Challenging your concept of reality. . .

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday March 9th, 2009

Did you know that according to the legal realities of the media world if you use the word "probably" you are probably safe even if what you say is not totally, shall we say, honest.

But I want you to read the article. So I need a sensational lead. That is the problem with trying to get thoughts across on paper -- the first rule is to get the reader hooked. If you cannot do that, then they will not read very far. People skim these days. What you do to compensate is pump up the emotionality of the story to get readers' interest, and then you work in the information that they need to know.

This is not morally wrong, and it is not the same as lying. Instead, it is countering the idea that "literal" is the same word as "true." All written articles, even news stories, are just that, stories; in which facts such as who, what, where, when and why are woven together with narrative to keep the reader engaged.

On the other hand, when I write the sensational lead I believe it to be true.

There are scientists who already feel we have done enough damage to the environment that there is no turning back, that we have reached a tipping point from which the natural world will not recover.

To be fair, others believe that there is still time to change, and have set a cap on how much global warming would be possible before that tipping point; two degrees.

That might seem like an incredibly small difference. If the world was two degrees warmer would that make any difference? Well, yes, imagine what happens to you when your body gets two degrees warmer.

On an environmental scale, bugs would live longer or not hibernate or die at all; many food sources like rice, wheat and corn might not flower or pollinate; disease might mutate and thrive as well.

The point is everyone has a unique view to get across and what you as a consumer of knowledge have to do is sift through my views, challenge them, absorb them, in a way that helps you determine your own views. I write to make people think.

Because even if we can go so far as to agree on a premise, such as the world needs to change to protect the environment; then there are infinite possibilities for what to do next. And thousands of ways we could disagree. The four major camps within the green movement, for example, are these:

"¢ Bright Green, which to put it simply means that you believe that sustainable innovation is the best path to lasting prosperity, and that any vision of sustainability which does not offer prosperity and well-being will not succeed.

"¢ Light Green environmentalists tend to emphasize lifestyle and behavioural change as key to sustainability. We are talking about change on the individual level. The thinking is that if you can get people to take small and relatively easy steps like new light bulbs and cloth shopping bags. The hope is that they can begin to make a difference while also heading towards larger changes.

"¢ Dark greens, in contrast, tend to emphasize the need to pull back from consumerism (sometimes even from industrialization itself) and emphasize local solutions, short supply chains and direct connection to the land. They strongly advocate change at the community level. Think, the 100 mile diet, as a quick example.

"¢ Grays, of course, are those who deny there's a need to do anything at all, whether as individuals or as a society. They range from the most blatantly dishonest and self-interested people like climate scientists who take oil company money to dispute the clear scientific consensus on climate change, to principled, smart people who lack the facts or whose world views are just too set in an earlier way of thinking to understand the present-day realities.

You see my point? Even within the environmentalist movement there are broad divisions. Obviously, you can't divide people's thoughts neatly and simply into categories. In fact, a good case can be made for ideas which float back and forth between the categories.

I suspect that almost anyone who thinks seriously about the big planetary problems we face tends to pick and choose various ideas from all three schools of green thought and blend them together.

My real point, however, is to ask the question, "Who are you going to listen to?" and "How are you going to listen?"

It is unfortunate that newspapers are getting less and less of the market share for information propagation. I say this because it is a medium where different versions of ideas are presented at the same time with the understanding that it is up to reader to weave a position from disparate viewpoints.

Far too many people want to be told "facts" and not be bothered thinking them through.

It is incredible how much broader our own understanding can be through reading opinion.

I offer you one more example. Fact: The United Nations has issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir through the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Now if you look, as a friend of mine pointed out, at the New York Times paper for March 3 you will find two guest opinion columns, one from Archbishop Desmond Tutu arguing for the arrest warrant; and one from Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son) arguing against the arrest warrant.

If you read all three, two of which are contrarian opinions as opposed to factual reporting; you will begin to have a clearer understanding of the issues at play.

I promise to keep my sensationalism within the bounds of reasonable fact. But I implore you, the reader, to delve deeper into the world you find before you.

Don't settle for one-sided views of reality.

And recognize that what I am doing is arguing from the heart for a position in as black and white a way as I can to challenge your concept of reality.