“A rare wetland ecosystem is in immediate danger of development,” the wall in a small, square room at the Queens Museum of Art declares. “Help prevent environmental degradation by playing until both sides capture territory.” In front of the wall is a giant game board, black lines dividing it into thirty-six squares. White and black plate-sized disks are stacked beside it. Japanese visitors, math majors, and computer nerds will immediately recognize the game as a supersized version of Go.
“Go is a perfect metaphor,” artist Lillian Ball says of the exhibit. “You cannot win until both sides win territory.”
Go fans will immediately object that this is not true. In fact, Go is a strategic and often aggressive game in which opponents seek to surround territory by hemming in and capturing each other’s stones. But Ball’s installation, called GO ECO, uses a variant called Zen Go — reportedly developed by monks — in which an uneven number of players take turns playing both colors. The idea is that by cooperating both sides can capture territory and thus win together. As a metaphor for community-driven environmental preservation, Zen Go is straightforward: compromise is the name of the game.
Compromise was achieved in the Southold, New York, wetlands preservation project the installation references. Southold is on Long Island’s bucolic North Fork, long neglected by developers in favor of the South Fork, home to the glitzy Hamptons. Lately, this has changed, and North Forkers have begun to fear a deluge of malls and McMansions. Ball got involved when Southold granted a developer a permit to build homes on a local cranberry bog. Convinced the bog should be preserved, she brought in a biologist, who confirmed that the bog ecosystem was not only locally significant but globally rare. Ball set out to save it.
The GO ECO installation grew directly out of Ball’s experience in Southold. In community preservation, she says, “it’s not helpful to say these are the good guys and these are the bad guys; it was a long process for me to learn how to be effective.” Effectiveness in this case meant, not filing lawsuits, but crafting a solution acceptable to all parties. Eventually, a coalition of eighty donors purchased the property — and earned tax credits — through the Peconic Land Trust. The town of Southold contributed $50,000 and set aside the land as a preserve after being offered a sanitary flow credit in exchange for it — in essence, a free pass to build homes somewhere else. The outcome was hailed as a win for all involved.
The Zen Go game reproduces this process: as players make their moves, they trigger video clips in one of four quadrants on an adjacent wall. Labeled GOVERNMENT, NEIGHBORS, BUILDERS, and SCIENTISTS, the quadrants alternately light up with views of the endangered ecosystem accompanied by voiceovers from each stakeholder’s point of view. Through a series of gorgeous and supersaturated video clips, players learn about the wetland, its importance, and the complicated give-and-take of preserving it. They must play the game not to claim the most territory, but to ensure that both sides win some territory, no matter how small.
“What’s the point of playing a game if no one wins?” a thirteen year old asked recently. It’s not surprising the teenager felt a bit disappointed. In game play, what you really want is to deliver a crushing defeat. Then again, that might be nice when it comes to saving wetlands, too. Games rarely embrace compromise. Environmentalism today — for better or for worse — does.
Comments
Just remember in all this philosophy that native species/native ecosystems LOSE–PERMANENTLY–against human encroachment unless they are protected in the way that THEY need protecting.
One could argue that native species and native ecosystems have the “zen” thing down perfectly: they will silently just disappear without protest unless we who are causing their demise take an active and profound role in ensuring that they continue to exist.
This form of compromise is all well in good when one lives in a non-abusive system, yet the culture we live is abusive. It lies. It cheats. It will try and get as much as it can. Ask the spotted owl. Ask the Lakota. Ask the Skokomish. Ask the marbled murrelet. Ask an old growth forest. Ask the salmon. They all still lose.
Red Cloud said, “They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land and they did.”
Compromise only works when both sides play fair. Beyond this in terms of the relationship to this culture, we need to challenge the premises of “business interests”.
How many more old growth redwood trees are going to be compromised before we realize that there is no more left.(less than 4% and still falling)How much more Colombia shrub step are we going to compromise? (less than 3%) How many more wetlands? How many more wolves are we going to be allowed to be killed? How many Grizzly bears? Bison? Migratory song birds (which are experiencing a horrific collapse)
90% of the large fish in the ocean are gone, how much more are we going to allow to be taken for compromise.
This culture is killing the planet. The only thing that compromise helps is those who benefit from destroying the land.
How much more plastic needs to be in the ocean (plastic out numbers plankton 9 to 1)
Does compromise include asking the land itself what it wants?
The environmental movement compromises to much to easily. What we need is to put our foot down, and down hard. For what is at stake our actions have been woefully inadequete.
It is intriguing that the subject event in Zen & the Art of Compromise worked out so well. It made me sift through hundreds of experiences in my former New England towns and current SoCal cities for similar events, but none can be found. More often my experience has been along the lines of Adam’s Red Cloud quote; they came they saw, they promised then they took. Almost always, the rule is, there can be no compromise, or, “resistance is futile” (to quote the Borg).
The game invoked (I’m an avid Go player) made me think of Aikido, and I wonder about the application of that particular martial art’s mindset on typical ecological situations faced by most Americans in their home spaces. The battle at this stage of the end game is over basic survival necessities: water, land (to grow food), energy, housing/shelter. In a fight over basics, land trusts and towns and developers are perfect adversaries and the system is well-entrenched to ensure a fight to the death. But “compromise?” I think the Zen of that is that Earth, and ultimately we ourselves, loses.
The example in the article shows how people committed to the protection of an important natural area figured out how to speak the language of all sides so that compromise could be reached and permanent protection achieved. Houses got built somewhere else, but not in the most fragile area. It’s important to have brilliant people ranting from ivory towers. It’s important to identify what cannot be given up in compromise. It’s also important to recognize perspectives of all sides in arguments and get to a solution that everyone likes at least a little, taking into account all of the above.
The article and its resulting comments have raised important points, highlighting the internal dilemmas of modern environmentalism. In my opinion, compromise is the only chance we have in the current geopolitical climate, but compromise relies directly on the positions of the environmental purists (those of us from the ivory towers).
The most successful and most influential environmental non-profits (i.e, WWF, ED, Sierra Club) are those that embrace compromise. Other non-profits that use alternative, less cooperative approaches are labelled as extremists and politically ostracized (e.g.,ELF).
Economic and political interests are among modern society’s most formative forces. Those non-profits that cooperate with these forces are more successful at generating funds to dissemenate their message, and they are more likely to attract a receptive audience.
The strategy of compromise has resulted in tangible gains, as suggested by the emerging green economy. Success stories like the NY cranberry bog are becoming increasingly common as environmental advocates are using the tools provided by the establishment to preserve ecosystems. The use of tax credits and conservation easements provide economic incentives for preservation. This approach has resulted in large tracts of land preservation across the Northeast while the local economies continue to grow.
In my opinion, this slow but advancing strategy of environmentalism is starting to make a difference. Compromise has produced a new, more readily acceptable image of the environmentalist. If all goes well, this approach will change the system from the inside out. A sustainable society will most likely involve an economy that grows through environmental preservation, conservation and restortaion. To get there, we need compromise, or negotiation. And all successful negotiations are born from strategic positioning, which in this case is provided by the well articulated and reasonable positions of those advocating from the ivory towers.
Another Adam, You wrote:
“In my opinion, compromise is the only chance we have in the current geopolitical climate, but compromise relies directly on the positions of the environmental purists (those of us from the ivory towers).”
You’ve made an interesting point here, but not the one I think you were trying to make. One is that those who are the most angry and vocal are somehow in an ivory tower away from the action that they are away from the situation. Yet those I know and myself are on “the front lines” every day its our life blood. How many timber sales do I need to file before I realize it doesn’t work. How many polite letters did I need to write? How many developments did I need to groundtruth before I realized that it will go in regardless. The development that when in on the conservation land behind my house went in because they bought off the town consul (thus making an illegal act legal, compromise on their part) and then when we knew we couldn’t win in court because the town was bought off we settled, and they have yet to do one thing on the settlement. One thing. This is nothing new. In fact there isn’t one person I know that works on these issues and has actually worked with a developer that doesn’t lie and cheat. How many community gardens did I need to put in before I realized they wouldn’t solve poverty?
The only way for us to feel safe and not scared and not to feel the wrath of those in power is to say that their wants are reasonable. Not all sides are valid. Does a rapists desire to get off trump the safety and integrity of those they rape? Does the need for gold trump the rights of the land and those who live on it to live there without being poison? Does the need for coal valid compared to a livable planet and breathable air? Are healthy forests and rivers less important than aluminum can smelters, catalogues, and alfalfa?
By accepting their wants we accept the premises behind them. That’s the first rule of propaghanda and the first rule to maintain an abusive dynamic. Oh I was only hit because they love me.
“The most successful and most influential environmental non-profits (i.e, WWF, ED, Sierra Club) are those that embrace compromise.”
What do you meen by successful? What do you mean by influencial? All these organizations have been around more or less since the beginnings of western environmentalism in the 1970s. Yet, there are less in-tact forests now than then. There are less salmon. Less wild animals. Less opens spaces. Less spotted owls. There are less song birds. There are more dead zones in the oceans. More dioxin in breast milk. More cases of cancer. There is more sprawl. Co2 emissions are the highest they’ve been. The only thing these organizations have been successful in is instead of losing 90% this year, we’ll only lose 10%. They are just very slowly and very slightly slowing down a juggernaut that has more or less been consistantly destroying the planet and those on it for 8,000 years. By successful and infulential do you mean those that act the most like those in power. These organizations act like corporations, because they are. They convert to using their language. They convert the world into dollar bills. Its not how can we save this land but how can we save the money that this land provides. Which is all well and good as a tactic. But it is a tactic of defense and a tactic of loss. Our successes are no more than graceful failures. The shuffling of the sinking ship. I feel that these organizations give false hopes because they trump that a loss is a win as long as the loss wasn’t as bad as another loss. “Atleast they are only logging 10000 acres instead of 50000. A 10% emission reduction is better than no emission reduction.
You could also say that the most successful and influenctial ethnic groups (in our system) are those that act like white people. The most successful wild animals are those that act the most domesticated. The most successful indigenous groups are those that act the most civilized. It’s the same. In the system we live in, which is an abusive system. The more people can act like the abusers the less they will get hit. The more they will give away the easier they will be treated. The tribes that sided with the whites were more successful and influencial than those who who fought. My father stayed with my mom only because he knew that if he tried to leave he would lose my brother and I. Was that a victory or a tactful defeat? I would take hits and abuse from my mom to deflect those horrors from my brother. Was that a defeat or victory? What if I instead said no you cannot do this? What if my father said no? What of instead of suffering less abuse (I knew if I did favors for my mother I would get it less than if I did not do favors (if I was on her good side)) and when I said know, and attacked the dynamic, and thus her power, it was the worse punishment I would get. Not only that but I also got it from my siblings and father because I risked their comfort within the dynamic. It is the same with those who defend the earth. The movement conflates submission with victory. Its exactly parallel to the relation between victim and abuser, addict and co-dependent. When radicals perform radical acts, that is why the mainstream organizations get so afraid because they are afraid they also will get the retribution of the blashemous act of challenging the hegemony that the dominant culture has over the planet.
” Other non-profits that use alternative, less cooperative approaches are labelled as extremists and politically ostracized (e.g.,ELF).
Economic and political interests are among modern society’s most formative forces. Those non-profits that cooperate with these forces are more successful at generating funds to dissemenate their message, and they are more likely to attract a receptive audience.”
See My response above Those who cooperate with abusive people suffer less abuse then those who challenge the abuse. Those who submit to a rapist will suffer physically less than those who resist (though what does that do psychologically in terms of feeling powerless, and will they submit more easily the next time, and the next time, and the next time). How many more times before no more?
“The strategy of compromise has resulted in tangible gains, as suggested by the emerging green economy. Success stories like the NY cranberry bog are becoming increasingly common as environmental advocates are using the tools provided by the establishment to preserve ecosystems. The use of tax credits and conservation easements provide economic incentives for preservation. This approach has resulted in large tracts of land preservation across the Northeast while the local economies continue to grow.”
How much larger would those gains be if we said no? Where is this green economy? CO2 is up. Consumption is up. And continuing to rise. More species are becoming extinct. I don’t see it. A study just came out that looking into the credibility of those who say they have green products and out of the thousand odd products, one was actually green, a paper towel brand. Just because people say it is green doesn’t actually mean its green. This is only in the US. But this is a global issue. The southern oceans are not absorbing CO2. There will more than likely be no summer sea ice within a decade. How does this help polar bears? How does this help krill? We don’t have the time. The natural world is primary to the economic system. The tools of the establishment will never bring it down. If it did it would be illegal.
” Compromise has produced a new, more readily acceptable image of the environmentalist.”
The ethnic minority that acts more like white people is more acceptable than when they are angry. Because it challenges white peoples right to exploit and privelege. It doesn’t butter it up and say its okay.
” If all goes well, this approach To get there, we need compromise, or negotiation. And all successful negotiations are born from strategic positioning, which in this case is provided by the well articulated and reasonable positions of those advocating from the ivory towers.”
Yet what is called reasonable is determined by those in power. Or those who speak for those in power. Don’t listen to those radical environmentalists they are unreasonable, the economy has to grow. Don’t listen to the angry indians we have to have this land. Though I rather have less destruction than more. Compromise should not be the first tactic that is used.
I am saddened by the reaction of the 13 year old, who asked what good came in playing, if someone else wasn’t defeated. This points to a pernicious element, in fact, an underpinning feature of our national culture and psychology that public interactions require an adversarial stance in order to generate the kind of energy and dynamism needed to push action forward. This may be seen in the “classic” interaction between labor and management. In fact, there is an enormous variety of engines to human interaction and progress, a fact that can be verified by inquiry into various cultures. The fact that we proceed by adversarial relations represents not the best way of doing things, so much as a narrow, blinkered, might one say handicapped and ultimately self-ruining way?, of conducting our affairs.
The ruling politicians and economic brokers who maintain control over a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and military power in our time have no interest in either Zen or compromise. They want what they want and, as they tell us in demonstrable ways, they will have whatsoever they desire, come what may for our children, biodiversity, coming generations, global ecosystems and the integrity of Earth.
The leaders in my not-so-great generation apparently wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, increasing per capita consumption of scarce resources and skyrocketing human population numbers worldwide; their desires are evidently insatiable; they choose to believe anything that meet the ‘standards’ for political convenience and economic expediency; and they act accordingly. But, despite all their widely shared and consensually validated specious ideas and soon to be unsustainable production, consumption and propagation activities, Earth exists in space-time, is relatively small and bounded, and has limited resources upon which the survival of life as we know it depends. Whatsoever is is, is it not?
What worries me is this: the elder guarantors of a good enough future for the children appear to be leading our kids down a “primrose path” along which the children could unexpectedly be confronted with sudden, potentially colossal threats to human and environmental health, threats that are directly derived from converging human-induced global challenges such as pernicious impacts of global warming and climate change, massive pollution of the air, water and land from microscopic particulates and solid waste, and the reckless dissipation of scarce natural resources. All the while, the leading elders remain willfully and foolishly in denial of the fulminating ecological degradation by declining to acknowledge, much less beginning to address, humanity’s emerging, human-driven predicament. One day, perhaps sooner rather than later, our children could have extraordinary difficulties responding ably to that with which they could soon come face to face; that is to say, because their elders have so adamantly refused to so much as openly recognize God’s great gift of good science of global warming and climate, our kids will not even know what “hit” them, much less why it is happening.
Save the world from greedy fat cats and fossil fools.
The last best chance for the children is “now-here”. Let’s hope those with power to create the colossal ecological mess that is now presented to humanity will agree to help clean the global mess up before it is too late for human interventions to make a difference. Human-induced challenges can certainly be acknowledged, addressed and overcome by human-driven action.