The Middle is the Resolution

When we are young, we are taught to think of life as a story with a clear structure: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Beginnings are full of potential; endings promise resolution; and the middle, well, that is simply the bridge between the two.

But as we move through adulthood, something unexpected happens. The “middle” stretches out indefinitely. Conflicts do not resolve neatly. People we love do not always change, and neither do we, at least not in the way we imagined. Somewhere along the way, we realize that the middle is the resolution, and how we make meaning of it becomes the real work of living.

Therapy as a Mirror, Not a Fix

In Maybe You Should Talk to Someone, therapist Lori Gottlieb reveals something most of us secretly suspect: therapy is not about fixing broken people; it is about seeing ourselves more clearly. What makes it challenging is not the insight, but the honesty it demands. Therapy forces us to confront the parts of ourselves we carefully edit out of our daily narratives.

People enter therapy wanting change, but change is rarely comfortable. It often arrives disguised as loss, or as the slow dismantling of illusions we did not realize we were clinging to. Gottlieb’s stories remind us that progress is not the same as comfort. Growth often begins where avoidance ends.

Fear and Love: The Only Two Variables

Every internal battle, Gottlieb writes, comes down to two forces: fear and love.

Do we choose safety or freedom? Protection or vulnerability? Every decision, whether in relationships, careers, or identity, can be traced back to this tension.

The goal of therapy, then, is not to eliminate fear but to distinguish it from love. To recognize when our “rational caution” is actually avoidance, when our “realism” is merely fear in disguise. It is an act of self-interrogation that extends far beyond the therapist’s office.

The Paradox of Control

One of Gottlieb’s most piercing insights concerns self-sabotage as control. We tell ourselves that by ruining things first, by staying in a doomed relationship or avoiding a health scare, we are somehow in charge of our suffering. If we cause the pain, it will not catch us off guard.

But control born from fear is not power; it is imprisonment. True control comes from the ability to tolerate uncertainty without needing to orchestrate it.

The Flight to Health

There is a term therapists use called the flight to health. It describes the moment patients prematurely declare themselves “cured” because the real work has become too painful. I think we all do this outside of therapy as well, mistaking temporary relief for resolution.

It is a psychological sleight of hand: we convince ourselves the storm has passed so that we can stop holding the umbrella.

Privacy, Secrecy, and the Poison of Silence

Privacy is a boundary; secrecy is a burden. Carl Jung called secrets “psychic poison,” and Gottlieb illustrates how bringing the unspeakable into language can be the beginning of healing.

When the truth finally enters the room, even quietly, the air changes. Not because the problem disappears, but because it is no longer living underground.

Time, Lost and Found

There is a moment in the book when a group of therapy interns, exhausted and calculating the years until they are licensed, are overheard by their supervisor. She tells them:

> “You will turn thirty, or forty, or fifty anyway. Whether your hours are finished or not. Either way, you will not get today back.”

It is a deceptively simple reminder: time passes regardless of whether we are ready. Modern life teaches us to hoard time like a resource, to “save” it by rushing. Yet, as the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm warned decades ago, we do not know what to do with the time we save, except kill it.

The Art of the Unfinished Goodbye

In one of her final reflections, Gottlieb writes, “In the best goodbyes, there is always a feeling that there is something more to say.”

That line lingers because it dismantles our obsession with closure. Maybe life is not meant to be wrapped up, only lived through. Maybe the point is not to finish the story, but to stay present in the sentence we are in.

We cannot love without the possibility of loss. We cannot begin without risking the middle. And perhaps the most rational response to all this uncertainty is not control, it is compassion.

Because the middle is not a waiting room for resolution.

The middle is the resolution.

Takeaway

Therapy and life are not about finding perfect endings. They are about learning to make peace with imperfection, to find coherence without closure. The middle is messy, but it is also where everything real happens: growth, love, meaning, and change.

Plastic Pollution: Why Urgent, Economically Sound Global Action is Needed

Plastic pollution is no longer a distant issue. It is an urgent global crisis that threatens ecosystems, human health, and economic stability. According to the OECD’s Global Plastics Outlook, global plastic production doubled from 234 million tonnes in 2000 to 460 million tonnes in 2019. Yet only 9 percent of plastic waste was recycled, nearly half ended up in landfills, and 22 million tonnes leaked directly into rivers, oceans, and land. Plastics also contribute 3.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, making them a driver of climate change.

This matters because the impacts are long-term and pervasive. Mismanaged plastics persist for decades, harming wildlife and disrupting ecosystems. Plastics enter the food chain, water, and air, exposing humans to toxic chemicals. Economically, the costs are enormous: cleanup, lost fisheries, and declining tourism create burdens that far outweigh short-term gains from cheap plastic production.

The core problem is misaligned incentives. Industries benefit from low-cost plastic production, but the environmental and social costs are externalized. Voluntary targets and incremental national policies have proven insufficient because they fail to address these market failures.

The solution lies in decisive, coordinated action. A legally binding global framework, similar to the Montreal Protocol, could enforce reductions and close loopholes. Economic incentives, such as taxes, extended producer responsibility, and investment in circular plastics, can make the system sustainable. Support for low- and middle-income countries to improve waste management is essential, ensuring the burden is shared fairly.

Plastic pollution is a global, long-term threat. By aligning policy, incentives, and international cooperation, we can protect ecosystems, human health, and economic stability for generations to come.  

A Global Treaty on Environment and Public Health: A Vision for a Just and Sustainable Future

The line between environmental degradation and public health has blurred beyond recognition. Every polluted river, every smog-filled city, every heatwave is not only an environmental issue but a public health crisis.

Yet our systems continue to treat these challenges separately. Health ministries deal with disease. Environment ministries regulate pollution. Courts and commissions often work in isolation, with little shared mandate or data. The result is fragmented responsibility and citizens left without real protection.

It is time to imagine a unified framework that recognises that protecting the environment is protecting human health.

I envision a Global Treaty on Environment and Public Health, a coordinated international system that integrates environmental protection and health governance through executive commissions and independent courts at every level of governance.

Each country would establish Commissions and Courts on Environment and Public Health at the national, state, and district levels. The commissions would manage policy, prevention, and enforcement. Independent courts within the judiciary would ensure justice and accountability.

At the international level, a Global Commission and an International Court on Environment and Public Health, jointly supported by UNEP and WHO, would guide policy, coordinate data, and resolve cross-border disputes.

Such a treaty would recognise the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental human right. It would require countries to create integrated environment–health institutions, establish a global fund to support developing nations, and ensure consistent monitoring and accountability.

The adjudicating bodies must not remain quasi-judicial tribunals. They should be independent courts under the judiciary as 'nemo judex in causa sua'.  

No country yet has this complete system, though parts already exist, such as Europe’s environmental courts, India’s Green Tribunal system, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and WHO’s environmental health programs. A Global Treaty on Environment and Public Health would bring these threads together into one coherent and coordinated global structure.

We cannot protect public health without protecting the environment, and we cannot protect the environment without justice.

The health of people and the health of the planet are one and the same. Our systems of governance must reflect that truth.

#Environment #PublicHealth #GlobalGovernance

A Global Environmental Health Treaty: A Vision for a Just and Sustainable Future

We live in an age where the line between environmental degradation and public health has blurred beyond recognition. Every polluted river, every smog-filled city, every heatwave is not only an environmental concern but a direct public health emergency.

Yet our institutions continue to treat these issues as separate. The Ministry of Health addresses disease. The Ministry of Environment regulates pollution. Courts, commissions, and agencies often work in isolation, with little shared mandate or data. This fragmented approach leaves communities unprotected and citizens caught between systems.

It is time to imagine a unified framework, one that acknowledges that protecting the environment is protecting human health.

A Unified System for Environmental and Health Governance

We need a system that exists from the international level down to the district, ensuring that environmental damage is treated as a health issue, not only an ecological one.

This vision calls for the creation of a Global Environmental Health Treaty, a coordinated framework that integrates environmental and health protection through executive commissions and independent judicial courts at every level of governance.

Each country would establish Environmental Health Commissions and Courts at the national, state, and district levels. The executive bodies would manage policy, prevention, and enforcement, while independent courts within the judiciary would ensure justice and accountability.

At the international level, a Global Environmental Health Commission and an International Environmental Health Court, jointly supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO), would guide global policy and adjudicate cross-border disputes.

Like the Paris Agreement or the Basel Convention, this treaty would bind all signatories to create these institutions within their own countries, ensuring global consistency and cooperation.

Why the World Needs a Treaty

Environmental health challenges do not respect national borders. Air pollution, waste, and climate impacts move freely across territories. A binding global treaty would give this issue the legitimacy and structure it needs.

Such a treaty would recognize the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental human right. It would require countries to create integrated environmental and health institutions, establish a global fund to support developing nations, and ensure consistent monitoring and accountability.

The Structure of the System

At the global level, a commission would coordinate research, standards, and policy, while a court would address inter-state and cross-border disputes.

At the national level, each country would have a commission responsible for environmental health policy and a court within the judiciary to hear environmental and health-related cases.

At the state and district levels, smaller commissions and courts would coordinate action, monitor risks, and provide citizens with direct access to environmental justice.

This structure ensures that environmental health is addressed not only through high-level policies but through accessible local mechanisms as well.

The Importance of Judicial Independence

A key feature of this vision is that these bodies must not remain mere tribunals. They should be true courts under the judiciary, with full independence and constitutional authority. Only then can they effectively uphold the right to environmental health as part of the right to life and dignity.

The separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive must be clear. Commissions would implement policies and enforce standards, while courts would adjudicate disputes and ensure accountability. This balance is essential for credibility, fairness, and long-term legitimacy.

Building on Existing Foundations

While no country yet embodies this complete structure, many already hold parts of it. Europe has specialized environmental courts. India has the National Green Tribunal. The United States has the Environmental Protection Agency. The World Health Organization already addresses environmental health.

The Global Environmental Health Treaty would bring these threads together into a coherent, coordinated system, one that links environment, health, and justice across the world.

A Call to Thought and Action

We cannot protect public health without protecting the environment, and we cannot protect the environment without justice and accountability.

It is time the world recognized this interdependence through law and institutional design. A Global Environmental Health Treaty could become the next great step in global governance, bridging human rights, environment, and health under one shared framework.

The health of people and the health of the planet are one and the same. Our systems of governance must reflect that truth.