Dr Bob's Blog

In one of his latest article Gwynne Dyer talks about an Indian car maker who has produced a low priced car within the reach of many in the Indian middle class. There is the realisation that that this could create a massive increase in the number of cars pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere. One newspaper in Canada said that with over a billion Indians the new car will not be the peoples’ car, but the “peoples’ polluter”. The hypocrisy of this position is pointed out by Gwynne Dyer, given the high car penetration in western industrial societies. In India 11 people per 1000 have a car, in the USA the figure is 477 per 1000.

Given the seriousness of the threat of global warming and climate change Dyer makes the point that if the number of people who can afford cars exceeds the number of cars the planet can tolerate we will have to find some way to ration the cars that will be permitted, such as so many cars per 1000 of the population.

But, and this is a big but how will this came about? How will such a massive curtailing of human freedom be achieved? In a place like New Zealand most of us have built up a reliance on the convenience of getting into our cars and driving where we need to go. The issue of private transport is part of a much bigger issue of the whole scale range of changes we will be called upon to make. Are we up to make these changes?

The weight of scientific opinion is that the earth faces a real threat from the level of green house gases in the atmosphere and the political will seems to exist to do something about emission levels. If this will to bring about reductions in green house gas emissions is taken to its logical conclusion then massive changes across all aspects of human experience will be needed by all of us in advanced industrial societies. 

I want to concentrate on the leadership challenge that will be involved in securing the consent of people to the changes in their lifestyle.

Leadership faces at least three challenges. First, securing the consent and putting in place a legislative programme needed to define boundaries of what is permissible and prohibited. Secondly, it includes putting in place mechanisms that enable the economy to adjust without collapsing. This also means ensuring that people develop the competencies needed for the work of a vastly different way of working. Thirdly to lead a transformation in the way we define our needs, the way we think and the things we value. This is about our general level of awareness.

These changes boil down to what can be called external and interior changes. The external changes relate to issues in the social and economic systems and the way these systems work, the way they are regulated and the way in which life will be governed. The interior changes relate to what I call our level of awareness, as I have just outlined in terms of how we define our needs, the way we think and the things we value.

In this article I want to concentrate upon the interior changes. These changes seldom seem to appear on the agenda. Many regard these as “soft issues” that can safely be ignored. However, these so called “soft issues” are the hardest to change, but if we fail to make the interior changes then the challenges of securing the consent for a legislative programme or making changes that ensures the integrity of our economy and the security of our people to make a decent living will not be put in place. The interior issues need to have priority and they are in fact the most difficult to achieve.

Leading the interior changes will not emerge out of a publicity campaign or a slick public relations exercise. We are talking about changes that involve a massive shift in the level of awareness of most of us.

Professor Lloyd Geering was the subject of a TV1 documentary recently. In this documentary Professor Geering said that we need a new myth (myth used in the sense of a story that speaks to us about matters of ultimate concern). Professor Geering suggested that this new myth should be based around valuing the earth and all life forms within the earth. Professor Geering said that this was the real religious issue of our time. By this Professor Geering meant that religious questions were about issues that were of ultimate concern, what is the right way to live, why is there life, why are we here and is there any purpose to life? Professor Geering’s new myth is also the most important political issue of our time.

The widespread acceptance of this myth could also be the catalyst to elevate the level of awareness of our people to redefine their needs, change their thinking and reorder their values.

This is the scientific age, and there is a scientific theory that provides a scientific basis for a new myth. This scientific theory is known as the Gaia theory. This theory has been developed by British scientist James Lovelock who has collaborated with American biologist Lyn Margulis.

The earth Lovelock and Margulis propose behaves as if it were a super organism made up of living things and the material environment that includes the atmosphere. Life emerged as a self organising phenomenon through the interaction of the crust of the earth and atmosphere and as life emerged it changed the atmosphere which in turn provided the basis for the self organisation process to evolve and develop. Lovelock and Margulis argue that such things as the level of oxygen, the formation of clouds and the saltiness of the ocean may be controlled by the interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes.

The theory proposes that the self regulation of the climate and the chemical composition is a process that leads to the connections between the evolution of rocks, atmosphere the ocean and living organisms. It is also this interlocking self regulation that makes the earth a place fit for life.

Their concern is that the emission of green house gases into the atmosphere is beginning to disrupt the capacity of Gaia as a super organism to self regulate in the way it has up until now, and that many life forms including human beings might have a limited time frame.

The theory has its critics but it has gained respect by a large number of the scientific community as a legitimate scientific theory. It has given rise to many research programmes and experiments have been carried out to test its predictions. These experiments have substantiated the theory up to this point.

Lovelock says, “If we see the world as a super organism of which we are part – not the owner, not the tenant, nor even a passenger - we could have a long time ahead and our species might survive for its allotted span. It all depends upon you and me”.  

The Gaia theory could be the basis of the new myth that Professor Geering proposes. The value of such a myth is that it has a scientific basis. What would it mean for a new level of awareness around how we would define our needs, the way in which we think and the things we value?

One of the most important implications of the Gaia theory is that by valuing the Earth and all living forms within it we are in fact valuing ourselves. We have a need to protect the basis of life and by pouring green house gasses into the atmosphere we are soiling a crucial part of who we are. We are also part of a way of life that emits the gasses and so we are also part of the problem. This new myth would teach us that we are not separate, independent creatures but a crucial part of a much greater super organism.

Defining our needs in this way would surely help us broaden our area of concern and compassion for all life forms, and this would include all people of whatever kind, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality or whatever. This would enhance our capacity to take a much broader perspective including the need to adopt a lifestyle that did not place any undue pressures on the life support systems upon which life depends. We would cease to be self centred individuals and we would begin to value inclusiveness and develop what some call a cosmic awareness.

When we think about the new myth and the cosmic awareness that it could lead to we begin to realise how far away the general centre of gravity of the awareness of most people is at this time. We also can see the nature of the challenge the new leadership in our society faces. It is important that our leadership develop this level of awareness as a prelude to leading the rest of us to the point where we undertake and consent to the lifestyle changes, the legal and economic changes needed to avert a potential catastrophe. As human beings we have the inherent capacity to develop this more advanced level of awareness.