Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Enviro-Politics and Communications
John Fund wrote recently about a controversy surrounding a gold mining project in Romania. I could go on endlessly about gold mining, I consulted to the industry in Nevada in the late 80's and early 90's. It is a fascinating industry with unique and interesting technology, economics, and a challenging set of environmental issues. But that is not what this controversy is about - the story Fund weaves is of interests fighting over "causes," often following internal voices that have little or nothing to do with the conditions in the area discussed. It is an old tale of "environmentalists" versus "miners" which most people think of as good guys and bad guys. If you want the details, please follow the link. I want to talk about three things on the meta level concerning the story.
Need
On the one hand the local economy around the mine area needs the investment the mine would bring. The benefits would be enormous, jobs, new homes, cleaning up old Soviet era mining diasters.
On the other hand, rich westerners in the form of George Soros or Vanessa Redgrave need something to do with their lives, having already made their fortunes through some industry that certainly somehow exploited somebody.
Need is a funny thing - we all need something. That means there better be some sort of heriarchy of needs to decide which a society must choose between. As I look at these opposing forces, some needs seem basic to existence and some seem on a more psychological or spiritual level, let's call them meta-needs.
Which points out something extraordinary about people that live without religion - when ones meta-needs are not met through a supernatural understanding, what we call religion, they can only be satisfied by natural means, which generally means at the expense of someone else.
In America we live in a place where our basic needs are met almost without effort. Virtually everything we "need" is meta-need of some sort. We would be very smart to keep that in mind as we try to enforce agendas on others.
Perspective
People still struggling with basic needs have very limited perspective - "What can I eat tonight?"
People who are operating out of meta-needs have a broader perspective, but it is still limited, because it is personal. They ask not "What is best?" - rather they ask "How can I approach this situation in a way that will give me rewarding feedback?" In other words they look for a wrong to right to satisfy their inner drive for justice and meaning, but they often fail to take the boradest possible perspective becasue once they perceive a wrong, their needs drive them forward rather than continue the investigation.
In this case, those opposed to the mining operation fail to see that absent the new mine, the Romanian government/people lack the resources to clean up the old mess and so it will stay polluted. They also fail to have a proper time perspective. Mining is distruptive to a local environment, while it is being constructed and carried out. However, in this modern era, it does not stay that way. Miners are required to restore land after the end of mining operations. I could take you right now to former mining sites where you simply would not know it save I am telling you. Yes, the land is differently-shaped than it was prior to mining, but it is healthy and productive.
Gaining real perspective on any issue requires moving out of one's needs altogether.
Narrative
This battle being fought here is being fought through movies - documentaries. Yet these two films, both proporting to discuss the same situation tell radically different stories. The story is a compelling communication device for the human mind. Our minds strive to develop a narrative, or story, out of the set of facts we know about a situation - it is fundamental to how we think.
But when we develop narratives out of our needs, and a limited perspective, which means we do not have all the information, the narrative will be at least incomplete, if not false. We have a hard time with that because a narrative, by the nature of its structure, carries a weight of truth about it that settles in our minds and makes them not seek other facts.
This, by the way, is why movies differ from books, or reality. Movies, to appeal, require a pretty specific narrative structure. Movie writers must discard or alter facts to make the situation fit that structure. Well written books can use broader structures than films, but they can also be very limited depending on the author's intent. The more complicated the narrative structure of a book, the less it is likely to sell, but fortunately with books so inexpensive to produce compared to film, complicated books still get published. (From here springs the value of the Internet, BTW)
It is important when gaining information on a controversial situation, particularly through a visual medium like film or television, that we ask what facts we left out or altered to create the narrative. What perspective does the film maker carry? Whose needs are being met?
Need
On the one hand the local economy around the mine area needs the investment the mine would bring. The benefits would be enormous, jobs, new homes, cleaning up old Soviet era mining diasters.
On the other hand, rich westerners in the form of George Soros or Vanessa Redgrave need something to do with their lives, having already made their fortunes through some industry that certainly somehow exploited somebody.
Need is a funny thing - we all need something. That means there better be some sort of heriarchy of needs to decide which a society must choose between. As I look at these opposing forces, some needs seem basic to existence and some seem on a more psychological or spiritual level, let's call them meta-needs.
Which points out something extraordinary about people that live without religion - when ones meta-needs are not met through a supernatural understanding, what we call religion, they can only be satisfied by natural means, which generally means at the expense of someone else.
In America we live in a place where our basic needs are met almost without effort. Virtually everything we "need" is meta-need of some sort. We would be very smart to keep that in mind as we try to enforce agendas on others.
Perspective
People still struggling with basic needs have very limited perspective - "What can I eat tonight?"
People who are operating out of meta-needs have a broader perspective, but it is still limited, because it is personal. They ask not "What is best?" - rather they ask "How can I approach this situation in a way that will give me rewarding feedback?" In other words they look for a wrong to right to satisfy their inner drive for justice and meaning, but they often fail to take the boradest possible perspective becasue once they perceive a wrong, their needs drive them forward rather than continue the investigation.
In this case, those opposed to the mining operation fail to see that absent the new mine, the Romanian government/people lack the resources to clean up the old mess and so it will stay polluted. They also fail to have a proper time perspective. Mining is distruptive to a local environment, while it is being constructed and carried out. However, in this modern era, it does not stay that way. Miners are required to restore land after the end of mining operations. I could take you right now to former mining sites where you simply would not know it save I am telling you. Yes, the land is differently-shaped than it was prior to mining, but it is healthy and productive.
Gaining real perspective on any issue requires moving out of one's needs altogether.
Narrative
This battle being fought here is being fought through movies - documentaries. Yet these two films, both proporting to discuss the same situation tell radically different stories. The story is a compelling communication device for the human mind. Our minds strive to develop a narrative, or story, out of the set of facts we know about a situation - it is fundamental to how we think.
But when we develop narratives out of our needs, and a limited perspective, which means we do not have all the information, the narrative will be at least incomplete, if not false. We have a hard time with that because a narrative, by the nature of its structure, carries a weight of truth about it that settles in our minds and makes them not seek other facts.
This, by the way, is why movies differ from books, or reality. Movies, to appeal, require a pretty specific narrative structure. Movie writers must discard or alter facts to make the situation fit that structure. Well written books can use broader structures than films, but they can also be very limited depending on the author's intent. The more complicated the narrative structure of a book, the less it is likely to sell, but fortunately with books so inexpensive to produce compared to film, complicated books still get published. (From here springs the value of the Internet, BTW)
It is important when gaining information on a controversial situation, particularly through a visual medium like film or television, that we ask what facts we left out or altered to create the narrative. What perspective does the film maker carry? Whose needs are being met?
Technorati Tags:mining, romania, needs, perspective, narrative, thinking
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
