[Elsa Coimbra]

I agree with the main arguments, both of P. Ehrlich and Duane Elgin. On this last comment on communication, no doubt it is urgent to question the communication industry and the distortions it promotes. But also to implement a type of social learning capable of promoting quality communication, of creating not not just information but also  understanding. Understanding is akin to meaning-making, and a sustainable ethic is one that is deeply meaningful.
I agree that good communication is a most central key to unlock a sustainable future. For those of us familiar with the praxis of conservation, it’s clear how the immaturity of the human species in such skills hinders the success of all manner of projects, from local assemblies to world summits.
The good news is that there is an exciting emergence of new  and not so new social techniques that address the development of such capacities and with significant success. To what degree they are endorsed by funders is a different matter.  Typically even if results are generally accepted as «nice» (mutual understanding, social cohesion, transformative learning) they don’t generate numbers as outcomes and take ‘too long’, hence loosing political priority.
I think it’s also worthwhile mentioning that “bringing a new level of conversation and consciousness” implies very deep changes in how we relate to each other, starting with children. It’s hard to expect people to listen well (crucial to good communication) when they were never really heard. Schools as real communities (involving also families and neighbourhood) are the first place to work in this environmental ethical revitalization that implies deep, solid communication, between us and others, humans and non-humans, and not least, us with our selves.

[Author]

Posts