In chapter 5 of Dryzek's Politics, he mentions Mark Sagoff, and his theory on the individual and the consumer. Dryzek states that “Sagoff believes that every individual has two kinds of preferences: as a consumer and as a citizen. These preferences may point in quite different directions for the same individual.”
This idea was like a slap in the face, because it made so much sense. It seems to encompass all of a person’s actions: there is what our conscience feels, and what we usually do, what we want, and what we are frequently told we want. Unfortunately, this consumer seems to have taken over our lifestyles, and the citizen is left to shrivel up and emerge only in the form of a reusable grocery bag.
Although this example is used in terms of Democratic Pragmatism, I think that it would work in any environmental theory. Green-washing is but one example of this natural disposition to do good, even if that is only because it looks cool. Could we use this green-washing movement to its full potential? It would be amazing to have teenagers recycling, reducing their water usage, or giving money to an environmental organization because it’s cool.
I think that making environmental concern a cool social movement could be as longstanding as blue jeans: it began as the movement to rebel, and is now completely mainstream, with its unique fabric permeating not only every type of clothing but anything that could possibly be made of cloth. So, too, should the fabric of environmentalism define us as a culture, or even as a people, or as a population.
But blue jeans have become a timeless icon because it is the consumer that wanted them. Why is it that the citizen is so much harder to harness than the consumer? If Gundersen’s “Latent positive dispositions” towards environmentalism are indeed there, wouldn’t environmentalism catch on like wildfire? Perhaps bringing people to discuss environmental issues could bring power to this natural disposition as it did in his studies. It’s better to argue about how to save the earth than whether or not to.
It seems to me that this dichotomy between conscience and actions is destructive. If there were a way to combine these two distinct personas into one conscientious consumer, this would be ideal. And the only way I see this happening is education.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Too much econ, not enough heart
I agree with Dryzek's concepts of ecological limits mentioned in chapter 2, that the earth can only sustain so many of one thing, including humans. For too long, humanity has used the earth as a tool and not as a home, and it is beginning to catch up to us, assuming it hasn’t already. But although I accept this idea, I have problems with how he proposes to implement a solution, if he does at all.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems that he only points out the problem, and the problem with possible solutions. I would appreciate it if he suggested a way in which humankind could begin to reverse the damage we have done, but see nothing of the sort. The closest he comes is by suggesting a global authoritarian for resource control, but it seems that the larger area a governing groups has power over, the less ecological responsibility and general welfare, or even common sense, overlap. Although we both agree that this is not the best idea, he goes on to what I feel is too far, criticizing the critics of population control in the traditional methods, religion, feminism, and Marxism. One would think that if ideologically focused groups normally not seen as extremists had a problem with an idea, it may be better to look for a more agreeable solution instead of assuming millions of people are crazy earth-killers.
His criticisms beg the question, if all the dissenter groups are wrong, and the survivalists are wrong, who's right? It’s easy to point out the problems in a concept; the hard part is coming up with a better one. I feel that with as much research and reading Dryzek seems to have done on the topic, he would be well suited to work on a solution. He mentions that dissenter groups fail to take on the limits discourse, but does he? He seems to only poke holes in the discourse without presenting an alternative—crashing the canoe before he owns the yacht.
I also seem to find contradictions in some of the ideas that he does present. I once again could be misreading this, but it seemed that in one part he mentioned that giving aid to developing countries is merely aggravating the problem of unsustainable growth, and in another mentioned that the developed countries are hoarding all the wealth and making third-world areas suffer. The only solution to redistributing the developed world’s greedy take on capitalism seems to be giving it to those with less monetary resources. There are sustainable forms of aid (Heifer International comes to mind), would this also be destructive to the survivalist’s plans? I fail to see how Dryzek can say that we should redistribute wealth while at the same time telling us we should let developing countries figure their own survival out without outside help. Or, if there is a suitable economic wealth-distribution method, why doesn’t he mention it?
Overall it seems that Dryzek is looking at population through an economist’s eye, failing to take into account (or sometimes considering and criticizing) emotional, ideological, or psychological factors. Population control is a tricky business. He mentions China’s methods as laudable and simultaneously too extreme. Many consider their methods horrific. I wonder if he sees people as souls or as numbers, and I feel that it’s a very important distinction to make.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems that he only points out the problem, and the problem with possible solutions. I would appreciate it if he suggested a way in which humankind could begin to reverse the damage we have done, but see nothing of the sort. The closest he comes is by suggesting a global authoritarian for resource control, but it seems that the larger area a governing groups has power over, the less ecological responsibility and general welfare, or even common sense, overlap. Although we both agree that this is not the best idea, he goes on to what I feel is too far, criticizing the critics of population control in the traditional methods, religion, feminism, and Marxism. One would think that if ideologically focused groups normally not seen as extremists had a problem with an idea, it may be better to look for a more agreeable solution instead of assuming millions of people are crazy earth-killers.
His criticisms beg the question, if all the dissenter groups are wrong, and the survivalists are wrong, who's right? It’s easy to point out the problems in a concept; the hard part is coming up with a better one. I feel that with as much research and reading Dryzek seems to have done on the topic, he would be well suited to work on a solution. He mentions that dissenter groups fail to take on the limits discourse, but does he? He seems to only poke holes in the discourse without presenting an alternative—crashing the canoe before he owns the yacht.
I also seem to find contradictions in some of the ideas that he does present. I once again could be misreading this, but it seemed that in one part he mentioned that giving aid to developing countries is merely aggravating the problem of unsustainable growth, and in another mentioned that the developed countries are hoarding all the wealth and making third-world areas suffer. The only solution to redistributing the developed world’s greedy take on capitalism seems to be giving it to those with less monetary resources. There are sustainable forms of aid (Heifer International comes to mind), would this also be destructive to the survivalist’s plans? I fail to see how Dryzek can say that we should redistribute wealth while at the same time telling us we should let developing countries figure their own survival out without outside help. Or, if there is a suitable economic wealth-distribution method, why doesn’t he mention it?
Overall it seems that Dryzek is looking at population through an economist’s eye, failing to take into account (or sometimes considering and criticizing) emotional, ideological, or psychological factors. Population control is a tricky business. He mentions China’s methods as laudable and simultaneously too extreme. Many consider their methods horrific. I wonder if he sees people as souls or as numbers, and I feel that it’s a very important distinction to make.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Curiosity killed the climate
What will really happen if temperatures rise, sea levels creep up several inches or feet, and glaciers melt? Will we be plummeted into a drought? Will all biomes fluctuate until reaching a devastating equilibrium? What life will survive? What species will go extinct? Will humans survive?
Like most, I wonder what will happen if and when global warming really gets going. But I’m mostly just curious as to what will happen. It’s like a high-stakes bet, a mix of poker and Russian Roulette. Will reindeer become the next wooly mammoth? Will future humans find our remains perfectly preserved in blocks of ice or layers of silt? Will our civilizations become legendary like the Mayans, Akkadians, or Egyptians?
So maybe I’m crazy for not being worried about drowning to death or dying of thirst, but I guess it doesn’t feel real to me. If unpredictable environmental shifts were happening anyway, why worry? Of course I do my best to reduce my effect on global warming, but I don’t really see the point of doing more than that. I don’t think going crazy with worry would help anything. Although it may be completely unreasonable, I figure as long as I stay away from coastal cities and know what’s coming, I should be ok. Like many people have said (including Red Sky at Morning), the people who live off of the land have the most to fear. Although this may seem grossly insensitive, the New Yorker article made it quite clear to me that the destruction of cultures due to climate factors is fairly common, if not inevitable. Yes, this time it’s man-made, but what more can I do? I’m not a politician, or climate activist, nor do I plan to be. I will do my best, but that’s all I can do. That, and wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
