The comments are published with the permission of the author.
An observation from a neophyte and non-scientist—perhaps naïve, but not necessarily so. Please consider it a fresh eye from one not bruised by years of history in the trenches—my bruises are from project management and trying to get people to work together. While I’m not speaking in your language of science and research, I am speaking in the language of what could be a power base for this next phase. So, I hope you will read on with the understanding that I am in awe of your intelligence, commitment and perseverance.
I hear a few strong themes in this discussion:
- It is hopeless (or near hopeless) because our audiences for the conference are corrupted by self-interest and/or ignorance or impotent from fear and/or battle-fatigue. I have heard
o Other scientists, public policy leaders, and activists are either ignorant (which includes narrowly focused, etc.), bought-off, or tired, discouraged and even fearful.
o The “profit-driven industry” is corrupt due to rampant greed and self-interest.
o Governmental agencies are not fulfilling their mandates to protect the public interest, and, instead, are pandering to industry.
An observation: All of this is true, but It is not hopeless. Look back and see what you have accomplished. Change is slow. You are moving huge waves of human consciousness—not only through a health/science issue, but also through an understanding of what “life” is and what it means to “survive.” These two concepts of 1) “human” beings that require electromagnetic frequencies for life and 2) the need to step into collaboration rather than competition for life and evolution are antithetical to everything that we have been taught about ourselves and our world.
- It is “the good guys” against “the bad guys”.
o As we all know, this technology is double-edged. In the natural forms it has given us “life,” literally. In man-made forms, it has enhanced our lives significantly. The problem is too much of a good thing. Our excesses in using it are now threatening/altering the life it gave us. So a strategy reveals itself: If we can create a dialogue that works from both ends to the middle, success is imminent, if not immediate.
o As to this discussion, Cindy and others are absolutely right…the dialogue and current approach has to change. The existing gatekeepers will use this opportunity to block and promote their side of the story since this is the behavior that they know. However, Dariusz and others are also right: the dialogue not only needs to continue and grow into ever-larger collective arenas; the negotiation has to continue as well. It needs to ratchet up, rather than go away. So, strategically viewed, the missing piece in our discussion has been “the non-expert public” . I believe that this is the power base since huge throngs of people are finally becoming conscious of this dialogue. The public includes people from all fields/industries/walks of life…i.e., everyone, since everyone (and their children and grandchildren) are being affected.
A thought: It is “us,” not “us vs. them.” We all participate in the craziness in some way—with our purchases, our voting, our investments, our apathy, our inaction and fear.
An opportunity: Simultaneously, on all economic fronts (health care, financial services, military/war industrial complex, food and water supplies, housing, productivity, infrastructure, etc.), a critical mass of the public now clearly sees the corruption in all our systems and economic thinking. The public now sees the excesses of corporate/personal greed and self-interest, governmental corruption and inefficacy, and organizational/individual apathy. And we are revolting, organizing, exchanging information, educating each other, and trying to change our behaviors in a quest to stop this nonsense that is killing us and making our world uninhabitable for the children and their children.
As a result, despite the confusion and despair, many movements (such as Move to Amend, Move On, Caring Economy, alternative medicine, Transition, Institute for Responsible Technology, Conscious Evolution, the Occupy movement, Cutting Edge Capital, Slow Money, and the list goes on) are coming forth. For the next steps, we should be talking to and involving the public that is demanding change—they will influence the corporations and governments in whatever time it requires (as they did with tobacco, asbestos, pesticides, and so forth). Community outreach and networking with the public (“consumers,” if you will, although I personally despise that concept) is the new way. The Internet and social media are critical to modern conversation.
Perhaps, the question is not “whether to have a conference,” but, perhaps, it is three strategic questions:
1) who should be the audience/invitees;
2) what should be the goals/content/agenda; and
3) how should it be promoted, organized and publicized?
The answers to these questions will determine the ultimate effects on the governmental agencies, industry and science—whether we can drive this dialogue to the next level. It’s choice.
Look forward to more dialogue on this and seeing what comes up. Thanks for introducing the idea!
Rae Amey, President