Commitments

The word commitment has many different connotations. In one regard it means a marriage or taking the plunge. Another means to attend an event. Still another means to budget one's time. The other day, I was pondering why I felt so stuck in my life when this word came to me. I had just read about commitment in my last Psychology chapter before Christmas break. My last assignment was to describe a goal I have and ways I can increase my commitment. It was just an assignment...or so I thought. This assignment had major ramifications for re-evaluating my commitments.

I realized that commitments are not just big, easily identifiable things like a marriage, an event, or time budgeting. Rather commitments are prolific and infiltrate our entire life. I also realized that most things in our life are commitments. For example, if you buy something you commit to using it. If you have something you commit to using it; if you do not use it you commit to storing it. If you cook something you commit to eating it. If you have a child you commit to rearing it. If you have a garden you commit to tending it.

Simple enough yeah, but my ah-ha moment came when I realized the sheer degree of broken commitments in my life. I have book shelves of unread books. I have many projects started but never finished. I have many supplies to make things but have never made them. I bought kiefer starters recently to clear up my digestive flora but never made it. I bought a dehydrator a few years back and rarely use it. I bought a Vitamix but rarely use it. I could go on, but the point is I have many things or commitments that I do not properly utilize. I use the excuse of "I'll get around to it" or "I am just too busy now, but [fill in date] I'll be finished with [certain thing] and then I will do it" or something along those lines.

My life is filled with broken commitments. Broken commitments are clutter and clutter brings us down. Clutter is accumulated when we have things we do not use. Oh, but we have the best intentions to use them...someday. Someday. I am so committed to my projects and self betterment that I recently filled an entire 24' moving truck, had to leave stuff behind, and had no furniture in there. What was in there...all the stuff I found necessary to better myself, things I thought I needed, toys for my daughter to make up for my childhood, and basically a lot of baggage.

As I am evaluating my commitments I have "committed" to divesting myself of commitments. I moved from a much larger house than where I am now so more than half of my stuff remained in a storage area. I have decided that if my stuff will not fit within the confines of my small space, then I do not need it. Slowly, but surely the Goodwill is benefiting from my divestment. I am beginning to see the light as I now question all my stuff. If I cannot part with it then I commit to doing something with it; if I fail to do something with it by a certain date then off to the Goodwill it goes. I have to be ruthless otherwise I will never unbury myself from broken commitments.

Forest Gardening: Feeding the World through Sustainability

 
Self-Responsibility Given Away

Near the beginning of recorded history Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eaten (Eden) . In Exodus 20:18 the people of Israel said to Moses, who had delivered them out of oppression in Egypt, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” This set a precedent where people decided that they were unable or unwilling to take self responsibility. In today’s world this is no more evident than the problems of world hunger and the resulting reliance on big business to feed the masses. The production of food requires intervention oriented cultivation which is unsustainable and exploits the environment. This dilemma and solution mimics the ancient Cahokia society as their exploitation of the land to feed their growing population ultimately led to disaster. Is this where present society is heading? Will the earth ultimately retaliate and spew natural disaster to destroy man-made infrastructure? “Climate change and the recent financial crisis clearly show that humans have entered an unprecedented era of fast and possibly dangerous changes” (Lichtfouse, Hamelin, Navarrete, Debaeke, & Henri, 2010). Entry back into the Garden of Eaten requires food production to epitomize the original conditions and for humanity to adopt awareness, responsibility, and motivation to change.

The Cahokia Mirror for Modern Agriculture

It is said that history repeats itself, unless the lesson is learned. In an eerie parallel to modern agriculture, the tale of the Cahokia Indians offers a prediction of doom if attitudes of exploitation do not change. Around 1000 AD The Cahokia Indians populated near what is known as St. Louis. It was the largest tribal settlement in the United States. Their population had grown so expansive that they had nearly eradicated wild animals to hunt. To feed the growing population, an agricultural system was established to grow maize; this system was very similar to modern monoculture. As the population grew and more maize was being grown, the Cahokia quickly overtaxed their stream’s capacities. Their solution was to divert water from a nearby stream into their water supply to create a river. For space to grow they practiced extensive clear cutting of the surrounding forests. This move served to increase maize production and population growth. However, this was not a sustainable enterprise.

“Eventually, disaster struck. Heavy storms which would have been soaked up by forest quickly ran off the agricultural fields, bloating the river, and causing floods and mudslides in the city of Cahokia. A subsequent earthquake was the last straw which broke Cahokia's back. Within a few hundred years of its inception, the city had dissolved back into the earth. The Indians fled the city and developed a more sustainable agricultural system based on small fields of maize surrounded by managed forests of fruit and nuts. ” (Ana & Mark, 2010, Cahokia: a cautionary tale).

Modern Agriculture: History Problems Repeated

It took over 1600 years for human population to reach 1 billion people and it took scantly 400 years for the population to increase 6 fold to 6 billion people. Currently the population has increased by nearly 1 million people in less than 11 years. While the population growth is showing signs of slowing, the rate of growth is so large that current agricultural production cannot keep up with the demand. “Currently, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 3 billion people worldwide – the greatest number in history - are malnourished” (Berg & Hager, 2007, p. 338). To increase food yields farmers have turned to science to create super-producing crops. While this has met much of the population growth, it is also unsustainable, therefore this high intensity food production cannot continue for more than a few decades (Berg & Hager, 2007). What then? How will the growing population be fed?

Modern farming methods involve monoculture, or long rows of one type of food. To feed the growing population science intervened in plant production through genetic manipulation to increase food yield. These crops require massive interventions such as pesticides, high potency fertilizers, herbicides to discourage unwanted weeds, and special machinery to sustain the food through the growing season and onto harvesting. (Berg & Hager, 2007). Pesticides are used in increasing amounts to deal with the out of control pest populations which monoculture encourages. A monoculture is considered a feast to invader bugs, thus their exploding populations require even more pesticides (Agroforestry Research, 2008). All of these things contribute to pollution by poisoning the plants, animals, and people in the environment. “…Agricultural practices are the single largest cause of surface-water pollution…” (Berg & Hager, 2007, p. 346).

The terrestrial resources needed to sustain such large operations are tremendous. Aquifers, rivers and streams are rapidly becoming depleted from the large amounts of water used to irrigate these high yielding crops. Immense tracts of land are needed to meet current and future production demands. However, all the cultivatable land in the world is already taken and that land is giving way to urban development. Wild animal populations are also becoming increasingly isolated as more land is wrest from forest through clear cutting. Clear cutting contributes to soil erosion and floods because there are no longer natural vegetation roots to hold the soil in place or absorb large amounts of water from rain (Berg & Hager, 2007). Soil erosion also occurs when land is tilled. Tilling disturbs the natural ecosystem of the soil killing much of the microbiology and soil structure (Ana & Mark, 2010).

To offer a complete picture, the economics of such large scale farming also need to be accounted for. It takes huge sources of capital to live in such odds with the environment. Nature will eventually reclaim what it loses thus efforts to keep nature away are expensive. “It seems apparent that continued reliance on monocultures is more of a liability than an asset.” (Agroforestry Research, 2008, p. 6). It would also seem that such huge amounts of work and investment for such limited, or unbalanced food return does not make economic sense. Natural disasters must also be taken into account. The old adage about “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” applies to reliance on one huge mono-crop; putting that principle to the test. The Cahokia found their solution in gentle land persuasion, otherwise known as forest gardening. Will modern society embrace their lesson or will history repeat itself?

Forest Gardening: An Ancient Practice

Researcher Charles Mann (2006) delineates an alternative view of the history of American Indian land influence. American History teaches that the, “American Indians had a pure connection with the nearly untouched wilderness they lived in” (Anna & Mark, 2010, What American Indians can teach us about permaculture). Mann’s research has shown otherwise stating that the American Indians had significant influence on the structure of the forests and in created large civilizations sustained by agriculture which covered nearly two thirds of the United States (Mann, 2006).

The tropical rainforests of South and Central America have long been considered virgin forests. The Amazon forest and Mayan forest rank first and second, respectively, for sheer amount of biodiversity present in one place; in other words they have higher species diversity than anywhere else in the world. Scientists have long considered the forests to be an anomaly of nature. Evidence now points to the contrary. Because over 90% of the plants are useful to humans, science concludes that much, “8% to 100%, [of the forest] was anthropogenic” (Ann & Mark, 2010, Anthropogenic forests in the Amazon), or created through carful, human manipulation, see figure 1. To add credence to the argument, forest stewards of the El Piliar Maya Forest Garden Network [El Pilar] (2009) state that “that there is a higher percentage of useful plants in forested areas where the Maya lived than forest where people did not live. This suggests that the Maya manipulated their forest, favoring plants that were useful to them, changing the composition of the forest.”

Clarifying Terms

Forest gardening has become a blanket term for any system which involves the careful manipulation of plants in a forest setting to produce the maximum amount of beneficial plants. That said, there must be a distinction between temperate forest gardening and tropical forest gardening. Technically any gardening which takes place in the tropics is called permaculture. However, these techniques will not work in temperate forests. Robert Hart invented forest gardening as a way to apply the wisdom of permaculturists to the lack of abundant rainfall, less direct sunlight, and seasonal fluctuations of a temperate forest (Ana & Mark, 2010). That said the terms are usually used interchangeably. One thing is certain however, “Once a forest is managed it becomes a garden” (El Piliar, 2009, How a forest garden is different from a plowed field).

The Forest Garden: A Modern Garden of Eaten?

In the Garden of Eaten all was perfect and food was abundant. Adam and Eve had no cares except to be good stewards of the garden eat their fill. They did not have to toil for their food; they only had to pick it. When temptation overtook and they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the couple forsook the wisdom that partners with knowledge. In so doing they went against nature’s harmony and balance; choosing to follow self-righteousness and abdicating spiritual understanding. They no longer sought direct sustenance rather they chose to eat by the sweat of their brow. They were expelled from the abundant food provision of the Garden to toil away in unfulfilling, meager agriculture that would never cultivate anything resembling that abundance.

Forest gardens, once established, require little human intervention and do not deplete or harm natural resources the way monoculture does. Plants are introduced to take maximum advantage of natural rainfall. Land is not tilled and plants are not removed so soil structures remain intact. Many plants are perennials thus they do not need to be replanted year after year and they contribute to soil health. Even the annuals are encouraged to reseed themselves. Some plants, known as dynamic accumulators and nitrogen fixers, enrich the soil naturally without the use of fertilizers.

Guilds or groups of plants which cohabitate nicely, are created for maximum land efficiency and production. Considerations for finding good cohabitatable plants include: root depth, spread, and type; plant size and spread; mineral, water, and light needs; and growth season. These guilds can then can then provide all their own needs as well as help their neighbors. Pesticides are not used because plants are also grouped so that one plant discourages the pests of another. Herbicides to kill weeds are not used because the plant groupings are so dense that weeds cannot gain a foothold. When the gardener marries vegetation by filling in empty niches with useful plants he or she expands Mother Nature’s plan. Together they co-create a garden of super abundance (Agroforestry Research, 2009; Ana & Mark, 2010).

This guild process creates a system of over yielding which can be further explained by a physicist Eliyahu Goldratt (AGI – Goldratt Institute, 2009). Goldratt applies the principles of physics to management philosophies in a system he called the Theory of Constraints. This, in turn, can be applied to the management of land. A constraint is a limitation. For a farmer, his or her constraint is the land. This constraint limits the production capabilities of the farmer since he or she views the land as having a limited yield. A farmer in this situation accepts this as inevitable and the solution is to find more land or accept their financial cap. More land is not a feasible solution, however, as is discussed earlier. Goldratt would admonish that one has to maximize the potential of the constraint. A forest gardener does just that; growing more in less area; or increasing the land’s efficiency and output.

An example to showcase a guild’s high degree of productivity and beneficial cohabitation is found in the traditional three sisters crop: beans, corn, and squash. Researcher Stephen Gliessman noted that corn production, when grown in the three sister crop nearly doubled under these conditions and the bean and squash yields remained relatively the same as in conventional monoculture. But that is not the whole story. The bean and squash yields may have been the same, however all this was grown in an area less than half the size of the land it would take to grow these same plants as monocultures. He said, “This is known as over yielding. Considering increasing hunger and starvation, this more productive model offers hope for a better future” (Agroforestry Research, 2008, p.5). As far as beneficial cohabitation: the corn stalks provide a vertical surface for the beans to climb upon; the beans gather and share nitrogen because they are known as nitrogen fixers; and the squash grows so thickly as to effectively block out weeds (Agroforestry Research, 2008).

A nitrogen fixer means the plant has a unique root system which can convert otherwise inert nitrogen into beneficial nitrogen. Dynamic accumulators are also used in beneficial groupings because their deep root systems mine minerals from deep soil depths to store in their leaves. Plants are also considered dynamic accumulators if they provide a good home for beneficial bacteria to colonize. The soil benefits of both nitrogen fixers and dynamic accumulators are usually realized as the leaves of these plants are used for compost. (Ana & Mark, 2010).

Forest gardens take agricultural practices to a new level of sustainability while affording high yielding, and highly nutritious food. The sheer diversity of useful plant material grown in such a small area is economical. “A greater diversity in one’s diet leads to better nutrition and health… [M]alnutrition results from…a reliance on a limited number of foods, which generally have lower nutritional value… (Agroforestry Research, 2009, p. 8)” Promoting home gardening in a system of large diversity goes a long way to discouraging malnutrition. Heriberto Cocom, master forest gardener for El Pilar (2009), states that everyone has some land they can garden on; therefore, everyone can plant a forest garden. Plus, if one does not have land, community gardens are always options especially since the large food yields lend themselves well to sharing. Nutritional density also reduces malnutrition. The density is higher in the perennial versions of typical annual plants like spinach and its perennial counterpart good King Henry. Since forest gardens rely on perennials they naturally produce more nutrient density. In addition, the cohabitation and resource sharing of the plants provides higher nutrient density than monocropped plants (Agroforestry Research, 2009).

Forest gardens make more economic sense. A diverse range of plants can be grown in an area a fraction of the size needed for monoculture. This diversity has the added benefit of economic security. Should a natural phenomena like blight attack one crop the others are still intact. Conventional farmers, relying on one crop, would be devastated by the blight (Agroforestry Research, 2009). Polyculture, the cohabitation of many plants, also allows the farmer to grow year round as opposed to just one season. This additional growing time is beneficial for the pocketbook (El Pilar, 2009). A temperate forest example of this is highlighted by Agroforestry Research (2009) when the author discusses harvesting fresh food for his winter dinner party. Finally, a forest garden makes economic sense because of the diversity of cash brining crops. A forest garden, “produc[es] plants to meet a diverse array of human needs, like food, shelter, medicine, and many others” (El Pilar, 2009). Plants like the bamboo plant can also be used for clothing.

The best example of a city sustained on personal forest gardens is found in Kerala, India. Agroforestry Research summarizes forest gardening founder Robert Heart’s book Forest Gardening: Cultivating an Edible Landscape. “Hart’s book cites the 3.5 million home gardens in Kerala, India that provide the majority of food for the 32 million residents in an area the size of Switzerland. Kerala ranks second in The Physical Quality of Living Index for Asia despite being one of the most populous places on Earth and having an average income of less than $400 per year. Only Japan ranks higher. Life expectancy rivals the US, literacy rates are approaching 100%, free hospitals and Ayurvedic clinics are very common, and ninety percent of the Keralese population owns land. Their secret is that they don’t need that much money--practically all of their necessities are growing in the backyard” (2009, p.4)

Forest gardening is a community affair, thus much of the labor is voluntary. A community forest garden would follow the same rules and regulations of a regular community garden. A community garden requires that those community member who wish to benefit from the harvest need to contribute to the upkeep of the garden. A forest garden is self sustained and thus does not involve all the work a regular community monoculture garden requires. It only requires regular pruning and mulching with most of the work occurring at harvest time. It seems reasonable that each community member would harvest their own food. This is the same principle that God set forth in Exodus with the manna. The manna was provided each morning and each member of the community was responsible for acquiring what he or she needed for the day. El Pilar (2009) discusses community involvement is essential for a source of labor and generational knowledge acquisition. This not only keeps money in the community rather than outsourcing for labor, but it allows for greater camaraderie. In addition the garden is, “is almost entirely maintained with local resources, such as household refuse (compost), organic material (dead weeds), ashes from kitchen fires, and manure,” providing all the necessary fertilizer to “enrich the soil” (El Pilar, 2009, What is a forest garden?).

Problems Facing Adoption

People have abdicated their rights to produce their own food to the big business farmer. Forest gardening, despite its benefits, is unlikely to be adopted as a serious alternative by farmers until some biases are dispelled. For one thing forest gardening is a long term proposition not a fix-it-quick scheme; big problems require big solutions. These solutions must be far reaching with true commitment. In a business text book called Wharton on Decision Making (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, Ch. 6). the authors describe “Maintaining a normal state of mind requires constant practice.” To further describe this idea they quote from a book named The Book of Five Rings by an author named Musashi, “This is something that requires thorough examination, with a thousand days of practice for training and ten thousand days of practice for refinement” (p.114) They further explained that: “To the ancient Chinese, reflection was closely linked to knowledge. Because the Chinese believe all things are interdependent, knowledge was the ability to trace out the connections between things. Once this was accomplished, the decision maker would know what actions to take today to reap the benefits of the future. The idea was summarized in a saying, ‘To know after seeing is not worthy of being called knowing’” (2001, Ch. 6, p.109).

This concept can be applied to the creation of a forest garden. A forest garden can take up to 10 years to reach maturity; therefore it is not a one season solution like a monoculture. It requires patience. Knowledge acquisition of the land, climate, whether patterns, rain fall, plant characteristics, plant interactions, plants needs, plant cohabitation options, etc. all require patience and commitment. In other words, farmers as businesses people are looking for short term profits, not long term gain. The farmer would justify his or her position saying they are concerned with the bottom line, profits. Mechanized crop harvesting is cheaper than the human labor necessary to harvest food in a forest garden. This translates to fewer profits.

This is a fallacy however. The adoption of the forest garden method of cultivation requires a paradigm shift. It also means that the two systems cannot be fairly compared because they are so different. Sure, the farmer may profit more from mechanized harvesting systems, but the farmer is not looking at the other factors involved; this is narrow minded thinking. The farmer automatically saves money because he or she does not need to spend money on pesticides, herbicides, special machinery, fossil fuels, machine upkeep, fertilizers, new batches of seeds, etc. In addition the costs to the environment of monoculture are not taken into account in this statement. That said, many farmers, particularly those in third world countries are not concerned with environmental preservation if it cuts into their profitability (El Pilar, 2009; Ana & Mark, 2010; and Berg & Hager, 2007).

This narrow minded thinking is based out of fear of the unknown. Fear is an interesting concept as an acronym for False Evidence Appearing Real (author unknown). The Bible further explains this concept in Hose 4:6 when it states, “My people are destroyed from a lack of knowledge.” The idea behind this is fear is often illogically justified by strong emotions not logical evidence. The farmer in this case, would base his argument for maintaining modern agricultural methods on the illogical evidence of the strong emotion of fear. The overwhelming benefit of forest gardening would be lost on him or her.

For the sake of logic, the fear of the farmer is also perpetuated by the biases and discrimination from the farmer’s suppliers that exist against sustainable agriculture. For example, insurance agencies often will not insure a sustainably farmed crop because they consider it too high risk (Bailey & Preston, n.d.). Once again this bias is bases upon fear. An example of discrimination against forest gardeners is in Brazil where the government considers an area to be developed if it is monocropped. Forest land is considered undeveloped and therefore subject to economic pressures to “develop it” (El Pilar, 2009).

Gary Yukl (2006), another business textbook author, provides an explanation of modern managers that provides a striking similarity to the farmer whose motivation is profit. Most people have the misconception that managers have inordinate amounts of time to sit in their offices and create elaborate action plans. This is simply untrue. Managers, he says are involved in a flurry of activities all day long as they run from place to place putting out fires; they react not act on their situation. Their processes are fragmented and their activities lack any real cohesion. They only look at the steps involved at this particular moment and lack a view of the bigger picture of the interaction of things. Likewise farmers do not have an overview of the bigger picture and their processes are thus fragmented.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the forest garden and modern agriculture is the forest garden is not really suited to big business per say. To understand this further, two principles that seem unrelated, warrant introduction. Christine Woodrow and Frances Press, university professors, discussed a concept that is similar to the dilemma of the modern farmer even though they were discussing the dilemma of the child in daycare. “At the turn of the 21st century [people] have been witness to an acceleration of privatization and commercialism in many aspects of everyday life” (2007, p. 315). They further discussed “that values such as trust, respect, good will, sincerity and fairness…are likely to be transformed [into] supplier-consumer relationships built upon profit motives” (2007, p. 318

To further explain that dilemma the views of another pair of professors, Genevive Vaughan and Elia Estola, also discussing education, can be applied. They proposed that two paradigms exist that rule all human engagements. The dominate paradigm is the exchange paradigm where recompense is expected for any service given. This is the paradigm that dominates world commerce and relegates those goods which satisfy human needs, like food, water, shelter, education, etc. to vehicles for exchange rather than nature’s free provision. On the other hand, a paradigm that has just as much to offer, but is only recognized as the domain of mothers to their children, it the gift paradigm. In the gift paradigm, goods and services are offered out of love and respect without expectation of a payment in return. This paradigm is long term whereas the exchange paradigm is short term. For example, mothers tirelessly offer their services and never once do they ask their children for payment. The reason is because the mother’s intuitive wisdom knows that the better the rearing in the present, the better adults their children will become (2007). She knows that someday the fruits of her efforts will manifest or the seeds will flourish.

The gift paradigm relates to the forest garden in once it planted and nurtured to maturity, it freely gives what it has without expectation for recompense. A monocrop may give its harvest but that only happens in exchange for tremendous amounts of interventions and constant vigilance from the farmer. As stated before, the return of the crop is disproportionate to the amount of work involved in getting that return. Because a monocrop cannot give, the farmer does not understand the gift paradigm, thus, these two principles adequately explain the dilemma of the farmer. Farmers have to be responsible to big business which overtakes precedence for what is right. The farmer is driven by the exchange paradigm because that is the dominating force of our world. The farmer will never realize the gift paradigm because it does not follow what he or she has always known.

The gift paradigm also describes Eliyahu Goldratt’s (AGI – Goldratt Institute, 2009) Theory of Constraints when he states that one needs to maximize their constraint. The farmer does not believe his constraint can be maximized. However if he or she were to look at the land as providing a free gift, then that gift paradigm would naturally lend itself to the creation of the forest garden to maximize the constraint of the land. The farmer is blinded by ghosts of profits, rather than looking at the entire picture of expenses. Forest gardening will never be a feasible solution when it is viewed completely through the lens of big business, or exchange paradigm, and thus meddling in the realization of the forest garden or gift paradigm.

Despite showing the illogical nature of the farmer’s for profit argument, the farmer would not be compelled to change his or her mind; they have no reason to. They do not see their system as broken or if they do they are too afraid to take action to fix it. A logical way of looking at all sides of the issue and eliminating the fear, described later, would be to examine John Nash’s Theory of Equilibrium (Osborne, 2002). This theory states that in every game there is a win-win situation, not always a win-lose. This theory when applied to the farmer, would state that what is best for the farmer is for maximum land usage and what is best for the people is to have abundance of food. If food production followed forest gardening, it would overcome the World Health Organization’s prediction that agriculture will quickly become inadequate to supply the demands of the people.

Re-entering The Garden of Eaten

The lesson of the Cahokia basically states if one cannot learn from past mistakes or perceive current misdirection, then one cannot progress toward finding a solution. The Bible explains this differently in John 20:29 when it states, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” and in Hosea 4:6, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge”. Exploitation of the land, also known as monoculture, is not a solution for feeding the masses. Exploitation and crop isolation will ultimately lead to a disaster because it does not work with the ecosystem.

Forest Gardening is the art of resisting exploitation as a solution and relying on an intuitive process which draws upon the knowledge of interactions to follow nature’s way. The gift paradigm explains the concept of the forest gardening as the plentiful giving of food without expectation for recompense. Modern agriculture is based on the opposite exchange paradigm. The monocrop does not give freely rather it does so in exchange for the farmer’s intensive interventions.

The Theory of Constraints delineates that the farmer’s land is his or her constraint, meaning that it can only produce so much. The theory also discusses that one must seek to make the constraint achieve maximum profitability. The farmer’s paradigm will not support more yield from the land, however, the polyculturist recognizes the untapped potential land yield through successful plant cohabitation. The Theory of Equilibrium provides the solution stating that the best solution would be something that best provides for the farmer’s and the people’s needs, or win-win. Monoculture, while trying to have the farmer’s best interests in mind, is illogical in nature and is also a win-lose proposition. Forest gardening represents mankind’s journey coming full circle; from original sin to re-entering the Garden of Eaten.

 
References
AGI – Goldratt Institute. (2009). The Theory of Constraints and its thinking processes. Retrieved from http://www.goldratt.com/toctpwhitepaper.pdf.

Agroforestry Research. (2008). Edible forest gardening: a sustainable and productive way to
grow healthy food. Retrieved from http://www.oly-wa.us/terra/forest.pdf

Anna & Mark. (2010). The Walden effect: homesteading year 4. Retrieved from
http://www.waldeneffect.org/.

Bailey, A. & Preston, K. (n.d.) Credit, crop insurance and sustainable agriculture.
http://www.cfra.org/node/71.

Berg, L. R., & Hager, M. C. (2007). Visualizing environmental science. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

El Pilar Maya Forest Garden Network. (2009). Maya forest garden. Retrieved from
http://www.mayaforestgardeners.org/forestgardening.php.

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions
(1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lichtfouse, É., Hamelin, M., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., & Henri, A. (2010). Emerging
agroscience. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(1), 1-10. doi:10.1051/agro/2009055.

Mann, C. (2006). 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus (2nd ed.). New York:
Vintage Books a Division of Random House Inc.

Osborne, M. J. (2002). Introduction to Game Theory (Draft Chapter). Nash Equilibrium Theory.
Retrieved from http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/igt/nash.pdf.

Vaughan, G., & Estola, E. (2007). The Gift Paradigm in Early Childhood Education. Educational
Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00326.x.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Woodrow, C., & Press, F. (2007). (Re)Positioning the Child in the Policy/Politics of Early
Childhood. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 312-325. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2007.00328.x.

A World of Darkness; A World of Hope

Regardless of questions regarding the existence of a creator, the human has enormous mental potential with or without answering that question. Sadly humans often waste this potential through the creation of false ideologies, looking through jaded lenses, and possessing grossly misconceived or illogical perceptions of reality. Self-absorbed and self-righteous behaviors perpetuate these thoughts of illogical division and classification which, in turn, create strangers of the self and others. Because of this, humans do not pool their talents to create exponential mental achievements; instead they engage in gladiator matches of pitting one illogical or incomplete idea against another. This creates a dark world in which violence, terror, sadness, suffering, and a lack of love are the norm. The solution for this state of affairs will not be found in extrinsic searching for a higher being, rather, the individual must look internally to question illogical thoughts and live authentically. Humanity, then cannot reach species potential as long the self imposed world of violence exists and while the search for a creator serves as a scapegoat to avoid self-responsibility.

Buddha was originally known as Prince Siddhartha Gautama. At the age of 15 the young prince became greatly troubled about the suffering among his people. By the age of 29 he renounced his birthright and left the castle to wander among his people to discover the reason suffering existed. He wandered for six years meditating and practicing under various gurus. Then one day while meditating under a Bohdi tree, he finally reached nirvana, or enlightenment. He discovered that there are four reasons, also known as the Four Noble Truths, which explained suffering: 1) It exists; 2) it has a definable cause; 3) because it exists it possesses finality; and 4) reaching nirvana will end it. Reaching nirvana means one lives an enlightened life by following the Eightfold Path. This philosophy later became known as Buddhism.

The eightfold path, or eight stages of enlighenemnt, is meant to deliver the journeyer from the depths of selfish, self-indulgent, cravings to enlightenment by knowledge acquisition. This requires a true knowledge of self, including abdication of all the ill-conceived concepts of self. These ill-conceived concepts, or ignorance, are what causes suffering. Enlightenment means peace acquisition and security or the antithesis of suffering (Moore & Brudder, 2008).

Stages one and two deal with the “initial mental outlook of the individual” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534). Stage one necessitates that the individual must admit possession of those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which will hinder his or her progress. When one is thusly limited, then illness of the mind, body, and spirit occur and thus block and abundance. This is about admitting culpability and responsibility for life. And stage two deals with one’s aim in life; one has to want to change and not feel resentment.

Stages three – six “specify appropriate behavior” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534) for the individual on this path. Stage three means that one is mindful of one’s tongue to keep from telling lies, gossiping, or engaging in useless chatter. Stage four describes one’s proper actions as keeping to an unselfish path particularly in regard to helping others. Stage five deals with achieving one’s livelihood through proper, not scrupulous means. And stage six deals with one making the effort to struggle against those actions that cause harm to others.

The last two stages “pertain to higher mental and spiritual qualities involved in a total disattachment from self” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534): Seven deals with the necessity for one to be mindful of all of one’s actions and through that mindfulness to “understand the nature of selfish craving” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534). And eight deals with purification of the thought and consciousness to be unwavering; therefore, liberating the mind from the fetters of suffering through absolute stillness. In all this, however, a deity, originator, or creator was not present. Because of the highly personal nature of these last two, and they are meant to just polish the work of the other six stages, no further explanation will be offered.

To explain better the first six stages of the Eightfold Path, various other philosophers’ ideas will be advanced. In many ways these will be seen as a tool box to help one progress down Buddha’s path by furthering understanding. These philosophies will not explain Buddha’s process per say; however, they will allow the individual to initiate locomotion.

Stage one means the individual must recognize those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (hereafter referred to as ill behaviors) which will hinder his or her progress. One must first acknowledge that his or her life is one of ill feelings, sickness, and nausea; that the individual is responsible for his or her own life; and just about all of his or her actions are causing the ill feelings. One needs to realize that any action of clinging to something or someone, whether a belief, existence, or a selfish desire also abdicates self responsibility by keeping one away from his or her potential thus relegating one to a mere reactionary animal who happens to be sentient.
According to Buddha, two states of mind are responsible for keeping the individual in suffering and away from reaching enlightened living: ignorance and selfish craving. All ill behaviors that cause illness can be understood by one of these two categories. Likewise these categories find further explanation from a few other external philosophies.

Friedrich Nietzsche (Moore & Brudder, 2008) described people as herd animals, who mindlessly follow orders and never think for themselves. “Sheeple” or sheep-people also adequately describes this mentality. Nietzsche held that “The herd animal…is cowardly, reactionary, fearful, desultory, and vengeful” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 167). Thus the people embrace slavery mentality and are not free to live in happiness and enjoy life to its fullest.

Jurgen Habermas (Moore & Brudder, 2008), a German philosopher, discussed the limitations on knowledge acquisition originating in deeply rooted ideologies, or illogical beliefs one possesses because of tradition. Political heads of state often initiated these ideologies to allow for political control through the inherent subjugation of the people to a slavery mentality. The people decided to buy into, and prepetuate this slavery of the mind.

Immanuel Kant (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discussed how these ideologies so drastically altered one’s state of mind and why people decided to hold onto them in the first place. Knowledge is inherently jaded or colored and is never an accurate representation of experiences and imagery. In many ways this can be likened to looking through lenses which filter sensory input to determine how one sees the world before one even becomes aware of it. For example, if one wears red colored lenses, then everything the individual sees will be in hues of red. This process of pre-filtering information is known as schema creation is psychology (Morris & Maisto, 2002). Schemas are perfectly normal and are absolutely necessary for higher cognitive functioning and automatic decision making. However, if left unchecked these schemas, or ways of thinking, can be “biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced” (2009, Critical Thinking: Where to Begin: Why Critical Thinking?). This excerpt was taken from the Society for Critical Thinking, who went further to explain proper thinking in the sense that, “…the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life.” (2010, Critical Thinking: Where to Begin: Why Critical Thinking?). This definition of faulty thinking gives expanded definition to Kant’s lenses or jaded perceptions. When life is seen through these lenses of faulty sensory input, then the result is a break away from human potential.

Jaded ideologies are also known as dogma. Dogma is a person’s infallible truths, particularly of a spiritual nature. These truths are illogical thought systems which create separation through self-importance. Maintaining a firm embrace on dogmas, jaded ideologies, or illogical thoughts means that one lacks self-love; or put another way, one practices self-loathing. Self-importance then is a facade to hide self-loathing to save face or create a life of “stupid self-confidence” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 174) as Albert Camus put it, or a life of false pretences of happiness and joy to cover the ugliness of internal pain. These concepts come with a price not only for the individual choosing to live in darkness and creating separation from the self but also consequences for humanity in creating isolation from others. In isolation ideas are not shared, let alone built upon. This also occurs because humans have the knack to believe they are correct and infallible. The eternal argument of, “I am right and you are wrong” perpetuates because of this self-importance concept. In keeping to doctrine people do not realize how much they refuse to see someone else’s point. People ignore ideas that contradict their own or do not match their lens’ view. When separation perpetuates then ideas will never see the true fruition, magnificence, and exponential magnification which results from unity and sharing.

Deciding to question such illogical thoughts and deciding to hold no belief as sacred and infallible, means that one has decided to live authentically. According to Jean Paul Satre (Moore & Brudder, 2008), the roll of an individual was to gain knowledge by living authentically. Living authentically means making right choices geared toward individual growth, not choices made of greed. Freedom in life can only be had by making authentic choices free of the fetters of dogma, illogical thoughts, and bias. Thus ideology, or slavery, limits knowledge acquisition.
This brings up two concepts: the idea of responsibility through knowledge acquisition and the limitations on knowledge itself. One must be vigilant to acquire proper knowledge and to drive out ignorance causing events such as self-importance, or selfish desires as Buddha put it. This all seems easy; however, people are lazy and will take the path of least resistance. This path leads to suffering.

Sometimes people create such false ideologies because they desperately desire to escape the horrible world of violence around them. According to Camus (Moore & Brudder, 2008), he could see the reason people would choose suicide. He also affirmed that suicide was the easy way out and one needed to work through the roughness of life to reach potential. John Dewey (Moore & Brudder, 2008) believed similarly when he stated that life was not a spectator event and the “spectator theory of knowledge” (p.224) was just an easy way out. Choosing the easy way out, according to Camus relegated one to an inferior position of unfulfilled potential. The stoics (Moore & Brudder, 2008), discussed in the next section, also believed struggle defined the person and his or her fortitude to do what was right.

Camus also believed the violence of the world should not be met with personal violence, either to self as in suicide or a lack of self-efficacy, or in violence to others as in crime, punishment, and harsh words. Instead, one should choose to rise above that violence and choosing a life of authenticity to solve one’s problems. The problem occurs, however, because people cannot resist calls to violence. Meeting violence with violence was the result one would always achieve when living in the darkness of meaningless chatter and clinging to worldly deceptions as Buddha purposed (Moore & Brudder, 2008).

If something requires WORK then many people will succumb to their laziness and hurt other people. Sigmund Freud (Morris & Maisto, 2002), the father of Psychoanalysis, created the concept of the Super Ego which controls the animalistic desires of the id and the irresponsible ego’s fulfillment of those desires. He did add some explanation about laziness of the average person and the desire to take that path of least resistance; however, he committed Plato’s error in assigning such a fatalistic trap to humanity in saying that the average human had no control over such drives. He failed to take into account the concept of self-efficacy (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or the desire a person has to better him or herself and live up to his or her potential. So while the world is a cauldron of violence and strangers, this is not fate, because the individual can decide to do something about it.

Another problem with inauthentic living is the lack of accountability either personal or intrapersonal. According to the pragmatists (Moore & Brudder, 2008) the world will continue to exist in darkness because of ambiguity and incompleteness. People cannot be accountable as long as the darkness of ambiguity reigns. Increased accountability through clarity is absolutely necessary to escape the darkness. In essence, one needs to turn on the lights of knowledge and wisdom by using the proverbial light switch to banish the darkness; but turning the lights on requires work.

This wraps us stage one which basically simmers down to a single concept: one must acknowledge, own, and conquer the tendrils of self-deception and inauthenticity to reach enlightenment. Stage two discusses the resentment that will hold one back from embarking on the path toward enlightenment. One must acknowledge that the path is not easy and resist harboring any resentment about that path. To keep one’s orientation on the path, and to say on it in the first place, one needs to remember the three d’s of determination, dedication, and destination. First, one must challenge his or her own determination to the change. Second, one must remain dedicated to those changes. And third, one must maintain focus on the destination and avoid getting distracted by shiny or glamorous objects. The reason one must have determination, dedication and destination, is because it is very difficult to live one's life authentically when distraction is easy to come by.

The more one begins to question his or her “known” knowledge, or ideologies, the more these ideas come out as incomplete. This can be a maddening process because one quickly realizes that his or her entire life is a lie. Discomfort, something that people avidly avoid, is also a strong potential when embarking on this path. For these reasons the majority of people will not even attempt authentic living. People are creatures of comfort, habit, and complaint. People want to complain and worry, but few want to take action to fix it. Most of all people do not want to admit that their lives are a lie. People do not know about critical thinking, nor are they interested because it shakes up their comfort zone. In this regard, Plato (Moore & Brudder, 2008) was correct when he said that the prisoners of the cave would not listen to the one who had escaped. The escaped prisoner had seen the true reality and knew of the deception in the cave, but to the remaining prisoners their reality was true despite the evidence. The one who carries the truth also carries the key to freedom and is considered a liar by those who live in the darkness. In other words, people have a need to maintain their lives of “stupid self confidence” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 174) and ideologies.

This mimics Buddha’s concept that one only experiences a life of darkness because he or she is tied up in the illusion of self and the need to cling to comfort no matter how many problems that comfort causes. People cannot look past the initial discomforts to realize that this process can be quite liberating and addicting. The further one progresses upon this path the more one begins to relish the destruction of structurally unsound ideologies. This is not the masochism of self-inflicted pain; rather it is an understanding that the discomfort is temporary and not indicative of greater discomfort. Discomfort is not pain only the reality of life is pain. Discomfort does not equal pain; to say thusly is illogical.

Extrinsic motivation (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or external validation, explains this lack of desire for living an authentic and non-ideological life and the apparent confusion over the nature of pain. When one seeks external validation, then one is constantly looking to external sources for motivation and feelings of rightness and satisfaction. In other words, extrinsic motivation means the individual does not gain satisfaction from the task, which is the definition for intrinsic motivation; rather satisfaction is only found in the reward for the task. The reward is often as simple as comfort. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation means one seeks internal rightness and would, therefore, see the logical error in believing one’s life is painful as opposed to merely uncomfortable. Therefore, when one puts forth the effort to live in authenticity and without ideologies, then one is generally intrinsically motivated (Morris & Maisto, 2002). Intrinsic motivation means one seeks self-efficacy (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or living up to one’s potential.

People seek external validation over self-validation. People look to an external deity, rules, beliefs, or ideas to control their lives and actions. People do not find satisfaction from intense self-examination and self-control; they do not find satisfaction in the process but only in a reward. This all goes back to many people’s need for ideologies or jaded lenses. There is a comfort to be found in knowing one’s position as a slave; it is scary to be the master. An intrinsically motivated person, on the other hand would find the process of self-realization to be invigorating. The intrinsically motivated person is not a masochist rather he or she looks past the temporary discomfort to find relief from the permanent pain of life. He or she finds comfort in the destruction of unsound ideologies and looks forward to what gets built out of the ashes.

To facilitate the act of drawing distinction between pain and discomfort and the move from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, one should take awareness of one simple concept. The stoics (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discuss that one needs to harden him or herself against life’s difficulties to aid in that distinction. This hardening would allow the individual to successfully deal with life’s difficulties rather than getting discouraged. Getting discouraged often leads feelings of failure making it easier to succumb to the negative feelings of Buddha’s (Moore & Brudder, 2008) selfishness and Camus’ (Moore & Brudder, 2008) calls to violence. Violence is as anything that robs one of living a life of reasoning in lieu of the compulsion of mere primitive animals. So, if one does not harden him or herself, then one does not have to tools to resist the calls to violence.

This hardening can be understood in the concept of a plant to transplant. Gardeners recommend that when one wants to start plants indoors to get an earlier start on the growing season, then they need to acclimate the new plants to the outdoors before planting them in the ground. This acclimation is to get the plants adjust to temperature and whether variations that are not found inside. Weather includes wind. If the plants have never encountered wind then they never built up strong enough stocks and roots to resist the wind, thus they will easily be blown down. To frame this differently, one can harden him or herself by becoming an expert at coal walking, or ignoring the discomfort and reconditioning one’s perspective about discomfort, to get quickly, and efficiently, to the other side.

To summarize stage two, one needs to realize their determination and desire to change and remain focused on the destination. Authentic living is difficult therefore it is easy to get distracted. People are focused too much on the discomfort and often confuse discomfort as synonymous with pain. In their confusion, people think their lives are merely uncomfortable and living authentically is to live in pain. Life is really the other way around. Pain is suffering, not seeking relief from suffering. This confusion finds explanation in people’s extrinsic motivation and desire for external validation and reward. The intrinsically motivated individual would see the fallacy in the belief that discomfort is synonymous with pain. People would not be so adverse to change or discomfort if they would take the time to harden themselves to resist calls to violence; calls which seem all too easy to submit to. If one cannot resist the calls to violence or the clinging as Buddha would put it, then one will not be able to continue this path without harboring resentment. One must banish resentment through intrinsic motivation if one wishes to continue and find solution for suffering.

To this point, the individual has an understanding of the nature of the problem facing the abdication of suffering. Stages three through six discuss these concepts from a different perspective: to expand one’s perception of where the problems really arise from.

Stage three discusses that one needs to be mindful of the tongue. Buddha believed there were three forms of chatter which needed to be quieted: body, mind, and word. One could only reach enlightenment when all three chatters were quieted. All forms of chatter must be eliminated to bring the individual true freedom and happiness. He also believed that once one found this silence and reached nirvana then he or she was in a position to lead others. Martin Hiddigger (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discussed the incessant chatter which takes place among people as a result of internal chatter. This, he said eliminated meaningful communication. Heiddigger seemed to refer to some external source when he discussed that meaningful communication meant listening to the wisdom of being. Buddha did not discuss allegiance to a deity, doctrine, or set ideology; in fact these things were detrimental. However, the wisdom of being could also be seen as an internal source. This internal source can be seen as that little voice inside one’s head which warns of danger, offers suggestions, and is the intuition, but is rarely listened to. If one is not mindful of the tongue, then he or she will pay allegiance to an external source rather than listening to the wisdom of being. One cannot listen if one is constantly talking.
Stage five deals with one finding their path or their livelihood by not succumbing to scrupulous means or by perverting the laws of justices. This also means that one should not take advantage of another person to gain the upper hand. All interaction should be fair. Another tool of assistance on this path is to look at life from the perspective of a game where all humans and life participate. The game must be fair. According to most, however, there must be a winner and a looser. John Nash (Osborne, 2002), restated Game Theory which necessitates a winner and a looser, to state that the best course for a game was to have everyone win. How is this possible, how can everyone win? This was called the theory of Equilibrium, and basically states that what is best for game progress is to ensure everyone has the best possible outcome. When everyone helps everyone else, then the game is a lot easier. In addition, he further explained that whenever a player looks out for his or her best interests they are relegating themselves to a lesser position.

The necessity to find a win-win solution means that traditional means of income generation must be re-examined. All forms of advertisement are meant to deceive the buyer into taking an action he or she would not normally take. This is all based on an understanding of psychology and what pushes people’s buttons to take action. Because almost all forms of income generation rely on advertising, then all are unscrupulous because they take advantage of a fellow human. All forms of exchange must be done with the best interests of both parties to be beneficial.

Knowledge seeking and application also suffer from scrupulous deception. All subjects across all realms of study, including humanities and science, suffer from a lack of unification. The problem with all forms of knowledge acquisition and human interaction is people are too convinced of their own self-importance. This prohibits any real win-win solution to be found. This self-importance also leads to the lack of unification. When self-importance is clung to, then knowledge could get lost in the skirmish. Knowledge would be further advanced if people would cease to engage in gladiator matches to pit one idea against another.

The Socratic Method (Moore & Brudder, 2008) could be used to facilitate the finding of a win-win solution (Osborne, 2002). This method involves systematically questioning each idea to bring about more clarity, thus finding a win-win solution. Once an idea is clarified, then each listener has a better understanding of the other’s concept or position. This understanding would also allow for the opposite views to be modified to find more alignment between the two concepts or to find that they were not so different after all. This unification among seemingly dissimilar ideas would mean that knowledge acquisition would occur at a much more rapid pace. When similarity is sought, solutions are created to solve bigger problems; when two or more come together to solve a problem, the results will be exponential. The knowledge seekers of today need to eliminate the stance of self-importance and learn to understand and integrate the knowledge of their counterparts to stop the stymieing of knowledge. The great solutions needed to solve the world’s massive problems will never be found if people cannot work together by finding win-win solutions.

Stage six deals with one being on guard against all forms of deceptive behavior and to continue to keep up the fight. These behaviors are like an addiction with a far spreading root system. The addiction, almost as if it has a life of its own, will struggle for survival. When one actively tries to make a change and deny something in his or her life, the denied behavior can, and often does, go underground and later resurfaces at an unexpected moment and in a form which will not alert the path traveler. According to Buddha, it would seem that the only life an addiction has is the clinging one has to that addiction. The addiction will leave when one is ready to cease clinging. Therefore, because one is not ready to cease clinging, but consciously does not want to admit that, then he or she will seek underhanded ways to cling without having to admit to the self the real problem.

Gilles Deleuze (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discusses a similar concept. He said life is often viewed as a tree where all pieces of life are disconnected an alone. However, he believed the idea was incorrect. Life should be viewed as having characteristics more similar to that of a rhizome which spreads underground, horizontally, occasionally sending up shoots, but it is all interconnected. A rhizome will spread and destroy anything blocking its progress, but it never develops a deep root system. To look at an addiction, ill behavior, or something which is desired by the possessor to be removed, then one would see that these things are almost never isolated incidents. Rather they have far reaching and spreading roots which have occasionally sent up shoots elsewhere. This would explain why when a thing goes underground and resurfaces later, the individual thinks it is a different thing. Close examination would show that this new thing has an intricate, underground root system which links back to the original behavior and this behavior is harder to eradicate than originally thought.

In these early stages of detaching from self, one needs constant reassurance that he or she is on the right path. In many ways, a young one on this path is like a child who needs comfort and reassurance from the parent. This is why honest leadership, in service to the individual, and who possesses with unselfish focus on the individual’s forward progression is necessary. This leader could then also be seen as a teacher who offers guidance and encouragement. The child needs the parent’s comfort. In the early stages, if an individual lacks a parent for comfort or a teacher to seek guidance from, then it is appropriate for the individual to look to God or a source for this very necessary reassurance. This is not to decide whether or not a source exists, it is to say the external seeking is not harmful when done only under these conditions. Under these conditions one is not giving up his or her personal power. The woman described above cannot attest to life in the other four stages because she has not experienced it. She does give constant thought, however, as to the processes. She will need to cease chatter (stage three), live unselfishly and practice unconditional love (stage 4), achieve honest livelihood (stage 5), and attack the rhizome addiction (stage 6).

A Story:

Bri is a young woman embarking on this path. She actively works on trying to follow Buddha’s path. Following stage one she identified many things she needs to change. She is more or less in stage two, working on having complete acceptance without resentment. She realizes that these stages are not distinct and separate; rather, she works on each stage as it comes up. She accepts this and is trying to keep the faith that she is making forward progress; this is particularly hard when a habit or mannerism which she thought was gone springs back up. She works to maintain a vision of her goal by constantly reminding herself of her destination, determination, and dedication.


Why is she doing it? What is the purpose? It is for the benefit of her daughter and future generations. Primarily, she does not want her daughter to have to suffer in life. The daughter will encounter various pitfalls and pain. If she has the tools to successfully navigate and evade these challenges, then she will go much further than Bri who has to figure it out. Bri does not have a teacher and, therefore, wants to be the teacher she never had. Bri knows that if her daughter is thusly equipped then she can change the world.

Wisdom directs that the world’s problems can only be solved with a fresh, untainted approach; the approach of a pure, untainted being; in other words a child. Bri often faces discouragement at such a monumental task. She particularly faces discouragement because she is aware of her many faults and inadequacies and therefore feels she is inadvertently tainting her daughter because of her lack of quick progression and clinging to the old habits of a deluded self. In other words, she feels as if she is not making enough progress in a quick enough manor. Further wisdom and understanding is necessary for her to realize that the daughter’s unique witnessing of the transformation of her mother is actually arming her for an even greater perspective than Bri could have otherwise hoped for.

Authentic education for her children is vitally important, even though Bri cannot fathom why in her limited human perspective. She just needs to maintain the faith that she must continue this path to authenticity so her children will be able to do greater things than she, herself, is capable of. This will be the case because they were never encumbered by the burdens of clinging to illogical ideologies. Bri knows that she is giving her children the gift to heal the world and more with their new found potential.
References

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm.

Haselhurst, G. & Howie, K. (2010). Ancient Eastern philosophy: on the ancient wisdom of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism. Retrieved from http://www.spaceandmotion.com/buddhism-hinduism-taoism-confucianism.htm.

Moore, B. N. & Bruder, K. (2008). Philosophy: The power of ideas (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Morris, C. G., & Maisto, A. A. (2002). Psychology: An introduction (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nevid, J. S. & Rathus, S. A. (2005). Psychology and the challenges of life: Adjustment in the new millennium (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Osborne, M. J. (2002). Introduction to Game Theory (Draft Chapter). Nash Equilibrium Theory. Retrieved from http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/igt/nash.pdf.

Fear, Ignorance,and Bigotry

Fear is an acronym for False Evidence Appearing Real, meaning the key to overcoming fear is through knowledge acquisition. The Bible in Hosea 4:6, Basic English translation, states “Destruction has overtaken my people because they have no knowledge.” Ignorance (Nevid and Rathus, 2005) is where many fears come from. Many fears are irrational because they only take into account a small portion of the reality of the situation. Many fears can be dispelled by further investigation and intent on understanding the whole picture. Fears, ignorance, or irrational behaviors can also stem from one’s beliefs and expectations that may not be in line with his or her true potential (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). To eliminate fear, one must take cognizance of their thought process and learn to eliminate illogical thought by becoming a critical thinker.

Our behaviors, thoughts, and actions are not isolated to one corner of life; rather they spill into other areas, defining the person. On that note, illogical thinking affects all areas of life. There is a saying “how you do anything is how you do everything” that accurately describes this phenomenon. It is the same for me, and I have carried this wisdom with me and applied it to all my personal growth. I realized that bigotry is not isolated to mere semantics of race; rather, it is a lens through which we do everything in our life. Recently, I realized I possessed a source of bigotry that radiated sickly tendrils into other areas of my life. I realized that tendrils of bias existed in places I did not expect, including some I would have never thought were related to racism or bigotry. In other words, this bigotry, once identified, helped me to unlock other sources of hidden bigotry and false ideologies. I use it to flush out ill conceived notions or phobias based on little or no concrete evidence. This can only be done through thorough self-examination and no-mercy self-questioning.

The realization was simple enough; I am a spider bigot. I don’t care what the spider is doing or what type it is, as far as I am concerned, all are guilty by association and deserve to die. I have realized that this bigotry, or arachnophobia as the fear of spiders is called, is unfounded and based on fear. Fears and illogical patterns of thinking are usually passed along from parents to children. When children naturally play, there is no distinction between race, color, height, weight, or any other defining characteristics. It is the prejudices we instill in our children that give them cognizance of these differences. We pass along our beliefs, actions, and fears and our children adopt these as normal patterns of behavior; they do not question it because the adult does it therefore it must be normal (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). I realized that my phobia was unnatural: something I observed in and copied from my mom. Through critical thinking I also realized that my fear would actually cause me more harm than good.

With this bigoted attitude toward spiders I had no knowledge of which ones were harmful or not. I had no knowledge of their benefits or indirect harms which could be incurred as a result of killing them. Basically my fear was keeping me from entering into a relationship with spiders that might be mutually beneficial. Or, at the very least, this relationship could provide a position where I could tolerate their inevitable presence. Through this fear I was closing myself off to untold life experiences, experience that may enrich my life or impart important knowledge upon me. I also became aware of what ramification my actions had when my daughter began displaying the same tendencies. Thus, I was not only hurting myself, but her as well. When she copied my unnatural fear, she lost the opportunity to become an explorer of the world; a legacy every child deserves.

The Society for Critical Thinking, a group dedicated to eradicating illogical thought, discusses that all problems in our society stem from fractures in our thinking. They say, “Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life.” The key, they say, to solving the world’s problems requires filling in the gaps, or fixing these fractures, but “excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.” (2010, Critical Thinking: Where to Begin: Why Critical Thinking?)
The Bible speaks of this path from destruction to rebuilding. Racial/bigoted/illogical division is described in Matthew 10:35-36, "a man [will be turned] against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.” Hosea 4:6 discusses that people die from a lack of knowledge. Statements of hope, change, and healing occur throughout the Bible including Leviticus 26:6 “I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country.” I learned long ago, however, that it is not realistic to sit around and wait for something to happen. God will not just do the work, it requires people to make a commitment to change.

God placed in my possession a very special girl who, like any child, has the chance to change the world. She cannot change the world, however, if she is encumbered by faulty thinking. That said, she will be thus encumbered if I do not change my ways. I believe it is my duty to eradicate from my being all remnants of bias, bigotry, racism and other forms of illogical thought. It is the job of the parent to prepare their child for the future. I believe this does not refer to making my children robots that just follows society’s mandates. Rather I see a suggestion to allow my children to create minds of their own; to make the changes in the prescribed forms of thinking that will affect changes on a broader scale of human ignorance.

References

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm.

Nevid, J. S. & Rathus, S. A. (2005). Psychology and the challenges of life: Adjustment in the new millennium (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

The Importance of Critical Thinking for Unparalleled Knowledge Acquisition: Where Modern Education Fails

When a couple finds they are expecting, a mixture of exuberance and concerns of adequacy develop. In response to these feelings and to give their child the best start in life, the parents do what they’re told to do: buy all the latest gear and educational material, and send their child off to daycare or school to ensure proper socialization and education. From conception to birth and through childhood, parents seek the advice of, and relegate important decisions to, the authorities because they know how to give a child the best start or advantages in life. What parents do not realize is this course of action will not make their child a smarter, more creative problem solver; rather it will relegate their child to the hands of mediocrity. How could this be? Gwen Dewar, PhD, (2010) in discussing modern education says that, “we often [inadvertently] train our kids to think in illogical and fallacious ways” that promotes “conformist thinking.” The lack of critical thinking in education affects problem-solving skills, knowledge application, self- efficacy, and creates a failure to reach cognitive potential and mastery.

The word “educational” has become a catch phrase in the current marketplace. Products across the board are jumping on the “educational” bandwagon and touting the benefits of early cognitive assistance. Toy aisles inundate a person with toys which possess catch phrases detailing a plethora of educational benefits. Experts tout that classical or instrumental music has benefits toward assisting in concentration and making one smarter. Education experts pander curriculum adjunct or advancing material, like flash cards or workbooks, to entice worried parents that their children need more assistance to succeed. Scientists fortify some infant formulas, and other foods, with chemicals like docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA), which naturally occur in breast milk, for alleged brain development and cognitive advances.

This is just a sampling of the push for early education, but it is enough to see the sheer degree to which “educational” has invaded the marketplace. Does this entire educational array have true benefits or is it just marketing hype? Why is all this pushed; is it a portender of a deeper problem? What is this deeper problem? Why does it exist? And what can be done?
Christine Woodrow and Frances Press, each university professors, collaborated on a paper called Positioning the Child in the Policy/Politics of Early Childhood. The purpose of the paper was to identify how education and childcare in Australia have become for profit businesses that have deviated far from the turn of the century philanthropic ideals. “At the turn of the 21st century [people] have been witness to an acceleration of privatization and commercialism in many aspects of everyday life” (2007, p. 315). They further discussed “that values such as trust, respect, good will, sincerity and fairness…are likely to be transformed [into] supplier-consumer relationships built upon profit motives” (Woodrow & Press, 2007, p. 318), where the bottom line and responsibility to the shareholder profits take precedence over public welfare and accountability. Advertising peddles daycare and education as providing the child an ideal childhood. This is an example of experts suggesting that they can rear a child better than the parent at home (Woodrow & Press, 2007).

The collaborative paper titled, The Gift Paradigm in Early Childhood Education, by Genevive Vaughan and Elia Estola, another pair of university teachers, explores a similar problem in childcare. The pair discussed that two different motivations, or paradigms, exist for conducting commerce. The first paradigm, called the gift paradigm, is most often observed in the mother who gives the child what he or she needs without expectation for recompense. The second paradigm, called the exchange paradigm, occurs when one expects payment or compensation for a performed service. The exchange paradigm currently dominates commerce even of such “need satisfying good[s]” (2007, p. 246) as water, food, education, and other necessities that nature freely provides. Education must therefore operate like a business: with a focus on profit, cost efficiency, and remaining competitive. They further discussed that offering education and childcare for exchange robs the innocence of the child; removing his or her abilities to achieve self-efficacy, become self-directed, and develop values (Vaughan & Estola, 2007).

These teachers all agree that the ideal environment for childcare and education would mimic the early 20th century models like Maria Montessori’s Montessori Method. The Montessori Method placed the child in an environment that encouraged self-actualization, self-control, and self-mastery. This was achieved through the exploration of various activities and materials designed to develop fine motor skills and sensory acuity. Woodrow and Press labeled this self-mastery as the ideal environment in which to encourage the development of citizenship to encourage the development of true democracy, something our world is in dire need of (Vaughan & Estola, 2007, & Woodrow & Press, 2007).

The Foundation for Critical Thinking also addresses the declination of education and the roll of an educated society. The Foundation, consisting of five highly educated members, identifies a concept called critical thinking as the cornerstone to a meaningful education. A meaningful education allows the child to become a proactive citizen who can solve society’s problems (2009). The Foundation’s definition states that critical thinking is:

“…[ An] intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2009, Defining Critical Thinking).”

The Foundation delineates that a critically thinking society would lead to the preservation of the species by solving the major and minor problems of the world, including: injustice, bias, criminal behavior, deception, manipulation, hypocrisy, righteousness, pain, suffering, hunger, homelessness, and even environmental, geological, and climatic concerns. “Critical societies can and will emerge only to the extent that human thinking becomes a primary interest… [which is] routinely… discussed and critiqued in every… [home, classroom, workplace, etc.]” In addition people must take these problems seriously and work together to solve those problems with logic and clarity (2009, Critical Thinking, The Educated Mind…).

Is it not the responsibility of the school to prepare students to solve problems? The push-pull ethical battle previously detailed carries heavy consequences that prevent, or fail to assist, the student in achieving his or her potential. The Foundation for Critical Thinking presents ideas from Albert Einstein’s 1954 book Ideas and Opinions, for consideration. Einstein discussed that the modality of education needs to encourage the young person to develop skills for “independent thinking,” or critical thinking, rather than trying to push the student to obtain “special knowledge.” He also cautioned that the lack of critical thinking in education leads the student to become a good factory worker and “kill[s] the spirit of which all cultural life depends” (2009, Critical Thinking, The Educated Mind…). In other words, this factory worker will not be able to solve society’s problems.

So what exactly does the school system do wrong? An education that is conducive to teaching critical thinking would require a complete overhaul of the current educational system. Norman Munn from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee in evaluating education said that, “In order to approximate complete… learning in children, one must take cognizance of conditioning, acquisition of motor skill, memorizing and related mnemonic functions, and problem solving” (1946, p.370). Most education centers upon rote memorization and picking only one answer; excluding discussion of alternative possibilities. For example, a math textbook may ask the student to find the correct box for a series of different sized objects. The problem exists when the student is told there is only one correct answer with complete disregard for alternatives or creative thinking. It says a small object should go into a small box, but the critical thinker would also recognize that the small object could also go into the medium and large size boxes as well. Also stuffing, folding, disassembling, or otherwise manipulating a large object would make it fit into a small to medium box (Dewar, 2010).

With learning disorders and behavior problems seeming to be on the rise in schools, one must consider if there is a casual connection between such disordered behavior and the lack of meaningful education. Donald Ford and Hugh Urban, of the Division of Counseling at Pennsylvania State University, state that ineffective patterns of behavior, or those that cause distraction of fellow students, can find cause in inappropriate conditions for learning as well as how the teacher presents him or herself to the child (1963). “Teachers must ask themselves what their words and actions are teaching [the] children” (Schidler, 2009, p. 1). Language acquisition is natural and mimics the pattern of the role models (Kimble, 1981). Teachers will often present materials from deeply flawed and bias perspectives because: they usually do not know how to reason; do not know how to recognize proper reasoning; and they usually just pass on what they were told (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2009). This lack of effective communication is absorbed by the student as normal methodology for communication. The lack of critical thinking in learning will “lead to lowered motivation and diminished cognitive ability” for the child (Kimble, 1981, p.32).

Researchers Sverker Silkstrum, Department of Cognitive Science of Lund University, and Goran Solderland, Department of Psychology of Stockholm University, (2007) confirmed this when they discovered that the type of learning environment will have a significant impact on the degree to which Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), a disordered behavior, will present itself. They found that a more stimulating environment will produce better results for cognitive functioning and problem-solving. In other words, a stimulating environment would allow the child to overcome the handicap of ADHD to position him or her to excel academically. On the converse, stimuli-impoverished environments will cause a decline in knowledge retention and learning. Silkstrum and Solderland also attributed student distracters as contributing to a stimuli-impoverished environment; if the student cannot concentrate then he or she cannot learn, regardless of the environment. This research, when paired with the research of Mayer (1989) who defined the line between meaningful and unproductive learning, contributes to a complete picture of a stimulating environment.

Meaningful education, as defined by University of California Professor Richard Mayer, means that the student can take what he or she is taught and applies the subject material to new situations; in other words, expand their knowledge. Mayer conducted a study to measure learning: the student’s retention was tested by offering similar problems to solve and then by testing application of that knowledge to new situations. If the student failed at both tests, then “no learning” occurred. If the student did well on the retention test but poorly on the application test, then the learning was “non-meaningful”. Finally, if the student did well on both, then “meaningful learning” occurred. The list below, adapted from Mayer, provides a quick summary of the conclusions.


Learning Outcome/Retention Performance/ Transfer Performance
No Learning/Poor/Poor
Non-Meaningful Learning/Good/Poor
Meaningful Learning/Good/Good


Education in general is not meaningful because it relies on rote memorization and retention, not on application. Case in point, standardized tests. According to The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2009), Standardized Tests and modern education ask a child to solve problems in ways that run counter to critical thinking’s approach to solving problems. The results are different also: standardized tests promote conformity and lead to unproductive learning, while critical thinking promotes creativity and meaningful learning.

The next question one may ask is what would a curriculum that teaches critical thinking look like? Mayer (1989) suggests that the discombobulated method of teaching thinking is ineffective. Thinking should be taught as integrated within the various subjects; not off by itself once the student reaches college. He makes a point that well documented research, as well as a whole hearted, committed partnership between the educators and those researchers of human cognition must precede any change to the academic profile. This partnership would be necessary to understand, “the conditions that allow the transfer of problem-solving skills and challenge educators to develop a curriculum that has a place for thinking” (Mayer, 1989, p. 162). The comparison below is adapted from Mayer’s paper and delineates how a curriculum may look.


Issue: Critical Thinking Education vs Traditional School System

What to Teach: Thinking should be learned by the pieces it represents in various subjects; vs Thinking is to be isolated from other material.

How to Teach: Student's need process to model where the solution is the reward; vs Correct answers are rewarded; wrong answers are punished. The student does not understand why.

Where to Teach: Each subject should include critical thinking skills. These skills, once mastered, can be carried over to new areas and learned in different ways; vs Thinking is to be taught in a course by itself; usually at the college level.


There are also other approaches to teaching critical thinking skills. Oftentimes in communication metaphors are used for clarification or to offer a frame of reference to bring communication to a common ground. Metaphors allow a person to look at something differently, or as Vaughan and Estola, put it, “Metaphors in education are tools for thinking; they are bridges between the known and the unknown; they facilitate communication and focus the gaze…” (2007, p. 248).

In additon, art, while not typically considered to be a teaching medium, may also help to facilitate the transition to critical thinking instruction. The creative process allows the student to bring the creative vision to life by viewing materials from multiple perspectives, multiple outcomes, and different paths of progression. This also occurs in the creative exploration of materials not normally thought of as art materials; in other words, recycling materials, like milk cartons, into something new, allows something to be seen from a new perspective. Seeing ideas or objects from different perspectives is the cornerstone of creative thinking (Tarr, 2008). Still another approach, while not teaching critical thinking, eliminates the major problem in education that leads to conformist thinking. Vaughan and Estola stress that the gift paradigm needs to be brought back into focus while phasing out the exchange paradigm from education. This movement, they say, “will not only allow children to develop better values in their individual lives but will help to validate those values in the society at large so that choices and policies can become more consciously life-affirming” (2007, p. 250).

Teachers who express the concern that education is not what it should be, argue that the their focus should not be on paperwork, busy work, or other things that distract from them giving their complete attention to the child. The public often eschews these teachers, labeling them as “old-fashioned” (Vaughan & Estola, 2007). Is it time this opinion is re-evaluated? Is the opinion “old-fashioned” or exactly what it needs to be?

Society is at a critical time, as decisions have to be made to solve problems that threaten existence. Without critical thinking, problems will become rampant and unsolvable, society will fail, and humanity will eventually become extinguished. Solving these problems will require teaching the children to solve problems critically and creatively. To do that, though, students need to have meaningful education. This may seem like a logical request; however, the road to implementation is long.

The problems our educational system faces are looming and, therefore, not easy to solve. The school system, being a business, does not care about the well being of the student if that well being interferes with profit. Critical thinking is not taught because it would be too time-consuming and expensive to overhaul the entire system. Besides, this overhaul would interfere with the primary goal: to create workers not thinkers. Identification of the problem is the first step. The next step is for parents to realize that the “authorities” do not know best. Parent’s need to answer the question of whether to continue to allow the child to be handicapped or give him or her the opportunity to make the world a better place? The answer to that question will determine the degree to which the school system will be forced to change.
 

References

Dewar, Gwen PhD. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.parentingscience.com/critical-thinking-in-children.html.

Ford, D., & Urban, H. (1963). The Development of Disordered Behavior. Systems of
psychotherapy: A comparative study (pp. 636-661). John Wiley & Sons Inc. doi:10.1037/10782-017.

Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions. Crown Trade Paperbacks. New York, NY.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm.

Kimble, G. (1981). Biological and cognitive constraints on learning. The G. Stanley Hall lecture
series, Vol.1 (pp. 11-60). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10086-001.

Mayer, R. (1989). Teaching for thinking: Research on the teachability of thinking skills. The G.
Stanley Hall lecture series, Vol. 9 (pp. 139-164). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10090-005.

Munn, N. (1946). Learning in children. Manual of child psychology (pp. 370-449). John Wiley &
Sons Inc. doi:10.1037/10756-008.

Shidler, L. (2009). Teaching Children What We Want Them to Learn. Young Children, 64(5),
88-91. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Tarr, P. (2008). New Visions: Art for Early Childhood. Art Education, 61(4), 19-24. Retrieved
from Education Research Complete database.

Vaughan, G., & Estola, E. (2007). The Gift Paradigm in Early Childhood Education. Educational
Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00326.x.

Woodrow, C., & Press, F. (2007). (Re)Positioning the Child in the Policy/Politics of Early
Childhood. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 312-325. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00328.x.

Joining Hands with Our Children: Listening to Their Voice

I decided to post some of my school work that I am most proud of. These works express my views concisely and integrate together the various tangents of my potential.

Today society faces many problems which threaten to destroy or severely damage its very existence. People try to solve these dilemmas through legislation, protest, violence or complete disregard; solutions which do not solve the issues but magnify them. The late Albert Einstein (1879-1855) said “the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” Society can only solve these massive problems by shifting their paradigm to try something different. If the children are to inherit a better world, they must be the solution; parents have to facilitate that leadership by properly equipping the children to create effective solutions.

Dr. Martin Luther King (1963), in his famous speech I Have a Dream, stated this solution best when he said, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.” In his speech, his words transcend beyond freedom for the oppressed; to be a solution for many of the massive problems society faces. Society’s problems are all birthed of ego; no one wants to admit culpability, work together to solve them, or look at the peaceful approach. The peaceful approach rests in the children, but requires the adult to look inward: to admit they are part of the problem; to champion change; and to question their view the child.

The adult to child relationship is one of dominance to submission. The child is expected to be subservient to the adult, seen as a burden, and barely tolerated. The historical adage, “children should be seen and not heard”, still exists today. The children are completely dependent on those in charge. In blatant disregard for the humanity of the child, parents or caregivers often tout, “my house, my rules, my way, or the highway”; the child is given no voice. Any attempt by the child at vocal expression is often met with the violence of suppression; or allowed only within the confines of complete mockery. This diminishes the child to frustration and lack of spiritual growth which relegates the child’s greatness into the hands of mediocrity. Society’s big problems cannot be solved when the child, enshrouded by mediocrity, reaches adulthood; these problems persist, get worse and the cycle becomes perpetual.

The adult facilitates the growth of the child through the admission of errant beliefs and takes those steps necessary to correct the damage. Author Alfie Kohn’s book Unconditional Parenting, addresses this when he says, “what do children need” and “… we need to work with them rather than doing to them, in order to reach goals”. He explains when parents question their views of child rearing, they give children the tools to become role models of self responsibility and reliability; great and powerful harbingers of change (Kohn,N.D.).

In society, there is a commonality of people working together to achieve a goal; it is even recognized as necessary for survival. Successful business leaders recognize and tap hidden sources of talent. Any person is given the opportunity to prove self-worth despite age, race, gender, creed or religion; this person is not judged by external characteristics but “by the content of their heart” (King, 1963). Marriages require both people to contribute to building a successful foundation; otherwise the marriage will end in divorce. It has been said that when people unite in partnership, their abilities are magnified; yet the most important partnership (parent to child) is ignored based on prejudice ego. In the military, the private must have all semblance of the questioning spirit crushed and taught to dutifully comply with orders; this is a similar plight of the child.

To solve the current problems of society future innovation and creativity are paramount. Different results cannot be achieved if the problems are approached using the same methods. A fresh perspective is necessary; the children possess this fresh perspective. Parent’s natural inclination is to stymie the growth and expression of the child in the name of authoritarianism. To manifest the true potential of the child, caregivers have the responsibility to equip the child with the tools needed to solve these problems. The adult must question his or her view of the child as incompetent and incapable; choosing instead to partner with the child in laying the foundation to create this harbinger of change.

References
King, M.L. (1963) I have a dream. Retrieved from http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html on September 20, 2009.
Kohn, A. (N.D.) Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php on September 20, 2009.