Co-written by Rachel Olivia O’Connor. Valleria Ruselli and Annapurna Tosca Sriramarcel
“And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.” — Gerard Manley Hopkins
Introductory note: Individually, the three of us expect to receive teaching offers this week for the 2017-18 school year. We intend to submit this article to educational institutions, and — on the basis of feedback received — determine which positions to accept. We may write a follow-up article addressing the interaction we experience.
There are many critical topics which are being taught tepidly in our schools, if touched upon at all. And the most prestigious educational institutions shy away from authentically confronting our collective crises, except within the parameters set by corporations which are contributing to our horrid societal/environmental momentum. This is enormously important, as our mainstream media outlets — and even most alternative news sources — do not encourage the public to self-educate about the major issues of our time, but rather compound ignorance with ignorance.
Of the issues which are totally ignored, for all practical purposes, there’s one that we can spotlight here which — if not addressed post haste — stands to take us over the precipice. That is that if we want to protect our environment , we must talk about population size and growth and actually do something about it.
Perhaps readers will want to ask authorities at local schools whether or not anyone is addressing the phenomenon highlighted here. We see that as a litmus test. One that we believe all schools will get an “F” on, if truth is told.
Forty-seven years ago Earth Day was born with dire warnings about overpopulation being on the horizon. Today, the U.S. is growing by an average of one person every single second. There were one-hundred and fifty million people in 1950, but now there are over three-hundred and twenty-five million, with four-hundred million slated to be crowding together across the fifty states by 2050.
On the basis of consumption levels alone in our increasingly wasteful society, the threat of overpopulation has been quite clear for some time. But schools haven’t discouraged consumerism, have they? In fact, they’ve encouraged it. Nor do they even speak about out-of-control population being a problem, except — perhaps — in passing. Yes, the topic is treated to some degree here and there, usually where it doesn’t demand that students seriously self-reflect, or consider changing anything significant respecting their lifestyle. In other words, it’s presented in the abstract. An approach that’s quite at home in academia.
Religion is a factor in all of this, of course. But so is unwarranted faith in Science and Technology. One of us has addressed these facts of life previously, but — clearly — serious discussion (and action) must follow soon. Very soon. For we simply cannot afford to move at the arthritic snail’s pace society has embraced vis-a-vis this issue.
Rather than repeat the statistics which we’ve been documented to death intermittently, when population is addressed here and there, we believe it will be sufficiently instructive and motivating for readers to review what’s provided at www.npg.org. For starters, to get deeply engaged. Educators can find teaching packets available there, and concerned citizens can get involved with Donald Mann and his colleagues at Negative Population Growth, an admirable non-profit worthy of your heartbeats, attempting to make a difference in solidarity in time.
We have some reservations about Negative Population Growth, but they are relatively minor considerations in the context of their acknowledging that we are facing collective deadlines. The phrase “relatively minor” might strike some who are working on behalf of immigrants as inappropriate, but we underscore that the crucial NPG focus on overall numbers does not preclude discussion of the various nationalistic aspects of their stated Vision. O bailan todos o no baile nadie.
This week we look forward to testing the waters with various educational institutions and NPG, when we submit this article for their kind consideration. Before deciding what jobs to take on.
Rachel Olivia O’Connor, Valleria Ruselli and Annapurna Tosca Sriramarcel are educators who have founded the Educators’ Collective for Writers. They can be reached at aptosnews@gmail.com.
“unwarranted faith in Science and Technology”
Do science and technology or those practicing with science and technology go by faith? So, does the question of “warranted” or “unwarranted faith” comes up?
Technology is simply the application of science. Science is based on empirical discoveries and the application of logic. Non-scientists cannot but be impressed with the rapid growth in scientific knowledge – it outdoes that of population growth and is more terrifying. It, rather than population growth has us on the edge of extinction.
“But schools haven’t discouraged consumerism, have they? In fact, they’ve encouraged it.”
Is the observation cited above factual even, if, “school”, here, is used to mean “a set of ideas”, etc., as is used at higher level of learning? It’s not school, whichever category is meant, that encourages consumerism. It’s economy that nourishes consumerism. So, the primary focus should be on the economy, to be followed by the instruments/institutions including schools that the economy uses/utilizes.
You have got your work cut out ahead of you. In academia, humanity’s reality as to our relationship to Planet earth and the Cosmos is turned into a confusion of professionalized internalized vocabulary and endless footnotes. This has become most obvious in the social sciences of psychology, sociology and economics. Reductive mechanistic “survival of the fittest” is turned into what is called “social Darwinism.” That theory becomes an explanation and even justification for the release of our neurotic psychotic impulses. There is no inference to humanity’s meaning and purpose beyond this. Leave it to the religionists and philosophers they say. Let them argue back and forth as to what is or what is not beyond the brain cage. When was the last time you heard a sociologist giving constructive human survivalist social solutions based on violent human historical reality? When was the last time you heard an economist offer an economic plan to save the planet?
http://inquiryabraham.com/
Schools should include study of population and environment from the basic level. Unfortunately, the curruculum is filled with false notions of science and technology and aplications
There are so many ideas about what children should or should not be taught. Perhaps everyone can agree that literacy and numeracy come first. Of course, teaching children to read raises the question of the materials used to do this. It has to stimulate the child’s interest. It has to be relevant to the child’s everyday life. And, maybe, it has to stimulate the imagination, the curiosity to know, to learn. Rates of change, as encountered in population growth, is NOT simple numeracy, which consists basically of adding and subtracting, the concept of number and the concept of nothing.
Rates of change cannot easily be taught at an early age of a child’ life, therefore it has to come much later in their education. But this is also the time for competing subjects, each of great importance, to be included in the curriculum.
We are all human, therefore there is a strong case for human biology to be included. Disease is an ever-present threat, therefore basic hygiene should be taught. People must eat, therefore cooking should be included. And so the list of ‘essentials’ grows and grows.
A further consideration is the different aptitudes among children. Some learn quickly; others need patient coaching. One size does NOT fit all.