Another lesson learned from the Arbery trial: to find common ground from which to seek justice, once an individual is identified as a racist one should avoid allusions to race and/or racism. The same is true of any group of individuals in which a majority are identified as racist. Many racists retain a sense of justice and are capable of understanding an injustice that harms another individual, and a non-racist will not only understand the injustice but will also recognize the racism without having to have it put on display. But if I try to attribute the motivation for unjust or even simply unfair actions or behavior to racism, a racist or a group of racists will instinctively become defensive and search for justifications thus (at the very least) mitigating the potential for justice. On the other hand, by simply presenting the injustice as an injustice, I am more likely to capture empathy and understanding from everyone and avoid divisiveness stemming from anger and entrenched, often instinctive reaction, thus increasing the potential for justice.

That said, I believe that to advance and even save humanity, once an individual is identified as a rational forward-thinking citizen (or likewise a citizen-group) one should speak the truth (often and loudly), and act on the truth in order to advance the truth working to attain a vocal majority and encouraging the like-minded to do the same. I believe we are at a point where respect and courtesy should be reserved only for specific circumstance, (such as a court of law), and should manifest as rational argument serving to advance humanity by avoiding anger and instinctive reaction. I believe we are at a point where we no longer have the luxury of wasted effort toward rhetoric. I believe we are at a point where we must take back our original intent (accidental or not) as it is expressed in our constitution: to promote and protect liberty for all individuals. And perhaps most importantly, I believe that “all” must include not only the 7,910,862,621 individuals here in this moment, but also (for the traditionalist) every individual who has ever lived and (for the progressive) future generations. If we do not move past our current state of divisive ignorance, quickly, and take back the reins to move ahead as a rational forward-thinking liberal democracy that will promote and protect individual liberty, we risk the nonexistence and/or inconsequentiality of ourselves and all past and future generations.

I believe a very large majority of those who identify as traditionalists hearken back to the good old days of no more than two or three generations ago. Yet if God is a traditionalist, I believe today that they, (all 7,910,863,059 versions of her, him, it), would hearken back to the good old days before humans. If God were a traditionalist, she would have never created man! So now that we have definitively determined that God is a progressive, shouldn't we follow suit?

I believe this is the crux of the issue. Whether we are talking about a racist or a climate naysayer or a rich white man, we are talking about a division between traditionalists and progressives. And we have shown that the entire structure of traditionalist thought is at best confused and more realistically at worst a gauzy, feeble, rickety sham. But just as with the racist, once an individual is identified as a traditionalist, one should avoid allusions to their smoke and mirrors and instead appeal to their sense of responsibility. Many traditionalists do feel a responsibility to their ancestors and to their own personal legacy and many traditionalists do understand the need for change, but many traditionalists are unwilling and/or unable to move past wishful thinking fueled by misremembering and/or ego and/or fear to act in accordance with the consensus science, fact, truth. Yet still, to appeal to their sense of responsibility is a better plan than to try and knock over their house of cards that even the most inexperienced of traditionalists can rebuild in a moment.

From overt racism to the planet to capitalism to the growing wealth gap to this country's ridiculous two-party political structure to opportunity to housing to education to implicit bias to the American dream that in our hands, for a majority of us today, has turned into a watery, unsatisfying mishmash of dashed hopes fed by lies, we have a lot of work to do. Rhetoric is not work. Politicians are not workers.

But just as with the racist (which many politicians also are), and just as with the traditionalist, (which I believe most politicians are regardless of party affiliation, and I believe all politicians are at least to some degree), one should avoid allusions to our leaders’ progressive impotence. And though an appeal to their sense of responsibility may result in some progress, we will find that a politician's ego is a much bigger mountain to climb and any progress is likely to be only baby steps. Regardless, today, it is still a better plan (at least with those politicians who acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth), to appeal to the sense of responsibility they feel, be that sense of responsibility toward their personal legacy, their ancestors, or their current and future constituents. And (though still only a baby step), it is our responsibility to send a strong message to any politician who refuses to acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth by voting them out of office.

That said, I am always concerned that too late has entered unnoticed through a side entrance.

And that said, this week I am also somewhat encouraged. There are others (scientists and experts) who do have a plan. This week I finished David Attenborough’s book, A Life on Our Planet. Near the end he said,

“In losing our dependence on coal and oil and by generating renewable energy we gain clean air and water, cheap electricity for all, and quieter, safer cities. In losing rights to fish in certain waters, we gain a healthy ocean that will help us combat climate change and ultimately offer us more wild seafood. In removing much of the meat from our diet, we gain fitness and health and less expensive food. In losing land to the wild, we gain opportunities for a life-affirming reconnection with the natural world both in distant lands and seas and in our own local environment. In losing our dominance over nature, we gain an enduring stability within it for all the generations that will follow.” And for the traditionalist, for all the generations that have come before us.

And somewhere in the middle, Sir Attenborough said,

“A recent review has estimated that almost 50 per cent of humanity’s impact on the living world is attributable to the richest 16 per cent of the human population. The lifestyle that the wealthiest of us have become used to on Earth is wholly unsustainable. As we plot a path to a sustainable future, we will have to address this issue. We must learn not only to live within the Earth’s finite resources, but also how to share them more evenly too. [There are] minimum requirements of human well-being: good housing, healthcare, clean water, safe food, access to energy, good education, an income, a political voice and justice. [This] is a social foundation that we must aim to raise everyone above to enable a fair and just world.”

Consensus science, fact, truth.