View Full Version : What is the problem with simple living?
This O(n)rion http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/ article really made me think. You may agree or disagree with the basic idea about the value of individual efforts but the key point for me was this:
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
What do you think?
This Orion article is wonderfully provocative! Can't wait to see a lively thread develop here. This is the part that piqued me: "If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead."
I've often thought that. (And is it a wonder why suicide rates are so incredibly high and rising among the young? It used to be that the population most likely to commit suicide was the old, which I imagine was a fairly universal statistic throughout time. But not anymore -- the youth are overtaking the old these days in many countries.) Thank goodness the author went on to write:
"The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems. "
Though well-written, I didn't find the article all that compelling -- sorry about that. Yes, if pressed I suppose I do consider myself branded as a "consumer," the basis for the article's entire argument, but that's not the only reason I embrace the simple living movement. In fact, it's not even the major reason.
It makes the assumption that we are all doing this out of some kind of protest, and perhaps many are. But I don't do this as a protest against, but rather as an expression of my preference for how I'd like to best live the brief decades of life I'm given....no matter what's happening in Washington, the boardroom, or the media. Most days, I honestly don't care what governments or industry are doing. At the moment, I'm interested in getting my tomato plants to sprout well, interested in spending as much of my day in laughter as possible, and wondering where I could put a chicken coop, because I adore the taste of fresh eggs.....
Derrick Jensen believes that we should all be working hard to bring down "The Man" every minute of our lives, violently if necessary, or our lives and efforts are being utterly wasted. He is a brilliant man, a blindingly great writer, but also a very angry person who has suffered a great deal of pain at the hands of other human beings, and it shows in his arguments.
If you want to be an activist, he's the man for you. If you just want to live simply because a) you enjoy it, and b) you think it's the kindest way to live, then he's probably not.
Politics and economics overlap, but society can be cut different ways for different puposes.
Everyone is a consumer, it's probably even a sine qua non of life. It's just a matter of degree.
The Onion?
The O-R-ION.
That's what I thought at first, too, but this article was a far cry from "The Onion".
Though well-written, I didn't find the article all that compelling -- .
Agreed, and also agree about the writer's premise. That's not me.
Also I kept looking for the punch line. When did The Onion start producing serious commentary?
edited to add: OH! Never mind. :laff:
That's an interesting, challenging article. I think the answer may be a combination of both being a citizen and being a consumer drop-out.
I just happen to be reading A Nation of Farmers by Sharon Astyk and Aaron Newton, and I'm much inclined to agree with them that dropping out of the consumer system is an important political act. On the other hand, "simple living" is not enough to bring about change, especially given all the different views held by members of this forum.
My position at this point in time is that both are necessary - dropping out and dropping in hard by taking it to the streets.
I haven't read the article yet... but it won't stop me from commenting....
First thing that pops in my mind was when W said the best thing we could do after 9/11 was Go Shopping........ really!?!
And I'm sure it didn't go down exactly like that, but that's how it is cataloged in my own personal revisionist history.
I'm looking forward to reading the article.
Though well-written, I didn't find the article all that compelling -- sorry about that. Yes, if pressed I suppose I do consider myself branded as a "consumer," the basis for the article's entire argument, but that's not the only reason I embrace the simple living movement. In fact, it's not even the major reason.
I'm right there beside you puglogic. Stopping by here as the coffee is brewing, then I'm going to take a cup and go sit on my deck for a while and watch the world wake up while most of my neighbors scurry off to work. That is a prime example of one appealing aspect of simpler living for me. I had to buy the coffee so yes I am a consumer, but that is not first and foremost how I view myself.
If the article invoked any emotion from me it was a roll of the eyes. Any article that contains those three little words, "we've been victims", immediately gets caught in my organic spam filter. It is yet another in an infinite supply of propaganda that works to remove personal responsibility from the mix. See point #2:
The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
Mr. Jensen IS right that the quickest way to change consumption patterns is to address the usage of any commodity by the largest consumers of it. But Mr. Jensen & Mr. Sale are wrong regarding individual consumption patters. It does matter and individuals do shoulder responsibility for their actions. We don't get a free pass just because someone else is doing something worse, but that's where their kind of thinking always leads. And the only way individuals are powerless is if they believe themselves to be.
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-12, 11:59am
I agree with the article. First off the article didn't even say: don't do simple living if you enjoy it, it just said it won't save the world. That's what is says if you read beyond just the title. I mean I could argue: "getting 30 minutes of exercies a day isn't going to save the world" and that doesn't mean you shouldn't do so.
Derrick Jensen believes that we should all be working hard to bring down "The Man" every minute of our lives, violently if necessary, or our lives and efforts are being utterly wasted.
whether a life is "wasted" of not is subjective, that gets to what the whole meaning of life should be. People can agitate but noone is going to answer that one for you! If the meaning of life for you is pursuing enlightment through meditation 6 hours a day, it's not even necessarily wrong per se. That's what you see as the meaning of life (we're all mortal anyway at least at present, whether or not anything exists afterwards none can say for sure, and you can choose to worry or not about future generations). But if you are asking a MUCH MORE CONCRETE question: what will acheive the end goal of maintaining a planet that is at least in some ways similar to the one we have now that has enabled human life for quite a long time. Well that's much more concrete. Then the best science is with Bill McKibben and his 350.org etc. Vast social change IS likely needed to acheive that.
He is a brilliant man, a blindingly great writer, but also a very angry person who has suffered a great deal of pain at the hands of other human beings, and it shows in his arguments.
So? Why are pained arguments any less value than unpained one's fundementally? Less likely to lead to personal happiness if that's your cup of tea. Fair enough. I'll grant that (and I want peace of mind too - but hmm at what price?). But honestly maybe people who have been in a lot of pain are best in the condition to see the state of the world now. Less resistent to the brainwashing: "everything is fine". No, no, everything is not fine, everything is not fine if they I were abused in the past and told it was ok, and everything is not fine now when we are told it it ok. And no seeing the messed-upness is not purely a projection from individual pain. There is actually you know some objective evidence that all in the world (the environmental stuff especially although of course much else) is not fine.
If the article invoked any emotion from me it was a roll of the eyes. Any article that contains those three little words, "we've been victims", immediately gets caught in my organic spam filter. It is yet another in an infinite supply of propaganda that works to remove personal responsibility from the mix. See point #2:
At a certain point the GUILT from personal responsibility alone will paralyze all action because well I don't want to say none are without sin, but none are without causing some environmental harm at any rate. See he's my problem: I dont' believe in guilt. I don't actually believe it leads to constructive human actions. I believe it paralyzes, but state of the planet ... bad. By the way political agitation can be personal responsibility, now I'm not going to argue that debating politics online is doing much to change the world (I just do it because it amuses), but protesting and stuff CAN BE taking personal responsibility for the state of the world - it certainly is PERSONAL ACTION to put one's body out there and increasingly gutsy as well. Complete political impotence itself lacks personal responsibility. I'm not saying that the political system itself may not be corrupt, for sure it is. But I think total political impotence itself indicates a lot of trained passivity. I'm not super active myself, and more active locally. I'm just saying how I see these traits. And I find those who write about them fascinating (Arthur Silber on foreign policy and Alice Miller - though I can only take that in small doses because he's off declaring everyone irredemably evil and using obscenities again, Willhelm Reich back in the day although he was a nutso :), etc.).
We don't get a free pass just because someone else is doing something worse, but that's where their kind of thinking always leads. And the only way individuals are powerless is if they believe themselves to be.
It's intended to lead to political involvement not to personal surrender, but that some will take it as that license? Ha, well they are just looking for any excuse then anyway and they will surely find it! :) If the excuse "I can't do anything" didn't work, they could always use "everything is fine". See I'm not a saint myself, I pursue personal contentment and it's never come easy to me - that itself is a lifetime job, and I drive (one small fuel efficient car - I'm so sorry ;)), I'm not super politically active (although more than most sadly :\), but I lie awake at night lately thinking the planet is screwed. Maybe it already is irredemably but of course you don't work from THAT framework. And like kib did I wonder why I even care. Because I DON'T EVEN have kids (at least not at present and likely won't). So really what is to me? I'll see a lot of the fallout within my lifetime, well yea I think so.
I've read almost everything Derrick Jensen has ever written, and the recurring theme is: Don't bother changing your behavior, because agitating is the only thing that is ultimately going to get any sort of results.
And the circular logic always gets to me: Don't stop consuming, don't change your priorities, don't make your footprint lighter, because none of that matters. You have to take down the villains by force, the villains who are those big companies that use natural resources to make things. You know, the things he's telling you NOT to stop consuming? Plus, the core implication that the vast majority of people who are TRYING are only doing so out of guilt? Offensive. I detest being talked down to in that way, and he does it in all of his books and most of his articles.
I have a lot of respect for him, or more specifically, for anyone who devotes his/her life to taking genuine action to make change happen. But to tell people that the small actions don't matter isn't just incorrect, it's damaging. Change will depend on actions large and small, taken both publicly and privately, with all those varying degrees of commitment, in every level of society. To discourage people from trying - well, that just chaps my posterior, and it has since this article was first published.
At a certain point the GUILT from personal responsibility alone will paralyze all action because well I don't want to say none are without sin, but none are without causing some environmental harm at any rate.
The pesky little correlation that gets lost on people like Jensen is that if people act responsibly they won't have anything to feel guilty about. It becomes a non-issue. He also seems incapable of grasping the concept that individuals ultimately drive the markets that give birth to the large scale users/abusers/polluters/whatever that he rants against, not the other way around. It is not a chicken or egg question. There is no paradox. Corporations, governments, etc. will follow individual's demands if enough individuals are banded together and yes, it does require action to get the ball rolling. Mr. Jensen is right about that much even if his methods are more militant that necessary. He is completely wrong about individual efforts not making a difference. Overall, a hundred million people doing a little bit will almost always have a greater impact than a hundred people doing a lot. Together mountains can be moved, but to believe the small players are not essential to accomplish the goal is nothing short of delusional. If Mr. Jensen doesn't think it matters just ask him if he would prefer 100 million Coke cans be recycled or dumped on his lawn.
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-12, 1:40pm
The pesky little correlation that gets lost on people like Jensen is that if people act responsibly they won't have anything to feel guilty about. It becomes a non-issue.
But what is responsible enough by that standard? Bringing reusable bags and driving a fuel efficient car. Sure, sure that's nice, but still things get worse on the planet. No carbon impact? So then even if you work from home your horrible crime becomes commuting for groceries on the weekend or something? I guess if you want to try to have some kind of objective measure - well what kind of lifestyle would a SINGLE EARTH not borrowing from the future, only using the disposal properties that the planet can absorb (and look the oceans can absorb some waste but not what we are doing to them!). That is sustainable. And yea that's responsible enough. But how achieavable is it for most Americans even those who do care? And if it can't be acheived or is near impossible to acheive then guilt is built in, if you believe in guilt (again I don't). It becomes kind of like original sin before redemption.
He also seems incapable of grasping the concept that individuals ultimately drive the markets that give birth to the large scale users/abusers/polluters/whatever that he rants against, not the other way around. It is not a chicken or egg question. There is no paradox.
I agree that individuals decisions support the corporations that do this. They are actually not off the hook in my view. But I disagree it's one way causation. It's the interrelation of individual purchase decisions, political policy, and corporate behavior. I decide to buy x amount of gas. But what if public policy was such that BP paid the full cost of it's damages, what would that do the price of gas, and how much less of it might I buy then? Etc.
But what is responsible enough by that standard?
Fair enough question. Without trying to legislate morality, which never works anyway, it has to be up to individuals to set their own standards. Some will always do more than others, that's just how it is. Jensen is right that the idea is to get the trends heading in the right direction. We just don't have to be confrontational at every turn to accomplish that.
I agree that individuals decisions support the corporations that do this. They are actually not off the hook in my view. But I disagree it's one way causation. It's the interrelation of individual purchase decisions, political policy, and corporate behavior. I decide to buy x amount of gas. But what if public policy was such that BP paid the full cost of it's damages, what would that do the price of gas, and how much less of it might I buy then? Etc.
You are exactly right that it is a complex and somewhat symbiotic relationship between consumers and suppliers. What bugs me about guys like Jensen is the depiction of the consumer as a victim. No party in this equation is fully to blame or fully innocent. I completely agree with him that people need to get up off their butt and make things happen, I just don't agree that it is a revolution against evil doers that have long oppressed the consumer-citizen.
I think what bothers me most about the article is that he takes everyone who lives consciously, thoughtfully and within their means and tries to force them into the category of people who try to remove themselves from the grid as an act of defiance. It's as though he foists that label on us so he can have an excuse to instead tell us how to do it right. In doing so he belittles those of us that live simply because it makes us happy.
I'm not trying to change the world by growing my own sugar snap peas and green beans. I didn't say "Dang it...I'm going to start walking to work several times a week" because I thought I'd see gas prices plunge in response. To assume that simple living people all believe that is to imply that we're all a bunch of simpleton yahoos.
I live simply because it makes me happy. Because I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any credit card debt. And because in the end, the real secret is that living simply is living better. Asparagus picked out of my yard an hour before dinner really is sweeter than the stuff at the store. Canning my own tomatoes means mine are BPA free because they're not in a tin can. It's not about battling the man. If I wanted that, I'd have stayed married.
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-12, 4:59pm
I think what bothers me most about the article is that he takes everyone who lives consciously, thoughtfully and within their means and tries to force them into the category of people who try to remove themselves from the grid as an act of defiance. It's as though he foists that label on us so he can have an excuse to instead tell us how to do it right. In doing so he belittles those of us that live simply because it makes us happy.
I don't know that that is even the target. I think the target is the belief that individual actions as relating to lifestyle are the entire solution to our environmental problems/crisis.
I mean if you just want to go after people for how they live, you'd be just as well (and better) attacking people who do their commute in the old giant hummers. But I don't think that's the target.
It's not about battling the man. If I wanted that, I'd have stayed married.
I can't imagine why it would be about that either. Well I guess I can imagine why Jensen would and even then it's not primary. But for me the question is not "how do I battle the man?" but what do we do about environmental problems/crisis?
I have to agree with ApatheticNM. I don't agree that the article is about whether one should live simply or not for whatever reason one may value. The author's point, as I understand it, if you choose to do individual actions thinking that it will save the world as it is, it is not enough. I remember someone posting some photos from the period after WW2 showing how consumerism was the patriotic thing to do. Government, corporations and the media were on a legitimate campaign to prevent a recurrence of the economic depression that had preceded the war.
I live simply as well for many of the reasons mentioned by other posters. Is it enough to cause a huge difference in oil usage or water consumption or the reduction in mineral resources to the depletion point? The human footprint is minor compared to the other factors.
Quite honestly, am I prepared to fight to change the world as a citizen beyond living simply? No, I have been fighting for years for equality for every citizen and access to services regardless of age, income etc. I have volunteered for 50 years in advocacy roles. Now my focus has changed. I want some quality time to spend with family and friends, savour beautiful music and art, enjoy my gardens, knitting, sewing and painting. I am a citizen, not a consumer and will write letters to the editor and contact my members of municipal, provincial and federal government.
Am I part of the problem? No, I am part of the solution but it will be on my terms not another's. Is it enough? No and I admit it.
I mean if you just want to go after people for how they live, you'd be just as well (and better) attacking people who do their commute in the old giant hummers.
There's a lot of trade-offs to be made that aren't always as simple as they appear. I do most of my running around, which really isn't that much, in a 1997 GMC pick-up. It has the big V-8, is 4 wheel drive, extended cab, heavier suspension, etc. I'm a pretty gentle driver so it gets about 12 MPG average, 8 or 9 MPG if we have a lot of snow and I need to keep sandbags in the back and run mostly in 4WD. There are a lot of people that would look at that and think I just don't care about the environment. Those folks would not realize that I did my best to calculate the point at which a new Prius would cross over to being a lower impact vehicle (in terms of total life cycle costs) than my truck and determined that if the truck gets 12 MPG and the Prius gets 54 MPG that, with my driving habits, the Prius would NEVER catch up. New manufacturing vs. something that has a 15 year head start, nickel metal hydride batteries manufacture and disposal, eventual salvage or disposal of the whole vehicle, etc. were all considerations, even if not true scientific comparisons. We've all heard about the CNW study 'study' that determined a Prius has a higher life cycle cost than a Hummer. That was pretty much picked apart, but that same new Prius can't hold a candle to my 15 year old truck in the big picture. The planet and my budget are both better off with the GMC. Plus my dog loves that truck.
Plus my dog loves that truck.
Yes I see the irony given the OP, but it's a classic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aYZrvG5BkY
Sweet! Thanks Yos, fun to remember that one.
I live simply because it makes me happy. Because I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any credit card debt. And because in the end, the real secret is that living simply is living better. Asparagus picked out of my yard an hour before dinner really is sweeter than the stuff at the store. Canning my own tomatoes means mine are BPA free because they're not in a tin can. It's not about battling the man.
+1
I think I learned a number of years ago (I was 22, I think)< when I realized that I couldn't save the world or anyone. In fact, I don't even thing "direct action!" goes very far as far as I can tell.
I get excited that I might, but then it doesn't, so . . .whatevs.
I have learned to do what I can. To take action when it seems right, and most importantly, to live my life with as much meaning and purpose as I can. And, I strive to do work (both paid and volunteer) that helps others one-to-one. Because it's what I can do.
And maybe things will turn around or they won't. I don't know.
End of the day, article is interesting, but. . . I think it's just missing something about human connection (or something).
I'm tired. :) It's been a long day of good work.
I agree with the author, these individual private acts do not have much impact in terms of direct benefit to the environment.
But they do have a cultural and social impact if you are looking to change the system and not necessarily overthrow it.
I live simply because it makes me happy. Because I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any credit card debt. And because in the end, the real secret is that living simply is living better. Asparagus picked out of my yard an hour before dinner really is sweeter than the stuff at the store. Canning my own tomatoes means mine are BPA free because they're not in a tin can. It's not about battling the man. If I wanted that, I'd have stayed married.
But they do have a cultural and social impact if you are looking to change the system and not necessarily overthrow it.
+1 to you both. An overhaul can be just as effective as an overthrow. The kinder, gentler approach makes a lot more sense for most people than militancy. Not to mention that it is, well, simple to accomplish because anyone can do it at whatever pace is comfortable for them. Small steps, big value.
I think there's a place for militancy, and a place for personal action, and a place for local/community change......they all have their role and are all perfectly good ways to spend one's time. I think where I take issue is where a proponent of any one of these options points a finger at the others and says, "Why are you bothering? Doesn't do any good! Wasting your time!" That's just someone stroking their own ego at the expense of the entire cause.
Individual behavior change is the low-hanging fruit, and anyone who says that it does no good is not paying attention.
Originally posted by Razz.
if you choose to do individual actions thinking that it will save the world as it is, it is not enough.This was my take on the article.
When the end came to An Inconvenient Truth, I was PISSED! (Can I use that word here?) All that devastating info, and we were just supposed to go home and change our lightbulbs? Absolutely ridiculous and UN-empowering, imho.
Thank goodness for people like Patricia Gualinga (http://vimeo.com/31824961), Tim DeChristopher and Bill McKibben. James Hansen wrote in the NYTimes yesterday,
"GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves 'regardless of what we do.' If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."
Yes, *I* will survive on my little plot of heaven -- I picked it out with this scenario in mind. But I ask myself, if I were a white Floridian panhandler watching the Choctaw getting shoved out to Oklahoma... or a European immigrant seeking my own refuge in Oklahoma watching the Feds give what was supposed to be "Indian Territory" to the railroads... if I was in Germany when the Nazi's were displacing Jews to ghettos... what would I do? Well, of course I would just harvest my chicken eggs and plant my snap peas and say tsk, tsk, wouldn't I? I've got MY little plot of simple living, after all. I paid for it. I didn't displace anybody. The comparison may seem extreme, but as James says, people are already being displaced and dying, and it's just beginning:
"Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground... We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change."
So what gave the Civil Rights movement such impact in the early 60s that it got a Texan President on board? People sacrificing whatever level of comfort they had achieved to demand more and better. And what stopped full equity from being achieved and enabled the new Jim Crow (http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/why-mass-incarceration-really-new-jim-crow)? People got complacent, they got tired of fighting, they wanted to focus on personal responsibility rather than institutional change? You know the one thing that is holding the XL Pipeline precariously at bay? People using emission-spewing transportation fuel to get themselves to DC and put their bodies on the line in front of the White House. (And yes they're bolstered by us at home writing letters to our reps.)
I agree with the notion that everyone has a part to play. I don't think Derrick is saying here, don't live simply -- and I most certainly am not saying that! But at some point we have to question whether we're being complacent in our privilege, at great cost for our self-circumscribed roles. I liked this article because it forced me to do that for myself.
When the end came to An Inconvenient Truth, I was PISSED! (Can I use that word here?) All that devastating info, and we were just supposed to go home and change our lightbulbs? Absolutely ridiculous and UN-empowering, imho.
Thank goodness for people like Patricia Gualinga (http://vimeo.com/31824961), Tim DeChristopher and Bill McKibben. James Hansen wrote in the NYTimes yesterday,
"GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves 'regardless of what we do.' If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."
Yes, *I* will survive on my little plot of heaven -- I picked it out with this scenario in mind. But I ask myself, if I were a white Floridian panhandler watching the Choctaw getting shoved out to Oklahoma... or a European immigrant seeking my own refuge in Oklahoma watching the Feds give what was supposed to be "Indian Territory" to the railroads... if I was in Germany when the Nazi's were displacing Jews to ghettos... what would I do? Well, of course I would just harvest my chicken eggs and plant my snap peas and say tsk, tsk, wouldn't I? I've got MY little plot of simple living, after all. I paid for it. I didn't displace anybody. The comparison may seem extreme, but as James says, people are already being displaced and dying, and it's just beginning:
"Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground... We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change."
So what gave the Civil Rights movement such impact in the early 60s that it got a Texan President on board? People sacrificing whatever level of comfort they had achieved to demand more and better. And what stopped full equity from being achieved and enabled the new Jim Crow (http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/why-mass-incarceration-really-new-jim-crow)? People got complacent, they got tired of fighting, they wanted to focus on personal responsibility rather than institutional change? You know the one thing that is holding the XL Pipeline precariously at bay? People using emission-spewing transportation fuel to get themselves to DC and put their bodies on the line in front of the White House. (And yes they're bolstered by us at home writing letters to our reps.)
I agree with the notion that everyone has a part to play. I don't think Derrick is saying here, don't live simply -- and I most certainly am not saying that! But at some point we have to question whether we're being complacent in our privilege, at great cost for our self-circumscribed roles. I liked this article because it forced me to do that for myself.
Well said!!
To be fair to Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth producers, we who were already on board and active in reducing our consumption and carbon footprints were not the intended audience. It was the people who have an interest but have not yet translated that interest to action. Asking someone to go directly to downsizing to one car, walking/biking to locations less than two miles a way, installing and using a gray water capture system or doing a dozen other activities with a bigger environmental impact would have been a huge "ask". Better to start with the low hanging fruit of what people can do simply and easily and get people to self identify as "green" or "climate activist" then ask for the big behavior change.
I think most of us can agree that this article was meant for the main public rather than for people trying to do their part. I do believe that it is very hard to get people to change, as they see no real reason for change. They continue to do what they want, whenever is convenient for them, no matter if that means the environment or the people within their circle are harmed. If the issue bothers someone who then speaks up or out about the issue, that person is made fun of or criticized or is called a socialist or communist/radical/ or heaven forbid, an environmentalist! Change will only happen when things happen to the people directly. Either their pocketbooks or wallets are hurt, their homes or vehicles are impacted, or their internet or electricity is turned off. People today do not feel guilt.
I work for the federal government as a Park Ranger at Grand Canyon National Park. I have a sunset program that I present to the public that is about air pollution and the visibility of the canyon. On some days the visibility is forever, and other days the visibility is horrible. And people complain. They paid good money to get up here and why is it so bad?
I could tell them, well, your gas guzzling car, truck, RV is spewing out carbon particulates that are ruining our view. I could also tell them that the airline flight you took over the canyon whether in the helicopter or 747 spewed out even more particulates than your car. Or that when you run your engine (because you don't want to turn off the air conditioning in your car) at the viewpoints is ruining the view. But most folks think that it is just the fires down in New Mexico (that they have no control over (but they do)) is making our views less desirable. But air pollution is not just one thing. You have many different factors that create the low visibility in the canyon. I just have to get that message out. Wish me luck as this program will be a hard one for some to hear.
The pesky little correlation that gets lost on people like Jensen is that if people act responsibly they won't have anything to feel guilty about. It becomes a non-issue. He also seems incapable of grasping the concept that individuals ultimately drive the markets that give birth to the large scale users/abusers/polluters/whatever that he rants against, not the other way around. It is not a chicken or egg question. There is no paradox. Corporations, governments, etc. will follow individual's demands if enough individuals are banded together and yes, it does require action to get the ball rolling. Mr. Jensen is right about that much even if his methods are more militant that necessary. He is completely wrong about individual efforts not making a difference. Overall, a hundred million people doing a little bit will almost always have a greater impact than a hundred people doing a lot. Together mountains can be moved, but to believe the small players are not essential to accomplish the goal is nothing short of delusional. If Mr. Jensen doesn't think it matters just ask him if he would prefer 100 million Coke cans be recycled or dumped on his lawn.
Because of individuals' comments for mining close to the Grand Canyon and individuals commenting about selling and using plastic water bottles, Grand Canyon NP was able to push against the mining so close to GC and has banned the selling of plastic water containers in the park. Individuals can initiate change.
I have to agree with ApatheticNM. I don't agree that the article is about whether one should live simply or not for whatever reason one may value. The author's point, as I understand it, if you choose to do individual actions thinking that it will save the world as it is, it is not enough. I remember someone posting some photos from the period after WW2 showing how consumerism was the patriotic thing to do. Government, corporations and the media were on a legitimate campaign to prevent a recurrence of the economic depression that had preceded the war.
I live simply as well for many of the reasons mentioned by other posters. Is it enough to cause a huge difference in oil usage or water consumption or the reduction in mineral resources to the depletion point? The human footprint is minor compared to the other factors.
Quite honestly, am I prepared to fight to change the world as a citizen beyond living simply? No, I have been fighting for years for equality for every citizen and access to services regardless of age, income etc. I have volunteered for 50 years in advocacy roles. Now my focus has changed. I want some quality time to spend with family and friends, savour beautiful music and art, enjoy my gardens, knitting, sewing and painting. I am a citizen, not a consumer and will write letters to the editor and contact my members of municipal, provincial and federal government.
Am I part of the problem? No, I am part of the solution but it will be on my terms not another's. Is it enough? No and I admit it.
Well if you remember, George W said that you would be a true American if you went out after 9/11 and bought stuff. And you were un-American and unpatriotic if you did not. Totally galled me. I bought stocks which turned into Junk. That was the last time I listened to someone tell me that the patriotic thing to do was to buy "stuff".
I think I learned a number of years ago (I was 22, I think)< when I realized that I couldn't save the world or anyone. In fact, I don't even thing "direct action!" goes very far as far as I can tell.
I get excited that I might, but then it doesn't, so . . .whatevs.
I have learned to do what I can. To take action when it seems right, and most importantly, to live my life with as much meaning and purpose as I can. And, I strive to do work (both paid and volunteer) that helps others one-to-one. Because it's what I can do.
And maybe things will turn around or they won't. I don't know.
End of the day, article is interesting, but. . . I think it's just missing something about human connection (or something).
I'm tired. :) It's been a long day of good work.
Fortunately or unfortunately, this is life. However, there is something to be said about individuals working towards a common goal. Many individuals got together and put up a ruckus for something they believed in, and change occurred. Change has happened we have seen it. Affecting one person at a time is a good goal. Because that person you helped or affected might go out and change more people. Going Viral can help contribute to change.
I agree with the author, these individual private acts do not have much impact in terms of direct benefit to the environment....
I disagree with the author about impact. A running vehicle impacts the plants and people around the vehicle, a smoker causes discomfort to the person standing next to them, and MAJOR discomfort to many people if they decide to throw out their cigarette in a very dry forest! A person using a reusable water container rather than a plastic water bottle helps the park use less energy to recycle, because the park does not have the waste stream to begin with! Little small things that add up to big things. And this is in (granted a large park) a very small piece of the pie.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.