So you say you want a revolution...

More thoughts from slightly above sea level...

I've been taught, and learned from personal experience, that revolutionary change happens only rarely and under extraordinary circumstances while most change occurs incrementally.

Amidst a discussion of caribou reintroduction, the exaggerated tales locals tell of grizzly encounters, and the forest management practices of the US Forest Service in Idaho, Brian Johnson reminded me of this truism. But it didn't sit well with me and I pondered its relevance to human societies. It finally struck me that the sophistication of human societies leads to a subtle shift in the rule – it is not the existence of extraordinary circumstances that matters in fomenting revolution but instead the perception of extraordinary circumstances.

The implications of this idea are twofold. For starters, if society is unaware of the need for revolution, it will not occur. And perhaps more powerfully, if society perceives the need for dramatic change despite the lack of any such need in reality, revolution can be instigated by those controlling the message. This second implication can lead to change that benefits, or harms, the very society that implements it.

I appreciate your skepticism. Naturally the media (the fourth estate) investigates anything that we, the society they cover, needs to be aware of and reports back to us when revolution is warranted. Or do they? Many of North America's raptor populations (including the bald eagle) were in serious decline because of bio-accumulation of the chemical DDT as it moved up the food chain. Dramatic change was warranted. An outright ban on the use of DDT was indicated but it wasn't until the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring that action was taken. Society's ignorance led to inaction.

Remember when Greenpeace used to do more than sell calendars, solicit donations, and lobby Congress? The Rainbow Warrior brought whaling issues to the fore of society's consciousness by going to sea and putting itself in harm's way between whalers and their prey. Many referred to those idealistic mariners as eco-terrorists, or dare I say, environmentalists. But their extreme tactics put the over-harvest of whales on the front page. School children were alarmed and “Save the Whales” echoed throughout society effectively changing global monitoring of marine mammal populations.

In addition to outright ignorance of the need for revolutionary change, the suggestion of doubt regarding a particular issue can stymie change, and prevent revolution. For decades the tobacco industry in the US denied a link between smoking and lung cancer despite their own data to the contrary. They stalled regulation by sowing doubt about the need for change. And some of you undoubtedly support the use of genetic techniques to improve the quality and/or nutrition of the food we eat. These genetically-modified-organisms (GMOs) have the potential to extend shelf lives, increase vitamin content, and increase yields making our farmland more productive. For proponents of GMOs the upside seems limitless. Unregulated GMO farming would be revolutionary change indeed. But opponents of GMOs have sown doubt about the unforeseen consequences of the release of new genotypes into the environment reducing the impact of this new technology dramatically.

In each of the examples above, society's perception of DDT, whaling, tobacco and GMOs, rather than the situation itself, dictated the pace of change.

The second implication of how perception leads to revolutionary or incremental change is easily seen in political advertising. For years the National Rifle Association (NRA) has taken a stand in major campaigns implying that the opposition candidate fails to support the Second Amendment to the Constitution. They have suggested that a vote for the opposition will lead to the confiscation of guns by the government – if you plan to vote for the opposition you might as well surrender your firearms to the authorities right now. Despite the obvious falsehood of this view, it creates a perception of revolutionary change.

An example with broader implications is the war in Iraq. Regardless of your support for our troops and/or the war, it has been shown that our own government misled us about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the degree of threat that Saddam Hussein posed. By manipulating society's perception of the situation, revolutionary change occurred when we invaded Iraq. The result was dramatic loss of life, international credibility, and treasure. Despite the continued call of other governments for incremental change, revolution ruled the day.

Clearly change in human societies in directed more by what occurs in our brains than what occurs around us. And revolutionary change is the product of a perceived need, whether it exists or not. So you want to start a revolution? Spend just as much time documenting the need for change as communicating the message. You may find that spreading the word counts for much more than the veracity of your claims.

Dale contemplating the role of revolution in the Whitefish Range, MT

A real-world case study...
Ask yourself about global climate change – is there a need for revolutionary change? Were we simply unaware of this need until recently? Are doubts being sown about the need for change? Are we being manipulated into believing a crisis is imminent when incremental change is all that is necessary? From what information have you formed your opinions? Might they need to be re-evaluated?