Tag Archives: environment

Reimagining Schools

1 Reply

Since November I’ve been connecting, every few weeks, with Will Richardson and a group of educational leaders from around BC, Canada in a professional development session run by the BCPVPA (BC Principals and Vice Principals Association) called ‘Reimagining Schools: Confronting Education‘. Right off the bat, Will shared some framings:

• Everything is nature
• We’re not facing “problems” to be solved. We are in a predicament.
• Our predicament stems from the fact that we are out of relationship with each other and all living things on the planet. All of our challenges flow from this disconnect.
• Education is complicit in creating these challenges.
• Collapse is not new. What’s new is that systemic privilege is no longer a buffer.
• Our personal challenge is to face reality or “sit with the shit” and not run from complex, difficult questions.

There are a few deep thoughts that have brewed from these sessions, and yet oddly enough the two most impactful things came from outside the sessions.

First a conflict within me. Will shared a post on LinkedIn where he said,

“I think it’s telling that for all of the conferences and presentations and talks and essays and “achievements” that people post and discuss here, only about 2% of them seem to make any note of the fact that they are happening while:

~ecological limits are being breached
~social trust is eroding
~ AI is reshaping cognition
~ politics are destabilizing
~ inequality is deepening
~ biodiversity is declining at alarming rates

I mean, without using those contexts as a lens for our gatherings or our teaching or writing, what is the actual relevance that we can claim, not just around education, but around living life on the planet in general?

It’s either denial or ignorance. Or maybe it’s concern that if we ground our work in those lenses, no one will show up or read or listen…”

I commented:

“I’d push back a bit and ask what is the conference about?

There’s a cognitive dissonance that is invited when the mind has to weigh these things AND also take in information that people are going to a conference to learn about.

I’m seeing your question play out on social media where people are being called out for not being political and sharing their political stance… on a channel where politics is never discussed.

There needs to be a balance, we can’t stick our head in the sand, but we also can’t pretend (and I do intentionally mean pretend) that acknowledging major issues of global concern are equivalent to somehow authentically addressing them… and topically addressing them when our topic isn’t directly affected by them is to me worse than not mentioning them. It can be a distraction without gain to the intended message.”

Will responded:

“Dave Truss So, I’ll push back a bit on the push back. 🤣

I don’t think it’s a “calling out” as much as it is a reminder. And I don’t disagree that just naming them authentically “addresses” them, but it does provide a different lens for whatever question is in front of us at that moment. Every topic is affected by them. Every one.

Modernity wants to separate everything out into pieces and ignore the interconnectedness of the whole. This is the world we live in right now. It’s all entangled.”

The comment conversation continued, and is worth reading, but doesn’t add to my conflicted feelings about this. On the one hand I completely agree with Will, if we aren’t bringing a contextual lens to what we are sharing, we are somehow missing the interconnectedness of some of the things we should most value and care about. But on the other hand, I’m sitting in a place right now where just two days ago I wrote about being ‘Intentionally disconnected‘ because paying attention to the rather disturbing world events right now feels like too much. I ended the post saying, “for now I lack the capacity to engage. It seems like a futile activity that will anger and upset me, with no gain. It is rare for me to actively choose to be uninformed, but right now is one of those times.”

Therein lies the conflict. I agree with Will, yet I don’t think I’m the only one who isn’t ready to face the harsh realities of the predicaments we are in… especially when I’m trying to learn something new. I think for our students it’s the same. The last of the framings above is, ‘Our personal challenge is to face reality or “sit with the shit” and not run from complex, difficult questions.”

I get it, I really do. But when I’m at a conference or when a student sits in a class, do we really need to ‘sit in it’? Do we need to connect everything we do to the predicaments we live in? Do we need this lens to permeate what we are learning? If I channel my inner Will Richardson I think I’d ask myself, ‘But what value is the learning if it isn’t addressing the predicaments we are in?’ … Again, I’m left conflicted.

For example, can I teach students about using AI in an ethical way and not mention the cost of the energy drain? Is mentioning this once enough or should that be the bigger lesson? Do I need to bring the dire state of the world into every lesson, predicament after predicament? Is this even healthy? Maybe I’m just too stuck in the current educational context to see the bigger picture? I really don’t think that these sessions answered this for me, and yet I feel I have a deeper understanding of the need to confront hard truths… and ensure that what we choose to teach be taught with a lens of a world in environmental, political, and social challenges. Will shared the following quote in one of our sessions:

“If we fully accept the world as it is—in all its harsh realities— then we can develop the very qualities we need to be in that world and not succumb to that harshness. We find our courage, morality, and gentle, nonaggressive actions by clear seeing and acceptance. As we accept what is, we become people who stand in contrast to what is, freed from the aggression, grasping and confusion of this time. With that clarity, we can contribute things of eternal importance no matter what’s going on around us—how to live exercising our best human qualities, and how to support others to discover these qualities in themselves.”
~ Margaret Wheatley “So Far From Home”

The second insight I’d like to share came after our first session. Will invited any of us who could stay on to do so. During that after-session conversation I mentioned that I was retiring. The topic of my school, Inquiry Hub, came up and I mentioned that I was proud of what our team has been able to do, transforming the learning outside of the traditional high school box. And yet, I was disappointed that our little school has not had a greater impact on the rest of the district. Will responded saying something like, ‘Dave, if you were able to do that, you would be a unicorn because I haven’t seen that happen yet.’

That simple statement had an unburdening effect on me. It is sad, yet it comforted me. For the past 13 years my small team of teachers and I have created a very special place for self-directed learners to have some true agency over what they are learning, while still providing an opportunity for them to meet all the requirements they need for their post high school ambitions. It has been an amazing ride, and the fact that it didn’t really spread beyond our walls isn’t something that should weigh on me as I head into retirement. The test of my leadership will show if the school thrives after I’m gone.

Overall, I really enjoyed the sessions with Will, and with the other educational leaders from across BC. I appreciated the experience of sitting in the discomfort of knowing things must change in education and sitting in the predicament rather than cherrypicking shallow solutions and discussing them like we were solving all the world’s problems. I encourage educators to follow Will on his journey to confront education and reimagine schools and join one of his cohorts of educators on similar journeys of discovery.

Infinite within the finite

Leave a reply

Civilization is built on infinite growth within a finite system. Until our values move away from a focus on consumerism and wealth accumulation, we are never going to get to either environmental/planetary or human well-being. The energy demands are just too great and simultaneously too destructive.

Will AI solve or magnify these problems? I fear it will indeed magnify them. It’s not just the energy demands of these Artificial Intelligence machines that’s the issue, it’s the promise of more goods at a cheaper price. It’s the promise of every gadget you desire, affordably made by automated, robotic systems in dark factories by intelligent robots that don’t need the lights on. It’s the promise of a luxury electric car for $15,000-20,000; a $5,000 robot that does all your chores at home; a 3D printer that can manufacture high quality, factory grade products in the comfort of your own home. All that’s needed are the resources to build these things… unlimited resources being taken from a planet with limited resources.

That’s right, to make this amazing, almost limitless future possible, we just need infinite resources from a finite planet. Meanwhile, wealth accumulation is being concentrated, the middle class is shrinking, and we are madly extracting resources from the earth, with little concern over the environmental impact.

It’s. Just. Not. Sustainable.

Civilization and Evolution

1 Reply

Evolution is a slow process. Small changes over thousand and millions of years. I’m not thinking about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant or moths changing colour over time to match their environment. I’m thinking about modern humans (Homo sapiens) who emerged approximately 300,000 years ago. Sure, certain traits like lactose tolerance evolved approximately 5,000–10,000 years in some populations, but for the most part we are a heck of a lot like our ancestors 100,000 years ago. Taller due to better nutrition, but otherwise pretty much the same.

And when we think about civilization as we know it, we are really talking about the last 2,500-3,000 years… and yet we are the same humans who lived as nomads and hunter-gatherers for tens of thousands of years before that. In other words we have not evolved to live in the societies we currently live in.

We didn’t evolve to live mostly indoors, away from nature, and out of sunlight for most of our day. We didn’t evolve to use artificial light at night before going to bed at hours well past dark. We don’t evolve to do shift work, or to sit at a desk all day.

We didn’t evolve to work for made up currencies so that we could go to buildings where we buy food that is over-processed, over-sweetened, and filled with empty calories. We didn’t evolve to spend time in front of screens that distract and overstimulate us.

We are simple but very intelligent animals who have not evolved much at all since we lived in small communities where we knew everyone, and knew what to fear, and how to protect ourselves from dangers.

Yet we now live surrounded by people we don’t know, and we are triggered by stresses that we evolutionarily were not designed for. Everything from being in constant debt, to working in stressful environments, to information overload, to time pressures, social comparison, choice overload, conflicting ideologies, environmental noises and hazards, and social disconnection.

We live in a state of overstimulation, stress, and distraction that we have not evolved to cope with. Then we identify diagnoses to tell us how we are broken, how we don’t fit in, and why we struggle. Maybe it’s the societies we have built that are broken? Maybe we evolutionarily do not belong in the social, technological, and societal structures we’ve created?

Maybe, just maybe, we are trying to live our best lives in an environment we were not designed for. Our modern civilizations are not well equipped to meet the needs of our primitive evolution… We have built ‘advanced’ cages and put ourselves in zoos that are nothing like the environment we are supposed to live in. And we don’t realize that all the things we think are broken about us are actually things that are broken about this fake environment we’ve trapped ourselves in.

And so we spend hours exercising, moving around weights that don’t need to be moved, meditating to empty our minds and seek presence and peace. We spend hours playing or cheering on sports teams so that we can have camaraderie with a small community. We spend thousands of dollars on camping equipment so that we can commune with nature. And some people take drugs or alcohol to escape the zoos and cages that we feel trapped in.

Maybe we’ve built our civilizations in ways that have not meaningfully considered our evolutionary needs.

Biography and Biology

I’ve found conflicting information about who said this first, but I love the quote, “Your biography becomes your biology.” It also works the other way, “Your biology becomes your biography.”

Our habits and routines, whether good or bad, affect our biology. Our overall energy levels and health affect what we do with our lives. We tend to place blame on one or the other of these, but it’s a symbiotic relationship between our physical makeup and the physical environment that we consistently expose our bodies to.

Eat foods that are not nutritious or create imbalances in our sugar or energy levels, and we end up exercising less, and being more lethargic. Work out regularly and start noticing positive results, and we start thinking more about how to fuel or bodies well.

Sometimes we are dealt bad biology, and we have less to work with… allergies, a bad back, a chronic illness… sometimes we are dealt a bad biography, and it’s harder to change… a life altering accident, a tough or traumatic childhood, and it’s harder to change. But more often or not there are windows of opportunity to deal with these factors in some way, to better ourselves and the circumstances we face.

The greatest opportunity we have is to alter our biography. The past influences the future, but it doesn’t write it. We can be authors of our own biography… and ultimately change our biology too (to varying degrees). What’s essential is that we act, that we make intentional decisions about who we are and who we want to become.

8 billion people

The world has surpassed 8 billion people. 25 years ago it was less than 6 billion and overpopulation was a major concern for our planet. It isn’t so much anymore. Populations in many countries is decreasing with the average age of people being greater than the childbearing age. Older populations don’t have kids. People living in expensive urban cities, where more people live than ever before, have less kids.

The population of the earth is still going to grow from here, but the exponential growth we’ve seen is slowing down. This is a good thing because our earth couldn’t withstand continued growth like we saw in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s.

The interesting thing to come with respect to population growth will be the uneven distribution of the population. How will this affect countries? Work forces? Urbanization? Immigration? It’s not the growing numbers that we will be worried about, it’s the geography of the population that will be the population concern of the future.

~~~

Note: Going from 6 billion to 8 billion in 25 years is a 33% jump in population… I didn’t mention that above, but it’s worth noting because if that pattern continued we’d be over 10.6 billion in another 25 years, and then just the numbers alone would have been the greatest concern.

Five to Eight Percent

When I think about the modern company with shareholders, I can’t help but think that this system is designed to undermine ethical and environmental progress. There are companies laying off workers right now while providing shareholders huge dividends and returns. The system is flawed. These returns help drive the company stock price up at the expense of ethically growing the company… instead of helping workers keep their job and keep their wages fair in comparison to what shareholders get

What if companies promised shareholders a maximum of a 5%-8% return? Any company profits beyond that are invested back into the company, towards employees, and/or towards environmental or community initiatives. If this were the case, companies would still have the same commitment to meet shareholders targets, but those targets wouldn’t be based on greed. Instead they would be focussed on doing the most good.

I’m not an economist and don’t know all the ins and outs of how this would work? I don’t know what the magic return percentage should be? But I do know that the current model is based on greed and unsustainable growth. If companies capped shareholder returns at a safe investment amount, and promised to do good with what would have been more returns, I think there would still be a market for the stocks… And these companies could help make the world a better place.

Significantly Insignificant

As far as scientists know:

  • The human species originated in Africa about 250,000 to 300,000 years ago.
  • Dinosaurs existed for over 180,000,000 years.
  • Dinosaurs went extinct about 66,000,000 years ago.

To put this into perspective, as a percentage, humans have been around 0.167% as long as dinosaurs were. Put another way, dinosaurs existed for 600 times longer than humans have so far. Beyond that, dinosaurs have been extinct for 200 times longer than humans have been around.

We are a species that has lived for an insignificant amount of time, on a tiny planet, not far from an insignificant sun, in an insignificant part of our galaxy, which lies in an insignificant part of our universe. We are insignificant specs of cosmic dust.

Yet we are conscious, thinking and dreaming entities, who are creative, inventive, and future focused. It’s unlikely that we are the only beings capable of this in the universe, but it is likely we will be extinct before we meet any other beings as capable of thinking and creating like us… or destroying like us. To the earth, our cities are like parasites. We have created weapons of mass destruction. We consume natural resources at an alarming rate. We have caused the extinction of countless species. We have had a significant impact on our planet.

We are showing our significance in the ugliest of ways. Perhaps we should think about being a little more insignificant, because at this rate, it’s unlikely that we’ll be around as a species for any significant amount of time.

4-point-6-billion-years-in-one-hour.jpg

The ugly lawn

Our house sits between the houses of two retired people that seem like they live to take care of their lawns. I, on the other hand, don’t care that much. So, I’m that guy with the ugly lawn.

I’ve never understood the pride people get in the perfect green lawn? The pesticides, the meticulous grooming and weeding, the moss-killing, and the desire to keep it at some imaginary ‘perfect’ height. And the watering… so much water poured onto our tiny green spaces. I water the garden, but the grass? Why? I’ve read that lawns consume between 30% and 60% of urban water use, depending on where in North America you live. I’m not sure how that compares globally?

That’s insane.

So with apologies to my neighbours, and a special thanks to the one that will cut my lawn for me when I’m busy, I’m sorry that you are stuck with my ugly lawn next to yours… But I’m not actually sorry about my ugly lawn.