Violence is justified by some because of what they think is fast and immediate change or the belief that everything has to be fast and immediate. The urgency, in turn, is justified by a picture of alarm: that the world, or country, or local is in its worst condition and that it can’t get out of it without killing others or hurting them.
What I saw in Mahalina was an imperfect attempt into slow change. It indeed is different. There is an emphasis on the kalooban. It is the seed where everything begins. From an outsider aware of statistics and the latest things that are happening in the environment, the Mahalina way is indeed slow and perhaps even inappropriate to the emergency. But is survival really the most important thing here? If humans die because of our own fault by law of nature is it really wrong to succumb to it? Is living really what is most important or is it dying the right way?
In the narrative that the world is going to end soon via an environmental apocalypse, what does “slow change experiments” serve? They are the palliative care: asking how best to die rather than how to continue living.
In the narrative that the world will get better later, then “slow change experiments” serve as the ideal way of doing change—natural, unforced, and compassionate.