Earth in Mind - All in

It's pretty tough to take issue with any of the points made by David Orr in his book Earth in Mind. He lays out a very passionate argument about why we need to think deeper and more clearly on the issue of environmental education. It's his passion however, that sometimes leads him to step onto shaky ground in terms of laying out practical solutions to problems.

Orr at times reminds me of one particular friend who I play poker with from time to time. He is the sort of poker player who very often plays the cards that are on the table rather than the cards that are in his hand (we play Texas Hold 'em if you're familiar with the game) and often are often disproportional to his cards. In poker, you would call that overplaying your hand and I feel that Orr does this throughout the book.

For example, in chapter 14 he lays out some suggestions for reforms to the educational system. One of those suggestions was to begin the process of environmental education through immersion into a particular environment - a hands on sort of approach. However, then Orr proceeds to make this suggestion "For example, a course on a nearby river might require students to live on the river for a time, swim in it, canoe it, (etc.)." (96). Suggestions like this trip me up not because it's a bad concept, but because it seems so impractical. He took what was a good concept - integrating hands on knowledge - with the idea that we should all go and live on a river for a week (what seems to me to be a practical nightmare). And so, Orr really overplays his hand here by taking a good idea too far.

Yet at the same time, the audacity of Orr's thinking makes his argument that much more irresistible. He writes,

A constituency able and willing to fight for the ong-term human prospect must be educated into existence. It must be scientifically literate enough to recognize politicized science for what it is. It must be courageous enough to face facts squarely. It must be committed enough to avoid seductions of cheap citizenship. It must be intellectually alive enough to demand careful and thoughtful analysis of public problems. It must be able to tell the difference between ecological sense and nonsense. This will require, in Paul Kennedy's words, 'nothing less than the reeducation of humanity." (126)

He has ambitious goals and big dreams about creating an education system that takes seriously environmental concerns for our day. A legitimate question that could be asked of him is "Is all this really necessary?" or even more to the point "Is all of this really possible?" Can we reeducate humanity? However, it also seems that a larger question stands behinds Orr's argument, and that is "Can we afford not to?" His case is compelling, but what is even more compelling are the facts that indicate that we are living on the brink of an unsustainable world. To put it in poker terms, Orr is arguing that we have to go "all in." We have to change our understanding of the environment, consumption, politics and education or we simply will face consequences that we are not prepared for.