The particular question that I’m proposing to all of you seems to be so simple, but is loaded with consequences, philosophies and ideas. People have examined the data around global warming and have concluded that we’re in a tight spot for the very near future. How do these people continue to rationalize getting into a car? Flying? Keeping lights on? Using cell phones? Living in a consumer driven society?
At first the answer is simple – because every little bit helps. But then after some consideration it occurs to the thinker that they may just really be a low lying nobody. No one is going to follow their example and they’re just living their life more simply and less comfortably for no reason what-so-ever. The problem is not that I, Katie Kish, fly. It’s that millions of other people in the world fly. So why should I discontinue my travelling wants when the rest of Canada, America, Europe… etc. is still hopping on and off planes at will?
On top of that – the Earth has been through some pretty horrific events in the past. There have been mass extinctions, floods, droughts, ancient cities taken right out… and the Earth has “replenished” (or at least done alright) and moved on. What is so different about the impact that humans are making? Give the Earth it’s time and it will turn back into a lush place again. That sort of thought doesn’t work if you’re concerned about humans continuing to thrive.
These questions and comments are products of the idea brought up recently in a post at The Intersection with one comment that attempts to answer the question:
Given that the vast majority of the population is unwilling to make dramatic lifestyle changes right now (ie. abandoning air travel, scrapping their car, etc…. ), imagine the social response to two courses of action. Were you to abandon all carbon-emitting activities, those who disagree are much more likely to dismiss you as radical and extreme (think: dirty hippie). However, by taking bold strong steps toward a limited impact lifestyle in a rational way, you stand a much stronger chance of persuading others to follow suit.
The real solution to carbon emissions (not to be confused with solving the problem of global warming) lies in substituting non-sustainable technological systems for sustainable ones.
Is the point of living the movement to try and inspire others? To continue to convince yourself? To have a certain peace of mind? Is the point of living moderately to save human generations of the future? Are we just a part of nature that should be left to our mess ups as nature has been left in the past?
I’m curious.
What’s your point?
You would think we would have learnt enough by now to avoid the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ big time. I’m not talking “dirty hippie”, I’m thinking alternative hi-tech responsibility.
05/22/07 » 2:43 am »
That is also my conclusion from all of this – increasing the technology that we seem to get so close to actually making workable, and then never implimenting it.
05/22/07 » 7:59 am »
The point of living the movement is to feel good about yourself. Additional ways of feeling good are appeals to grand history (”You people have oppressed us for X decades/centuries”), and various and sundry ways of convincing yourself you’re more radical than anyone else.
If I were to stop emitting carbon, the net gain to the environment would be exactly zero. The subway would keep running at the same frequency, and all the buildings I use would be heated to the same extent. Consumer goods contribute approximately nothing to global warming; cars and buildings release far, far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than industry.
If, in contrast, I were to accumulate various measures of political capital – e.g. money to contribute to organizations and columns to write for various outlets – and spend them on global warming, there would be a measurable gain. A hundred thousand people who withdraw from modern society contribute nothing; a hundred thousand who agitate for fewer subsidies to private transportation and more to public transportation, greater urbanization, mixed use urban zoning, and greater investment in alternative energies can change everything.
05/22/07 » 8:51 am »
Alon- I think it’s really important to include ALL people if we want to induce global change/sustainability….those with the cash do their part (and hopefully aren’t too hypocritical about the way they live too) to change society from their place of power, for sure. But real change has to come from everyone else too. That is what community and social empowerment is all about. Who built Procter and Gamble? It wasn’t just wealthy people buying lots of toothpaste, it was a lot of folks with not too much money (and even less influence) each making small, regular contributions. Think of any giant company that sells goods in the marketplace- even car companies- they were built by the accumulation of money from a lot of sources.
Not to mention that many of the world’s poorest people have the lowest impact. Not that we want people to be destitute and starving, by any means, but there are actually ways of living we can learn from them (not wasting so damn much would be a start….when you don’t have much you’re certainly not throwing things away just cause they look worn out or are not longer in fashion.)
05/22/07 » 9:28 am »
at first the illustration looked like a mushroom cloud… but then i looked closer and saw it was someone hugging a tree… interesting…
05/25/07 » 8:06 pm »