore the equillibrium. This is not something I just invented of course, or discovered, but it's a nice way to call the principle. The cyclical process of life.

In biology this is known as homeostasis: the property of living organisms to regulate their internal environment to maintain a stable, constant condition, by means of multiple adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms.

The interesting is how this principle applies to other domains - such as our personal behavior. Just think how we spontaneously compensate when the level of something get's too high - when we feel it's enough. Either we express it verbally, or through actions, or through sickness in our body...

Now here comes the challenge. To incorporate this principle into our thinking, and begin to be alert and to notice whereabouts we can see signs of this cyclical process. Practice with the newspaper, to begin. It may be easier than to start with ourselves.

(Special thanks to artist Graziella Cucchiara for the picture)

The web of life

I read a wonderful section in the book The Web of Life by Austrian philosopher Fritof Capra (1996). He invites to look at the ecosystem to learn about sustainability.The ecosystem has organized itself during more than three billion years of evolution on this planet. That should give us some clues how to do it. He formulates a few principles. I will share the first here today. #1. Interdependence. All members of the ecological community are innterconnected in a vast and intricate network of relationships, which he calls the web of life. The behavior of every living member depends on the behavior of many others. The success of the whole community depends on the success of its individual members, while the success of each member depends on the success of the community as a whole. Understanding ecological interdependence means understanding relationships. It requires a shift of perception and thinking: from looking at a part to seeing the whole; from seeing an object to looking for relationships; from seeing contents to seeking the patterns. A sustainable human community is aware of the multiple relationships among its members. Nourisihing the community means nourishing those relationships. The fact that the basic pattern of life is a network pattern means that the relationship of an ecological community is non linear, involving multiple feedback loops. Linear chains of cause and effect exist very rarely in ecosystems. Thus, a disturbance will not be limited to a single effect but is likely to spread out in ever-widening patterns. It may even be amplified, which may completely obscure the original source of the disturbance." So the question in my mind is - what light does this bring to the news I heard this morning, about the terrorist blasts in the capital of Lebanon?

Debate about altruism

As i'm working on my doctoral dissertation, which is about corporate leaders leaving a legacy, that is engaging in initiatives for common good, I bumped on the topic of altruism. I found an interesting exploration on the topic, going back over two thousand years ago. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hume, Rousseau - many philosphers concerned with moral developmed gave their opinion, and indicated the co-existence of selfishness and selflessness.

However, there have been others (Machiavaelli, Nietzsche, Hobbes and more recent philosophers) who declared that human nature was basically self-absorbed, greedy, ungrateful and morally compromised, that we need social constraints in order to keep within acceptable boundaries.

I need to share here my assumption. I assume that there is not a "right" and objective response, that we make meaning of what we see. So I wonder, if we have the choice of interpreting it one way or the other, which one makes us feel better?

Green.inc

A bit over a year ago, my colleague Michael Brenner and I did a media campaign entitled Environmental Literacy. We considered that we were all environmentally illiterate, meaning that we had only an unsufficient, poor or sometimes unexisting understanding of the impact our daily actions were having on the environment. We designed a small campaign, where we identified a number of nodal points, such as tv shows, newspapers, business magazines, radio shows in the US and sent out a note inviting them to realize the power they had to influence, educate and increase awareness levels in their audience, and to use it. We didn't receive many replies, which can have several interpretations. However it is rewarding to see an increasing number of places in the media where the topic is being raised. This morning I started with a smile when at MSNBC they had a section called Green.inc, where they present news about corporations' initiatives (or concerns) about going green. And like in a virtuous circle (the opposite of a vicious circle), the more noise out there, the more pressure it makes on others who haven't yet done anything. This is part of our social learning.

The invisible

Carole clicked on the link I inserted yesterday and said she could not see what I was referring to. So I went back and clicked on the link to see what came up. To me, the same image came up as I had seen the day before, and which inspired my reflections about reaching out and being chained by our assumptions. What I found fascinating was that this short experience sampled to me what communication is about. Whether the link displayed properly or not for her, whether the image was not showing up or she didn't notice it - that is unimportant. What the Internet is portraying is the challenge of communication: where we constantly talk about things we see and others may not see them, things that exist for others and we cannot even imagine them. The more obvious they seem for some, the more fascinating to discover it's not that obvious. For example, everyone knows how a knee bends.... Or not? (Photo: I.Altieri)

What keeps us apart

Click on this link, I want to share the image (and I was not able to cut-and-paste it in here) This is the link of the website of an NPR (National Public Radio) program called Speaking of Faith. Yes, the site is interesting, but what I was particularly reflecting on was the image in this link. You will see two individuals at opposite sides of a table, reaching out to each other but - alas- so far apart still. And each one is chained to something. I wondered what these chains are, that keep us apart from each other. Assumptions? Experiences converted into assumptions and beliefs? http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/doubt/index.shtml