Photo: We are the world; we must act on that understanding

(Credit: Billy Wilson via Flickr)

By David Suzuki

The coming year looks bright with the promise of change after a difficult decade for environmentalists and our issues. But even with a new government that quickly moved to gender equity in cabinet, expanded the Ministry of the Environment to include climate change, and offered a bravura performance at the climate talks in Paris, can Canada's environmentalists close up shop and stop worrying?

Subscribe to Science Matters

Of course not. The nature of politics includes constant trade-offs, compromises and disagreements. Even with a government sympathetic to environmental issues, we won't act deeply and quickly enough or prevent new problems because we haven't addressed the root of our environmental devastation. The ultimate cause isn't economic, technological, scientific or even social. It's psychological. We see and interact with the world through perceptual lenses, shaped from the moment of conception. Our notions of gender, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status and the environment we grow up in all limit and create our priorities.

If we were to examine the anatomy of human brains, the circuitry and chemistry of neurons or the structure of our sense organs, nothing would permit us to distinguish gender, ethnicity or religion because we all belong to a single species. But if you were to ask a man and a woman about love, sex or family, answers could be quite disparate. A Jew and Muslim living in Israel might respond differently to questions about Gaza, the West Bank or Jerusalem. A Catholic and Protestant living in Northern Ireland might hold radically different outlooks about their country's history.

We learn how to see the world. That, in turn, determines our priorities and actions. The world has been overwhelmed by the belief that our species stands at the pinnacle of evolution, endowed with impressive intelligence and able to exploit our surroundings as we see fit. We feel fundamentally disconnected from nature and therefore not responsible for the ecological consequences of our actions. Even at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the sense of urgency about climate change was dampened by the perceived equal need to protect jobs and to consider the economic costs of aiding vulnerable nations and even ways to continue exploiting fossil fuels, the very agents of the crisis.

We can't just look at the world as a source of resources to exploit with little or no regard for the consequences. When many indigenous people refer to the planet as "Mother Earth", they are not speaking romantically, poetically or metaphorically. They mean it literally. We are of the Earth, every cell in our bodies formed by molecules derived from plants and animals, inflated by water, energized by sunlight captured through photosynthesis and ignited by atmospheric oxygen.

Years ago, I visited a village perched on the side of an Andean mountain in Peru. People there are taught from childhood that the mountain is an apu, a god, and that as long as that apu casts its shadow on the village, it will determine the destiny of its inhabitants. Compare the way those people will treat that mountain with the way someone in Trail, B.C., will after being told for years the surrounding mountains are rich in gold and silver.

Is a forest a sacred grove or merely lumber and pulp? Are rivers the veins of the land or sources of power and irrigation? Is soil a community of organisms or simply dirt? Is another species our biological relative or a resource? Is our house a home or just real estate?

Once we learn that our very being, essence, health and happiness depend on Mother Earth, we have no choice but to radically shift the way we treat her. When we spew our toxic wastes and pesticides into the air, water and soil, we poison our mother and ourselves. When we frack our wells, we contaminate the air and water on which we depend. When we clear-cut forests, dump mine tailings into rivers and lakes and convert wilderness into farms or suburbs, we undermine the ability of the biosphere to provide the necessities of life.

Is this how we treat our source of survival? Until all of society understands this and then acts on that understanding, we will not be able to act fully to protect a future for ourselves.

January 14, 2016

Read more

Post a comment


Apr 08, 2016
12:45 PM

I believe you! But my parents don’t like nature, they find it as a source of income rather than habitats.

Jan 15, 2016
3:22 PM

Thank you David. I feel affirmed in my prespective and coming from you that means a lot to me. My reservation about climate conferences is that they can disseminate the view that all we need to do is switch to renewable energy then continue the consumer lifestyle. I have long been an advocate of the paradigm shift which you describe. I lead a one day workshop called Personal and Cultural Evolution in which I show links between different aspects of personal growth and cultural change. From a Buddhist perspective all our problems stem from our illusion of separateness. The opportunity in humanity’s present crisis is to transcend this illusion.


Jan 15, 2016
10:44 AM

A more holistic view of our place within nature is a good place to start. It’s wrong to view ourselves as outside of nature.

Most atoms of which we are made were once part of many other living things and will be part of many other living things in the future when we are gone.

Since physics of matter seem to play a role in the perceptions from which all things experience life, we are not just creating the world we experience now with our actions, but also all the other worlds experienced by what we become in the future. This is cause for sober thought, and it’s the world view which should inform all of our actions.

There is nothing real upon which to argue that we can’t change the nature of our jobs and our productive output. All that is needed is to change our minds to reflect our real priorities.

Change is possible and it’s necessary!

The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to remove product/service endorsements and refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »