-->
Peace and Sustainability: A Basis
for Education
Eiichiro Ochiai
Global
Educator, Winter 2011, p14-17
Humankind
is currently in a deep trouble. The end
of human civilization is now a question in the realm of possibility. An immediate issue is economic crisis: the
current capitalistic market economy is now critically wounded. The basic idea behind the current economy is ‘growth’
(of economic activities in terms of quantity), which is contradictory to a
sustainable human civilization. Our
economic activities (consumption) have now surpassed the carrying capacity of
the earth, and are on the brink of collapse.
Besides, a few individuals, the so-called economic elite have cleverly
or grossly (depending on the point of view) steered the whole economic system
in a direction in which only they benefit from the economy, and the great
majority of humankind suffer economically. The impetus for economic growth makes nations
to compete for the limited resources on the earth, threatening us with, perhaps,
an ultimate war between big players. In
order for humankind to avoid such dangers and establish a sustainable and
peaceful civilization, all humankind – the young and children above all – must
learn how to approach it. With this in
mind, here I will try to show very briefly what needs to be implemented in the education
system.
Peace
and sustainability are intimately intertwined, and cannot be separated: peace is a precondition for sustainable human
civilization, but peace on the earth cannot be realized unless human society
attains sustainability. These issues are
the basics for human survival and hence should be the basis for education. We will first discuss what peace and
sustainability entail, how these states might be attained, and then how the
issues should be incorporated in education.
First,
let’s focus on sustainability. The word sustainability
is not well delineated, and means different things to different people, it
seems. It should not be “to sustain a
status quo”, though most often it is used to mean just that. That is, it is often meant to sustain one’s
condition without regard to how it affects others – that is, other people, other
communities, other countries, other living organisms, the environment, the
earth as a whole, and more.
Here
let us define sustainability to mean that the entire human race, not just the
advanced societies, sustains itself and that each and every individual has a
right to enjoy the best life possible within this sustainability constraint:
this is the basic human right. This does
not necessarily imply that all the people on this earth should attain the same
material standard. Each region (country)
has its unique and limited ecology, and the people in it should live more or
less self-sufficiently and happily within sustainable constraints, with some
resources equitably distributed among regions.
In other words, renewable material (that is, plants) can be cultivated
and raised in each region to the extent of being capable of sufficiently
sustaining (feeding, clothing and housing) the population. Nonrenewable resources are distributed
unequally among regions. In a
sustainable civilization, these resources would be regarded to belong to all human
race and other living organisms. These
resources are distributed among different regions according to the need, and
used in sufficiently sustainable manners.
This presupposes cooperation rather than individual egotistic
competitive activities at every level of human endeavor.
Currently
the people in advanced countries are enjoying enormously affluent material
lives, at the expense of the people in the developing countries, the majority
of whom are living miserably in terms of material. This is far from the condition of the
sustained human civilization outlined above.
On average, humankind is currently using renewable resources in excess
of renewable rate by more than 20%, and this is rising.
To
attain a sustainable use of resources, people in the currently affluent nations
need to significantly reduce their consumption of energy and material, and
measures should be taken to raise the wellbeing (in terms of material) of people
in the developing world, so that all can attain comparable levels of material
affluence, though not necessarily the same level. The overall consumption level should be much
lower than the current level (that is, over 20% lower). The crucial point is that people in any
region should feel they are living happy, worthy lives. To attain such a sustainable human
civilization, with the majority of people feeling happy, is a very tall
order. But that is what we should aim at
attaining in future.
Now,
let us turn our attention to peace – or rather, war. Many ancient civilizations could not sustain
themselves and collapsed due to overexploitation of the environment. Their living conditions were usually
precarious, particularly in nomadic, pastoral regions. A tribe in such a region might have been
living reasonably well, but usually did not have any extra expendable luxury due
to technological and territorial constraints.
They had to move to another place when their lifestyle had become
untenable. Or, when another tribe tried
to come and occupy their territory, they had to fight back to defend themselves
by killing the invading tribe or capturing and enslaving them. They needed to do so because their territory
simply could not accommodate another bunch of people. The people created and resorted to a God who
would protect them. The God was a
supernatural being, omnipotent, and the people were told that their God was
‘good’, protecting the people who believed in it. But the other God another tribe believed in
was ‘evil’. Hence it was permissible to
slaughter those people who believed in the wrong God. Thus, nomadic people created monotheism and
they believed they were the ‘chosen’ people – that is, chosen by the true God,
as, for example, Zionists and their Christian supporters believe.
War,
under the circumstances just described, became a normal human behavior,
sanctioned by God, and codified by sacred manuscripts. This kind of war can be designated as “war of
first kind”, a sort of natural condition for war. This might reflects the ancient living
condition of nomads, in which limited resources could not be shared with
another tribe, and invaders not allowed to coexist. This spirit (that is, animosity toward other
tribes) seems to be still prevalent among many tribes, and also among people
who believe literally in the sacred books of monotheism, despite the fact that
humankind has attained such an enormous improvement in living condition that
today people should be able to share and live together. The ethnic conflicts still rampant in today’s
world are essentially of this kind, though the basic reasons are varied:
economic, cultural, and political – but perhaps not the basic survival needs of
ancient times.
An
extension of this kind of war has become aggressive expansion of territory, as
seen in the wars of Alexander the Great and the Roman empire, and the Mongolian
invasion of the western half of Eurasia.
War of this kind was fought beyond necessity, and was purely an
aggressive kind of war – “war of second kind”.
Such war has been prevalent in colonialism from the15th through 20th
centuries.
However,
war in today’s world is often fought for the sake of financial benefit for some
influential elites, though it is usually claimed that it is for the sake of
security of people (that is, for protecting people’s lives and livelihood). In reality, people are victimized. Soldiers are killed and a large number of
civilians are also killed as a side effect.
Meanwhile, some elites and corporations gain an enormous amount of money
by providing weaponry and other related supplies. The Iraqi and Afghan wars are good
examples. They have little to do with
the security of American people, though initially they were meant for
preventing ‘terror’ attacks on American soil.
They had a lot to do, instead, with making money for military-related
corporations and oil companies. This is
“war of the third kind”.
“War of fourth kind” may be waged to secure
precious resources. This is in a sense
an extension of wars of the second and third kinds, but has a very different
connotation. Corporations force the government
to go to wars of the third kind, but the national government is the cause of
war of second kind. Resources on the
earth are becoming ever scarcer, and nations are eager to grab resources still
available. Take China as an
example. Of course there are a number of
such candidates including India, Brazil and others. The Chinese government, having such a large
population, needs a large quantity of resources of all kinds. It has been estimated that resources equivalent
to those of two-and-a-half earths would be necessary for all Chinese people to
enjoy material wealth comparable to that of people in today’s ‘advanced’
nations. The Chinese government is
trying to expand its sphere of influence so that it gains access to resources
all over the world, especially in resource-rich Africa. The former colonial power and dominant
nations of Europe and the US are also trying to secure natural resources as
well as they can, and seem to have already started to prepare for an eventual
confrontation with China. China is of
course rapidly building its military power. If this results in a war (of the fourth kind),
human civilization will be destroyed, as the major contenders all possess
nuclear arsenals. This has to be
avoided by all means. But even if this
competition is resolved peacefully, the consequence will be a very rapid
depletion of the earth’s resources.
Humankind
is now at a very crucial moment in its history.
The civilization we currently taken for granted is facing imminent death
from two causes. One is war, and another
is excessive consumption of material resources (both renewable and
non-renewable). War may be
inevitable. That is, peace may not be
attainable unless the human race attains the wisdom of living within
sustainable constraints. On the other
hand, peace is a precondition for sustainable civilization, because war simply
wastes precious human and material resources.
We need to realize that both issues – peace and sustainability – are faces
of the same coin.
Dr.
Vanadana Siva, an eco-philosopher and activist, began her acceptance speech at
the Sydney Opera House for the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize with these words: “When
we think of wars in our times, our minds turn to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the bigger war is the war against the
planet. This war has its roots in an
economy that fails to respect ecological and ethical limits – limits to
inequality, limits to injustice, limits to greed and economic
concentration.” She equates our current
growth economy to the war against the earth, and implies that it is not
sustainable. But changes needed to
reduce the assault on the earth should include the abolishment of wars by force
on people and nations.
In
order to attain such a sustainable and peaceful civilization, people have to
learn to respect each other and other cultures, restrain their urge to own and consume
more, and consider non-violent resolution as the human norm in resolving
conflicts, particularly those among nations.
And this has to be the basis for education, in its broadest sense, for
everybody.
Education
starts as soon as one is born. The brain
is wired by experience in every sense: interaction with the environment,
parents, siblings, grandparents, and others.
In the early stages of life, education is done mostly through upbringing
by parents. It is their worldview and
ethical system that have the strongest influence on the child.
When
children come to formal education, they are subjected to the educational norms
imposed by authority, the majority of which still cling to the unsustainable
political/economic view. Changing the
formal education system requires awareness of people regarding its
shortcomings. It is difficult and cannot
be accomplished soon. But it is
possible, and people in the educational world can start changing the
fundamental tenets of educating children even within the constraints imposed by
authority.
Here
are some basic tenets that need to be learned by all the people in order for
the humankind to sustain itself for long.
At the formal education level, these concepts should be conveyed to
children, not necessarily explicitly, but be touched upon on every opportunity
in many different ways of phrasing, in conjunction with any subject matter.
(1)
It needs to be
understood by everybody that every human being is equal in every way despite
different skin color and other physical characters. No single human race can be regarded to be superior
to others or a ‘chosen’ (by God) race.
There is no such distinction in nature.
(2)
We, humans,
are only one of several million living species present on this planet, and are
dependent for our livelihood on nature – that is, on other living organisms,
the environment (ecosystems, the earth), and the sun. We should live in harmony with nature.
(3)
There are
limits to the material resources on this planet. We need to use them very judiciously in order
for human civilization to survive.
(4)
To satisfy the
above conditions (2, 3), people have to learn to restrain their urge to obtain
more or consume more and know when enough is enough. We need to regard extravagant consumption as
undesirable. For example, one should not
buy things beyond one’s capability, charging to a credit card. It is a good thing for us to live modestly
but happily.
(5)
The basic
economic value should not be profit but be to make happy as many people as feasible.
(6)
We have now
enough, though barely, to share with and sustain everyone, so there is no need
to resort to wars or other violent means to grab resources. Cooperation and peace have to be the norm in
human civilization.
(7)
For now, the
resources on the earth are barely enough to sustain the current large
population of the human species. But
soon the population will likely exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. In an estimate of our ecological footprint,
it is said that we have already surpassed the carrying capacity of the earth a
decade ago and by more than 20%. This is
not simply a population problem, but we need to look into the population of the
human race, and learn to maintain it at reasonable level.
(8)
War is an
ultimate evil now promoted by those who gain from war, and has nothing to do
with the security of people. It is an
enormous waste of human life and resources, and of course causes enormous misery.
There
are other concepts (morals) eventually to be ingrained in the human minds in
order for us to sustain ourselves. A
critical thing in this regard is that children (and people in general) develop
a habit to evaluate carefully what they see everyday and on every occasion, to
see if it may make sense in terms of peace and sustainability.
No comments:
Post a Comment