Translate

Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts

Monday, November 9, 2015

The Future of Unsustainable Development

The Future of Unsustainable Development

Most of us have heard the phrase “sustainable development” and perhaps a little about initiatives related to sustainable development such as Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter. Many communities are exploring these principles in the hope of heading off (or at least moderating) future catastrophes.

Critics of organized sustainable development describe it as a massive international conspiracy to deprive us of individual and capitalistic rights. Actually, ignoring sustainability could actually deprive us of freedoms. In fact, if we don’t start making better decisions and addressing important sustainability problems now, we certainly will lose many options that we currently take for granted. Either someone will step in to save us from ourselves, or abandon us to the consequences that we bring down upon our own heads. My bet is that several billion people will die in crisis and conflict before we adapt to the effects of our changing climate.

Since we started living in communities, part of the deal has always been that we can’t always do or take just anything we want. In America, our constitution grants generous freedoms and liberties, but civility and justice demand that our rights end in the vicinity of where our neighbors’ rights begin. The authority the American founding fathers wisely gave us to regulate ourselves through government ensures important protections to us all.

Some insist that all natural resources are given by God to man to own, subdue, and have dominion over (Genesis 1:28). Further, they argue that man was given the physical and mental powers to accomplish this dominion. However, this same scripture instructed him to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth – with no mention of limits. This sounds to me like a command to exercise responsible, sustainable stewardship rather than a grant of free license to dig, build, spew, kill and destroy.

Frankly, America has thrived economically for centuries based on the exploitation of its abundant land, rivers, trees and mineral resources. However, Native Americans discovered how little that freedoms and rights mattered when private and business interests decided that, “they weren’t using it, so why not just take it?” Now that national and global resources are becoming scarce, who will be next to suffer from the greed of exploiters, and who will we depend on to stop them?

Do we personally exploit? Automobiles, the open road and cheap gasoline have been taken for granted as definingly American. A gas-guzzling vehicle is a public symbol of status and achievement. Free public roads are also taken for granted. We act as if we deserve the unlimited option to live, work, play, shop, commute, and just drive around at will.

However, continued, unrestrained and unregulated exploitation and consumption are not sustainable. We may think that only people we don’t know and don’t care about are going to suffer. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans are already experiencing the effects of unsustainability. Our children will certainly suffer profoundly.

Only the very rich have the resources to consume, waste and pollute conspicuously without immediate personal consequence. Believe me, they are fighting for every political edge to protect their place of preeminent advantage and control.

Do you care about your grandchildren? Start explaining to them now about the importance of sustainability. And, introduce them to the principles behind Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter.

David Satterlee

Thursday, January 16, 2014

The Power of Human Development at All Levels


"We must be open to continual growth and development as individuals, communities and societies. Our shared ability to accept changing situations and create new responses is our greatest survival resource."
~ David Satterlee

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Essay: When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?

Information and comments on the essay:


When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKQUdLaXZwZVF5aDg/edit?usp=sharing

#fundamentalism #authoritarianism #human #development #integral



Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?


Family is always, obviously, “WE.” But stopping there just puts too many limits on the culture that we can achieve. If WE is only family, you need a strict father or tribal chief to enforce order and to lead YOUR cousins on plundering raids against OTHER families or tribes.

If your WE is too small, you have to always arm yourselves and be vigilant to protect your life and property against the next small group that defines “US” as just “OUR family” or “OUR tribe.” 
Without broader cooperation, life just becomes too hard and too dangerous and it often becomes necessary to attack other families or tribes to survive. Our philosophy becomes, “If we do not stand for ourselves, first, foremost, and always, we stand to fall.” If WE is too small, it is moral to take what YOU can from THEM because OUR needs are more important to US because survival is always the highest value.

Or, do you get your values and sense of who you are from a larger association, community of faith, or regional alliance? Do you identify primarily as Scandinavian Lutherans or Southern Baptists? Is YOUR version of God the ONLY TRUE God? My, how comforting that

Essay: The emotions of transformation

Information and comments on the essay:


The emotions of transformation

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKUlZGQ2JsMy1STms/edit?usp=sharing

#Integral

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters


The emotions of transformation


[With appreciation to the research of Susan Cook-Greuter]
The language, concepts, and vocabulary that people use forms the filter through which they see and understand the world. At higher levels of development, you become aware of this process. You are more-able to stand back and observe, not just everything else with dispassion, but your own actions, reactions, emotions and motives as well. You can enter the ego and see that you are playing this game or that game and be a genuine witness to your own struggles.

At first, you feel suspicious of this new perception. You don’t understand it well enough to defend it. It feels threatening and disturbing. Your foundation of assumptions has begun to crumble. You become aware of more of your mental processes such as creating explanatory stories and drawing conclusions. You begin to question all of the stories that you have previously created to explain things. But gradually you become more comfortable with the process of watching your mind at work.

Once you can begin to see yourself reaching the limits of previous understandings, struggling with inadequate ideas, and struggling to sort things out in a new way, there is a joyful satisfaction, an uplifting glow as you feel yourself

Essay: Stages of moral development – Lawrence Kohlberg

Information and comments on the essay:


Stages of moral development – Lawrence Kohlberg

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks
Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKMGRBOWVKOFdEaXM/edit?usp=sharing

How #morality grows in stages – Lawrence #Kohlberg #Moral #Development



Read by the author:



Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Stages of moral development – Lawrence Kohlberg


Last week, I discussed the research of James W. Fowler, a Methodist minister, into the developmental stages of faith. Dr. Fowler built his ideas on the pattern of Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. This is also worth considering.

Dr. Kohlberg found that moral development was revealed by one’s attitudes toward justice and how one reasoned on, and resolved, moral dilemmas. Related research identified justice as a masculine orientation and added caring as the corresponding feminine. At each stage of development, our moral behavior becomes more responsible, nuanced, and predictable.

Young children (and some poorly-developed adults) judge the morality of an action by its immediate consequences. Snatching a cookie or running a stop sign are just fine so long as you are not caught and punished. The focus is on personal benefit without considering ethical standards. Obedience can only be enforced with the threat of punishment.

The next stage is able to consider the needs of others, but only to the point of how to get what one wants. This is the “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” attitude of moral relativity.
Adolescents usually begin to judge the morality of a situation according to the expectations of authorities within their culture. They are willing to comply obediently because they are convinced that “it is the right thing.” This rigid morality typically views things very strictly in terms of “black and white.” A “good boy” or “good girl” conforms to accepted social roles. Morality is usually judged by intent and how an action affects relationships.

Some people understand that social order requires voluntary compliance to the standards of their community. They accept that laws must be obeyed and personal sacrifices made because it is their duty. They will stop at all stop signs simply because it is the right thing to do and because it sets a good example for others.

As it becomes obvious that different cultures hold different expectations, laws become regarded as adjustable social contracts within each community. The most important consideration becomes an understanding of “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” The operation of an effective Democracy requires this understanding and acceptance of compromise as inevitable for the common good.

Eventually, moral reasoning stops being derived from others; it depends on an individual appreciation for ethical abstractions and universal principles. This is not the same as moral relativity. Each person becomes responsible for deciding that he or she cannot march neighbors into gas chambers, no matter what. If a law is unjust, there is an obligation to disobey it. There are fewer arguments about rights, but more empathetic consideration of what is right. This stage is still considered rare.

Essay: How faith grows in stages – James Fowler

Information and comments on the essay:


How faith grows in stages – James Fowler

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks
Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKNGo1aldtWFphd00/edit?usp=sharing

How #faith grows in stages – James #Fowler - #Spiritual #Development

Read by the author:




Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

How faith grows in stages – James Fowler


It should not be surprising, in our scientific, technological world, that faith has been subjected to empirical studies and analysis. Hold onto your hat: it turns out that both people and communities of faith develop through a predictable series of stages… or find a comfortable level and stay there.

James W. Fowler, a minister in the United Methodist Church, wrote “Stages of Faith” in 1981 while a professor of Theology and Human Development at Emory University. Additional research has followed. Here is a summary of the results.

Preschool children often confuse fantasy and reality. Their mix of ideas are picked-up, but not fully-developed, from those around them. They may believe in God and the Tooth Fairy, but already know that the guy at the mall is not really Santa.

School-age children begin to use logic and take things very literally. They may strongly and stubbornly hold onto ideas that come from trusted authorities. Their parents may still be insisting on the details of

Essay: Elephant metaphor for developmental levels of worldview

Information and comments on the essay:


Elephant metaphor for developmental levels of worldview

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKNllwOXFUT2FiZ1E/edit?usp=sharing

Developmental levels of #worldview. #Integral stages #metaphor

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters


Elephant metaphor for developmental levels of worldview

I was discussing the concept of “developmental levels of worldview” with a friend. She keep wanting to imagine that my description of a hierarchical, predictable sequence of developmental stages suggested increasing personal “smartness” or “betterness.” I was having trouble getting across the ideas that any worldview stage is perfectly fine so long as it serves the needs of a person’s or culture’s current circumstances (and does not oppress others.)

Eventually, I suggested that developmental levels were like a progressive experience of elephants:

[This does not accurately represent my belief system; it’s just an imaginary hierarchy of experience.]
  • What’s an elberphunt? (simply has no clue)
  • I have heard of elephants.
  • I have read a story about elephants. (unable to independently anticipate the experience of an elephant’s subsonic rumbles)
  • I have seen an elephant at the circus.
  • I have watched elephants at the zoo. (the most common limit to likely developmental stages)
  • I have lived with elephants in the wild. (few people would even imagine that anything more was possible)
  • I have memories of being an elephant.
  • I have always been an elephant. (few elephants would even imagine that anything more was possible)
  • I am the race memory of all elephants.
  • I Am that I Am. (God’s description of himself in Exodus)
Each stage is adequate for the needs of certain individuals in certain circumstances.

  • At each stage, some greater [effort or] involvement has been achieved to have had a larger understanding.
  • At each stage, it is difficult to explain the experience adequately to some who has not been there.
  • At each stage, it is difficult to imagine the richness of knowing involved in additional stages.

I’m not suggesting that all of these stages are actually plausible for an individual but, then again, how could you actually be certain of that unless you were I Am?