My bitterly complicated relationship with America stems from growing up in Windsor, Ontario. Residing adjacent to a bridge from Detroit, I experienced their glorious shopping malls, lavish restaurants, and promise of opportunity. Yet I was also exposed to a reality which the majority of people neglect; complex and deep seated racial issues, poverty and, as Eminem portrayed, the wonders of 8 Mile. The universal idolization of America baffles me for this very reason. It’s a country divided by religious and political ideology, lacking quality education, employment, health care, and becoming progressively less informed about the world beyond its borders.

Living out my impressionable years by the Detroit River, I was constantly bombarded by American culture, music, and television, while simultaneously being taught that anything Canadian-made must be of a lesser quality. My peers would criticize my love of Instant Star or listening to Billy Talent, and I had to keep my love of Canadian Idol under the strictest confidence of my closest friends. The consensus among my peers was that Canadians simply lacked talent. I had hoped that when I moved further inland to Waterloo, the Canadian identity would be much more realized; regretfully the power of American culture rang just as strong as I fear it does all across Canada.

Fear of the cultural invasion by the United States is legitimized by surveys, which find that only 37% of Canadians watch domestically produced television. In this month alone, the only Canadian-produced program to break the top 30 shows watched was the news. This fear sparks government involvement, and makes CanCon regulations and tax credits crucial to the preservation of the Canadian television industry. The problem with enforcing these laws, which stipulate that 60% of programming must be of domestic origin, is that producing shows for the sake of meeting content regulations can hinder the quality or audience-reception of a program.

The primary hindrance however, is a cyclical process in which exposure to American programming leads Canadians to identify with their popular culture; as a result, stigma is attached to Canadian television for not meeting expectations. Canadian programming tends to be more high-brow than most U.S content. With the rising interest in trashy American reality shows, how can George Stroumboulopoulos or Rick Mercer even dare to compete against the drunken tomfoolery of the Jersey Shore cast?

Constant put-downs of Canadian culture unconsciously damage the perception of our own country. Ironically, a large portion of American produced films and television shows are filmed in Canada, written by Canadians, and feature Canadian actors. Castle’s two main actors both hold Canadian citizenships. It seems people don’t take issue with programs featuring Canadian talent, as long as they come from a country deemed more powerful, professional or talented.

It’s this imperialistic influence of American culture that puts tension on my relationship with America, and for that matter, the frustratingly close-minded people of Canada. I struggle to understand the negative stereotypes that determine anything made in Canada is unlikeable.

I was fortunate enough to have parents with an immense sense of nationalistic pride, who ensured I was exposed to a plethora of Canadian content regardless of where I grew up. With a family who once lived on the prairies, Corner Gas became a household favourite. As a child watching Mr. Dressup was a magical experience not to mention Fraggle Rock, Breaker High – the obvious turning point in Ryan Gosling’s career – Road to Avonlea and of course the critically acclaimed Degrassi.

More recent programs like Being Erica and Little Mosque on the Prairie have been well-received and broadcasted internationally. Yet despite an increase in positive press and international reception, I overhear an overwhelming number of people laughing off anything shown on CBC. Even as I attempted to research this topic, comment boards and blogs were consumed by negative discussions and intellectual comments such as “Canadian TV sucks.”

And so I struggle, feeling insignificant and unable to influence any change in the perceptions of the Canadian culture I hold so dear. I’m powerless to persuade decision-making processes to networks who avoid producing Canadian content as they are so often poorly received by the public and become nothing more than a company debt. The only course of action is to spread the word that Republic of Doyle is quickly becoming one of my favourite television series, and encourage others to support Canadian programming in the hopes that our Canadian identity overshadowed by the powerful American networks can find a way to prevail. Instead of criticizing an industry we are greatly uniformed about, we must begin to fund, support and improve Canadian television together.

Many are familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement that commenced in September 2011, three years after the recession in America that drained people’s savings, eradicated their job security, and rendered horrifying numbers of individuals homeless.

The Occupy movement has been criticized as being unorganized; there is no official list of demands to combat the dismal economic climate of poor job creation, unbalanced tax laws, high student debt, a lack of democracy in politics, and many other factors that have contributed to the grave disparity between the masses and the elite. Throughout the movement, there are only two points of cohesion: a dislike of corporate greed, and the slogan “we are the 99%”.

99% seems like a significant number. We are taught from an early age that there is safety in numbers, power in numbers. Yet all the power seems to be concentrated in the top 1% of society – notably in the financial sector – who have arguably led the world to its present fiscal state with their increasingly risky behaviour. The 1% is thriving in a time where unemployment and high debt levels plague the majority of society. Financial professionals receive massive bonuses, while the taxpayers who bailed their companies out are struggling to avoid foreclosure, retain their savings, afford healthcare, and feed their families.

How could such a power imbalance exist? The 1% preaches to the 99% that we “need” them and what they do is just too “complex” for us simple folk to comprehend – but do they not need us more? We provide the bank deposits they toy with, the money that is exchanged for their goods and services, the mortgages that they have gambled on. We far outweigh them in terms of voting power, though we cannot match corporations’ political contributions and lobbying influence – influence they have purchased using gains off of our indirect contributions to them. We have fuelled them, yet in the end we have received nothing more than high unemployment and low prospects for the future.

The state of democracy in North America leaves much to be desired. Perhaps this is more fundamental to the global financial crisis than the financial sector, as politicians seem to have played their cards in a way that ensures that the common public would lose. The United States has seen the elimination of legislation – particularly the Glass-Steagall Act – that was put in place to protect the economy as a whole, in order to benefit one particular industry. Some probably watched in horror as the financial sector became increasingly deregulated, essentially letting big financial corporations make riskier and riskier decisions for the sake of profit.

99% is a significant number – especially if it is united and focused on holding corporations, and more importantly the government, accountable. It should represent the people, and last time I checked, banking institutions were not common names.

“The Age of Reason has turned out to be the Age of Structure; a time when, in the absence of purpose, the drive for power as a value in itself has become the principal indicator of social approval. And the winning of power has become the measure of social merit.” – John Ralston Saul, ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’

If there is one idea that being a psychology student has forcefully implanted within me, it’s the notion that we are, at the root of it all, powerless. From psychoanalysis to behaviourism, cognitive to social psychology, it has been made generally apparent (humanistic theory excluded) that we do not dictate our behaviour. We seem to be the innocent victims of unconscious thoughts, conditioning, neurotransmitter levels, sensory processes and group influences. While the truth-value of these scientific discoveries must be praised, I believe that they are overemphasized and fail to grasp our potential for personal enlightenment. Some phenomenon cannot, and will not, be empirically deducible, yet denying their presence confines us to the mercy of [limited] scientific advancement, when what we require is a unifying release. As Winston Churchill put it, “the power of man has grown in every sphere, except over himself”.

If we were to put the influences that dictate the choices we make on a spectrum, we would find the basic, physiological and evolutionary influences at one end, and the social/environmental influences at the other end. What this spectrum fails to acknowledge are the choices that evade all influence, far out of the reaches of even the most fervent social system. Those are the choices that highlight the spiritual essence which lies dormant within each of us, awaiting its awakening. Choosing to seek out meditative thought, to critically analyze our behaviour (and what influences it), to reduce ourselves to our core ego in order to see how it truly commands us—these choices are within all of our grasps.

Unfortunately, a majority finds contentment in ignorance, contentment in the acceptance of what everything is at face value. Perhaps the biggest difficulty in the ‘way of life’ I (and others) propose is that it threatens to disrupt the shields we have established to protect our fragility. By consciously breathing in life, analyzing it and striving to uncover its depths, our soul may never find contentment, but we must be willing to accept this suffering. To me, it is the most beautiful kind of suffering.

When viewed in this spiritual context, the abuse and misuse of power that is ever visible to us is reduced to its true pitiable roots. Much of the misuse is the product of a select few human beings who displace the unconscious anxiety they have with themselves, as well as their anxiety over their spiritual poverty, onto others. We could find a multiplicity of such examples, from Conrad Black, to the UC Davis pepper spray debacle, to CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress report, to the many absurd bills that are being passed through congress, and even to the Occupy protests. Capitalism is greed-driven, and greed is a human vice that must be overcome, not accepted; this also ties in to the collapsing economic structures and the bureaucratic failure we see in most modern political systems. One man’s greed is enough to crumble a social fabric.

The sadly-designed, morally-corrupt actions of the few are simple products of infantilism; where, in the face of questions that they are unable to answer, unknowns of the self that plague their minds like a rabid sickness, intellectual gaps that were never filled, they cling to their flawed beliefs like a mother, and behave where irreversible behaviour cannot fulfill the place of a true answer. When knowledge is accepted as power, wisdom will obtain, and things will fall into place.

We may be powerless in changing what cognitively shapes us, but there is individual power in the awakening of the Spirit, and when the individual is strengthened, the collective will follow. While those most worthy of power rest listless in inaction, the ferociously power-hungry remain complacent in their thrones. In the words of Albert Camus, “all modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State”. So it will continue to be. Regardless, inaction cannot be the answer. Is there an answer? It is a righteously complicated social issue best left for those with the competency to understand it.

From my perspective, we -of the younger, Westernized generations- seem to overvalue the principles of ‘living in the present’ and future-deferment, ‘good feeling’ and ethics-belittlement. This is just another petty outlet for rebellion; it is only a subtler, tamer version of anarchy. We must keep in mind what the wise, fictitious Stevo, from the film SLC Punk, once said: “there is no future in anarchy”. If this does not suffice to content the restless souls who live to struggle against the system, perhaps it would be better to remind them of another Stevo quote: “we can do a hell of a lot more damage in the system than outside of it.”

Too play on my previous metaphor of ‘gazing upon a crowd’: in my [infrequent] meditative moments, when I gaze upon said crowd, I see that we mask an ineffable sadness. It is buried deep beneath compulsions, addictions and habits, religiosity and traditionalism, objects and social interaction, substances and more objects, denial and ignorance, fear and hatred, memories of what has existed and dreams of what will exist. We must come to soften our hearts and embrace this sadness with humility. It provides us with the perspective we need to truly see the beauty in life.

In the end, you are the key and your spirit is the lock. That is the one true power that we all hold. In darkness, there is always a door that can be opened and a soul that can be illuminated.

When you gaze upon a crowd, what do you see?

I see shapes and forms, colours and other visual stimuli. I see minds, both electrified with activity and dull. Minds enlightened to the beauty, the synchronized, wondrous breath of our directionless species.

What I certainly do not see is a vast, gaping chasm between others and myself. We all – save astronauts and high jumpers- normally have our feet firmly planted on the ground. The day where we truly lose our ground is the day we are interred beneath it, and from the day we are gifted with life until our last fruitful gasps of oxygen, we share the common plane of life on the same terrain of Planet Earth.

This commonality, the most crucial and clichéd commonality of all should have driven us to seek oneness and acceptance from the beginning. It has not. It has taken thousands of years of grief and misery to reach our present stage, and only slowly are we beginning to awaken from our deep, ignorant slumber.

The majority of those who pay attention to LGBT issues have heard of Jamie Hubley and the “It Gets Better” project created by Dan Savage. As beautiful as the movement may be, I find it difficult to believe that most kids, immature as they are, will ever possess enough self-analytical ability to really benefit from something like that without a rigorous shaking of the system. The foundations of the system are finally beginning to crack, inch by inch.

Our goal is to rid humanity of past habits, ideals and norms that have not benefited our society as the whole, unified entity that it is. Western society encompasses a stunning variety of individuality, and it is only natural that we continue to fit each kind of person into the societal puzzle, piece by piece. Forward progress is inevitable.

When Conan O’Brien officiated the first late-night talk show same-sex wedding on November 3rd, do you think audience members and viewers understood the significance of it? Do you believe they realized, beneath the entire process, that he was blatantly ridiculing our civilization? What I thought as I watched and appreciated how necessary it was, ran along the lines of the following: why do we need late night satirists/comedians to symbolically remind us about how far astray we have gone?

And then I remember the likes of George Carlin, Bill Maher and Louis C.K., and I understood that the most human messages often come from those who are, unfortunately, taken the least seriously. So it goes. first to openly talk about classical categorization, Aristotle made it clear that categories were distinct entities. Aristotle described these categories as sharing common properties. While a philosopher may cringe at the simplicity of the explanation I provided, what I am alluding to is that it will always be natural for us to differentiate

While Plato may have been the first to openly talk about classical categorization, Aristotle made it clear that categories were distinct entities. Aristotle described these categories as sharing common properties. While a philosopher may cringe at the simplicity of the explanation I provided, what I am alluding to is that it will always be natural for us to differentiate between hetero- and homosexuals. We will always categorize ourselves into different variations of person. There is no harm in doing so. The harm comes when one category is seen as more correct than the other.

It is imperative for humans to categorize our world, consciously or unconsciously, in order to make some remote sense of it all. What I would like to conclude with, however, is that I believe it is a categorical imperative to see that beneath short haircuts and long haircuts, tight clothes and baggy clothes, rainbow flags and what many consider to be ‘atypical mannerisms’, that sexual orientation means nothing. Sexual orientation is so grossly unimportant in the grand scheme of someone’s being.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans individuals have only been considered unnatural for so long because we, in our pathetic fallacy, have made them out to be so. The root cause of our error could be traditional religious beliefs or some inherent belief that ‘the only right way is the baby-making way’. It could be the evolutionary, animalistic tendencies we have/had. There is no right way. There is my way and there is your way.

‘Queerness’ has always existed as a human inclination; but we now notice it most because of our emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, as opposed to the collective mentalities we held in the past. Whether deviance from the ‘sexual norm’ is neurologically, genetically or environmentally rooted is a moot point. It could be all or none of the above. Why attempt to determine an origin when there is no issue to begin with?

I may be unable to stop saying ‘faggot’ or stop wanting to criticize someone’s sexual orientation when a ‘queer’ person’s personality gets on my nerves. In the future, I will make conscious efforts to change. But I know that deep down, beneath my fabricated layers of social shields, my impulsive attributive tendencies and everything else that constitutes the identity I do not want to have, I accept. I accept somebody for what they are, because nothing is truly irregular. Everything may be subjective and relative, but acceptance has no room for subjectivity. It appears to be impossible for us to truly accept one another. We should all realize that preventing same-sex marriage is a ‘sin’, and not the other way around. The Defense of Marriage Act is an abomination to the true purpose of implemented laws. Laws must serve all equally, free of bias, prejudice and discrimination. To each their own.

The word ‘queer’ even has negative connotations to some of those in the LGBT community. Some say it is too politically charged. Even some lesbians and gays seek separatism from one another. Whatever words we use to distinguish ourselves from one another, we must make sure the utterance of it is paired with kind emotion. It must be associated with vague, disinterested differentiation as opposed to debate and criticism.

In But Would That Still Be Me?, contemporary moral philosopher Anthony Appiah asks: if someone, person X, gets a sex change (by which I mean genital reassignment surgery and hormone therapy), are they still the same person they were before the sex change?

This is a difficult question; regarding social, rather than metaphysical identity. On one hand, it could be argued that X is still the same person because “he” is still genetically and chromosomally the same. That is, changing a body part (in this case, X’s genitals) is not enough to make him a different person. Most people wouldn’t say X is a different person if he lost his leg and got a prosthetic one, so this should also be the case for one’s genitals.

Most people wouldn’t say that taking prescription drugs changes who someone is. Taking hormones is comparable to taking an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, such as Prozac), but just because SSRIs can make someone happier, doesn’t make them a different person. Similarly, hormones may change something about a person, but not the person themselves. A sex change would not make X a different person ethically. That is, if X murdered Y, X is still morally accountable for their wrongdoing even after their sex change.

Alternatively, one might say that X is a different person after their sex change, as he will now have different experiences of the world and people will view and treat him differently. That is, if X did not get a sex change he would have had a drastically different life.

It is the case that female-to-males report being treated with more respect by others – they receive more eye contact, and are listened to more intentionally than male-to-females – who receive less respect after their sex change or gender transition. Furthermore, X would likely feel like a different person after his sex change. He would likely have different wants, desires, and emotions and for these reasons he can be considered to be a different person. This is illustrated by the fact that many transpeople report having different intensities of emotions after their sex change.

It seems as though there are good reasons on both sides of this debate that allow reasonable people to disagree on a single conclusion of whether someone ought to be considered the same person before and after a sex change.

You can hate anyone you want, and yell it at the top of your lungs in the wilderness, as long as nobody hears you. It’s perfectly legal for me to hold grudges, and loathe all that you stand for, but not to act it out. It isn’t the best option though, because someday if that’s what’s inside your head and heart, it will slip out in some unmeant way and that’s called discrimination. Coming from a background in the Christian faith, any topic remotely queer is touchy; strong dislike, fear, and occasionally outright hatred for the LGBT community are easy to find. I have realized that as far as the Church is concerned, it’s our duty to love everyone, even if I don’t agree with their lifestyle.

The nature of humanity seems to pull us always towards those who think similarly to us, and causes us to fear on some level, the unknown and that which is different from us. If it weren’t for this, would there be any discrimination? This should never be our excuse for discrimination, but merely an understanding of why it happens, and an aspiration for improvement.

The balance of tolerance between conflicting views is an everyday struggle in so many spheres of life, and the world sure hasn’t mastered it yet. What we can do is respect others and their choices, and conduct ourselves in a manner deserving of their respect in return. In this manner, you are free to believe the moon is made of cheese, or that the Leafs will win this year, and I am free to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and none of us deserve discrimination and mocking – save maybe occasionally the Leafs fans. I choose to respect all people, and hope you choose this as well.

“Ah! That’s so gay!”
I sigh heavily.
“You do know that game isn’t actually homosexual, don’t you?”
“I just mean gay like ‘bad’ or ‘stupid’.”

We all know the famous line from Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s play Richelieu: “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Few people seem to actually understand the depth of this quotation. Picture a person on the edge of suicide, at a point where all they see is pain, and the only solution they see is death. One would assume they would need help beyond ‘just words’. However, many of these people have been convinced of the value of life and kept from death through just talking.

Language can save a life, so one would assume it works the other way. Language can greatly affect life or death decisions, so would it not make sense that it would be able to injure or uplift on a smaller scale? Using words such as ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ in a derogatory way can deeply hurt people; and I would hope that most people using these words carelessly aren’t intending to abuse others; but they need to realize that it is in fact exactly what they are doing.

Most words relating to homosexuality have some negative connotations: even the word ‘rainbow’ can be used a insult. The queer community has fought too hard to earn the respect of the general populous, and does not deserve this constant haphazard abuse. Words carry power, and have to be chosen more carefully and respectfully if we ever expect to achieve acceptance and equality.

Last New Year’s Eve, I made the trek with some friends to a club in downtown Kitchener. Being comfortable amongst the university crowd, I felt slightly tense wandering around in foreign territory. Just as I was settling in and questioning why I avoid the extra drive down King Street, a pathetic drunken teenager approached one of my friends and began hurling anti-gay slurs towards my innocent and unsuspecting gay friend. As this ridiculous douchebag called him a faggot, accompanied by some other colourful language, I completely froze up. Besides completely ignoring his insults and banding together with my group of friends, I realized I had no idea what to do in this kind of situation.

I’ve been bullied sure, probably more than a lot of other kids. I’ve been called ‘Dumbo’ for the size of my ears, ugly for the better part of elementary and high school and even tormented for my last name because, if you’re clever enough to see, the first three letters spell ‘but.’ Despite this ‘character building,’ I’ve never had to defend my sexuality, define my gender, or spend my life trying to make people understand these are not narrow categories nor personal choices.

This example is not to suggest that Kitchener is an unsafe or ignorant place, but it is symbolic of the psychological divide that exists between liberal university environments and the realities of the outside world. Growing up in a sheltered suburb with an open and accepting family, I’ve ignorantly assumed everybody has had a similar upbringing. Likewise, growing up in a country like Canada where gay and lesbian couples are permitted to marry, I forget not everyone in the world has that right – not even just a few hours south.

Transitioning from this liberal environment to an enlightened university, it is easy to become complacent to the reality that homophobia still exists. I don’t want to idealize the university atmosphere, but there is something to be said for its protective bubble that shields its subjects from the often harsh realities of the ‘real world.’

This experience last year certainly opened my rather naive eyes to the violence and prejudice that occurs on a daily basis. Since that event, it seems there has been an inescapable bombardment from the media with stories and images of teenage bullying, suicide and violence. As deplorable as these acts are they have at least increased the awareness of issues within the LBGTQ community that have up until this point, been relatively ignored. Most significantly, there has been a realization that these ‘issues’ (previously designated to the LBGTQ community) are not limited to this community alone but are a shared experience beyond gender, age, status, and sexual orientation.

A recent study conducted by the University of Winnipeg, which surveyed over 3600 secondary school students across Canada, found that nearly half of respondents reported hearing homophobic slurs on a daily basis. Not only do these consist of direct derogatory insults but can include symbolic violence, for example, common phrases like ‘That’s so gay.’

Two thirds of the 14 per cent of students who identified themselves as LGBTQ reported that they felt unsafe in their school, as 51 per cent had been verbally harassed and more than a fifth physically assaulted or abused. It is only logical that with such intense bullying and discrimination, members of the LGBTQ community would feel displaced or depressed.

It’s easy to espouse an ‘It Gets Better’ script or fantasize about the day they too will be able to attend a progressive university and feel comfortable in an accepting environment. But sitting in an elementary classroom surrounded by equally lost peers, this future seems utterly unfeasible.

I have been brutally bullied. I remember spending lonesome Friday nights wondering if I ceased to exist who would really miss me? And morbid thoughts of my funeral attendance consumed my crushed spirits for the better half of my youth. But standing on the other side of four university years, I realized it did get better, and it continues to do so.

But with LGBTQ youth three to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, an inspiring story of survival that essentially teaches targeted youth that being bullied is a natural part of growing up is sending an entirely wrong message. While it may attempt some optimism, it still labels bullying as a rite of passage with the only counteraction is to grin and bear it.

For my friend who still has to deal with bullying in his twenties I have to ask, does it ever, truly get better? When homophobia builds social barriers that youth must struggle over just to find acceptance, what lesson is really being taught? I can no longer occupy the comfortable haze in which I ignorantly want to believe people can be accepted for who they are and that discrimination is a thing of the uneducated past.

While divides may still exist between liberalized communities and the actuality of the outside world, the message of acceptance and love should be universal. We all want to belong, to be loved for who we are and be seen for the character of our souls rather than an irrational fear of a dehumanizing label. I’m not condemning positive queer movements but rather, suggesting it’s time we all take that trek into the real world and open up our eyes.

Something is missing within the acronym that has stood for so long as the all-encompassing way to describe a vibrant community. So before I begin to babble, I will ask a simple question: where has our beloved ‘Q’ for queer gone?

It seems the community is no longer referred to as queer or LGBTQ for reasons that escape me. Queer has stood for so many years as the word that leaves no individual behind and never fails to give comfort to someone who does not necessary apply a specific social label to themselves. The word conjures two distinct notions, which are sadly at opposite ends of the spectrum: first, we have the notion of the queer community and the vibrancy that it stands for and encompasses. Second, we have the derogatory use against a member of the community.

This is where my confusion lies, as I had understood queer as a word that had been stripped of its hateful meaning and reworked to be a word in and of its own. Does queer need to be taken back and reclaimed, as words like ‘dyke’ have? In light of the LGBTQ-centric bullying that has been making headlines for far too long, I have come to realize that queer may have been taken back by those who wish to defame the community and restart (or continue) hatred. Conversely, it may be that members of the community feel that queer no longer requires usage as we have such a diverse list of social labels that look to leave no one left behind.

This endeavor negates all the good that ‘queer’ has brought. For those who don’t feel comfortable identifying, aren’t sure, or are a little bit of column A and column B, I urge you to never forget that although it may reside within the lexicon of hate for some, there stands every reason in the world to keep our beloved Q in the acronym. We’re here and most definitely queer.

It is often difficult to reconcile the expansion of urban centers with the preservation of nature. Considering industrialization’s history, it is not too bold to suggest that the natural world and urban world are adversaries, locked in a competition for survival. Urbanized society finds itself in a game to where there can be winners and losers, though one of these competitors is unwillingly taking part.

She is engaged, but unaware of the stakes. She desperately tries to regenerate what is being frivolously taken, but will eventually lose. The leading competitor defines the rules of the game, although they are inherently flawed, as the winning competitors success is synonymous with their defeat. The competitor can’t win without it’s opponent, and its opponent’s defeat will cause it’s own demise. The only way to solve this problem is to change the rules of the game or, more accurately in this analogy, change what it means to win.

From the dawn of the city, humankind has drawn a clear distinction between the urbanized world and it’s natural counter-part. Although methods of thought exist that preach ideas of man’s harmony with nature, the endless appetite of the city has shown where his true loyalty lies. The mechanical things we create are thought to progress us, take what is normal and make it into what is supernormal; this process that has allowed society to reach new heights of comfort and prosperity. Humanity has taken nature and made it into something it could never have achieved on its own. We’ve progressed; we’re winning… aren’t we?

Our relentless desire to advance has led us astray. Many of the mechanical things we create, especially those that are dependent on natural elements like fossil fuels, work against nature and subsequently against humanity. We have to begin to question what it means to progress if nature and city are ever to attain true hybridity. When considering the world in its entirety there can only be one meaning of the word progression in regards to urban growth, sustainability and harmony with the earth. Other forms of progression are mere stepping-stones towards these absolute ideals. If urbanized humanity could reach a state of authentic hybridity with the earth, its development would be timeless.

Sustainability and harmony will be the climax of mechanical advancement, and rightfully so. Without it, we are working towards our inevitable demise. Our dependence on the consumption of oil, and the earth alike, is a prominent weakness in our system. Without a solution to this problem, humanity’s industrial and mechanical fields will regress in light of the fact that their model works in conflict with the preservation of that in-which it serves- itself. In other words, advancements within industries that ignore the preservation of the environment are advancements in industries that ignore the preservation of humankind.

It seems as though the world is trapped in the utopian dream of early modernity. In that age, industrial development was synonymous with humanity’s progress. Our reluctance to abolish this system of thought has led us to the sad state we find ourselves today. The contemporary world is faced with a depressing paradoxical reality: that merely sustaining what we have will further develop our society.

Although I cannot say how humankind will begin to change, one thing is imperative to the movement’s birth – the acknowledgment that there is a problem. Global warming is a widely accepted theory, yet there remain people skeptical of its severity. Climate change is not a problem that can be fixed easily, if even at all. If we are going to move forward in any regard we are going to have to realize that a world without climate change and oil dependency cannot be likened to our contemporary world. Our system is so intensely immersed in practices that oppose nature, that our emancipation from those practices will require radical change. Unfortunately the dynamics of this change will cause shifts among those in authority, and these shifts will cause alterations in the concentration of capital. Although this may sound appetizing (as it could lead to greater equality), it is presently stifling our ability to address the problem in full.

The dominant analysis of the problem and dominant solutions are created around capital, and those in control of capital have made the laws that have been made to implement these solutions. Can there be a grassroots movement? Does the consumer have any power when the system they are a part of limits their ability to change? Sure, we can make decisions to buy more expensive “energy efficient” products but as long as solutions are centered on the accumulation of capital we can’t institute necessary change. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is a slow start to the preservation of our planet. Maybe these solutions will make a difference, but they are still so limited.

Despite our efforts, there needs to be change at the top if significant strides are to be made. Our dependency on the consumption of the earth, particularly fossil fuels, can only be truly fixed from the top down as it is engrossed in the very fabric of the way our society operates. Nevertheless, sustainability is possible; it is just contradictory to the way the world works today. I’m not claiming to have solutions, just that there should be an understanding of this problems severity.

Ultimately the world of tomorrow will have to be one of a different type of progress. It will have to value the harmony of humanity with nature over the advancement of industry and the accumulation of capital. We will have to realize that when it comes to the preservation of the environment, it may take all our energy and innovation to maintain what we presently have. As Lewis Carroll cleverly remarked: “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”