Environment… Saveable?

WED., NOV. 8, 2000, 10:25 AM
OFFICE, PULLIAM

You spoke, this morning, to a small, polite, but not very enthused (at 8AM!) class about the environment of My earth. It was a better presentation than you expected it to be. Being in front of a class was a good to your old teaching spirit, but the theme and information didn’t seem to be of great interest to most. (It will be interesting to see what their reaction papers sound like!)

You know, from a goodly number of Teachings I have offered you, that I am concerned about the continued health of this small planet, Earth. But I also have told you that I am not yet ready to take major actions that could reverse some of the present trends. I do love you humans, and the most obvious answers to present situations, in relation to the land, water, and air, include human suffering and “premature” deaths. I realize that the maintenance of earth as a healthy place for this unique form of spiritual growth… as humans… requires some changes. Oh, I can “pretend” that I’m unable to “interfere” now, but you know this really isn’t true.

I can “change things” in some ways, but, as you observe, I haven’t. I obviously don’t have to justify Myself to you. I’ll just say that this isn’t “one of My best times”… and I will have to cause or allow some happenings that take some human lives and that change lifestyles so that life that remains is more sustainable.

The answer to this abbreviated question is: Yes, it is saveable. Will it be via “breakthroughs” in technology, so that more renewable energy is available, from sun and wind? I could say Yes… but not until there has been some number of premature deaths that slow human population growth. I certainly am in favor of simpler living styles, but the size of most of your cities makes simplification more difficult. Also… while technology COULD make life more efficient, it is not likely… given the dominant attitudes of your people.

Your presentation this morning was a mild attempt to increase the awareness of these undergraduates of future consequences from present “living practices” which just seem normal and “all right” to them. You realized that many, if not most, of them could not internalize the meaning of what you were saying. Even as many of them look rather “scruffy” they would not be enthused about living life more simply as they reach adulthood.

And you realize, that, while you could, and would, live more simply, you would still expect certain “features” of present life to remain. So, what this means is that you want “simplification” down to your “level”, but not “lower,” for you. Is this realistic, or are you (in Dyer’s term) a hypocrite!

The headline, this morning, while not being this specific, communicates that the candidate for U.S. President most identified with the environmental movement lost, and Republican views, more allied to “business” and “progress” will be more relevant. The victory… or the loss… was very slim, showing that Americans seem to be about equally divided as to whether “saving the environment” requires any major change in lifestyle… and “business as usual”… or more so.

You realize that this rather puny and muted call of yours to these young people was of little consequence. (Ralph Nader, much more vocal than you are, got 4% of the vote, not a resounding sign that your concerns should be addressed.) What you can do is to, at least personally, live as you consider best for sustainability. You need exercise, so do some work at the Farm that will make it neater and more efficient. Take care of your animals, but sell some from the pasture when their grazing there would threaten its health. Generate some amount of heat from “waste wood”… and don’t heat the house excessively.

Fortunately (and partly from My influence) you have no aspirations for more “things,” more affluence. Live life fully and happily with what you have. Hence any downward shift in the “fortunes” of your culture should have only slight effects on you.