I really appreciate the depth and scope of this piece. It brings together history, ecology, philosophy, science, and ethics in a way that feels both grounded and expansive.
What resonates with me here is that this shift is not only ecological or legal, but deeply relational.
For so long, modern society has organized itself around separation: humans from nature, economy from ecology, individual from community. And yet the deeper we look, scientifically, spiritually, and ecologically, the harder those separations become to sustain.
I also appreciate that this piece does not frame the needed transformation as anti-science, but as an expansion of how we understand life, relationship, and responsibility.
The idea that humanity might mature beyond domination and toward participation within the larger living world feels less utopian to me than necessary.
I agree Christy - this shift is deeply relational reminding me of Carl Rogers ‘unconditional personal regard’. I really like how you link life with relationship and responsibility.
Transformation requires energy for change - Jeremy highlights that there is momentum generated already.
The words we offer one another; the language we use can often be tilted in favour of fear of the new - uncertainty of the need for a new paradigm; of a desire to hold onto the status quo of what many have been simply conditioned to.
To maintain momentum I suggest it is critical to have enough support to co-create a new story. This is underway. In this way, the old story can be set aside…it still has a place (that story and the actions of its supporters) in our history. The adherents of the old story may fight and resist. But a new story can and needs to be created and shared; told and retold; spoken in many places; dignifying diverse groups whose energy is included and unique culture is affirmed. This new story and fresh paradigm is simply part of our evolution - further away from separation and fragmentation towards wholeness and a deeper understanding of and reverence for biosphere.
To re-emphasise your point about the shift being relational - we are human beings therefore need social connection. This connection; the networking and webs of support we can and do put in place…are each a celebration of the many diverse forms of life available to us; the cultures we offer one another; the different ways we dignify life by being a human being, sharing our different gifts and acting with care and responsibility for one another.
I really appreciate your emphasis on story, language, and relationship. I agree that transformation is not only about new systems or ideas, but about creating new ways of relating to one another and to the living world itself.
Your point about co-creating and retelling a new story also resonates deeply with me. Change rarely happens through facts alone. It often happens through shared meaning, connection, and the gradual rebuilding of trust, belonging, and possibility.
Thank you for adding so much depth and humanity to the conversation.
Great job, Lent! Please keep up the good work! It takes a long and diverse sufferings before the collective human minds are forced to shift their mental-gear back to becoming eco-responsive again after ten thousand years of evolution that has led to the current modern civilization. This why the scattered and "left over", the so-called Aboriginal people, are so valuable for us to start re-learning what is the Biospheric evolution.
In the same way, non-western and non-white and non-middle class people need to be considered valued parts of the human fabric and the fabric of life. We still have a long way to go towards an egalitarian and inclusive society that doesn't revolve around humanity but that values the wisdom of all groups within the human family, as well as the non-human family.
This is an awesome distillation of the urgency of the need to reorient ourselves. One factor that might also assist is the recent explosion of clean energy developments: solar, wind, tidal. While all have been available for some time, the ability to deploy these at scale, while at the same ironic moment oil and coal costs have increased, mean the pressure to switch to sustainable sources can be exploited politically.
Thank you, Jeremy, for this beautifully written essay. My husband and I have eaten only plants for over forty years and we raised our four children that way. I wonder why people, once they see what's true, can continue to participate in the cruelty and the ecocide. I guess it is as radical as the Copernican revolution. But I do think, once people can open their hearts to this proper place of humans in the family of life, they will find the sense of belonging that they've been missing.
And yet as individuals we can validate our interconnectedness with all life on Earth and the natural environment that sustains us by consciously acknowledging how we survive every day. As the spiritual adage rightly explains, as above, so below. We are empowered to understand the universe by understanding ourselves. Human superiority to nature and all other life is a construct born of the same hubris pre-Copernican claims that the Earth is at the center of the universe. We disprove our own construct with every breath we take. Our bodies can’t produce the conditions we need to survive. Humanity’s ecocide of countless species of life on Earth is degrading the nutrient quality sustaining humanity. Our persistent lived experience validates our existence is a function of our natural, biodiverse environment. Nothing in nature exists independently. Nothing is nature exists free of everything else. One constant trait of sustaining ecologies is the prey greatly outnumber the predators. The hubris of Human superiority over all other life on Earth has empowered us to be the only predator that hunts our prey to extinction simply because we can. This toxic hubris is destroying everything that supports current life on Earth and even the institutions that empowered modern human civilization: society, democracy, economics, geopolitics, international law, etc. This dominant construct derived from western ‘age of reason’ philosophy has perverted our understanding of reality by creating a lens of cognitive dissonance: our beliefs directly contradict the functions of our body.
In this tumultuous arena of ideas and opinions it is easy to dismiss the good in search of the perfect - an unrealistic goal at best and prone to the rigidity of idealism. The rights of nature in the grand philosophical scheme of things may just be a stepping stone but it is only by achieving these smaller steps that we open up the possibility of further advances.
I do believe in the consciousness of all things but I also think we humans have something extra which is the ability to imagine alternative realities. It has given us the ability to choose. Motivators beyond survival and reproduction have developed and with them the concepts of right and wrong - morality and law. These are human constructs for which there is no equivalent in the ecosphere.
While I sometimes dream of a world that sees only the beauty and connectedness of the Earth and its abundance the reality is we have to deal with the messy legacies of our forebears with tools they have bequeathed us and bit by bit fashion them in our own way to hand on to future generations who will, if all goes well, bring us back to a relationship with our home that has a better chance of thriving.
Mort: yes, this is an important part of the struggle. To question all instead of unexamined selecting is to go mad. Keep writing: misery loves company.
And although I support the demolition of anthropocentrism I wonder if these activists have a plan for eating? Is hunger still allowed?
It's a step too far and yet not enough.
Semantics are important. Calling, naming, labelling any kind of value as universal, once again demonstrates humanity's wild overestimation of itself. As if we know the whole universe and have any kind of influence beyond this planet. It's just more la-lah land hard enlightenment fantasy speak. "Think it and it will materialize"... Absolute idiocy. Making legislation is needed, but without enforcement agencies and boots on the ground, possibly trampling what's supposed to be protected, and even then...? How many environmental activists are murdered every year on the front line in the forests and on the savannah? And what is the solution to that, except more weapons and a firefight in the pristine reserves and protected areas. Which will really not be particularly helpful for the environment we are trying to protect.
And I am hungry. What exactly am I supposed to eat? And why the hell is it okay to kill plants if it is not okay to kill animals? What is the line that demarcates suffering and who thinks the eradication of death is possible and a good idea? How will we know the good if not in contrast to the bad?
There is an element of self flagellation on one hand, and yet a complete lack of grounding this wishful thinking properly, which if it was thought through to the end would uncover that philosophizing towards a policy item rather than a lifecycle assessment, discredits the the entire effort.
Back to the drawing board people. Stop cutting corners.
John McConnell, who set in the motion the celebration of Earth Day on the Spring Equinox in the northern hemisphere, wrote that there were three changes to achieving a new and sustainable relationship with our planet. One was economic (i.e., the public capture and sharing of economic rents). The second was financial (i.e., money creation that is debt free). The third was the bringing about an end to nationalism. Last year I produced a short video on McConnell's life and legacy that can be viewed on my personal Youtube channel. Just search "Edward Dodson" on Youtube, then look for the appropriate playlist and the video.
I really appreciate the depth and scope of this piece. It brings together history, ecology, philosophy, science, and ethics in a way that feels both grounded and expansive.
What resonates with me here is that this shift is not only ecological or legal, but deeply relational.
For so long, modern society has organized itself around separation: humans from nature, economy from ecology, individual from community. And yet the deeper we look, scientifically, spiritually, and ecologically, the harder those separations become to sustain.
I also appreciate that this piece does not frame the needed transformation as anti-science, but as an expansion of how we understand life, relationship, and responsibility.
The idea that humanity might mature beyond domination and toward participation within the larger living world feels less utopian to me than necessary.
I agree Christy - this shift is deeply relational reminding me of Carl Rogers ‘unconditional personal regard’. I really like how you link life with relationship and responsibility.
Transformation requires energy for change - Jeremy highlights that there is momentum generated already.
The words we offer one another; the language we use can often be tilted in favour of fear of the new - uncertainty of the need for a new paradigm; of a desire to hold onto the status quo of what many have been simply conditioned to.
To maintain momentum I suggest it is critical to have enough support to co-create a new story. This is underway. In this way, the old story can be set aside…it still has a place (that story and the actions of its supporters) in our history. The adherents of the old story may fight and resist. But a new story can and needs to be created and shared; told and retold; spoken in many places; dignifying diverse groups whose energy is included and unique culture is affirmed. This new story and fresh paradigm is simply part of our evolution - further away from separation and fragmentation towards wholeness and a deeper understanding of and reverence for biosphere.
To re-emphasise your point about the shift being relational - we are human beings therefore need social connection. This connection; the networking and webs of support we can and do put in place…are each a celebration of the many diverse forms of life available to us; the cultures we offer one another; the different ways we dignify life by being a human being, sharing our different gifts and acting with care and responsibility for one another.
Brian, thank you for this thoughtful reflection.
I really appreciate your emphasis on story, language, and relationship. I agree that transformation is not only about new systems or ideas, but about creating new ways of relating to one another and to the living world itself.
Your point about co-creating and retelling a new story also resonates deeply with me. Change rarely happens through facts alone. It often happens through shared meaning, connection, and the gradual rebuilding of trust, belonging, and possibility.
Thank you for adding so much depth and humanity to the conversation.
Great job, Lent! Please keep up the good work! It takes a long and diverse sufferings before the collective human minds are forced to shift their mental-gear back to becoming eco-responsive again after ten thousand years of evolution that has led to the current modern civilization. This why the scattered and "left over", the so-called Aboriginal people, are so valuable for us to start re-learning what is the Biospheric evolution.
In the same way, non-western and non-white and non-middle class people need to be considered valued parts of the human fabric and the fabric of life. We still have a long way to go towards an egalitarian and inclusive society that doesn't revolve around humanity but that values the wisdom of all groups within the human family, as well as the non-human family.
Yes, yes, and yes! I life lived in harmony with nature strikes me as a life that would be well lived
This is an awesome distillation of the urgency of the need to reorient ourselves. One factor that might also assist is the recent explosion of clean energy developments: solar, wind, tidal. While all have been available for some time, the ability to deploy these at scale, while at the same ironic moment oil and coal costs have increased, mean the pressure to switch to sustainable sources can be exploited politically.
Thank you, Jeremy, for this beautifully written essay. My husband and I have eaten only plants for over forty years and we raised our four children that way. I wonder why people, once they see what's true, can continue to participate in the cruelty and the ecocide. I guess it is as radical as the Copernican revolution. But I do think, once people can open their hearts to this proper place of humans in the family of life, they will find the sense of belonging that they've been missing.
And yet as individuals we can validate our interconnectedness with all life on Earth and the natural environment that sustains us by consciously acknowledging how we survive every day. As the spiritual adage rightly explains, as above, so below. We are empowered to understand the universe by understanding ourselves. Human superiority to nature and all other life is a construct born of the same hubris pre-Copernican claims that the Earth is at the center of the universe. We disprove our own construct with every breath we take. Our bodies can’t produce the conditions we need to survive. Humanity’s ecocide of countless species of life on Earth is degrading the nutrient quality sustaining humanity. Our persistent lived experience validates our existence is a function of our natural, biodiverse environment. Nothing in nature exists independently. Nothing is nature exists free of everything else. One constant trait of sustaining ecologies is the prey greatly outnumber the predators. The hubris of Human superiority over all other life on Earth has empowered us to be the only predator that hunts our prey to extinction simply because we can. This toxic hubris is destroying everything that supports current life on Earth and even the institutions that empowered modern human civilization: society, democracy, economics, geopolitics, international law, etc. This dominant construct derived from western ‘age of reason’ philosophy has perverted our understanding of reality by creating a lens of cognitive dissonance: our beliefs directly contradict the functions of our body.
In this tumultuous arena of ideas and opinions it is easy to dismiss the good in search of the perfect - an unrealistic goal at best and prone to the rigidity of idealism. The rights of nature in the grand philosophical scheme of things may just be a stepping stone but it is only by achieving these smaller steps that we open up the possibility of further advances.
I do believe in the consciousness of all things but I also think we humans have something extra which is the ability to imagine alternative realities. It has given us the ability to choose. Motivators beyond survival and reproduction have developed and with them the concepts of right and wrong - morality and law. These are human constructs for which there is no equivalent in the ecosphere.
While I sometimes dream of a world that sees only the beauty and connectedness of the Earth and its abundance the reality is we have to deal with the messy legacies of our forebears with tools they have bequeathed us and bit by bit fashion them in our own way to hand on to future generations who will, if all goes well, bring us back to a relationship with our home that has a better chance of thriving.
Mort: yes, this is an important part of the struggle. To question all instead of unexamined selecting is to go mad. Keep writing: misery loves company.
And although I support the demolition of anthropocentrism I wonder if these activists have a plan for eating? Is hunger still allowed?
It's a step too far and yet not enough.
Semantics are important. Calling, naming, labelling any kind of value as universal, once again demonstrates humanity's wild overestimation of itself. As if we know the whole universe and have any kind of influence beyond this planet. It's just more la-lah land hard enlightenment fantasy speak. "Think it and it will materialize"... Absolute idiocy. Making legislation is needed, but without enforcement agencies and boots on the ground, possibly trampling what's supposed to be protected, and even then...? How many environmental activists are murdered every year on the front line in the forests and on the savannah? And what is the solution to that, except more weapons and a firefight in the pristine reserves and protected areas. Which will really not be particularly helpful for the environment we are trying to protect.
And I am hungry. What exactly am I supposed to eat? And why the hell is it okay to kill plants if it is not okay to kill animals? What is the line that demarcates suffering and who thinks the eradication of death is possible and a good idea? How will we know the good if not in contrast to the bad?
There is an element of self flagellation on one hand, and yet a complete lack of grounding this wishful thinking properly, which if it was thought through to the end would uncover that philosophizing towards a policy item rather than a lifecycle assessment, discredits the the entire effort.
Back to the drawing board people. Stop cutting corners.
Thank you for your relentless work Jeremy!
Thanks for putting this into words. A very important story. Hope this reaches a bigger audience
this is the vibe
In Australia, things seem to be going in the opposite direction, and climate change is the pretext for that.
A Poignant and Insightful essay, a clarion call to our species to respect our fragile world .
John McConnell, who set in the motion the celebration of Earth Day on the Spring Equinox in the northern hemisphere, wrote that there were three changes to achieving a new and sustainable relationship with our planet. One was economic (i.e., the public capture and sharing of economic rents). The second was financial (i.e., money creation that is debt free). The third was the bringing about an end to nationalism. Last year I produced a short video on McConnell's life and legacy that can be viewed on my personal Youtube channel. Just search "Edward Dodson" on Youtube, then look for the appropriate playlist and the video.