Skip to main content

Where are we, where are we going, and how?

‘I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.’ George Bernard Shaw.

The following snippets of youtube videos are inspired by an initiative called “Awakening The Dreamer” which involves a half-day seminar that uses these video and more to step through where we are, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we can move toward that goal. taking groups through these questions. I attended the seminar and was impressed with how succinctly these clips summed up the present human predicament that I had been researching last year. Their conclusions, the same conclusions as mine, combine sustainable living, social justice and spiritual fulfillment, and in the end come down to one thing: INDIVIDUAL’S MAKING CHANGES LOCALLY, WHICH ADD UP TO GLOBAL CHANGE. Their videos inspired me to put this post together, so that the message can get out there as fast as possible. You may have seen some of these already, but if you haven’t seen any of them then this sequence of clips will take about one hour… something to do over the (what in Australia is going to be quite a rainy) Easter long-weekend. Enjoy!

Where are we?

A world divided into the “haves” and “havenots” – where the “havenots”, almost half the world, don’t have a place to shit, and a growing number of the “haves” are depressed, dissatisfied with the fulfillment material consumption and acquisition brings, and more and more are becoming mentally ill and committing suicide.

A miniature earth:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvTFKpIaQhM[/youtube]

It’s just not fair:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0O2LMqnHGg[/youtube]

But this is not an accident. Inequality is designed into the system. That’s why we in the western world can buy lots of things for cheap, can earn more than we spend and save money to buy houses or travel.

While apologists of global capitalism still adamantly state that the capitalist model is the best path to eradicate poverty; economist and policy director Andrew Simms clearly proves this “trickle-down” theory nothing but a myth. Simms shows that on our current trajectory it would take 15 planets’ worth of earth’s biocapacity to reduce poverty to a state where the poorest receive $3 per day. In other words ‘we will have made Earth uninhabitable long before poverty is eradicated.’[1]

The “developing” countries are in fact a ‘transmission belt’ with value (for example raw materials) forwarded to the ‘developed” nations such that ‘the total arrangement is largely in the interests of the middle class.’[2] It seems that poverty is ‘no longer a side effect, but an intended product of globalization’ with its continuation ‘seen as beneficial for the middle class’ likely to cause a resistance to ‘change and redistribution.’[3]

It seems clear that while markets ‘won’t do the job by themselves’, and governments are ‘often cruelly short-sighted’, for the IPE structure shift to a sustainable model it will ‘be a choice, a choice of a global society that thinks ahead and acts in unaccustomed harmony.’[4] A shift in values from capital-accumulation to social justice and environmental responsibility is likely to result from a widespread realisation that continuing on our current trajectory will, without a doubt, end with devastating calamity. It seems that only a well-informed global population, with leaders and citizens of developed and developing nations acting out of “enlightened self-interest” and for ‘the wellbeing of their children and children’s children’, will allow the IPE structure to enter a sustainable paradigm. [5]

350.org:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kg1oOq9tY[/youtube]

How did we get here?

Dawn of human conscious, collective learning, development of separate identities, and the industrial revolution. Our human journey:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRa60PLtnEs[/youtube]

The story of stuff, by Annie Leonard:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8[/youtube]

Where do we want to go?

Well, I know I don’t want humanity to go extinct. Nor do I want future generations of humans and animals to live on a toxic planet as a consequence of the chemicals we use to support our consumption and acquisition…

What alternatives do we have? We need A NEW DREAM… one that is environmentally sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling. (See the Awakening The Dreamer initiative).

The new dream begins with the realisation that “success” is really about the amount of happiness in your life – not the amount of money in a bank account. People are starting to value creativity over capital, experience over “things”, and time over consumption and accumulation. Is there any better feeling than the one felt when you make another person happy?

The new dream is based on an identity that transcends our individual self, appreciating our connectedness to all people, to all life, to our land, and our universe. Our new dream does not fear change, it embraces the transitivity of everything that exists, seeing everything as a process. Life will never be static. Reality is dynamic, and as humans we each have a part to play in creating a sustainable and peaceful planet for ourselves and future generations.

How are we going to get there?

Invest in Cradle to Cradle design – turning waste into food:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iJGK-Rs4UQ[/youtube]

Invest in “Social Business”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C3XQ3BTd4o[/youtube]

A “Global Mindshift”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpDvh2z5Tw[/youtube]

Hold our governments accountable to the Millennium Development Goals:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnIJypPL-Q[/youtube]

Other exciting ideas and initiatives: www.goworldlink.org/

Why should we care?

Our planet is alive. We have adapted to live as part of her ecosystem, if we destroy this for ourselves, we have no where else to go:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBH7uIjhlE4[/youtube]

Her resources are limited, our needs are expanding and infinite:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDn0-xdE9bI[/youtube]

Whatever we do to our web, we do to ourselves:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7oRk986HLs[/youtube]

The world is not made up of me and “the other”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl6fHYywQNM[/youtube]

Listen to the wombat – “all is one”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHyH3MPgZDo[/youtube]

Where should we to start?

Reflect on our world-view and question our assumptions.

Rethink our values and communicate them with others.

Ask ourselves: what is my role in making the world a better place?

Be the change: know that one person can make a big difference:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QzjqOl2N9c[/youtube]

And then don’t hesitate, make plans and put them into action!

“FOUR YEARS. GO.” A campaign to shift humanity onto a sustainable, just, and fulfilling path … by 14 February 2014.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6iTCo5Ci8[/youtube]

Want some ideas about what you individually can do, check out this page on the Awakening The Dreamer website

Start by sharing this message – let’s change the world in the next four years!



References:

[1] Andrew Simms, ‘Trickle-Down Myth’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 49. Andrew Simms is the policy director of the New Economics Foundation in London. In this article Simms steps through the mathematics to show the system is designed such that for the poor to get ‘slightly less poor, the rich have to get very much richer’. This means it would take ‘around $166 worth of global growth to generate $1 extra for people living on below $1 a day’.

[2] Ibid. p. 84.

[3] The Hague Institute of Social Studies, Collateral Dammage or Calculted Default? The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of Globalisation, 2003. p. 35.

[4] Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth : Economics for a Crowded Planet (London: Allen Lane, 2008). p. 81.

[5] Ibid. p. 5.

Saving the Planet with a Sense of Humour

We are a funny species. And immensely arrogant…

George Carlin on saving the planet:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw[/youtube]

… BUT our arrogant species IS causing damage to our habitat. If we don’t want to go extinct it is in our best interest to stop destroying it. The good news is that lately I’ve been seeing some incredibly inspiring initiatives taking place…

Yesterday I went to a talk by Prof Muhammad Yunus, the dude who started Grameen Bank – a microfinance who lends tiny amounts of money to the very poor so that they can start their own little businesses. I was sceptical about  microfinance until I heard him talk. This bank even provides health insurance for $2.5USD per family per YEAR!

Muhammad emphasised CREATIVITY as the means to solving to our problems. And his new creative solution is an alternative form of business that is not aimed at earning profit – “Social businesses”.

He pointed out that our economic system misinterprets humans as ONE-DIMENSIONAL beings with a sole purpose to make, accumulate and spend money. Businesses reflect this with their sole measurement of success being PROFIT. Countries measure their success by GDP ie PROFIT. Even as individuals we measure our success by profit we have accumulated. The system as it stands is based on selfish goals which are embedded in us as a mechanism for SELF-PROTECTION.

But humans are MULTI-DIMENSIONAL… and social business provides an opportunity for us to actively explore these other dimensions.

Social businesses are CAUSE-DRIVEN – aimed to solve a particular problem in society/the world. That means investors invest their money and receive quarterly/yearly reports on how the business is going with their particular aim.

For example, Danone yoghurt have teamed with Grameen Bank to create a social business dedicated to produce and deliver a yoghurt with added nutrients to children in Bangledesh. If a child eats this yoghurt twice a week for six months they are delivered out of malnutrition. The annual statement for investors reports the number of children their investment has delivered from malnutrition this year. That’s a pretty rewarding news to receive!

The big difference from social business and profit business is that the investors don’t get a profit. Investors do get their money back but after that, any financial profits made are put back into the business and used to expand further on the social cause. Investors continue to own a percentage of the business and forever more they can take pleasure in the people-oriented and planet-oriented goals they are achieving.

An alternative to profit: two options so that when we are satisfied with what we have ourselves, and want to give to others, it can be easy for us to do so. Maybe one day there will be two stock markets – one for financial profit and one for social profit. Maybe even our superannuation funds will give us the option to invest a certain percentage into social profit, and a certain percentage to monetary.  Maybe one day even the big bankers and those with the biggest bank accounts will join in. There really is much more happiness to be gained from a statement that states the number of people you have helped in a year, as opposed to the number of meaningless digits you have accumulated.

I feel inspired. And I pose the question: Can success (individually and collectively) be defined by more than just money?


Richard Dawkins and WHAT is God?

Interesting interview on SBS with Richard Dawkins last night. Stream it at this address:

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/600352/n/Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins

I left this comment and thought I’d share it with you:

There is a God VS there is no God.. haven’t we forgotten to define WHAT is it we refer to as “GOD”???

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years but now having rejected it I am getting closer to “God”.

In evolution I see “God”. In intuition I hear “God”. God is not a man in the sky (I think even fundamentalists agree with this) “He” is the personification of creative energy behind life. Atheists prefer not to personify it.

Can we please just expose the manipulative dogmas and seek truth?

I would love to hear YOUR thoughts on this stuff…

Below are personal reflections written a couple of years ago when I was searching for answers.

Monotheisms

All monotheistic religions believe there is only one God. One transcendent being that is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere.)

God, most of us acknowledge, is of a complexity beyond our mind’s capacity to ever fully understand. “He” or it, is a power beyond words our language offers us, a mystery that will always surround us but which until death we will never fully solve.

God’s name

In Spanish the word for God is Dios. In French it is Dieu. In Greek Theos. In Hebrew, Elohim. In Japanese it is Goezur, in Italian Dio, Malay Alla, Latin Deus, Peruvian Puchecammae, Persian Sire, Russian Bojh, In Syriac, Turkish and Arabic, it is Allah. Just as we say cold, the Spanish sayfrio, and Japanese samui, all refer to the same thing. When Muslims call out to Allah, they are calling out to God, but in their language. If they were to pray in English, they could call Allah God, and if we were to pray in Turkish, we would call God Allah. Different words for God doesn’t mean we pray to different gods.

God is on my side

The words Allah and God cognate two very different images of God in our minds, but why? It is due to the fact that most people in Turkey, Syria and Arabia, have been brought up Muslim, and most people in England, America and Australia, brought up to be Christian, that Allah is thought to be the god of Islam, and God, the god of Christianity. But this is wrong, both words mean God. I’m not saying that the Muslim God and the Christian God are one and the same God. No. They are two different civilizations attempts to know the same mysterious power behind life, of which both there is only one.

Islam and Christianity are based on different interpretations of someone else’s God-inspired teachings. The discrepancy between the two religions comes down to the credibility Mohammed and Jesus, the credibility of the writers who documented their stories, the credibility of their followers that continued to spread their words, and the credibility and accuracy of theologians who have interpreted these narratives into the creeds many people so strongly believe today.

Different interpretations of God’s will for different people at different times has led to each religions’ different beliefs about how to communicate with God, our life’s purpose, ideologies about how society should be run, what constitutes good morals etc, and God’s eternal plan for who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Aren’t these differences simply reflecting different civilizations in different times focusing on this one transcendent power behind our existence: worshiping it, praising it, praying to it, being inspired by it, wanting to please it and gain protection and direction from it? Surely if we can just recognize this common goal, and humbly admit our own nature as fallible humans who cannot fully comprehend this power, we have a stronger base to think through our own conceptions and ideas about God, and learn from each other’s?

Dear Christians

Does it really make sense that your God would only reveal himself to the Israelites, one small group of people who exited Egypt around 3000 years ago? What about all the people that lived before the Israelites? What about the Sumerians and Egyptians, the Indian and Chinese, the Indigenous peoples of Americas and Australia? Does God not care to have a relationship with these people too? Why would he bother creating them then?

Does it make sense that the only way to have a relationship directly with God, is by believing in Jesus? Does it really make sense that God would make the condition of entering a relationship with him be based on accepting a number of statements only available to a small percentage of the population? Is God not powerful enough to forgive without creating aformula of sacrifice and forgiveness? Wouldn’t “he” want to have a relationship with all “his” creations?

When you think of God, what image come to mind? A king? A judge? A man or woman sitting on a throne in a golden castle? This is an image but is this what you really believe God is? Does God experience days, and time? Time on earth only exists because of earth’s rotation around the sun and on its axis, so how is it in heaven? Is there a past, present and future in Heaven? Does God sit on his throne reminiscing the past – those good ol’days when Lucifer was his right-hand angel? Does God think back fondly to the times when his creation was perfect, the times when we were his obedient human creations that had not yet sinned?

Does he think about what went wrong, and wonder how he could have allowed himself to be so betrayed? Does he wish he’d used his omniscience and omnipotence to stop it? If he is omnipotent then can’t he do that now? I know we explain this by saying he wanted it to happen, because he wanted us to have choice, does that mean he is disappointed in our choice? But, can you imagine God of most power, actually feeling disappointed and sad? If you were all powerful, would you really take things so personally? Or would your ego be quite ok without needing other’s praise and acceptance?

What would the point be for God to set up such a grand narrative: throwing Satan out of heaven, planning a battle between good and evil whereby we, his special human creations, must choose which side we want to be on? All this bother when he is already “all-knowing” and knows that in the end he will win – and those that chose good will be saved and live for eternity with him. Why did he do it? Why would he bother? Just so that he could have friends? Weren’t the angels his friends? Is it because he was bored?

I guess eternal life of peace might get boring. In a place free of conflict – a place of pure peace and tranquility where every day you feel safe and happy – I think I too would eventually pick a fight with someone, fire things up, just make life interesting again… Could the narrative of a battle between Satan and God be a mythological representation of this ongoing conflict between yin and yang? Did “God” “create” each of these opposites simply in order to write a more exciting story fo the world? The universe is constructed with protons and electrons, which combine together in different combinations to create different elements which combine to create different forms of matter. + and -. It’s like binary code of a computer 0s and 1s. Necessary opposites. It is the balance of opposites that make up for me the wonder of life.

“God” created this myriad of experiences available to us, so that life can be experienced to the full, in whichever way we want. God is more creative, clever and powerful than we give him credit for. In my mind “He” is not some ego maniac king demanding praise and creating hard-to-belief formulas with the requirement for us to believe it, so that when we die, we can meet him and become his servants in heaven. This image sounds like something people living in these type of conditions on earth would have imagined. Think about it, does it really make sense?

How can we believe God is omnipotent if we believe Satan to be a serious threat to our salvation? How can we believe God is omniscient, knowing already who will be in heaven, yet simultaneously believe we have free choice? The only way this can make sense to me is through the omnipresence of “God” when freed from human-constructed conceptions of “His” form.

How I imagine “God”

If God is present everywhere then isn’t “he” in every cell of our body and every spec of matter in our universe?And hence if we are in God and God is in us, can we not derive that the universe IS God. God may be bigger than the universe too, we can never know what’s outside our universe, but we can know that God is everythingin this universe.

I see “God” in the middle of “His” process of self-creative evolution. We humans might even be God in his most creative and dynamic expression to date. More recent developments in this creation process have led to an individualistic self-awareness, whereby we have developed complex minds that construct and deconstruct the realities around us. This is a magnificent part of God’s creative expression, yet in the process we have taken an interesting turn. We are born into a world that teaches us we are separate: separate from each other, separate from nature, and most important, separate from God. This separateness has led to creation of an ego. Our ego has positives and negatives. It allows a greater breadth of feelings, yet is also the cause of loneliness, fear, and confusion. Through self-analysis we have lost sight of what we are and what is our purpose. Our separateness feels like an eternal separateness, and most of all we fear what will happen when we die.

Our purpose in life, as an expression of God, is to continue our collective godly process of creation. To do this we must reconnect with our true self, this means listening to the voice deep within each of us and taking comfort in the fact that all of us are separate yet one. We are all expressions of God, and together we are God. God is you, me, humanity, all life, and the entire universe and beyond – we are all God.

When we realize this, we will realise that peace is possible. This paradigm shift is consistent with all religions, and sciences. Ultimately we are all matter, and in a reality that mind-body-spirit between man, animal and plant, all connect in ways we do not yet understand. Developments in quantum physics, in discovering your intuition, connect to Buddhism, connect to mysticism, connect to the teachings of Jesus, Mohammad, Abraham, Buddha and all the other spiritual gurus of the past and of today.

If we open our minds to an image of God that is not the symbolic one we have grown up with, if we recognise our interpretations are fallible, if we accept that “God” is an incredible entity of which we are a part of even if “He” is not a person and exists in a form that no words can describe – then I think we can truly discover a relationship with God/Our Universe, that so many wise teachers have described.

If we wish to forego our egos, we can return to the oneness of God – just as Buddhists do when they meditate into blissful enlightenment. But egos are also a source of pleasure and competition which spurs creativity. Maybe egos are also good, as long as it’s kept in perspective of the oneness which we are more deeply a part of. I don’t know – what do you think??? (comments??)

Ego or no ego I believe we are simultaneously God’s creation and God’s creators, and we have a purpose: to create! This means we can transform this world and universe to the one we want it to be. How? Well we can start by reconnecting with each other, increasing awareness of our egos, and designing a vision, a blueprint, of the reality we want to create.

Oh, and if you are interested in the comment from Pat Robertson (a leading evangelical in the US) that said Haiti experienced the quake because of their “pact with the devil”, I found the snippet from his interview on youtube:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5nraknWoes[/youtube]

Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

And when it comes to Atheists – don’t you think they have a right NOT to personify this power if they don’t want to? What difference should it make to anyone else if some people personify it while others talk about it in the scientific terms they decide to delegate to it? Richard Dawkins may be a little derogatory in his approach but he makes a good point – at least he is going about his pursuit of truth through words not war.

When it comes to the crunch we are all incredibly complex beings inside an incredibly complex universe constructed by an incredibly powerful creative energy – personified as God or described as a series of Supernovas – aren’t we all just using different words and conceptions to describe the same thing?

 

 

A different lens

What lens do you use when you look at the world?

Is it a 35mm – where everything is pretty much a “normal” proportion? Is it a micro-lens, magnifying the small details? Or is it a wide-angle lens, taking in the big picture?

Just as different camera lenses capture completely different images, so too do our own eyes. We each inevitably look through a lens created by our upbringing, our society and culture, our education and our past experiences. Conflicts throughout history, conflicts between countries, and conflicts between people, take root in the lens through which we see ourselves, and each other.

My mentor once told me that our innermost being is the “essential” person that is surrounded by the “wounded” person, while the outermost part is the “defended” person. Whenever a person speaks in a defensive way they are protecting the wounded person, so their defensiveness gives us clues to the nature of their wounds. When they speak in a non-defensive way, they are speaking from their essential nature.

I think our wounds and our defensive layers are a consequence of looking through a micro-lens. This prevents us from seeing the people and situation for what they really are.

If we can widen our lens might we discern what is defensive from what is not? Can looking through a new lens help us distinguish between a person’s wounds, and their essential nature? How might non-defensive communication better our lives?

Photo credits:

Photographer Andre Rival www.andrerival.com

Makeup artist Winston Torr www.TORRup.com

Seeds, spirals and simplicity

Reading some diaries and writings of my past it is interesting to see how my consciousness today is embedded in them. I can trace most of my ideas in an almost spiral movement back through time. I can see the exact points in time where various experiences led to various revelations, seeding ideas that have slowly sprouted and are now continuing to grow.

For example, in August 2008 I wrote for the first time about poverty. It was the first time, without reading the academic theorists who made these points, that I realised the purpose of poverty, and the dangers that result:

28 August 2008

I just realised for the first time that governments have actually set up systems the way they are on purpose. Our governments wanted to take over the world, have people working for them, and that is what they have achieved.

We have some horrible ancestors, but their attitude was fairly consistent with attitudes at that time: of  expansion, conquer and ownership of the world.

The way the world is right now has grown from their dreams, visions and plans.

After colonialism of places like India and China was abandoned, and the slave trade in Africa abolished, a new form of world conquer begun: Capitalism.

Our ancestors figured out that they could achieve the same goals in a new way, by manipulating markets, energy and development, and rule countries without occupying them. From abroad they could manage and manipulate millions of people, have them work 14 hour days for them, and pay them next to nothing. They could suck out the resources from countries in the same manner.

And today it continues. It’s not just our ancestors, but it’s us as well. It’s us that reap the benefits but consuming ridiculous quantities of products every day, at cheap costs. We need these slaves in poor countries to work for nothing so that we can have so many things for so cheap. We are driving the gap between rich and poor. Everytime we buy something cheap, someone else pays the price.

It’s not sustainable in every part of the chain.

1 Our resources are running out
2 Our slaves will eventually turn on us
3 Our consumption still isn’t satisfying us – happiness decreasing, suicide and depression aboud
4 Our pollutants are killing our atmosphere, warming and destroying our planet

What do we do about it?

WAKE UP.
First we must seek out truth about all these factors. Not live in the fantasy world that our ancestors, governments and big corporations have created for us. We must try to understand the dynamics of these international relations, and make a stand for equality among all humanity. We must come together and find solutions to this linear process before we smash into the wall. Solutions do exist or can be found to turn the linear into a circle, so that we can continue to live on this planet for many generations to come.

Having since conducted research and written detailed essays on the subject, my conclusions haven’t changed. Strangely enough even although my newer writing is backed by statistics and references, I think this simple reflection is more to the point than anything I’ve written since.

Photo credit:

Rachel Carroll – Sydney artist (and travel companion) – some kind of beautiful flower taken somewhere in South America http://rachelcarroll.com.au/

The Cyberspace Witchhunts

Lateline is an abc news show that I only ever watched with my Opa. We watched it most nights and from there we would talk about politics and the depressing state the world is heading toward. Before I moved in with Opa, I didn’t know the difference between liberal and labour. (Possibly there is no difference but at least I now know the difference that is supposed to exist.)

Since he died and I moved to the city I’ve enjoyed a break from almost everything. I escaped into the book I’m working on, and for three months I didn’t turn on the tv or read the paper.

Turning Lateline on a few nights ago was a big of a step for me. The next day I was walking through the local park, thinking about “CYBER-TERRORISM”, and I burst into tears. The tears should probably have been about the impending cyberspace witchhunt but they were still tears for my Opa. It’s so funny the little things that recoil memories and emotions from your past. But that’s ok, the strange little outburst was over a few seconds later. The impending cyberspace witchhunt, however, is not…

On lateline that night, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, was talking about cyber-terrorism in a way that sounded like the Salem Witchhunts meets Minority Report – and it is pretty scary stuff.

I guess terrorism has always been a bit of a witch hunt, because, well, who get’s to call someone a terrorist? If I’m angry at someone can I call the US and will they send Tom Cruise to jump from a helicopter and take them away?

LEIGH SALES: In a speech on the weekend you said that the US Defence Department computer networks are probed thousands of times a day. By who, and is it possible to give any sort of profile of the average cyber terrorist, if there is such a thing?

WILLIAM LYNN: Well there really isn’t. One of the real characteristics of the cyber threat is the diversity that that threat can take. It can extend anywhere from foreign countries, their intelligence agencies, down through criminal organisations, terrorist organisations and even individual hackers. And each of those can have substantial capabilities and even those with modest resources can pose a threat.

LEIGH SALES: There’s a type of war game exercise going on in Washington tomorrow involving the White House and the FBI simulating a cyber terror attack. What are authorities hoping to get out of that?

WILLIAM LYNN: Well, it’s – what we’d like to see is a better understanding both of the kinds of attacks that can be undertaken, as well as what the appropriate responses are, and many of the things in the cyber world are not as well understood as we’d like them. Just, for example: what is an attack? Is it an intrusion in your computer? Is that an attack? Does it have to cause damage? Does it have to cause loss of life? When is an attack an attack?

Good questions Mr Lynn, but who’s going to provide the answers?

Full transcript available :

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2820486.htm


Photo credits:

Photographer Wendell Teodoro

We are our own enemy

There is no such thing as enemies. They don’t exist UNLESS YOU CREATE THEM.

Australia sends “modern warrior’s”, off to “wage war against new and real threats” in the Middle East. Their mission is to: “kill the enemy,” “attack rogue states,” “stop terrorists,” and “protect our country and our way of life.”

Saddam Huisain and Osama bin Laden? Are they still alive? Who really knows? We do know for sure that they were once on the CIA payroll (I read that in academic peer-reviewed books) but other than that the stories blend together into a big pile of propaganda bullshit, excuse my language.

Ok, I get that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a threats. But what’s our plan? To try to hunt them down and kill them all??? Come on get real! When has force ever solved anything? What do they really want? Yes, I know they want an Islamic world… But beneath this, when the religious and political indoctrination is stripped away, what is it they really want???

We are all human. Don’t you think they want the same as we want? Happiness and love and fulfillment and peace. Yet war strips all these things away to leave sadness, fear, destruction and violence. Not only for the people involved in the war – but for all people that inhabit this planet.

Sure something has to be done about terrorism but is polarising them as the “enemy” and sending soldiers with guns into foreign lands to hunt them down an intelligent way to go about it? How many billions of dollars go into “defence”? And how much money goes into addressing the points that terrorists are trying to make???

Wars are bullshit. Big boys at the top playing with human puppets. Creating enemies. Dividing the world up into “goodies” and “baddies” – declaring them as one then changing them to the other – depending where the oil and opium deposits take them.

What does it come down to? MONEY. GREED. POWER.

How could the money being used on arms and armed forces be used to delve into the issues – to work with psychologists and conflict analysts and dialogue groups to come up with real solutions?

I understand there are more layers and dynamics to the global stage than I will ever comprehend (least of not because much of it is top secret information I will never have access to)… what I do know is that alternative solutions are necessary.

What is needed is some form of paradigm shift – a shift in worldview that recognises war and violence as the obsolete and wasteful approach to conflict resolution that it is. As the Dalai Lama says, in the globalised new world, where our survival is interdependent on our interaction with each other and our environment, war is outdated. Conflicts must be resolved through dialogue.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C4Yw_BNrVs[/youtube]

Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments section below – I’d love to hear your thoughts…..

Call Me By My True Names

This is a poem by Thich Nhat Hanh taken from: Peace is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life.

Can we recognise ourselves in each other?

Please call Me By My True Names

Do not say that I’ll depart tomorrow

because even today I still arrive.

Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.

I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope.
The rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.

I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time
to eat the mayfly.

I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.

I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
Uganda.

I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
loving.

I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his “debt of blood” to, my
people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.

My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
walks of life.
My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.

Thich Nhat Hanh

This is the essence of “interbeing,” the innerconnectedness of all things.