At the moment, I could be writing in this blog 24 hours a day, and still never reach the point where I was expressing all the truths I'm sensing about everything that is happening, inwardly and outwardly. The fact that I haven't written in nearly a week does not mean I have nothing to write about! In fact, it has been almost an overwhelming time.
Superficially, what I have decided to write about today has little or nothing to do with all these things, but I guess that's why it might be a good day to cross this particular threshold.
I cannot be the only person wondering if there were ways we humans might have operated in the world that would not have led to a climate precipice. I've thought a lot about this, and of course I think, "yes."
At some early point in human history, we might have chosen to see power differently, as something shared, in what I'll call "circles of wisdom". (Although this would probably have meant more inclusivity of women, I don't see it ultimately as needing to be about feminism.) Early communities might have chosen, say, ten or twelve of the wisest people amongst them, and these circles would have gathered regularly to address everything that was necessary even in those days -- food, shelter, security, weather issues, and so forth. If a "leader" was necessary, the leadership would regularly move around the group so that no one person got used to being in charge. The "power" of the wisdom circle would exude out to the whole community, like rays from the sun, but also move from the wider group, in.
In this circle, there would be at least one person considered qualified to speak for our earth home, someone with a strong intuitive connection with the land and its other creatures. Whenever the group was considering any question that related to use of the land, air or water -- be it expanding the community, building more buildings, growing more crops, digging under the surface for resources, damming a river, or new technologies that might have an oversized effect on the earth -- the proposal would be put to this "speaker for the earth". She or he would seriously consider the potential new development, and have the last word on whether it was an equally healthy step forward for the planet. Whenever possible, this person would help modify the idea to earth-friendly workability.
Human "progress" would have moved far more slowly, because this way of operating would have meant adapting our wishes to earth's needs. I can hear people now. "That is crazy. We would never have made any serious progress! We would have virtually none of our industries, conveniences, modes of transportation, or modes of communication! We would be back in the Dark Ages!"
Yup. But we and earth would have grown together, in tandem, supporting each other. And that doesn't sound so bad to me right now.
