"I'm not worried about being too Utopian, I'm worried we aren't being Utopian enough." -- I couldn't agree more. Too often, especially in environmental circles, we start the negotiation with what we think we can get, not what is actually needed. Then what we end up with is even more sorely lacking.
I am truly delighted whenever I see that someone has refused to accept the misinformed concept that "utopias" are impossible dreams about perfect societies that can never exist. Well, who do you think worked so very hard at creating that unnecessary barrier against revolutionary thinking that could lead to radical progressive change? I know, from extensive research, that it was not Sir Thomas More, the man who actually coined the term, "utopia." Nowhere in More's classic novel, “A little, true book, not less beneficial than enjoyable, about how things should be in a state and about the new island Utopia,” does More claim that Utopia is defined as either "impossible" or "perfect." What More was actually writing about (back in 1516) was the possibility of creating better, or more ideal societies, instead of resigning ourselves to accepting and following the unjust, eco-destructive, or even dystopian societies that we are born into or cast into, without any choice or say in the matter. I wrote an essay on this topic a couple of years ago that you might find interesting or useful. Here is a link to it: https://learningearthways.net/2021/12/13/paths-forward-in-defense-of-utopian-creativity/
Thank you, Erin, for helping us to break free from such delusion and do more of the creative, "utopian" thinking and actual work that our current global predicament cries out for us to do at this time.
This lands so well with me. Like you, Erin, I was a national account manager in various consumer goods companies and received this negotiation training. I love that we can now apply it in a different context. We will get negotiated down, for sure, so we need to aim high, for the utopian world we long for, if we are to stand a chance of getting even partway there. This argument is being played out currently in political circles in the UK as we head for a general election later this year.
Absolutely Nadine! I'm so pleased you had a similar experience to me, and also see how that experience can be transferred to the most urgent work we need to be doing right now. Imagine if we could harness the collective powers of all the NAMs of era's past?!
Erin, I agree with every word WITHIN the frame of your assumptions. BUT ...
Who's "WE"?
→Those of us who wish for global civilization to persist indefinitely on stable foundations, safe from self-extermination?
And who are "we" negotiating with?
→People who wish for the opposite???
(There are, indeed, religious end-timers with apocalyptic fantasies. But we don't so much need to negotiate with them, as create a world they don't crave to escape.)
I'm not aware of any polls on the question of whether it's better or worse to improve the prospects for a long & happy career of collective humanity on Earth, but I think it's safe to assume that there's (effectively) nobody on the other side to negotiate with: nobody who would explicitly argue for increased misery, instability, and premature extinction.
Powerful people are socially embedded in value systems (with full-fledged institutional support) that inexorably lead toward such intolerable ends. How do they live with themselves? How do they justify their exertions?
Those value systems provide alt-reality justifications, based either on false understandings of the world, or on narrow ideologies that disregard critical aspects of reality. Those value systems (most prominently "capitalism," a vague term) act as "attractors" for stable flows of energy that are destabilizing on a societal scale.
We have an inherently self-destructive system, when nobody believes we should. I don't think negotiation can be centrally useful. A different, more organic approach is called for.
The processes by which we make most important decisions can be improved greatly, using already-existing human & technological resources which are lying around in vast abundance, idle.
I think it wouldn't be very hard to activate those resources toward optimal engagement without risking derailment in pursuit of ends that may turn out to be unattainable.
"I'm not worried about being too Utopian, I'm worried we aren't being Utopian enough." -- I couldn't agree more. Too often, especially in environmental circles, we start the negotiation with what we think we can get, not what is actually needed. Then what we end up with is even more sorely lacking.
💯!!! I see it all the time & it’s such a disservice to the movement.
I am truly delighted whenever I see that someone has refused to accept the misinformed concept that "utopias" are impossible dreams about perfect societies that can never exist. Well, who do you think worked so very hard at creating that unnecessary barrier against revolutionary thinking that could lead to radical progressive change? I know, from extensive research, that it was not Sir Thomas More, the man who actually coined the term, "utopia." Nowhere in More's classic novel, “A little, true book, not less beneficial than enjoyable, about how things should be in a state and about the new island Utopia,” does More claim that Utopia is defined as either "impossible" or "perfect." What More was actually writing about (back in 1516) was the possibility of creating better, or more ideal societies, instead of resigning ourselves to accepting and following the unjust, eco-destructive, or even dystopian societies that we are born into or cast into, without any choice or say in the matter. I wrote an essay on this topic a couple of years ago that you might find interesting or useful. Here is a link to it: https://learningearthways.net/2021/12/13/paths-forward-in-defense-of-utopian-creativity/
Thank you, Erin, for helping us to break free from such delusion and do more of the creative, "utopian" thinking and actual work that our current global predicament cries out for us to do at this time.
Thank you for this comment George, I really appreciate it.
This lands so well with me. Like you, Erin, I was a national account manager in various consumer goods companies and received this negotiation training. I love that we can now apply it in a different context. We will get negotiated down, for sure, so we need to aim high, for the utopian world we long for, if we are to stand a chance of getting even partway there. This argument is being played out currently in political circles in the UK as we head for a general election later this year.
Absolutely Nadine! I'm so pleased you had a similar experience to me, and also see how that experience can be transferred to the most urgent work we need to be doing right now. Imagine if we could harness the collective powers of all the NAMs of era's past?!
Even if Utopia is not possible (like other hard things to attain) it should still be the aspiration and what we strive for.
Absolutely! It pains me so much when I see people who want what we want dismissing something as utopian and minimising their asks.
Ugh loved this one Erin! I've had similar thoughts but you've put them in such a great way i'm eager to add this to my arsenal !! :)
So glad you liked it. It’s something I’ve been meaning to say for a while 😊
Erin, I agree with every word WITHIN the frame of your assumptions. BUT ...
Who's "WE"?
→Those of us who wish for global civilization to persist indefinitely on stable foundations, safe from self-extermination?
And who are "we" negotiating with?
→People who wish for the opposite???
(There are, indeed, religious end-timers with apocalyptic fantasies. But we don't so much need to negotiate with them, as create a world they don't crave to escape.)
I'm not aware of any polls on the question of whether it's better or worse to improve the prospects for a long & happy career of collective humanity on Earth, but I think it's safe to assume that there's (effectively) nobody on the other side to negotiate with: nobody who would explicitly argue for increased misery, instability, and premature extinction.
Powerful people are socially embedded in value systems (with full-fledged institutional support) that inexorably lead toward such intolerable ends. How do they live with themselves? How do they justify their exertions?
Those value systems provide alt-reality justifications, based either on false understandings of the world, or on narrow ideologies that disregard critical aspects of reality. Those value systems (most prominently "capitalism," a vague term) act as "attractors" for stable flows of energy that are destabilizing on a societal scale.
We have an inherently self-destructive system, when nobody believes we should. I don't think negotiation can be centrally useful. A different, more organic approach is called for.
The processes by which we make most important decisions can be improved greatly, using already-existing human & technological resources which are lying around in vast abundance, idle.
I think it wouldn't be very hard to activate those resources toward optimal engagement without risking derailment in pursuit of ends that may turn out to be unattainable.
Ask?