This is the conceit of “environmentalism,” its fundamental flaw - and why it is today so popular. What it offers the world is a techno-perfected future in which we have overcome natural limits - including, it seems, the second law of thermodynamics and attendant entropy - by retaining a world of permanent increase and consumption (the “developing” world, it is assumed, will develop to first world standards using the magic of technology, somehow avoiding the predictable result of a world stripped bare), supporting “lifestyles” of autonomy and cosmopolitanism, all the while ceasing in any significant way the consumption of the planet’s bounty and the damage to ecosystems. We have gone from a totalitarian relationship with nature - in which our demand is met by force - to a fantastical science-fiction relationship, in which we can have everything for nothing.
What is studiously avoided is consideration of what kind of civilization we would have to build if exercise of self-control, restraint of appetite, and commitment to the health of places was to replace our current ethic of consumption, indolency, itinerancy, autonomy and mobility. While the former was in many ways the logical conclusion of the “warnings” that the program was promoting, the idea that we should actually alter our basic set of operating assumptions was clearly off the table. Ironically, the commercial “interruptions” underscored that ABC’s more fundamental commitment was to continue things as they are.
Further, what is striking in these sorts of programs - and the general ethic of “environmentalism” - is studied avoidance of the word nature itself.
Nature, of course, is the “normative” term of Aristotelianism and Thomism: it is a standard and represents a limitation. Humans are creatures of and in nature. We are subject to its laws and to its strictures. Nature is not separate from us; we are natural creatures (special ones - political animals - but animals nonetheless). To employ the word “nature” would mean a fundamental reconceptualization of the relationship of humans to the world with which we live. Rather than either extending human mastery over our “environment” or attempting to stamp out the contagion of humanity, to re-claim the language of nature would require us to change our fundamental conception of a proper way of living well. Living as conscious natural creatures in nature requires the careful negotiation between use and respect, alteration and recognition of limits to manipulation, and thus calls for the virtues of prudence and self-governance. Neither of these virtues are particularly valued in the “environmental” movement, whether that advanced by corporate America in the effort to continue our growth economy of itinerant vandals or the fantasy-based, “have it all” wishful thinking of our techno-environmentalists. Until we reacquaint ourselves with the language, and more importantly, the reality of nature, we will continue in our current condition of human-environmental dualism, or delusion.
In my observation, self-labeled "environmentalists" tend to be people with enough money to assuage the guilt of their high-consumption lifestyle by buying even more stuff, albeit marginally more efficient, and usually much more expensive, versions of the stuff they already want or have. And in addition to patting themselves on the back for their good deeds, they get the benefit of status that comes with visibly "green" alternatives. What is too often missing is how people across all incomes and cultures can, with a little discipline, live a more simple life, with less stuff, less driving, and less waste all around.
4 comments:
I didn't read the entire excerpt, but did read your summary paragraph, and agree with it. I think that the green wave (not Tulane's) is in large part marketing with little actual benefit. From my own experience in the construction industry this reminds me of my visit last year to the GreenBuild show in Boston. Amongst the booths of "energy efficient" companies with large displays that sucked up enough power to run a small farm was a concrete manufacturer that admitted what their green product really was. He said that what makes their product green is that it is slightly less wasteful than their old product making them a green-conscious manufacturer. Never mind the fact that their product is still just as pollutant as ever. They just wanted the Green stamp on their marketing brochure.
And our company went green which meant not pre-printing any brochures for the tradeshow. Not because it saved paper - mainly because it was cheaper not to ship them, but that doesn't look good in an advertisement.
I saw a commercial the other day for Ziploc "Evolve" bags, which use 25% less plastic than their regular bags. The only reason I have been willing to pay more for Ziploc brand bags was because theirs were thicker and stronger than store brands. Now they are asking people to pay more for the privilege of buying an inferior product.
Justus, I understand your condemnation of the self- congratulatory goose bumps some folks may get when they go green. But that's not really the problem. As the producers of SouthPark have pointed out, the problem is smog, not sumg, even though smug can be a by-product of combatting smog. Of course smug is produced by many, many kinds of behavior, not just environmentalism (Dr. RR points finger at self and gives self the stink-eye).
In any event, all of us, smug and humble, smog producers and smog fighters, should consider elimintating wasteful and inefficient consumption as you address in the last sentance of your summary. The "market" and would be proud of us for maximizing efficiency while minimizing externalities.
I think we agree, but I think it is worth addressing the smug issue. On the one hand, if market forces push people toward greener lifestyle because such choices are both cool and good, who cares which of those factors is more important to the consumer, it is a net win on both sides. It is the free market at work, and I am ALL about capturing externalities. On the other hand, the fundamental problem is overconsumption, regardless of the marginal difference between product choices. The question should not be "Do I buy a $10 doohickey or a $20 'green' doohickey?" but "Do I need a doohickey?" Unless we look at the fundamental problem, that of Koyaanisqatsi, then smug consumer choices are little more than window dressing.
Post a Comment