The following is a coherent summary of the provided extracts, rewritten with one sentence per line, without deviation from the facts and within 2000 characters:

About 40% of climate change is caused by other factors.

This is not a complete explanation, but I do not know of any better approach to a first approximation.

Many people cannot sell anything at a high enough price to make it possible to sleep legally in some space on the planet and to avoid the humiliation of not being able to play the roles of a normal member of society.

Often, they call it the rule of law.

In 1940, he wrote a book entitled “The Filipino Way of Life: The Pluralized Philosophy” published in New York.

The idea of being a pluralized society has become far more acceptable now than just before and after the Second World War.

We believe in the power of community to create a more inclusive, egalitarian, and sustainable system.

Now is the time to be cognizant of TAYO.

We invite all those who share these values to join us and be guided by the spirit of TAYO in building a better future for all.

It has been quite accurately observed that we live in a world of permanent change.

And it is true.

The liturgy is no longer seen as a printed text to be studied, but as an action to be performed, a celebration in which to join, an event in which all the senses play their part.

We are told to go to work and subdue the earth.

He took the whole messy bit and worked with it as man.

He was a miserable failure and a total success.

When confronted with a new environment man has a tendency to try to live in the past.

The first is clarity.

The gospel is, after all, Good News.

Time has released more than 5,000 covers since our founding almost a century ago.

Why do you think that is?

What gives you hope about the future of our planet and the climate?

Instead, [grassroots movements] are characterized by the collective action and shared goals of individuals who are deeply committed to a cause.

The way we tell a story makes a difference.

The following is a coherent summary of the provided extracts, rewritten with one sentence per line, without deviation from the facts and within 2000 characters:

About 40% of climate change is caused by other factors.

Title:

Content: What Must Be Done – OpEd

By

Videos produced by The Drawdown Project –a project that appears to be well-funded and to have the support of some (but not enough) powerful institutions—outline what must be done to prevent more climate catastrophes worse than the catastrophes already happening.  The main staff members of the project, including the narrator of the videos (Jonathan Foley) are climate scientists.  What must be done for the most part is in some measure already being done, but it is now done on too small a scale to stop or to reverse humanity´s lockstep march toward self-destruction.

What must be done includes drastic cutbacks in the carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels.  Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels alone accounts for 62% of the global warming observed today.  About 40% of climate change is caused by other factors.  Construction using cement to make concrete and deforestation, for example, also add to CO2 emissions without being, strictly speaking, the burning of fossil fuels.  About 11% of today´s climate change is due to deforestation.

Emissions of other gases besides CO2 like methane and nitrous oxide also cause climate change.   Rice cultivation and gas belching farm animals are major methane culprits.  Fertilizer use is a major nitrous oxide culprit.  Fluorinated gases leaked, for example, from refrigeration, are also important.

Going back to the single biggest factor, burning fossil fuels, about 25% of the damage –the largest single component of that factor—is burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.  Food production, industry, and transportation (gas guzzling autos and airplanes) are not far behind.

Another part of the picture is formed by the sinks that take C02 and other harmful gases out of the atmosphere.  Natural sinks that remove CO2 from the atmosphere are found in forests, natural soils, and oceans.  To save itself and the biosphere humanity must, first and foremost, reduce emissions.  And to arrive at the sustainable planet that it is necessary –not optional—to create, humanity must follow up by protecting and enhancing natural sinks.

Without pretending to be social scientists or political philosophers, the climate change scientists at Project Drawdown assert that social justice and protecting the cultural heritage and land rights of indigenous peoples are indispensable components of transitioning to a sustainable world.  Foley (the narrator) confesses to being mystified by the apparently inexplicable tragic spectacle of human beings bitterly divided and hostile to one another, polarized and armed.  Project Drawdown might be heard to be shouting over and over,

“Whatever it is that you are doing that is keeping you from doing what must be done to reverse climate change, stop doing it, and instead do what must be done.”

Some causal connections explaining the social paralysis standing in the way of doing what must be done are not hard to see.  Two examples:

  1. The general objective of South Africa´s National Development Plan (NDP) is to achieve 5% annual economic growth, and then to use the surplus generated by the growth to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030.  The NDP pays lip service to fighting climate change, but in the end the overriding goal of growth trumps doing what must be done.  The NDP funds building a new railroad to carry coal from mines to ports in order to create jobs and to grow the economy with the revenues earned by selling coal to India.
  2. Appalachian miners afraid of losing their steady jobs and being dumped into the precariat, rally in support of a populist presidential candidate carrying signs proclaiming, “Trump mines coal.”

These easy to see examples of the frustration of ecology by economics suggest a simple general approach to understanding polarization and paralysis:  economic imperatives inherent in the dominant system clash with what must be done.   It is a simple approach that might be classified, if it must be assigned to a discipline, under the heading “philosophy of history” or “global dynamics,” or “sociological theory” “global political economy” or “International Relations Theory.”  Whatever rubric best suits it, the same approach, I claim, that explains paralysis regarding  doing what must be done a large scale to cope with climate change, helps  explain also paralysis in saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war;  paralysis in stopping organized crime, drug lords, and the steady advance of narco culture; and in general the inability of human beings as a species to work together to do what should be done and must be done.

Whatever the problem, the primary necessity to satisfy investors, where investors are the key decision makers deciding whether the economy stops or starts, is constraint number one.  This constraint further shortens the already short list of possible, as distinct from merely imaginable, solutions to the problem.

Here I do not mean that structural explanations exclude human creativity, rule out conspiracy theories, and deny the existence of conscious decision-making in one great Levi Straussian structuralist straitjacket.   I mean striking a balance recognizing both structural imperatives and conscious agency.

A good example of such a balance is Alfred Marshall´s Law of Substitution.  Whenever a more efficient way to run a profitable business doing or making something, for example generating electricity, is discovered, it will become, ceteris paribus, a substitute that will drive out old-fashioned customary practices.  Emile Durkheim makes a similar point when he gives as an example of a social fact, the fact that a businessperson could, if she or he chose to do so, opt for using obsolete technologies, but to do so would be to invite certain ruin.

Nonetheless, Durkheim cannot deny a flip side explicit in Marshall:  It is the conscious and often creative efforts day after day of businesspeople seeking success every day for their business, that drives an overall historical trend that leaves obsolete and inefficient technologies behind.   One could add other trends similarly driven.

So, I allege that the simple fact that in today´s business civilization most humans are on most days doing what they must do, to solve their immediate need to get by, pay their bills, and to keep their business going if they have a business, trying to make sure that in today´s win lose world, they are among the winners and not among the losers,  explains why everybody does not, immediately upon receipt of the news that a green transition is not optional but necessary, just down tools, pick up new tools, rewire brains, and set about doing what the Drawdown Project says humanity must do. This is not a complete explanation, but I do not know of any better approach to a first approximation.

Let´s approach the big picture via Keynes.  It changes everything, Keynes writes, to deny the best-known law in economics, Say´s Law, and to appreciate the far-reaching consequences of a chronic weakness of effective demand.  Its flip side is the chronic weakness of the inducement to invest.  Hardhearted as we have become living in the framework of today´s dominant institutions, we simply take it for granted and see it as natural that employers do not hire people because everybody needs a dignified livelihood, but rather if and when it is profitable to hire them.  Nothing seems more natural than pulling the USA out of a long depression with war spending, and then continuing economic growth led by government deficits featuring a permanent warfare state.  Nothing seems more natural than the elites (i.e., the investors) of the rest of the world counting on U.S. trade deficits to generate profitable trade surpluses for them.   Nothing seems more natural –in today´s dominant warped vision of reality—than reliance on permanent war establishments to generate economic security for millions who would not otherwise have it.

Designing a sustainable world that meets human needs in harmony with nature is not likely to figure as a relevant way to occupy one´s mind to a young person pursuing a military career.   That young person is quite likely to be seen by his or her family as a success compared to siblings and cousins who do low paying part time work at McDonald´s.  The less successful members of the family often tend to drift off into drug abuse and into the regular practice of the seven deadly sins.

It does not take much philosophy to persuade the former, the healthy young people pursuing a military career, that the moralistic rhetoric in the media that portrays her or him as honorably serving high ideals with advanced military technologies, trumps the agenda of the Drawdown Project.  Something that does spark their interest, when push comes to shove, is advancing their careers by accumulating combat hours.

There is not necessarily any coherent relationship between the life-worlds of the many different participants in the drama of history –between what is going on in their heads and what they do every day – and the structural fact that the system only works, with some unstable semblance of stability, when huge and unpayable debts are making up for the chronic weakness of effective demand and for the weakness of incentives to invest.

Looked at from a nonviolent perspective, the preceding simple idea is the flip side of another simple idea: what Mahatma Gandhi called modernity´s lack of dharma.  Gandhi´s coining of the word adharma names the norms that organize the life and define the personality of homo economicus.

Step one of theorizing the dynamics moving history in today´s global economy should, I allege, consist first and foremost of identifying the constitutive rules of markets as causal powers.  They are the generative mechanisms that govern, ceteris paribus, the physical organization of the production of the means of subsistence that makes human life possible in today’s global economy.

It does not follow, however, that what most motivates human beings is the acquisition of the means of subsistence.  For example, there are many cases where the need for dignity and self-respect trumps the need for food.

It does follow that market economies are economies with losers. Many people cannot sell anything at a high enough price to make it possible to sleep legally in some space on the planet and to avoid the humiliation of not being able to play the roles of a normal member of society.  Violence and paralysis are built into the constitutive rules of buying and selling.  And not only because those rules organize and rationalize a world where warfare states are generated by a chronic need to strengthen the inducement to invest.

It follows that Kantian dreams of perpetual peace achieved by enforcing Kantian ethics and Kantian jurisprudence on a global scale are not much different from political realism.  Liberals inspired by Kant or Kant-like ideals, advocate rigid norms legally and morally obligatory everywhere and everywhen.  Often, they call it the rule of law.

The counter-dreams of the political realist define themselves as non-Kantian. Realist prescriptions can be defined as counter dreams (counter to idealistic liberalism).  They tolerate atrocities that allegedly are necessary atrocities. It turns out, nota bene, that using evils to fight allegedly greater evils often is a way to minimize the political risks to investors.  Thus it serves the cause of high economic growth and low inflation.   It rationalizes a global rule of law, a single world market organized by world rules, backed by the military might of a hegemon.  The classic Kantian and realist viewpoints (today joined by several others) turn out to be complementary ways to organize a world order that systematically generates humiliation, conflict, and violence.  Both lend themselves to imagining that the problem (growth) is the solution (growth).   Neither one takes seriously the findings of the climate scientists or aims to liberate humanity from the tyranny of economic imperatives.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS)

Prof. Howard Richards

Prof. Howard Richards is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. He is a philosopher of social science and Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, USA. He was educated at Redlands High School in California, Yale, Stanford, University of California at Santa Barbara, University of Toronto, Harvard and Oxford. He currently teaches in the University of Cape Town`s EMBA programme. His books include: The Evaluation of Cultural Action, a study of an application of Paulo Freire´s pedagogical philosophy in rural Chile (London Macmillan 1985); Letters from Quebec; Understanding the Global Economy; The Dilemmas of Social Democracies; Gandhi and the Future of Economics; Rethinking Thinking; Unbounded Organizing in Community; and The Nurturing of Time Future. His new book, written with the assistance of Gavin Andersson, Economic Theory and Community Development: Why Putting Community First Is Essential for Survival, is now available from the publisher, Dignity Press, and from Amazon and other major booksellers, as a print book and as an eBook. [email protected]

Often, they call it the rule of law.

Title:

Content: A SOJOURNER’S VIEW: How Filipino youth could be the hope of the fatherland in this computer age

Share this story

CEBU CITY (MindaNews / 21 June)—In my last column published in MindaNews last June 11, I entitled the piece, “Quo Vadis the Filipino youth today on 125th anniversary of our Independence?” In this essay, I asked the question: “So how are the Filipino youth today able to maneuver through this volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) society? Faced with this rather bleak reality, how can the Filipino youth of today (those of the Millennial and Gen-X generations) be expected to even consider the question: how can we be patriots?”

I ended that column by introducing the reader to Mr. Camilo Osias—first Filipino Superintendent of Schools (1915 to 1916), Assistant Director of Education (1917 to 1921), later Secretary of Education (1940s), a lecturer at the University of the Philippines (1919 to 1921), 1934 member of Constitutional Convention in 1934, National Assembly member in 1935, Senate President (1952-53). I wouldn’t be surprised if the Filipino youth of today hardly know this very distinguished Filipino scholar and statesman.

In 1940, he wrote a book entitled “The Filipino Way of Life: The Pluralized Philosophy” published in New York. Written almost 80 years ago, long before the current popular philosophical theories are taught in our universities (decolonial, post-colonial, post-structural and post-modern theories) as well as the advancement of computer technology with the dawn of the Information Age, Osias’ philosophical framework finds resonance in contemporary Philippine society.

The idea of being a pluralized society has become far more acceptable now than just before and after the Second World War. Today we Filipinos—especially among the youth—there is greater consciousness that we live in a Republic characterized by different classes, ethnicities, religious and cultural traditions, genders, sexual orientations, age differences, level of physical and mental capacities and other categories of identities. And yet we are called to be united if our Republic is to advance in her vision to be a truly free, just and sovereign nation-state! And we her citizens are all called to be patriots!

Osias’ vision of how a pluralized society is encapsulated in his appropriation of a Tagalog word—TAYO (an inclusive word to mean we or us, i.e., including people speaking and including people spoken to). But when pronounced tayô: it means condition, social position or stance. Thus, tumayô means to take a stand, to stand up, to rise, to position oneself; and magtayô means to set up, to build, to erect, to put up and to construct. TAYO is thus the perfect Pilipino word to capture the essence of Osias’ pluralized philosophy.

Here’s a quote from his book indicating what is the vision of his TAYO philosophy:
“Under the… Tayo, or pluralized concept, there is no room for the practice of ‘Let (Juan) do it.’ Everybody must do his duty and bear his share of the burden and responsibility. Participating, thinking, and doing are prominent features of the pluralized philosophy. The people must be… schooled in the lessons of justice, liberty, and democracy… They must value peace and order, personal freedom and political liberty. Young and adults alike must learn to conceive and develop democracy by experiencing and living democracy.

“The pluralized philosophy presents efficiency, freedom, and happiness as the trinity of objectives most worthwhile in life. It is wedded to democracy and seeks to deepen faith in, and increase devotion to, democracy. There must be a continual striving for democratic objectives following democratic processes. The Filipino way of life—yes, the human way of life —recognizes the value and sanctity of human personality and seeks co-operation and solidarity among individuals within the nation and among nations.”

But an important question—which naturally did not arise in Osias’ era—but which confronts us today in this post-modern world is this: Is this pluralized philosophy relevant to the lives of today’s Filipino youth considering how different their lives are to those of Osias’ generation? Compared to the post-war reality, the VUCA landscape has turned far more complex with major shifts in geopolitics the US/EU/Japan clique no longer holds dominion as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa; but recently Iran and Saudi Arabia want to join) alliance is getting stronger as well as in terms of the urgent issues demanding global responses (e.g., the impact of climate change, the rise of pandemics and the contentious migration waves, fundamentalist resurgence, the popularity of populism and so many others).

And the youth of today has little convergence with those of the 1960s-1980s by way of their socio-political engagements. They are ensconced in their own world and it is not fair for those of the baby boomers and Gen-X generations to expect them to be copycats. After all, they live in a very different context their parents and grandparents would not have imagined might arise in just a few decades since their youth. This especially because of how the computer and other technological gadgets have become integral in the everyday lives of our youth today.

The high-tech revolution is unstoppable and is fast progressing into new apps, algorithms, social platforms and all that that jazz. Unlike their elders, they maneuver through these labyrinthian corridors with ease often leaving their elders perplexed! It seems they are now slowly starting to lose interest in email, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter with the fast entrance of artificial intelligence beginning with ChatGPT, the sibling model to InstructGPT trained to follow an instruction in a prompt and provide a detailed response. Despite the fears expressed by the moguls of the internet world, including Elon Musk, AI technology is bound to grow by leaps and bounds. And now we are hearing this thing called Singularity which would produce the mythical bionic man!

So is it possible to bridge youth activism (among millennials, Gen-Z and the next generation) and the computer technology? Jon Traya—a Davao-based millennial philosopher-architect-artist-businessman—is offering a possible model. An Osias disciple, as he appropriated the TAYO philosophy, he has crafted an app that the Filipino youth of today might want to consider. That is, if they do want to have some kind of engagement in responding to the country’s socio-political ills. Which can be done online, without having to go out and march in the streets! Here is Traya’s Manifesto for TAYO (which was publicly released last June 12, Independence Day):

We believe it is time for a new economic and social organization model.
We believe in the power of community to create a more inclusive, egalitarian, and sustainable system. We cast aside the traditional models of capitalism and communism, which prioritize profits and political ideologies over the needs of people and the planet.
We forward the concept of the third space in this digital world, where people from diverse backgrounds and experiences may come together to collaborate and co-create a better future; A space unbounded by the constraints of the past and creatively open to new and innovative ideas that challenge the status quo.
We are committed to building social networks in an atmosphere of trust and cooperation; to leveraging the unique strengths and resources of our community members.
We believe in the power of the collective and the importance of equal access and opportunity within our community.
We surmise that the traditional models of capitalism and communism/socialism have failed to deliver on their promises of prosperity and fairness for all—it is now time for a new approach that recognizes the interdependence and interconnectedness of all individuals and communities to emerge.
We propose an alternative model in the context also observed by Camilo Osias—the pluralized idea.
We propose TAYO.
TAYO has been unconsciously guiding us in our worldview (“kalibutan,” “palibot,” “libot” or around us). It is rooted in our being, in our language, embracing us, and somehow escapes our consciousness. Now is the time to be cognizant of TAYO.
TAYO emphasizes the power of networks and social connections in shaping ideas and economic outcomes.
TAYO recognizes the importance of building social capital, leveraging indigenous knowledge and cultural traditions, and equalizing access within the network.
TAYO seeks to build communities rooted in the ideals of inclusivity, equity, and sustainability.
We invite all those who share these values to join us and be guided by the spirit of TAYO in building a better future for all. Together, we create a kalibutan that is all-inclusive, a we-all-world not limited to species, color, race, ethnicity, ideology, territory, or religion as its basis for unity but recognizes plurality and interdependence of all.

TAYO is We. We Stand, We Build, Us Together. The Collective We.

Only time will tell if this TAYO agenda will take off and resonate with a mass of our Filipino youth. But there is already an available app, that in your computer appears in the company of the other apps. In a sense this is a genuinely Filipino app taking advantage of a foreign technology.

If you are interested, check out https://tayoapp.com, available for both Apple and Android.

A few days ago we celebrated the 162nd birthday of Dr. Jose Rizal who was born in 1861. Rizal is known to have written: “The youth is the hope of the Fatherland!” If he were born today, what would be his suggestion as to how the Filipino youth could truly be the hope of the Fatherland?”

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Redemptorist Brother Karl Gaspar is Mindanao’s most prolific book author. Gaspar is also a Datu Bago 2018 awardee, the highest honor the Davao City government bestows on its constituents. He recently moved to his new assignment in Cebu City.)

Your perspective matters! Leave a comment below and let us know what you think. We welcome diverse viewpoints and encourage respectful discussions. Don't hesitate to share your ideas or engage with others.
The MindaNews Podcast
-- ad here--

MINDAVIEWS

TOP STORIES

Title:

Content: By Leonel L. Mitchell

Edited and introduced by Richard Mammana Jr.

In 1964, Leonel Lake Mitchell (1930-2012) became the first person to receive a Th.D. in liturgical studies from an Episcopal seminary when he completed doctoral work under sometime Living Church editor H. Boone Porter at General Theological Seminary in New York. From 1971 to 1978, Mitchell served as an assistant professor in the University of Notre Dame’s Department of Theology and as director of its M.A. program from 1974 to 1978. He was the first Episcopal priest to serve as a full-time faculty member at Notre Dame. From 1978 to 1995, Mitchell was professor of liturgics at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary and lecturer in Church history and liturgy at Seabury-Western from 1978 to 2005, after which he became a professor emeritus. From 1978 until his death he was an honorary canon and canon theologian (from 2008) at the Cathedral of St. James in South Bend, Indiana.

Mitchell was a key reviser of the Book of Common Prayer, producing draft and proposed rites, as well as related catechetical, explanatory, and ceremonial material. His 1985 book Praying Shapes Believing: A Theological Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer has been a standard seminary textbook since its publication. He was a member of the drafting committee of the Standing Liturgical Commission from 1964 to 1979 while serving as a parish priest in the Diocese of New York.

Advertisement

This essay, distributed in pamphlet form at the 1973 General Convention in Louisville, was published by the former American Branch of the Anglican Society, based at GTS. It had previously been published in an issue of The Anglican quarterly and has not been anthologized to date.

Leonel Mitchell

It has been quite accurately observed that we live in a world of permanent change. Change is, in fact, the only constant factor in the history of our planet. The pre-Socratic philosophers recognized this. The little old lady who complains, “Things just aren’t the same as when I was young,” has recognized it. And it is true.

Although change in the world has always been with us, the rate of change has not been constant. There have been periods of relative stability and of extremely rapid, or revolutionary change. We are, of course, living in a period of rapid change. In the strictly ecclesiastical sphere we hear of “The New Reformation” and “Ferment in the Church.” In the larger world we are confronted with statistics assuring us that 90 percent of the scientists who have ever lived are alive today, or that 85 percent of the drugs on your pharmacist’s shelf did not exist in 1940. It is a staggering thought. Even more staggering is the thought that most children now in elementary school will earn their living at jobs that do not exist at present, or the prediction that by the year 2000 about 80 percent of the population will not have what we call a job at all.

Marshall McLuhan, the English professor turned communications expert, believes that the new electronic media, principally the television and the computer, are largely responsible for the change in environment of the present. Our own ingenuity and inventiveness, he assures us, is responsible for the passing away of “our man-made visual environment” which dates from the fifth century B. C. “Our consternation in facing this development,” he says, “is entirely of the ‘didn’t know it was loaded’ variety.”[1]

“The new electric galaxy of events has already moved deeply into the Gutenberg galaxy. Even without collision, such co-existence of technologies and awareness brings trauma and shock to every living person. Our most ordinary and conventional attitudes seem suddenly twisted into gargoyles and grotesques.”[2]

It is not necessary to follow the intricacies of McLuhan’s logic to recognize that he is accurately describing the world in which we live, and work, and worship.

In a recent paper on the revision of the liturgy, I have suggested that our modern liturgical writers have neglected the three most important events in modern liturgical history: the invention of printing, the mimeograph, and television. I believe this thesis can and should be defended.

“The invention of typography,” McLuhan says, “confirmed and extended the new visual stress of applied knowledge, providing the first uniformly repeatable commodity, the first assembly line, and the first mass-production.”[3] Unquestionably the production of printed liturgical books was accompanied by an insistence on uniformity. The first prayer book of 1549 was accompanied by an Act of Uniformity and had as its avowed purpose the elimination of the “great diversity in saying and singing in churches,” so that, “Now from henceforth, all the whole realm shall have but one use.”

And in Europe, according to the great Roman Catholic liturgical scholar Joseph Jungmann, “The greatest and most consequential innovation of the Mass book of Pius V was the enactment, clearly expressed in its bull of introduction, that this book was to be, from then on, the standard in every church and that no changes were to be made therein.”[4] The issuance of the Pian Missal in 1570 was followed by the founding, in 1588, of the Sacred Congregation of Rites to insure the uniform performance of the Latin rite. The liturgy (both Roman and Anglican) ceased to be alive and became a treasure of the past, to be protected, venerated, and used without deviation.

To quote McLuhan again:

Later medieval visual stress muddied liturgical piety as much as electronic field pressure has clarified it today … With regard only to our new electric technology, it might baffle many to explain why there should be such a profound liturgical renewal in our time, unless they were aware of the essentially oral character of the electric “field” … The merely individual and visual aspects of worship no longer satisfy.[5]

Even if we do not accept Professor McLuhan’s arguments, there can be no reasonable doubt that his conclusions are correct. The liturgy is no longer seen as a printed text to be studied, but as an action to be performed, a celebration in which to join, an event in which all the senses play their part. It is, in fact, alive again. It is the celebration of life by the Christian community.

In 1936 the first television broadcast took place in England. In the previous year, Fr. A. Gabriel Hebert wrote Liturgy and Society, which is in many ways the opening gun of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement in the Anglican Church. “Here is part of the ideal: that all those who live in one place should eat and drink together before God,” he said. “The task of the Church in the future will be to re-create a social life.”[6]

This social emphasis is, perhaps, the distinguishing mark of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, which sets for itself no less a goal than “to claim every aspect of life for God Himself.” It is nothing less than this, and not tinkering with ceremonial, which is the goal of the Movement. Offertory processions, celebrations facing the people, public baptisms, revision of the Prayer Book, and all of these things are not the goals of the Liturgical Movement, but the means, the tools, by which we seek to fulfill God’s mission to the world through the Church. To put it in other words: worship is not one activity among other activities, it is the environment in which Christians must live.

Sister Corita expressed one aspect of this when she said, “To really see what we ordinarily look at from time to time makes fireworks happen inside us that can’t always be contained when the brightness of a person or a thing is discovered, or uncovered. These moments are small celebrations, daily exercises, that keep us in form for the big ones.”[7]

This grounding of worship in the celebration of life has as its theological foundation the doctrines of creation and incarnation. Perhaps again Sister Corita has given them their simplest modern expression:

Man is called to be like God, as Creator, as Maker. In a sense every man is supposed to be an artist. That’s the word. We are told to go to work and subdue the earth. And we have elsewhere in the same book a description of the earth standing on tiptoe waiting eagerly to be saved, and somehow man has something to do with the saving. The earth is waiting to receive the stamp of man, as he forms it further, because creation was just the beginning. We carry on what God started.

Further on, we find that God became man and stamped his approval on the whole system into which he came, and which he never left. He took the whole messy bit and worked with it as man. He was a miserable failure and a total success. And so nothing should be unfamiliar to us. Nothing needs to be left out. It can all be taken in. And along the way we can be miserable failures. Hopefully the parallel will carry thru at the end, and we will be total successes in the long run. This is our hope.[8]

This is the gospel which the Church is sent to proclaim. It is one and unchanging, but the world to which we are sent to proclaim it is continually changing, and the gospel needs continually to be translated into terms which the world can understand. This means not only that the actual language of the proclamation needs to be translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English, or Spanish, or Japanese, but also that it must be translated into thought forms which our culture can comprehend. We human beings, as many writers from St. Paul on have noted, are engaged in running a race.

God is the start and finish, but the course we travel is through the world of the 1960s. This means that our compass settings may well differ substantially from those of someone who ran in another time and place. Indeed, one of the mistakes of the forerunners of the present Liturgical Movement was to seek to re-establish the worship of an earlier age by withdrawing from the present to live ideally in the past.

But liturgy must be an expression of the life of the actually existing community which offers it as worship. Our worship must be the offering of our lives to God, not the lives of fourth- or 15th-century Christians, for the world in which we live is very different from that of the early Church or of the Middle Ages.

The best figure I have heard to describe this difference is that of Cinerama and the stereopticon. The stereopticon gives us a very accurate picture of the world. It gives it in color and 3D, but it is a still picture — something which we can observe, and about which we can reason. In many ways this is the picture reflected in the worship of the Book of Common Prayer, the Pian Missal, or any of the great Reformation church orders. On the other hand, Cinerama places us in the center of a three-dimensional movie. It produces an environment which moves and changes. In that sense it is a more accurate picture than the other, for reality does not stand still for us to observe it. I believe that it is this second view of the world which underlies the new approach to liturgy at the present. It is dynamic rather than static, an experience rather than a visual effect, McLuhan rather than Gutenberg, Teilhard de Chardin rather than Thomas Aquinas. It is what is happening, and it is a new environment. As McLuhan reminds us, “New environments inflict considerable pain on the perceiver.”[9]

Certainly the pain is evident today as the Church groans and travails under the New Theology, the New Morality, the New Liturgy, Sensitivity Training, and all the other “new things” which have burst upon our ecclesiastical lives. When confronted with a new environment man has a tendency to try to live in the past. We watch World War II movies, or Bonanza, and talk about the simple pleasures of grandfather’s day. We forget that “Most of us today would vigorously object to living in the house or doing the job our great-grandfathers did. The fact is that most people’s great-grandparents were dirt-poor and lived in hovels.”[10]

In Church too we want to see everything the way it was. We picture the Church of our childhood, conveniently forgetting its weaknesses, and try to recapture it at its best. But this is a different world. We can no more live in 1928 or 1948 than in 1549 or 325. What was appropriate then may be impossible now.

More specifically, I would say that worship, to be effective in the modern world of rapid change, must have four principal qualities:

  1. The first is clarity. We must not bury action under an avalanche of words, and the words we do use must be such that the average intelligent man can understand them without special training. Ceremonies and symbols should illuminate the words, rather than require further explanation. The great sacramental symbols carry a built-in authenticity. We eat the Bread, we drink the Wine, we wash with the Water.
  2. The second quality is corporateness. Liturgy means the work of the people, and it must be the action of the whole Christian people, rather than something done for them by the priest. In both Protestant and Catholic worship the priest or minister has tended to become a performer, and the congregation, the priestly people of God, have been reduced to an audience. The Church is not the same as the hierarchy, however, and baptism, not ordination, is the mark of the Churchman.
  3. The third quality is flexibility. It is perhaps an overstatement to say, “Gutenberg made it possible to put Prayer Books in the hands of the people; A.B. Dick made them obsolete,”[11] but it is on the right track. The mimeograph and the Xerox have made the loose-leaf prayer book and Hymnal a possibility. The idea of uniformity in worship is a part of that later medieval visual stress which we are only now getting away from. Cranmer, in his laudable desire to simplify the rubrics, removed almost all of the variety and flexibility of the older rites. The necessary things for Christian worship are few indeed. From Christ himself come the use of Bread and Wine for Holy Communion and Water for Baptism, the Lord’s Prayer, and the framework, or shape of the Eucharistic liturgy (and that has undergone universal modification). A great deal of flexibility about everything else is possible, even within the traditional framework.
  4. The final quality is celebration. Even Christian penitence should end on the note of joy in forgiveness. The gospel is, after all, Good News. In Baptism we pass from death to life. In the Eucharist we are banqueters feasting at the table of the conquering King. Even at funerals we celebrate the resurrection and our continued fellowship in the Communion of Saints.

Too often the Good News seems to come out, “Life is damn serious business, we’re here to let you know it.”[12] But the Christian life is a love affair with God, and worship is meant to be its celebration. “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the lamb.”[13]

What we must strive to do is not to revive the worship of some other age, nor to perpetuate that of the immediate past, but rather to offer God our best. The modern expression “doing our own thing” is exactly what is necessary: not a pale copy of Geneva, or Sarum, or Renaissance Rome, or even of Nicaea or Jerusalem, but our celebration of our life in God and with one another in Him.

[1] War and Peace in the Global Village, p. 13

[2] The Gutenberg Galaxy, p. 278f.

[3] ibid., p. 124

[4] Mass of the Roman Rite, Vol. I, p. 138

[5] The Gutenberg Galaxy, p. 137f.

[6] op. cit., p. 183

[7] Footnotes and Headlines, p. 171

[8] ibid., p. 20ff

[9] War and Peace in the Global Village, p. 7.

[10] Cox, Harvey, The Secular City, p. 52.

[11] White, J.F., “Worship in an Age of Immediacy,” in The Christian Century, Vol LXXV, No. 8 (2-21-68), p. 229

[12] Berrigan, D., in Footnotes and Headlines, p. 11

[13] Revelation 19:9

About The Author

Richard Mammana is a lay church historian, author, beekeeper, father, husband, and communicant of S. Clement’s Church, Philadelphia.

Related Posts

And it is true.

Per Travis Kelce, how many athletes are flat-earthers?

The first is clarity.

The gospel is, after all, Good News.

Title:

Content: October 27, 2022 7:00 AM EDT

Time has released more than 5,000 covers since our founding almost a century ago. The new issue’s is the first one where the viewer’s eyes create the image.

In the run-up to the COP27 climate conference—the U.N. meeting at which global leaders will negotiate the next steps toward managing that crisis—we sought a cover image that could speak to the intensity of the current climate situation. So we turned the cover (or rather, covers) over to one of the world’s most prominent contemporary artists, Olafur Eliasson.

Eliasson creates sculptures and large-scale installations that employ elemental materials such as light, water, and air to enhance the viewer’s experience of the ordinary. To accomplish the effect on TIME’s cover, the Icelandic-Danish artist used a technique called afterimaging. Following the instructions on the page—staring at the green heart for 12 seconds and then flipping to the next page—allows your eye to “re-imagine” our overheated planet in the greens and blues that are the colors of a healthy earth.

Read more: Olafur Eliasson’s Poem to Accompany His New TIME Cover

“An afterimage is basically created within your own perceptual apparatus—by your eyes and brain, that is—whenever you look at something. You don’t generally see or notice them unless you look at something for a long time and then turn away to look at a blank surface,” he says. “The colors that you then see—the colors that are produced on your retinas—are, generally speaking, the complements of the colors printed in the image: blue for orange, red for green, and so on.”

Eliasson applied that optical illusion to an image of the globe, which has been tilted to show a face of the earth that is different from the view most readers will be familiar with, to “heighten the strangeness of the image.” Looking twice, after all, is what Eliasson’s cover asks us all to do. And it’s no coincidence that the visual anchor at the center of it all is a heart. “This image is not actually there on the page, but inside you,” he says. “You create it. You make the world.”

He spoke to TIME about the thinking behind the cover.

TIME: Can you point to a singular moment when you discovered that you could tell the story of the climate and nature through your art? What do you love most about working with the materials of light, color, and nature?

Eliasson: It’s true that I did not initially begin my practice as an artist by working on the topics of climate change and the environment. Like many people of my generation, I grew up taking nature for granted as something unchanging. My interest in working with materials like light, color, water, fog, and other natural phenomena grew out of my desire to dematerialize the art object, to make things that were less physical than, say, ephemeral or atmospheric. I was very interested in the larger context that surrounds an exhibition and in expanding what we consider to be art and whatnot.

In 2003, around the time that I created The Weather Project—the large artificial sun in the Turbine Hall of the Tate Modern, in London—I began thinking about the weather, about how it affects our lives, and our moods, and our experiences, and how we in turn affect it. From there, it was not a great leap to thinking about how we are affecting the planet as a whole through human-induced climate change. My friend Jonathan Safran Foer said it quite succinctly with his book title: We Are the Weather.

When TIME’s declared the “Endangered Earth” to be Person—or rather Planet—of the Year for 1988, the cover of the magazine featured a plastic-wrapped globe by artist Christo. In the 30-plus years since, despite a trove of urgent scientific facts, the issue of climate change has still struggled to gain global acceptance. Why do you think that is? Can the urgency of climate change be communicated more effectively? Why do you think some of the world’s leaders aren’t grasping the immediacy of the situation?

A lot has been written and said about this topic over the years, and my thinking about it has especially been inspired by the research of Elke Weber, professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton. She and others have pointed out how certain biases in the way we think affect our actions and keep us from acting to do what needs to be done: that we prefer to maintain the status quo rather than to change things simply because of the uncertainties of acting, or else that we think by doing one thing, we have done enough, whereas climate action requires us to change many of our habits on many different levels, from what we eat to how we travel and to how we build our cities. These are changes on an individual level, but especially on a systematic, societal level.

There is a lot of evidence that fear-based communication about the dangers of climate change are not as effective as communicating concrete actions, but this is still the main way that the climate emergency is communicated in the media. I think the experiences of the pandemic, and the struggles to enact comprehensive, science-based policies to combat the virus, have taught us a lot about the limits and possibilities for enacting change to habits on a large scale. I do think that you need to give people a positive image of the future that they are working towards—a more equitable, sustainable world for all, both humans and non-humans alike.

I love that your work makes the viewer experience something—whether it’s the sun inside the Tate Modern or huge chunks of glacial ice for Ice Watch. Can you talk about the importance you place on actually experiencing nature and the climate through your art? And how do you experience it?

There is something extraordinary about the direct experience that art can offer at a moment when so many of us encounter the world via digital devices. Whether it is a live music performance, theater show, or art exhibition, there is something about being in one’s body at a certain place and at a certain time, sharing an experience with others that cannot be replaced by our devices—as we learned during the pandemic. Especially when you think about something as large-scale and seemingly distant as climate change, it is often precisely this experiential level that is missing in motivating action. If you can provide a concrete, tactical experience of climate change—as I tried to do with Ice Watch in 2014, 2015, and 2018—you can bring home the reality of the threat to people who only know it via the media, via news and photographs. Of course, today things are a bit different than they were even four or five years ago, when I last brought Greenlandic ice to let it melt in public space, in London. Now I think more and more people have direct experience of the effects of climate change—whether it’s more powerful storms and flooding, or extreme heat and droughts and forest fires.

In the afterimage you created for TIME’s cover, what would you like the reader to experience?

What I find so fascinating about afterimages is that they are created not externally by me, but internally, in the eyes of the person observing them. In fact, you always have and create afterimages, whether you are aware of this fact or not. Here it is made explicit; you are asked to bring something to the image on the cover of the magazine. It is for you to complete. It is my hope that viewers take away from this some idea of how much their own perception of the world contributes to making it. And if we can see the world anew—or even just our representations of the world—then we can think about it in a new way too, and I hope even change it.

What gives you hope about the future of our planet and the climate?

I recently had the profound pleasure of working with many kids and young people on a project called Earth Speakr, which we created on the occasion of the German presidency of the European Council, in 2020. For this I created an app that allowed kids to record spoken messages in which they talk about their hopes and dreams for the future of the planet. Then, using augmented-reality technology, they could project an animated face onto any object in their environment, so that the object they had chosen could speak their message for them. We took their messages and shared them with politicians and other powerful adults to show them the kids’ thoughts and concerns about the state of the planet. It was deeply inspiring to see how articulate they are in voicing their ideas. I have the feeling that the young people today are thinking very much from a standpoint of the future—unlike my generation, which often seeks refuge in history and visions from the past. This gives me great hope for the future of our planet.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

You May Also Like
EDIT POST

Why do you think that is?

Instead, [grassroots movements] are characterized by the collective action and shared goals of individuals who are deeply committed to a cause.

Title:

Content: What is a Grassroots Movement?

Grassroots movements have played a pivotal role in shaping societies and driving change throughout history. They are often associated with passionate individuals coming together to advocate for social, political, or environmental transformation. In this article, we’ll delve into the concept of grassroots movements, exploring what they are, their characteristics, and their impact on society.

Understanding Grassroots Movements

grassroots movement is a type of social or political movement that originates from the ground level of society, driven by ordinary citizens rather than established institutions or organizations. These movements are decentralized and often lack hierarchical leadership structures. Instead, they are characterized by the collective action and shared goals of individuals who are deeply committed to a cause. Here are key aspects of grassroots movements:

1. Bottom-Up Approach

At the heart of a grassroots movement is its bottom-up approach. Unlike top-down initiatives that are often led by governments, corporations, or established organizations, grassroots movements are driven by the people themselves. They emerge organically from the concerns and aspirations of individuals within a community.

2. Inclusivity and Diversity

Grassroots movements are inherently inclusive and diverse. They bring together people from various backgrounds, including different ages, races, genders, socioeconomic statuses, and political affiliations. This diversity enhances the movement’s strength and credibility, as it reflects a broad cross-section of society.

3. Lack of Formal Hierarchy

Grassroots movements typically lack formal leadership hierarchies. Instead, decision-making is often achieved through consensus or democratic processes. Leaders may emerge based on their dedication, experience, and ability to inspire others, but they do not hold the same centralized power as leaders in traditional organizations.

4. Passion-Driven Activism

Grassroots activists are motivated by a deep passion for their cause. They are willing to invest their time, energy, and resources because they believe in the urgency and importance of the issue they are addressing. This passion is a driving force behind the movement’s momentum and resilience.

Characteristics of Grassroots Movements

1. Grassroots Mobilization

Grassroots movements are known for their ability to mobilize people on a local and sometimes national or even international scale. They use a variety of strategies, such as community organizing, social media, and grassroots marketing, to reach and engage supporters.

2. Grassroots Funding

Funding for grassroots movements often comes from small, individual donations and volunteers rather than large financial institutions or corporations. Crowdfunding platforms and direct appeals to supporters play a significant role in financing these movements.

3. Grassroots Campaigning

Grassroots campaigns focus on public awareness and advocacy. They use strategies like community meetings, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and social media activism to influence public opinion and pressure decision-makers.

4. Grassroots Impact

Despite their decentralized nature, grassroots movements can have a substantial impact on policy and public discourse. They bring critical issues to the forefront, hold institutions accountable, and often drive tangible change through their persistence and determination.

The Historical Significance of Grassroots Movements

Throughout history, grassroots movements have played a pivotal role in promoting positive social and political change. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States is one of the most iconic grassroots movements. It aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination. Led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., it utilized nonviolent protests, boycotts, and grassroots organizing to challenge systemic racism.

2. Women’s Suffrage Movement

The fight for women’s suffrage, which granted women the right to vote, was another grassroots effort. Women’s suffrage activists organized rallies, marches, and letter-writing campaigns to advocate for their rights.

3. Environmental Movements

Grassroots environmental movements have had a global impact. Examples include Greenpeace’s efforts to protect the environment, the anti-nuclear movement, and more recently, climate change activism led by figures like Greta Thunberg.

4. LGBTQ+ Rights Movement

The LGBTQ+ rights movement has made significant progress through grassroots activism. It has focused on raising awareness, advocating for legal rights, and changing societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Modern Role of Grassroots Movements

In the modern era, grassroots movements continue to be powerful forces for change. They have adapted to new technologies and communication tools, allowing them to reach a wider audience and mobilize support more effectively. Here are a few contemporary examples:

1. Black Lives Matter

The Black Lives Matter movement, which emerged in the 21st century, is a powerful example of grassroots activism. It advocates for the rights and equity of Black individuals, challenging systemic racism and police violence.

2. #MeToo Movement

The #MeToo movement, driven by social media, has empowered survivors of sexual harassment and assault to share their stories and demand change. It has led to important discussions about consent, gender equality, and accountability.

3. Youth-Led Movements

Youth-led grassroots movements, such as the March for Our Lives, have brought attention to issues like gun control. They demonstrate that young people can be powerful advocates for change.

4. Environmental Activism

Environmental grassroots movements continue to be crucial in addressing climate change and environmental issues. Movements like Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement advocate for urgent action on climate-related challenges.

The Impact and Future of Grassroots Movements

Grassroots movements continue to shape society, and their impact is undeniable. They serve as a counterbalance to entrenched power structures and provide a voice for marginalized or underrepresented groups. The future of grassroots movements will likely see continued adaptation to new technologies, as well as an ongoing commitment to social, political, and environmental justice.

In conclusion, a grassroots movement is a powerful force for social and political change, driven by individuals who are passionate about their cause. These movements are marked by inclusivity, decentralized structures, and a bottom-up approach. Throughout history and into the modern era, they have played a crucial role in addressing critical issues and shaping societies around the world. The future of grassroots movements promises to be just as impactful, driven by the dedication and determination of individuals who seek to make a difference.

Clare Louise

Title:

Content: Skip to content
The Well

Why we are the only humans in the Universe and why it matters for our collective future

The acceptance of our cosmic loneliness and the rarity of our planet is a wakeup call.
Key Takeaways
  • For millennia, tribal divisions governed humanity. But what was good for our ancestors and their survival now seeds deeply destructive and predatory behavior. Humanity needs to unite.
  • One way for humanity to unite is to realize that we are the only humans in the cosmos. Even if life exists elsewhere, it won't be like us.
  • Therefore, the human voice is unique in the cosmos. If we ruin our project of civilization, the Universe will once again become silent.

We need to change the way we see each other and our relation to our home planet. For thousands of years, tribal divisions have ruled the way we humans have organized ourselves in groups. Unfortunately, what was good for our ancestors and their survival now seeds deeply destructive and predatory behavior.

We don’t care about the other living creatures with whom we share this planet. We don’t care about the planet. We don’t understand what is needed for our survival as a species. As the news tells us daily, we remain profoundly divided, prone to isolate ourselves in groups that define the way we think and behave. Widespread political strife, cultural intolerance, and tribal entrenchment are symptoms of a deeper problem: Our focus on material greed and unstoppable growth is choking civilization and the planet along with it. Civilization is at a crossroads. To move beyond, we need to reframe our connection to other living creatures and to the planet we all share.

A new unifying narrative

We need a new unifying narrative that has the power to awaken humankind to a very urgent truth: that despite our political and religious differences, we are a single species living on a fragile and rare planet. This narrative must break down the tribal walls that separate us; it must make a convincing case that we need to work together if we are to protect our way of life and the planet that harbors it. Scaring people about the dangers of global warming, social unrest, and mass extinctions is not working. We need something new, something that we can all share, that we can all relate to, that can awe and inspire us into action — a positive, constructive, inclusive message that resonates with young and old alike, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z. We need a new narrative of mythic proportions that unites us as a species and brings our planetary fragility to the forefront. We need to restructure our project of civilization.

The essence of this new narrative, which I present in a forthcoming book, is that the Universe has a history only because we are here to tell it. But this story is not just about the Big Bang and the expanding Universe, of myriad galaxies and stars, of electrons and quarks, of planets and moons. It is a story of the interconnectedness of the nonliving with the living, of the uniqueness of our planet and its biosphere, of our cosmic loneliness and its deep moral implications. The way we tell a story makes a difference. And the story of who we are and of our planetary role needs to be retold.

Consider the nascent Earth 4.5 billion years ago, a hot ball of molten matter, bubbling and boiling as it slowly took shape. Debris from leftover protoplanetary matter in the form of comets and meteors collided mercilessly with young Earth, causing major havoc but also delivering life’s essential building blocks: water and a variety of chemicals, including some simple organics (that is, chemical compounds with carbon). We could call this the cosmic angry-gifting era. The onslaught would only quiet down some 600 million years after Earth’s origin, around 3.9 billion years ago. If elements had gathered to make some kind of living creature before then, the poor thing was probably destroyed without a trace. Life may have had many false starts, lost in the dust of time.

We are the only humans in the Universe

To understand the history of life on Earth, we must understand Earth’s life history. This is true for any planet that may harbor life, whether in the past, the present, or the future: The history of life on a planet is contingent on the planet’s life history. And here is the amazing consequence of this fact: given that no two planets have the same history, life is not a repeatable experiment. Even if different life forms share the same biochemical principles across the Universe, being carbon-based and gene-driven by Darwinian natural selection, each world will harbor its own kind of living entities, which will mutate and evolve according to chance and the world’s unique changing environment. The living creatures on a world carry the indelible imprint of the world’s properties and history.

The preceding argument speaks to us directly. Life on Earth is unique: If there is life elsewhere, it will be different. We can state with confidence that we are the only humans in the cosmos. And given that we are, for better and for worse, the dominant intelligent life form on this planet — I do love and respect whales, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, cats, etc., but they don’t write poetry and build radio-telescopes or nuclear bombs — we are unique in our kind of intelligence. If there are intelligent life forms in other stellar systems, “they” will not be like us, even if they may share some of our traits, such as an approximate left-right symmetry. Furthermore, any existing alien life form is so far away that, for all practical purposes, we are alone. This means that the spectacular transformation that has unfolded on our planet from a barren ball of molten rock to a thriving abode for life matters in a very central way, what I like to call biocentrism.

The next time someone repeats the tenets of Copernicanism, that we are nothing in the vastness of the cosmos, that science teaches us how worthless we are, please beg to differ. We matter. We matter for our uniqueness as thinking molecular machines capable of transforming raw materials into revolutionary technologies, products of four billion years of evolution on a planet that matters for its uniqueness as a stable abode for the prolonged existence of life. These two inter-related conditions — the existence of intelligent life and a planet that offers long-lasting shelter for its creatures — are not likely to be encountered with high probability in the cosmos. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, it will be rare.

Biocentrism

We have learned much about where we are and what we are made of. Our amazing tools have greatly extended our vision of the world and of the Universe beyond. We also have learned that there is much that we don’t know, and much that we will never know. Our reach is wide but limited. Nature need not comply with our flights of fancy. Science tells us how nature works and not how it should work. As we began to send probes across the Solar System, we were struck by how different these other worlds were, how magnificent and barren — and how indifferent to life.

Subscribe for a weekly email with ideas that inspire a life well-lived.

We have longed for the harmonies for too long; we have longed for cosmic companionship — divine or alien — for too long. We must accept that we are alone in the cosmos, if not in absolute terms — as we can never be certain of what lies beyond the reach of our instruments — at least in practice. This makes us very special indeed. And it creates a new purpose for humankind.

Note that this is very far away from a return to an anthropocentric worldview, to pre-Copernican times when the Earth was the center of Creation. (I call it biocentric to make the distinction clear.) Biocentrism is necessarily post-Copernican. I am saying that we are unique and important — but not for having been created by a god, or for being the result of a purposeful cosmic directive.

We are unique and important for being self-aware living entities capable of asking questions about their origin and future. We may not be the measure of all things as Protagoras of Abdera proclaimed long ago, but we are the things that can measure. We experience the world, we measure it, and we tell stories about what we see and what we feel. And what we are finding out is that we may very well be the only ones asking such questions — or, at the very least, the only ones we know of, which effectively amounts to the same thing. Even if “they” exist and tell stories, their stories will not be ours. There is only one human voice in the cosmos. And if we ruin our project of civilization, the Universe will once again become silent.

A planetary wakeup call

The acceptance of our cosmic loneliness and the rarity of our planet is a wakeup call, ringing to awaken a new collective consciousness. I believe it to be the new unifying myth of our generation, with the power to go beyond tribal divides and bigotry, to lead us into a new era of human flourishing. But for this to happen, we need to change how we relate to life and to the planet that allows us to exist. We are not above nature, and we don’t own it. We are a part of it and depend on it for our existence.

Life is rare. We are rare. This planet is rare. Treasure life and planet, worship it, learn from Indigenous cultures and their sacred connection to the land. This is the moral imperative of our time, what we owe future generations and the life we share this planet with.

Related

Up Next


Disney has increasingly produced live-action remakes of its classic animated films in the past decade, including titles such as Cinderella (2015), The Jungle Book (2016), Beauty and the Beast (2017), Dumbo (2019), Aladdin (2019), The Lion King (2019), Mulan (2020), Pinocchio (2022), and The Little Mermaid (2023).

Nostalgia plays a significant role in driving these projects, as audiences often seek to reconnect with the stories and characters they loved as children.

Studios aim to balance authenticity with relevance by updating stories and characters, such as casting diverse actors and exploring new themes reflective of contemporary values.

In the case of The Little Mermaid (2023), the movie was directed by Rob Marshall and written by David Magee, and featured updates such as greater character depth and changes in objectives for the protagonist.

Production challenges, like aligning technology with storytelling—such as creating convincing water effects—demonstrate the complexity behind remaking animated classics into live-action.

The creative teams behind remakes view the projects as ways to bring their own artistic sensibilities while honoring the originals, which can spark debate over how closely the new characters and visuals should resemble the originals.

Public reaction has been mixed, with some viewers calling for strict fidelity to the animated versions and others welcoming fresh takes and diverse casting.

New adaptations may also inspire expansion into spin-off series, such as the proposed animated series featuring Halle Bailey’s Ariel from The Little Mermaid.

Live-action remakes have sparked conversations about representation, authenticity, and technological innovation in storytelling.

The enduring popularity of characters and stories has allowed Disney to expand their universes through new series and multimedia projects, emphasizing both nostalgia and modern reinterpretation.

Disney has increasingly produced live-action remakes of its classic animated films in the past decade, including titles such as Cinderella (2015), The Jungle Book (2016), Beauty and the Beast (2017), Dumbo (2019), Aladdin (2019), The Lion King (2019), Mulan (2020), Pinocchio (2022), and The Little Mermaid (2023).

Title:

Content: How Disney Brought Back Robin Williams' Genie for 2023's Once Upon a Studio (Exclusive)

By Russ Milheim Posted:

Two key producers from Disney Animation revealed how they brought the late Robin Williams’ Genie back for the company’s newest short, Once Upon a Studio.

In 2023, Disney is celebrating its 100th anniversary. To do that, the studio is dipping into its extensive history to create a new short that pulls from over 85 of the company’s previous feature-length films and shorts.

This new project is called Once Upon a Studio, and it will see 543 Disney Animation characters come to life in a whole new way. Not only that, but it will even feature crossovers that fans have only ever dreamed of.

Have you ever wanted to see Moana and Flounder share a moment together, or Tinker Bell with Mickey Mouse?

Many things became possible when Disney set its eyes on making this impressive new short a reality, which also served as the opportunity to bring together scores of classic characters.

Bringing Back the Genie

Brad Simonsen and Yvett Merino, the producers for Disney Animation’s newest short, Once Upon a Studio, spoke exclusively to The Direct about the new project and revealed how they worked to bring Robin Williams’ Genie back for a brief moment.

Robin Williams debuted as the voice of the legendary Genie in 1992's Aladdin but refused to return for 1994's Aladdin 2 due to a merchandising-related fallout. The disagreement was later settled and the comedy icon returned as the Genie for the 1996 direct-to-video threequel, Aladdin and the King of Thieves.

Simonsen shared that “[they] knew from the beginning” that Williams’ iconic Genie needed to partake in the fun, so the team “reached out almost immediately to [the late actor’s] estate:”

“... We knew from the beginning that the Genie needed to be in this movie, right? So we reached out almost immediately to [Robin William's] estate. And we started sharing with them what we were up to. And then what we did is we actually looked at outtakes. Dan Abraham, our director, looked at outtakes from the recorded sessions and then chose those lines.”

He continued, noting that they quickly “went back to the family” to “[make] sure that [they] were on the journey together:”

“And then we went back to the family and the estate and shared, 'Hey, this is the specificity. [Disney animator] Eric Goldberg is going to be part of this.' So it was really a collaboration with them. And us making sure that we were on the journey together.”

As for the short itself, Merino added how the “first cut was about 12 minutes long” and figuring the final version out quickly became “a balancing act:”

“I think [the] first cut [with Directors Dan Abraham and Trent Correy] was about 12 minutes long. It was like, we can't make a 12-minute short in this amount of time. So we had to really make sure, be careful, that every interaction that we have was timed specifically to that interaction. It became as like, 'Oh, we're spending a little bit more time on this, and it takes away from this.' So, it became like a balancing act of doing that.”

But with such an ambitious short, Merino confirmed that Once Upon a Studio unsurprisingly posed “a lot of unique challenges,” namely in marrying multiple styles of animation while also taking place in a live-action setting:

“There were a lot of unique challenges in this one. I think bringing in the various styles of hand-drawn and CG into our studio and making it feel like they actually are walking in our studio and walking the halls and making them blend seamlessly.”

The producer continued, pointing out the shot with “Moana and Flounder,” an interaction that was “difficult to make them look like they’re living in the same world:”

“There's the shot… the Moana shot because that's in the trailer; like the Moana and Flounder shot, right. And when you're interacting, you're not only having them in the same scene, which is difficult to make them look like they're living in the same world, but they're actually interacting, holding, and touching. And so it's really a credit to the incredible talent of artists and technicians and production people that we have here in the studio to make sure it all works together.”

Simonsen jumped in to explain how they worked closely with production designer Ryan Long, the directors, and animator Eric Goldberg “to make sure that everything was working:”

“I was just gonna say, Ryan Lang, our production designer, we worked really, you know, closely, Dan and Trent worked really closely with him and Eric Goldberg to really do these tests. So we'd take, like, a single frame, and he'd paint over, and we'd really work with the artists to make sure that everything was working together. So each shot had kind of that love.”

One key element of many Disney animated projects is the musical elements. While there is a moment towards the end of the short, fans shouldn’t expect these many characters to be consistently singing tunes as they glide through the halls of the Roy E. Disney Animation Building.

But were more songs ever considered? Simonsen shared that maintaining the balance between all these character moments and musical numbers “would be very hard to do:”

“What we realized was with every second you're with a character, you're taking away time from another character when you're trying to get as many in as possible. So it would be very hard to do musical numbers and still keep that pace that we have.”

Merino expressed how Once Upon a Studio “was a fun one to screen [internally]” because many of the notes would center around adding new characters or moments into the story:

“This one… was a fun one to screen [internally] because the notes were more about like, 'Oh, well, remember this character? Oh, try to get this character.' And there were some good story notes about making sure that we keep a drive alive within the short. It was really fun because we have so many great directors and writers in our studio who have such a history here. They were like, 'Oh, you can put this character in there. Oh, what about this?' So it was a lot of fun. Yeah.”

Brad Simonsen added how they “did a survey to the entire studio” that encouraged people to pitch their ideas to the team:

“Yeah... And we even did a survey actually, after the original pitch, we did a survey to the entire studio and said, 'Hey, if you have ideas, please, please pitch them.' And one of those ideas that came out of that was the moment near the end of the short as they're all gathering. Where Oswald actually tips his hat to Mickey, and Mickey says, 'After you.' That was literally--someone suggested that as one of our team members, yeah.”

The conversation then pivoted to two of Disney Animation’s biggest franchises and their future.

The first topic at hand was Encanto, a film that quickly became a fan favorite after it debuted in 2021. The Direct asked the producers what audiences should expect from the franchise going forward, to which Yvett Merino confirmed that the team is “[continuing] to kind of look at different ways that [they] can keep the world alive:”

“I think we will continue to work on what that actually means. But we are so blown away by the reaction and how 'Encanto' kind of connected with so many people. We continue to kind of look at different ways that we can keep the world alive. I know they teased a little bit of Destination D23 about something 'Encanto' coming, possibly to one of the parks. And we love that…”

The producer continued, admitting she “[doesn’t] have anything official to say” but she’s excited to see the franchise “expand across the company:”

“… There's different—we're working closely with our friends in publishing and consumer products to make sure—there's always different ideas and needs and wants for, for it to stay alive out there. But I don't have anything official to say, but I love the 'Encanto' world and can't wait to see it expand across the company.”

The Direct then asked about the studio's upcoming animated sequel Zootopia 2 to see if the producers could share any fun teases.

Brad Simonsen was able to say he “know[s] that this next one’s going to take it to another level” compared to the original:

“We're all super excited about it. And it's a world that, you know, I was part of the first movie, and it was one of the most amazing experiences in my life, to be honest. And I know that this next one's going to take it to another level and be, as you know, as good or better than the first. So we're super excited about that project.”

More Disney Crossovers to Come?

Once Upon a Studio is definitely different than Disney Animation’s usual shorts, but fans are undoubtedly going to fall in love with it. Seeing all of these classic characters interact in previously inconceivable ways scratches an itch many never realized they had.

Maybe if the short really catches on, Disney Animation could commission a larger project that would allow Disney’s large library of characters to interact in similarly unique ways. Hopefully, fans won’t have to wait another hundred years before some more crossovers like this happen again.

The next step in celebrating Disney’s 100th anniversary will be the release of Wish, the company’s next animated movie, which will be released on November 22. The film follows Asha, a young girl who wishes for a star, only to get a much more direct and magical response than she ever would have thought.

Once Upon a Studio will make its Disney+ debut on Monday, October 16.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Nostalgia plays a significant role in driving these projects, as audiences often seek to reconnect with the stories and characters they loved as children.

How has Disney leveraged nostalgia in recent years?

By turning classic animations into live-action films with major stars

Studios aim to balance authenticity with relevance by updating stories and characters, such as casting diverse actors and exploring new themes reflective of contemporary values.

Title:

Content: It’s possible that being an only child was one reason I was not exposed to the phenomenon of Disney princess worship during my youth. On the other hand, the lack of a coordinated merchandising effort during the 1970s probably had much more to do with the fact that the company’s princess lineup wasn’t yet emerging as a cultural trend.

In that decade, Disney focused most of its marketing on the so-called “Sensational Six” core characters, including Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Pluto, Goofy, Donald Duck, and Daisy Duck; along with product tie-ins to the 1977’s “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.”

Of course, Disney had only made three princess movies up to that time. Those included 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” 1950’s “Cinderella,” and 1959’s “Sleeping Beauty.” Following the introduction of Aurora in 1959, Disney would make moviegoers wait 30 years for the next princess to arrive in a film that would herald the start of the Disney Renaissance.

And that film was 1989’s “The Little Mermaid.”

Written and directed by John Musker and Ron Clements, the 28th Disney animated feature film was very loosely based on the 1837 Danish fairy tale of the same name by Hans Christian Andersen. It boasted a string of memorable songs that brought imbued the production with Broadway panache. Alan Menken wrote the score, and collaborated with Howard Ashman on the songs. The film scored three Academy Award nominations, winning two for Best Original Score and Best Original Song for “Under the Sea.”

The animated film featured the voices of Jodi Benson, Christopher Daniel Barnes, Pat Carroll, Samuel E. Wright, Jason Marin, Kenneth Mars, and Buddy Hackett.

Buoyed by the success of “The Little Mermaid,” the Disney Renaissance ran from the late 1980s to the late 1990s and unleashed a series of critically and commercially successful animated films. Of the 10 films considered part of this period, five were Disney princess films. By 2000, the list of Disney princess included Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. Andy Mooney, a former Nike executive who had been named president of Walt Disney Company's Disney Consumer Products division, saw an opportunity. He pitched the Disney Princess franchise line — and a generation of children became entranced consumers.

More than 20 years have gone by since the end of the Disney Renaissance and the official launch of Disney’s Princess Line. These days, Walt Disney Pictures is focused on making live-action adaptations of its animated films. The latest of these is “The Little Mermaid,” directed by Rob Marshall from a screenplay written by David Magee. The film was released theatrically on May 26.

When evaluating a remake, adaptation, or reinterpretation of a classic film, one must consider not only the quality of the new film, but also how it compares to the original. It’s not enough to ask if the film entertaining and well executed. One must also determine what makes the remake valuable in its own right.

“The Little Mermaid” is set in the 1830s in the Caribbean. Ariel (Halle Bailey), youngest child of King Triton (Javier Bardem), lives in an underwater kingdom. Disney wisely mentions in its synopsis of the film that Ariel is 18 years old — not 16, as she was in the animated version.

Unlike her older sisters, Ariel is defiant and rebellious. She is captivated by a world beyond her reach, defying her father’s orders to study humans and collect their possessions from shipwrecks. She is often joined in this endeavor by her aquatic companions Flounder and Sebastian (voiced by Jacob Tremblay and Daveed Diggs, respectively); as well as by the birdbrained Scuttle (voiced by Awkwafina), a seabird whose understanding of human culture is amusingly erroneous.

When a sailing ship she has been watching is destroyed in a storm, she rescues Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King). When Triton learns Ariel interacted with the surface world, he goes on an overprotective father rampage, destroying her collection of bric-a-bracs, baubles, and curios while reiterating his mandate that she should not indulge her inclination to learn, explore, or meet new people. Ironically, Prince Eric’s adoptive mother, Queen Salina (Noma Dumezweni) places similar constraints upon him because she is fearful of the outside world and of losing her son.

Desperate to be reunited with Prince Eric — who she is in love with despite the fact that the two haven’t even actually met at this point — Ariel turns to Triton’s evil sister Ursula (Melissa McCarthy), a scheming sea witch who sees this as an opportunity to oust Triton and take power over all the world’s oceans. Ursula strikes a deal with Ariel, giving her legs in exchange for her voice. There’s a catch: If Ariel fails to receive true love’s kiss from Eric before the end of three days, she will become Ursula’s property. To make sure Ariel fails, Ursula also causes her to forget about needing to score that kiss.

That’s just the setup. If it seems a bit drawn out, imagine how it feels watching it on the screen. With a runtime of 2 hours and 15 minutes — 53 minutes longer than the 1989 animated version — it sometimes feels like we’re treading water. One wonders if, in a post-pandemic world filled with ADHD brains, kids can manage to maintain focus on this narrative that meanders its way from scene to scene without a sense of urgency. Sebastian and Flounder know that there is a looming deadline, but in this version of the story, Ariel has been robbed of that knowledge. In the animated version, she at least had a specific objective. She actively worked toward that goal. In this version, she is a starry-eyed young woman crushing on someone she barely knows, drifting dreamily between infatuation and limerence.

Because it is both a retelling of a classic fairy tale and a redesign of a beloved Disney property, the film suffers from a pronounced scarcity of creativity and originality. There are updates to the story, changes in individual characters, and a few additional songs. Some of these facelifts work, such as the addition of Queen Salina. Some of these addendum fall flat, such as Eric’s song “Wild Uncharted Waters,” written by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Miranda’s song “The Scuttlebutt,” performed by Awkwafina and Diggs, is a more palatable add-on, despite that fact that it is jarringly different tonally from other music in the film.

All the film’s flaws and miscalculations can be forgiven by its most impressive saving grace: Bailey’s performance is as remarkable as it is enchanting. Bailey stands out again and again in the murky, sketchy CGI undersea sequences, glowing with charisma and agency. She brings the magic that is noticeably lacking in elsewhere in the film, balancing the nostalgia of childhood memories with a contemporary attitude. She carries this film on her shoulders, filling it with a sense of wonder and awe that will inspire children to seek out unexplored horizons and work toward achieving their dreams.

Mind you: I’d prefer Ariel did not have to literally transform — for a man — to be deemed successful. This version somewhat mitigates that theme. Personal transformation is fine when prompted by a desire to become a better person, while self-change enacted strictly to please an individual or a group is unwise and unhealthy.

The film also features recurring examples — both subtle and palpable — that show gender equity, diversity, and inclusivity are beneficial to society. These are the very same principled concepts extremist legislators and ultraconservative judicial officials currently vilify as “woke,” as if being socially aware, compassionate, and empathetic has somehow become objectionable. If you ascribe to that mindset, you should probably skip this movie.

The bottom line is “The Little Mermaid” may not be as artistically inspired as the animated version, but a standout performance by Bailey keeps the film afloat. It frequently captures the kinetic energy of a Broadway stage production, delighting audiences both with signature songs and newly added sequences that enhance the story and the characters. It is consistently entertaining, with sporadic moments of dazzling brilliance.

If you don’t trust an old curmudgeon to properly evaluate a Disney Princess film, I’ll share a few points my 16-year-old daughter made.

According to B.C. Zumpe, the film’s CGI could have been better. She particularly enjoyed a scene in which Ariel and Eric are dancing in a village near his castle, while a Caribbean band plays.

“Some people want all the characters to look exactly like the originals,” she said. “It wouldn’t be fair if Disney excluded Halle just because of her skin color. They chose her for her voice and her spirit. Even if you’re only upset because she looks different from the Ariel you grew up with, you can’t expect them to keep everything the way you want it.”

My daughter also felt that Awkwafina did a good job in voicing Scuttle. She appreciated how the film promoted the idea that it is good to interact with other cultures and be open to new ideas.

She’s a good kid.

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Halle Bailey stars as Ariel and Jonah Hauer-King as Prince Eric in “The Little Mermaid.”

Photo courtesy of DISNEY

Melissa McCarthy stars as Ursula in “The Little Mermaid.”

In the case of The Little Mermaid (2023), the movie was directed by Rob Marshall and written by David Magee, and featured updates such as greater character depth and changes in objectives for the protagonist.

Production challenges, like aligning technology with storytelling—such as creating convincing water effects—demonstrate the complexity behind remaking animated classics into live-action.

What criticisms did the live-action Little Mermaid face from reviewers?

The creative teams behind remakes view the projects as ways to bring their own artistic sensibilities while honoring the originals, which can spark debate over how closely the new characters and visuals should resemble the originals.

Public reaction has been mixed, with some viewers calling for strict fidelity to the animated versions and others welcoming fresh takes and diverse casting.

How did audiences react to the 2020 Mulan live-action remake?

Some positive reactions praising both changes and additions

What aspect of Disney's strategy has been questioned due to the mixed reception of The Little Mermaid?

What controversy did Disney's The Little Mermaid spark globally?

Debate over both Ariel's casting and racial representation.

New adaptations may also inspire expansion into spin-off series, such as the proposed animated series featuring Halle Bailey’s Ariel from The Little Mermaid.

Title:

Content: Simplemost

Actions

Disney launching animated series based on Halle Bailey’s Ariel

Posted at 6:45 AM, Jun 15, 2023
and last updated 2023-06-14 22:26:57-04

Disney is expanding the world of the live-action “The Little Mermaid” film with a brand-new animated series coming to its Disney Junior network.

Even as the live-action movie — featuring Halle Bailey as Ariel — continues to swim along in theaters, Disney executives announced the newest project for everyone’s favorite mermaid.

“For more than 30 years, the story of ‘The Little Mermaid’ has been beloved by audiences all over the world,” said Ayo Davis, president of Disney Branded Television during the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in France. “It brings me so much joy to be able to introduce our new Disney Junior version of Ariel to preschoolers everywhere.”

“Disney Junior’s Ariel,” a series designed for preschoolers, will expand Ariel’s world under the sea. The Ariel character will stay true to Bailey’s live-action character in the recent movie and tie in Caribbean culture, including music, food, festivals, folklore and even fashion.

“As we were developing ‘Disney Junior’s Ariel,’ we knew that we wanted to create an atmosphere that was vibrant and magical and showcased our young Ariel’s imagination, which, like our preschool audience watching at home, is as big as the sea,” said Alyssa Sapire, senior vice president of Development, Series and Strategy for Disney Junior in a press release.

According to Billboard, the story will take audiences back to Ariel’s childhood. Familiar characters, such as Flounder, Sebastian, Ursula and King Triton, will appear in the series. Two new characters, merchildren Lucia and Fernie, will debut as Ariel’s best friends.

The new animated series is the latest addition to products inspired by the live-action movie. Lego recently released three new building sets modeled after the live-action characters and Disney recently debuted a new “Little Mermaid” doll inspired by Bailey.

The actor reacted emotionally to the new doll in a Twitter post earlier this year.

“I am literally choking up because this means so much to me,” she said in the video. “And to have one that looks like me, that’s my favorite Disney character, is very surreal.”

“Disney Junior’s Ariel” will debut on Disney platforms in 2024.

This story originally appeared on Simplemost. Check out Simplemost for additional stories.

Live-action remakes have sparked conversations about representation, authenticity, and technological innovation in storytelling.

The enduring popularity of characters and stories has allowed Disney to expand their universes through new series and multimedia projects, emphasizing both nostalgia and modern reinterpretation.