As we discussed in class, I'd like you to post a 1-2 paragraph response to the question on your group blog. You should aim to do this before we meet next Tuesday. The most interesting blogs develop conversations between the different authors -- you should, in other words, carefully read and respond to the posts of the other members of your group, rather than always writing stand-alone contributions.
DISCUSSION QUESTION ONE:
For your initial blog posts, I'd like you to consider one or both of the following questions:
1. What, in your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it wring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Happy blogging. And have a good weekend.
Cheers,
Simon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1) The most pressing issue facing the global environment is our inabilities to sustain population within our planet's carrying capacity. There are too many people on this planet. Put aside the ideals of too much money and affluence in certain areas and devastating poor in other countries- there simply aren't enough resources to fuel the amount of human life on the planet, which therefore reflects on the life of all other biota and abiota on Earth.
There are only two types of wars humans fight, and it's technically been this way as long as we've been writing it all down- wars for land and access to water, or wars for god and beliefs. It's that simple- if we put the God-wars and crusades aside, wars are about resources. Today people are killing each other over precious grains of rice and walk three miles a day to an empty well, having nowhere to turn for help. We are consuming the majority of our planet's resources tens of times faster than we used to, and it's more due to the number of people to provide for on the planet than the technology which allows all these people access to overconsumption of goods. Americans are for the most part rich, fat, comfortable and in no rush to change our methods of consumption. 'What Carrying Capacity?' they might reply. It's the numbers of people like these which have really let us fuck ourselves over. Where was our conscience when we needed it most? Who had the foresight to know when to slow down, to stop, to alter approaches to consumption? The answer lies with the past, when the majority was unwilling to listen. We have only ourselves, our potential, and our future to look forward to- will our global population be able to apply ourselves to saving our future in time before our planet's carrying capacity is maxed, broken, and irreversible changes (such as tides, ocean currents and temperatures as well as a quirk in the gravitational pull of the moon) begin to take place?
It seems as if nowadays, whenever you are approached by someone advocating environmental responsibility and an eco-friendly way of living, much of what is advocated can be seen as more of a nuisance than anything. As Stanley Fish wrote in his article the way towards a better tomorrow can (apparently) be found through the usage of energy efficient light bulbs, recycled paper, reusable cloth bags at the supermarket, and other objects that steer clear of the remnants of the wasteful lives we as human beings supposedly lead. However, looking at the solution through this type of lens is precisely what the biggest problem facing the global environment today. People as a whole are failing to look at the big picture while focusing their time and efforts on rather minute and inefficient solutions.
Sure, to say that many of us in the industrialized world lead rather comfortable lives would quite honestly be an understatement. Our lavish world is filled to the brim with clothes, electronics, wall to wall flash and glamour and yet who can say they stop to think where this all has come from? How did we manage to obtain such an immense amount of tangible goods that, in the blink of an eye, becomes obsolete to the next generation and ends up filling up our planet as nothing more than forgotten mounds of waste? At first glance, it definitely sounds like a bad dream which we would all soon like to forget but it’s not always that simple. To say that these bad dreams are indications of what our inevitable future will be like, well, who is to say that is for certain?
Our planet, and in fact our species, has come a long way from the days of primitive fire and cave dwellings. Mankind has managed to take a simple being and create an immensely complex societal structure the likes of which could never have been dreamed of. Population surely has grown over the past hundred years but this is not simply due to a sheer decrease in the use of birth control or the lack of belief in abstinence. With the growth of the human mind and the general population, mankind has been able to revolutionize the way it lives through ever evolving technology. We could not exist in the sheer numbers that we do today if we had not been able to revolutionize what we had to help us live. Resources around the world from trees and plants to animals and mineral deposits are transformed in ways that allow mankind to live a comfortable life and even to a point of excess. Yes, this life of excess can result in negatives such as the increase of detrimental waste, but the answer to the problems of waste and environmental degradation does not lie in screwing in a $20 energy efficient light bulb.
As we progress into the 21st century and beyond, many environmentalists will tend to think that we have all but forgotten the future generations and the planet which we are going to leave them. We seem to think that if it’s not our problem, why should we worry about it now? This is where many tend to stop focusing on the bigger picture. As a species of animal, we are not inherently prone to just let ourselves walk into the depths of annihilation. It is within our nature to ensure our survival and it certainly won’t be any different this time around. What mankind needs to do is to stop thinking in such minute, rather annoying and time consuming alternatives such as light bulbs and disposable napkins. One of the best examples of what we should do comes from one of the readers commenting on the article who said, “…it would be better simply to sue a clear power source.” Why are we worried about things like light bulbs and other trivial items like paint when the bigger picture, the source of the electricity used to power light bulbs and the sources from which we get our goods, are still using resources and means that will inevitably counteract the minor efforts we make? Harassing the general public and in essence guilting people into living an “eco-friendly” way of life proves itself to be more of a hindering, expensive, and overall less fulfilling means of achieving the desired goal of clean environmental living.
If change is needed so badly, then efforts need to be taken at a higher level, an international level, which encompasses ALL of humanity and not just some half-assed attempt that gives a free pass to others (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol). Mankind will find a way to solve the problem it’s in right now. For the past several hundred years, we have met adversity with ingenuity and the ability to do what we didn’t think we could. We were able to turn these resources that we have into great things. We will find a way to evolve even further to a period where we can live comfortably while still providing a healthy, clean planet for all who come after us. It might just take a little bit of time and possibly a little more persuading but it will happen.They always say the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. With the right focus on the bigger picture we will find that straight line and avoid what seems to be an inconvenient curve from the failed efforts of what some would call a radically inefficient environmental effort.
Post a Comment