Shriekology:

Shriekology: Wanting to Scream Every Time Policy Decisions Ignore Ecological Realities.

Radical Rant by Karen I. Shragg Ed.d

You’ve probably heard of the term “Freakonomics “coined by Stephen D. Levitt and Steven J. Dubner, the authors of the book by the same title. The subtitle of this book is,” A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.” The core message of their book is a belief that complex issues can be better understood if we just find the right perspective. That got me to ponder the question, what is the right perspective? Is there such a thing? These economists have it relatively easy. Their economic perspective is well accepted in our country and in global political discourse. People understand and accept the perspective that the economy is the glue which holds everything together.

Environmentalists rarely get that kind of attention for our perspective, one that claims that ecology trumps everything else. In an ecologically framed world you can’t buy fresh water, create soil from scratch in a laboratory and that there are limits in human terms to all of the fuels we are now rapidly running out of. The economy is certainly a critical piece to our daily well-being, BUT an even more important and bigger perspective is one that embraces basic ecology.

Therefore, I have decided to coin the word, “Shriekology” in order to name the feeling I and my fellow environmentalists get when we witness a major political decision being made that ignores basic ecological laws.

Every day our so-called leaders are making decisions that defy the laws of ecology. They do this to try to get elected/re-elected and become popular instead of telling us the truth. True leadership would help our country to steer clear of the worst of our fates. One such” leader “recently told a reporter that Minnesotans weren’t ready to reduce freeway speed limits in order to save fuel. We need the kind of leaders that get Ecology 101 and do their best to educate their constituents about ecology so we may act in our own best long term interests.

So what are these laws? One ecologist, Barry Commoner listed five of them in his book, “The Closing Circle.” He was suggesting back in the 1970’s that the growth of industry and technology were presenting huge negative effects. Commoner thought we needed to be educated about the natural world so that we didn’t let these forces destroy the very planet we depend on for life. In today’s world of seeing the world through the economic-colored glasses, they cannot be restated too often. They are as follows:

1. Everything is connected to everything else.
2. Everything has to go somewhere or there is no such place as away.
3. Everything is always changing.
4. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
5. Everything has limits.

They are very basic and indisputable from a scientific perspective. The last two represent the idea that we cannot live on a premise of growth while eating away our natural capital. Yet these five principles are woefully underrepresented and even ignored in so many ways that it can make your head spin, hence the phrase “shriekology.”

Those who want the US to drill off shore for more oil or in our The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are blinded by their desire to keep the oil flowing. They never include the carbon emissions that will result from drilling and the energy it will take to extract it, or that it too will run out someday, only postponing the dire problems that lie ahead.

Politicians and economists should have Commoner’s laws on their stationary, on their walls and tattooed on their arms before they sign bills which undermine the very rules under which we all must live. Perhaps this would prevent them from supporting unsustainable perspectives, like economics and political correctness. Often laws are passed which help out certain in vogue problems in the short term without consideration of these ecological principles.

I just recently returned from an amazing trip to Australia. The beauty of its mountainous terrain, witnessing ancient rainforest trees and world class sandy beaches made my head spin. This constant barrage of awesome beauty left me looking for a word that could describe the feeling I had of total amazement. The Aussies with their very colorful vocabulary had just such a word. They call the feeling of seeing a koala, kangaroo, wallaby and king parrot all in the same day, being ‘gob-smacked’.

I was so impressed with their conservation messages that hit you starting at each airport and greet you in your hotel and every opportunity. Visitors are constantly being told how important it was to conserve water, an extremely important resource for a country which is drying out due to Global Climate Change. One island we visited is totally run on desalinized water, a very energy consuming process. Recycling opportunities were plentiful and there was notable lack of billboard advertising polluting the gorgeous landscape. Education about invasive species were skillfully described at every one of their numerous national parks and world heritage sites. It was also evident that they hadn’t let their population run rampant. Their roads were not too crowded, their skies were not polluted and the people had a relaxed air about them.

By all indications this was a country that studied and embraced Commoners’ laws of ecology. There was one exception. When I teased them about wanting to move down under especially if we couldn’t vote our current political party out of office, they welcomed me with open arms. You see they think they need more people. So much so that October 17th is National Babies Day. Women are offered a baby bonus to help increase Australia’s fertility rate. I flew by my pit stop of gob-smacked-dom and landed right into the world of shriekology. In my shriekological moment I just wanted to scream, “AND WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO GET ALL THE WATER THOSE NEW AUSTRALIANS WILL NEED? A country could potentially shut down unnecessary jobs like in the fast food industry to free people up to work in agriculture. In an ecologically dictated reality an increase in population will create more problems than they solve. One result will certainly be turning their water shortage into a crisis.

I didn’t actually shriek when I reacted to this genuinely nice welcome to move to the southern hemisphere, but I did confront that sentiment in as polite of a way as I could. “Do you see water as a limiting factor to the number of people Australia can sustain?” I asked. The question did not resonate. In typical shriekology fashion, each person replied that there aren’t enough people to do all the work and help with the economy.

As we work to try to keep our nature centers afloat we need to be sure that the basic laws of ecology are a core part of our message in our programs and signage. Otherwise we will lose our voices from all of that shrieking we will be forced to do.