I was between 15 and 25 years old in the 1960s. I was looking for something that would give life more meaning, more than I saw in the lives of the people I knew. At least I could get involved in these environmental issues. Critical of the effect of chemicals in agriculture, I joined The Soil Association. Critical of the use of technology to financially exploit poor people in third world countries, I joined The Intermediate Technology Development Group. But although these seemed to me to be aiming in the right direction towards non-exploitation of people and the world’s non-renewable resources, there always seemed to be reasonable counter-arguments that confused me and stopped me from getting involved whole-heartedly.

At the same time I was reading "Man’s Place in Nature" and "The Phenomenon of Man" by Teilhard de Chardin, which I found inspirational, in his vision of man’s place in an evolving universe. This all led to reading many books of a more so-called "esoteric" nature, which became so complicated and obscure for me, without really getting anywhere, that I was driven to realizing I must find someone who actually knew more than I did what to do.

In 1975 I found such a person who talked the common sense I had been searching for. He introduced me to the book, "In Search of the Miraculous", or as it is better called "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching", by P.D.Ouspensky. He introduced me thereby to the teachings of G.I.Gurdjieff, and to what is referred to as the Work.

One early consequence of participating in the Gurdjieff Work, which in general set me into a new phase of my life, was to realize that my agonized studying was no longer relevant. The focus was totally changed, as an aspect it seemed, of common sense. I had been living in a kind of sleep. How irrelevant it was to have such wonderful thoughts of how to change the world! In fact, I now realized, "I" cannot do anything, man as he is, how he has been so-called "educated", has his life lived for him by "it", a machine that is himself that is totally influenced by forces outside his control! How can such a person evolve? Everything "happens". All one can do, in the circumstances, having seen this, is to begin a new journey of self-discovery, and at the same time carry on, a little more humbly, with one’s ordinary life.

I began to see that the Work is primarily about self-development, the Great Art of Transformation. Transformation from non-entity and slave of every passing influence both inside and outside myself, to becoming self-aware and with the possibility of becoming a truly conscious and useful human being, eventually, and along with others.

So feeling this need in myself, and finding something real for me in the Gurdjieff Work, my concern with "causes" became no longer "a burning issue". When I had studied Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas of man’s place in an evolving universe, it had never occurred to me that the real object of evolution, for me, was myself. It did not occur to me that, by virtue of being born and having a life to live, the "growing bud" of evolution was myself. But having felt the recurring need for "something" that I could not find in ordinary life, and now having actually found something real that is not useless to actually work with through the Gurdjieff Work, I found myself under obligation to myself to pursue it. This was not to be an easy option!

If I can do little or nothing to so pay for my existence, then at least perhaps I can have the humility to acknowledge my debt, and have the hope that I might somehow strive towards what in reality may be called "normality", living as I was created to live. I can do what I can, in the day to day course of my life, to try to preserve the world I find myself born onto, rather than blindly destroying it. I can reflect on the sheer diversity of what we have each been given as human creatures.

Somehow I feel the truth of the saying that Man is a replica of the Whole, in miniature, and if we could understood the one, we would understand the other.

One aspect of these new efforts was to look at the world situation more impartially. The scenario presented was that some Intelligent Being, looking at our planet from afar, would observe that the human beings there refuse to live normal lives proper for beings such as they are. I did not find it difficult to conceive of this situation. Whatever the nature of such a being was, the observations concurred with practical realities as I recognized them.

It might also be reasonably supposed that such an Intelligent Being, knowing something of the efforts involved in creating and sustaining the universe, might perhaps regard us as not one of their better efforts. He might reflect on the unfortunate cosmic accident initially responsible for our lunatic behaviour, and our inability to live as we could and should.

As the direction of these ideas was encouraging, I continued with them. I read of how a process was instigated initially throughout the universe, whereby energy is manifested through fundamental laws. This energy became concentrated at certain definite points to help sustain the existence of its ultimate Creator or Being. A succession of such concentrations led to the evolution of various life forms serving a natural function through many millions of years. These life forms could also be useful for the existence of subsequent creatures that would have the ability of functioning independently of those natural functions, thus carrying evolution into a new phase. These new creatures, unlike previous creatures, have three "parts", "centres", or "brains", which is the condition necessary, according to the same fundamental laws, for them to have individual "consciousness". From this point, evolution becomes focussed on the self-development of each of these "three brained beings", whilst involution becomes the mechanical continuation of the process that brought their existence into being.

These ideas are to my mind scientific and rational in that they have a certain ring of truth about them that leads me to investigate further. Ordinary "science" on the other hand feels to be just part of that kind of education that is imposed on me from outside, that does not have that certain ring of truth. I feel that the ignorance inherent in ordinary science and ordinary education in general will lead us like willing fools to our own certain deaths. Real scientific ideas could help us pursue knowledge in the sense of learning the purpose for which we were born. This is a science that will exercise our minds, not in merely mechanical "thoughts", but to understand the reasons for our existence. Without that we have no chance. Without that we can only resort to "beliefs" – in modern "science", "religion" or whatever else is "the flavour of the month".

Evolution for this planet is focussed on man as a three-brained being. Unfortunately there were mistakes, which although they were essentially corrected, resulted in serious illusions that are passed down through generations of mankind. To try to correct these illusions, Teachers have been incarnated on this planet from time to time who have left us traces of their understanding. But their teachings, though conscious in origin, become distorted in being passed down through the generations, and become almost totally mechanical by the time they reach us. We could term this deterioration an involutionary process. Evolution is, in this regard, the result of the struggle against this down-flowing current of involution. Whereas involution occurs "mechanically", a mechanical evolution is impossible. The evolution of humanity can proceed only through individuals, through the evolution of certain groups, and it is by this means that man can influence the rest of humanity.

We like to imagine we can be influential because we can think, but the thoughts we are capable of are mechanical also. We like to think we are rational beings, but we are not. Our thinking is only one part of the mechanism we have each been given in order that we may make real efforts to live as we are meant to live. To do that it is necessary for our three centres, that is – thinking, feeling and moving/instinctive, to work in harmony together, each contributing its proper function. We cannot do that. We do not want to face the fact that we are not individually capable of doing anything, and that we’re being swept along in the down-flowing current.

Even if things did not work out as intended, as human beings we can potentially function independently in a way that other life forms on this planet can not. Each of us is born with the inherent possibility of doing something about it, and with that comes responsibility, even obligation. Perhaps we can at least hope that we can meet that obligation.

In the light of these new thoughts I look again at specific issues in the world around me, and at what is happening on our planet. This is necessarily a perspective of one person born in a particular time and place, and in particular circumstances. This can offer plenty of material for life, and a person is not asked to be responsible for the whole world. There are social considerations pertinent to any particular life however, and the very nature of technology today is such as to make us more aware of events in distant parts of the world and our own part in the changes taking place. I write now from the perspective of living in England in February 2001.

I look back at the material I have from my own employment for over 20 years for an electronics company and examine the results of our constant thirst for sales growth, profitability and never-ending expansion to becoming a multinational organization, and the effects of "globalization". Within these short-term parameters they are a successful company, and I did my bit towards their growth and success. Their motivation as a business is of course commercial self-interest, but I was more motivated by helping to create effective results that gave me a sense of achievement than by the competitive element. Yet the more the company grasped the means of utilizing the latest technologies to achieve global influence, the more I felt that in real terms we were losing our way. I was not alone in feeling this.

I see in this a blindness or "mechanicalness" which through our technological development we are spreading like some disease across the world. I ask myself whether it was less so 40 years ago. Yes, there were not the means to influence people so quickly or spread our messages around the world so quickly and easily by means of electronics. There was not easy and cheap transportation around the globe, finance was not so easily available and so on. Today we have powerful tools with which to expand our businesses and promote our western culture through TV and Internet. We have developed the effective means of marketing and selling our products and services all over the world. We persuade people they need them and in turn we show them how to do the same, make money and become prosperous too. In many cases it is what enables them to escape grinding poverty, subservience to corrupt political regimes, and so on. In many cases there is no practical alternative, or it offers some hope of a better life. Intoxicating stuff indeed!

Within this intoxicating package there is blindness, through our culture, our rationale, our education, even our language. A very real danger is that it is not sustainable. The human population is growing at an ever-accelerating rate. Human energy is put into an ever-increasing array of activities that is consuming non-renewable resources, also at an ever-accelerating rate. In the trend to globalization I feel such organizations, through their intoxicating package of short-term self-interest, are responsible for these dangerous developments. Like terrible machines gaining strength as they charge onwards, these organizations are running madly out of control, sucking people into them for the energies they can supply.

Dr E.F.Schumacher, author of "Small is Beautiful" and founder of the Intermediate Technology Development Group, wrote over 30 years ago, It is not the poor but the rich who threaten the survival of Spaceship Earth. Listening to business reports today, there seems to be the same refusal to question the philosophy of consumer economics as ever, that spreads its highly infectious disease across the globe. So long as we believe what we are told by economists, that the highest value is economic growth, there will never be enough to go round. We do not understand the concept of "enough", and are encouraged to believe that our wellbeing depends on buying more and more.

Particularly since the 1960s, the western world has at least become aware of the destructive nature of these activities, and is trying to do something about it. Issues like "sustainable development" are now considered and discussed by people in authority in the world. Worldwide corporations that in the nature of business put profit and economic growth before sustainable development are challenged and held accountable for their actions. Through modern communication methods they are obliged to consider the opinions of people who have different perspectives and priorities, even if their motive is still primarily self-interest.

If modern technology is producing such monsters, it also allows individuals to communicate all over the world, especially through the Internet. This is widely available and is not limited by big organizations, only by the limits of our own capabilities. This is a means for resourceful groups to come together on a huge variety of topics to influence big organizations and challenge their actions.

We see positive trends on the one hand towards global co-operation, which is certainly desirable in conservation issues for example, and on the other hand towards small groupings of a localized character (not necessarily geographical) which encourages diversity. In business circles a similar trend is seen for example in the "consolidation" and "fragmentation" of stock exchanges. We see trends in politics where power is both devolved to more local levels and surrendered to larger bodies in the interest of common goals.

Although we live within a world of powerful and self-seeking multinational corporations, corrupt governments and the like, as individuals the situation is not hopeless. Governments, business corporations and non-government organizations all owe their existence, after all, to individual people, and as such can all be influenced, supported or opposed.

This is the material for conflict, as I see it. There is the hope to become what I am born to become, to be able to make the effort and have the resourcefulness to do something useful about the situation in which I find myself. Against this, the perfidious hypnosis of forces that keeps me in sleep and illusion.

Involution in mankind can develop into a more extreme form, when it can best be described as mass psychosis. Then it is a disease, an epidemic, a plague that sweeps across peoples who feel helpless in its path. It will feed on some difference or other – nationality, tribe, race, colour or religion - and expresses itself in hatred, fear, and so on, and results in violence, murder, massacre, ethnic cleansing, war. Why is this? It is because man was created to use part of the energies given to him for his own self-development, his own evolution. That is in accordance with fundamental cosmic laws, and when man refuses to use his energies in this way, it must be manifested in other intense experiences that unfortunately will do nothing for his self-development.

The challenge to the individual confronted with such situations is to not be swept along by the mass psychosis, but to see clearly the fear and hatred and to know how best to respond to the storm erupting all around. I feel fortunate in not having to have had to live through any situations bringing about such mass psychosis, yet even in our western world in my lifetime there have been occasions, whipped up by the media, when I understood just how easily it can happen. We have all read, and seen the films, of dangerous situations in various conflicts, and wondered how we would cope in similar situations. Something in us maybe feels that it is often the case that the richest experiences and indeed opportunities for what I would call personal "growth" result from living through the toughest situations. I would certainly say that no one has the right to an easy and comfortable life. But what drives me essentially is to survive.

It is natural to feel like protesting against man-made developments that unnecessarily pollute or destroy our environment in some way. The power of modern technology is frightening; the way mankind is using up and destroying the Earth’s natural resources. The whole mad machine is accelerating to the extent that it is in danger of destroying mankind and the natural environment that supports us and the other creatures living on this planet.

One thing I have gradually learnt is that it does often pay to have a resourceful mind. One’s own efforts do count. A recent farming programme on the radio impressed me. They talk about stewardship. This English farmer was experiencing great difficulties in "making ends meet" due to circumstances largely beyond his control. There is a lot of debating nowadays about the future of British agriculture, many farmers are being forced out of business, and European and world policies seem to conspire to make their lives difficult. This farmer reckoned that you can have conservation and farming, there is room for both. He started with the positive attitude that it is each person’s responsibility to find a solution. He got together with others locally and developed not a co-operative (which they regarded as un-English) but more like a "corporate strategy" in what essentially is a few farms working together, one person being responsible for one aspect, another person for another. Being also very conscious of conservation needs, he had as one example worked out just how much land to set aside to enable certain birds to thrive. I felt that as primarily a farmer he had the resourcefulness to be also a conservationist, and where necessary to get the funds for being so. No doubt there are many such examples of positive and intelligent response to a challenging situation.

It is easy to find someone to blame for the situation we find ourselves in. We all aspire in some way, and find ourselves challenged or obstructed by something or other. It occurs to me how certain famous individuals throughout history, who have invented or discovered something that would be of great benefit to mankind, have also had to strive even more so against various authorities and their conventional "wisdom" to get it accepted by society. Having seen how the struggles and difficulties of his fellows could be relieved, the inventor has had to fight long and hard to get them to listen to and act upon what was presented to them.

In the 1960s concern for the environment was a minority fringe pursuit, whereas now, 40 years on, it has become a central issue. To those living in a rural environment, and more particularly farmers and others earning their livelihood there, those once fringe issues have become central and have to be faced. But those living in an urban environment increasingly have to face it also. Industrial manufacturing industries are having to consider how their produce is recycled, what damage they may cause to the environment, the use of renewable resources instead of fossil fuels and so on. The damaging effects of man’s exploitation of our natural world are becoming inescapable. So it is necessary for us to be resourceful and to use our technological skills to come up with new answers, to use the values we have to meet the demands of a changing world.

Consider the development of genetically modified crops. This is one issue at the heart of environmental concerns today insofar as very many people feel instinctively that the development of GM foods is potentially dangerous, despite the "clever" arguments put forward in support of it. Why is this? The objection, to my mind, is not so much these foods themselves, but that the motivation for their development has little to do with the long-term welfare of anyone and all to do with short-term commercial success. Commercially driven organizations use their persuasive salesmanship as a means of exploiting the environment and the poor people in the world, with little regard for either.

Those promoting the development of GM crops are being less than honest in trying to convince people in poor countries that these new products are in their best interests. It might be better for them to listen to their fellow beings in Africa and Asia, rather than corrupting them with their clever salesmanship. They may learn how these materially poor people have sustained their communities through their methods of farming for thousands of years. We should not be so arrogant, as our own culture cannot be sustained for even hundreds of years. Those traditional farmers will listen. Their agriculture may be sustaining them, but they will not be averse to new ideas. It might be a matter of survival. For the price of a little intelligence and often for a fraction of present expenditure, we could all benefit.

The price paid for our exploitation of nature and the poor is also paid by westerners, although we can usually avoid the life or death consequences experienced by people in the rest of the world. The same economic forces are at work through corporate control through global free trade. Through the deliberate over-production of food to dominate world markets we are destroying the lives of farmers in other countries. At the same time we lower the price of food paid to farmers in our own countries, leaving all the profit to large food processing companies and the international commodity markets. People are forced away from the countryside where they could produce food in ways that are sustainable and encourage the local economy. They are forced into inherently non-sustainable lifestyles that inevitably contribute to the further pollution and exploitation of our planet’s resources. The whole process may well also be a major factor in today’s non-sustainable population growth.

Health is another issue where we are sold "clever" solutions, on the back of the development of new drugs produced at great expense for the profit of pharmaceutical companies from those consumers who can afford to buy them. Again it is not the products of this technology that do the damage, but the motivation for their development which we willingly accept. We are enticed into buying their products and services, soon regarding them as necessities. The result is similar to that for the food industry, and the price is paid by our natural environment and by people throughout the world, including the "rich".

There is a kind of mono-culture in the health, or more accurately disease, industry that conveniently ignores alternative, complementary and holistic solutions that would benefit and sustain the health of all rather than the short term self-interest of the few. Any real progress in health matters would result in less need for hospitals and drugs, but our consumer economy ensures the reverse. We need to find more appropriate means of enabling people throughout the world to enjoy better health. Our failure to do this is yet another cause of today's non-sustainable population growth.

The Work did not mean dissociating myself from ordinary life. It was not suggested that I retire to a monastery or live in a cave in the foothills of the Himalayas. I was not asked to give up life’s basic pleasures or to appear to be virtuous. I was not encouraged to have idiosyncrasies. I was not asked to try to change anything, but to begin to see my life as it actually was. I came to see the sense of the Gurdjieff Work as being something to add to my ordinary life, and how this day-to-day ordinary life could be used as material for my own development.

The Gurdjieff teaching showed me that human beings live according to one principle or another. We are born to evolve, that is, to work towards finding our true individuality and thus to realize that "I" have a body, a mechanical organism whose function it is to transform substances and energies. That is one principle. The other is how we are actually living, in a way designed for animals, and suitable for animals.

Being born as human beings does not mean we can simply ride roughshod over the rest of creation, as dominant animals. We share life with all creatures, and as such they deserve our respect. But being human we have additional powers and corresponding obligations. To justify our existence as human beings we are required to fulfil these obligations. But as we are ignorant of such matters, and arrogant enough to not see any need to trouble ourselves about such things, as nobody has taught us any differently, our consciences remain untroubled.

So potentially at least, that is, when we were born, we had a choice, " I live as a human being" or "I live as an animal". Time has moved on for all of us. For anyone now with aspirations to "live as a human being", to be in the stream of evolution, your struggle is essentially against the natural world we live in. Work against nature in this sense is not "anti-environmental". Most of the energy we use will be willy-nilly with nature anyway, which means simply that we will be influenced mechanically in the same way that we have always been influenced.

If we can learn to take some of the energy that we have been given and use it for our own development, then that is "against nature" and the quality of our considerations will be totally different. C.S.Nott wrote that to do this in one’s dealings with another person, it is necessary to be doubly hard on oneself. What this means to me is to keep sufficient attention to not fall asleep and at the same time to actually do what the situation demands at that moment. In being awake I do this without considering myself in the ordinary mechanical way. Realizing the truth of this gives me an indication of what I must do. Having the inner strength to do it is something else.

Being alive entails responsibility not only for my outer world but also for my inner world. It is not based wholly on those outside circumstances that keep me as I think I am or believe myself to be. It is possible instead to gradually allow "something else" into my life that gives real values and real happiness. It is possible to allow the illusions to die, and this brings peace because what I defend as my own is what separates me from my fellows and it is not real. To the extent that I work to bring this about, it is possible for my life to be based on who I really am. It would become as it was made to be, and it has not been given to me without cost.

In February 2001 I had found this Planet essay the most difficult to write. It is also the subject in which, necessarily, my understanding has to come to terms with influences concerning the changing circumstances in the world. The changes themselves have not altered my understanding in the intervening period. I now see that my difficulties arose from the illusion of thinking that my thoughts and concerns about the world can somehow make a real difference. I think I know what ought to be done, so I try to do something.

In trying to do something I am failing to take into account the double nature of human beings, our natural ability to turn and destroy what had been achieved. Yet that is how we are.

We hear of journalists, for example, who spend their working lives reporting on the tragedies of war, sending back terrible pictures of suffering. Yet these same journalists come to admit that their efforts have ultimately made no difference. People carry on behaving just the same. The things that they can feel have perhaps made a real difference are on a much smaller and more personal scale.

This can be a hard lesson for people who try to make this world a better place. It requires humility and is realistic, and also avoids cynicism.

All this is just social engineering. My efforts were trying to be some kind of reformer. I now see the changes in the world around me differently. I find myself more involved in my personal day-to-day life, but now there is something different about it. It is enough. It is not feeling being swallowed up by ordinary life concerns, but rather that I find through it something that is satisfying, at one and the same time to me and to those people with whom I relate.

This does not ignore my thoughts and concerns about the world outside our personal concerns, nor about doing things about it. For example, I now take more things for recycling, I've joined an environmental organization, and I love sorting out the world over a pint or two, without being too serious about it. It won't alter the world, but it's how I am. What has gone is the frustration, the feeling of inadequacy at not being able to effectively do something "significant" in the world.

I feel more open, more free inside. A little further on life's journey, and the planet helps.

So it is now a little clearer what the influences are that are coming to me from hearing about world events. These events are material with which I can work, as are other aspects of my life. I can begin to see how these things stir up my feelings and thoughts, from a place that they do not touch.

I can see how people are influenced by their surroundings, including events on the world stage, and react with different degrees of sensitivity, and more or less affected by their own consciences. But I would not call any of this "consciousness", or "against nature". It is all mechanical. The struggle I am talking about is something else.

One element of this material from the influence of world events has been the suicide attacks on the USA in September 2001, and their strong effect worldwide, particularly on Americans. There are strong views on what ought to be done, tensions arise regarding crime and punishment.

This and other recent events on the world stage are further manifestations of man's egotism and tendency to hate others. Conflict often arises from the power of authority to corrupt and exploit, and resistance to this by any means. Conflict is between mechanical influences, between what is socially acceptable and what is socially unacceptable, the difference being subjective, depending on a person's own particular environment.

I am not going to change anything. I can talk to people about it, write letters, give my opinions to the receptive media. But in reality, as I am, I can do nothing. But if I am the sort of person who is concerned about such things beyond the basic instinct to protect to survive, I can use the energy created by this situation. I can realize it as indicative of the lunatic double nature of human beings. I can realize I am being influenced by the inevitable results of what happens when man refuses to use even a small part of the energies given to him for his self-development.

That is, firstly, for learning why you were born, why you are on this planet. If you find out, you can begin to learn what must be done, and about real freedom, real happiness. The challenge, as always, is to the individual person, American or non-American equally, and that is to use this material and learn from it.