The Problem
"If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" it has been said.
I've been machine-gunned a few times recently for not doing my utmost to minimise my impact on the environment. Apparrently, according to a particular school of thought, if I believe that climate change is influenced by human behaviour, and that it is a bad thing, I should go and live in a cave, and subsist on leaves and roots. Re-planting as I go, of course, to ensure that I leave a minimal ecological fooprint. *sigh*
I can see where they are coming from, but I disagree. Of course. If all people who fit the 'believes humans are negatively impacting the environment' category were to retreat to what's left of the wilderness, it would be detremental in any ways. Aside from the obvious point that teeming hordes of naked, leaf-eating humans would make a serious mess of the described wilderness, ceding the field to 'progressive' memes would not help our biosphere at all.
As with the 'Zero Population Growth' movement, the problem remains one of swaying the vast majority of the populace toward our way of thinking. To flee and live in the hills would not achieve that. In fact, it would not achieve much of anything. It would give a huge advantage to those who live unfettered by concerns about pollution etc.
Personally, I'd like to contribute to efforts to sway humankind to more Earth-friendly behaviours. To promote environmentally sound memeage. To work toward solutions to the planets problems in some small way, or, failing that, to help to find and implement ways to mitigate the harm humans do.
I can't do that if I live nekkid in the scrub. As far as I can see, I have to work within existing social frameworks to garner knowledge and obtain tools to make the kind of positive contribution I want.
Besides which, if environmentalists cede the feild to unfettered consumerism, the planet will more rapidly become incapable of sustaining life in any comfort. And there is no life boat. There is no 'somewhere else' as in: "If you don't like how we are plundering the planet's resources and poisoning our environmnet, go live somewhere else." There is not even a 'somewhere else' as in: "They are screwing the planet ever harder and will not acknowledge the problem let alone make genuine efforts to change, so let's leave them to their fate and live somewhere else."
No lifeboats, people.
Anyway, back to the quote I did quote.
"If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem"
The observer, by observing, influences the outcome, IIRC.
So, simply by being aware of a problem, we are already part of it. An influence on it.
I believe that in order to be part of the solution, one has to be part of the problem, by default.
It's not something I can explain to a bunch of angry conservatives when I'm being told, yet again, that environmentalists are hypocrytes for travelling by polluting forms of transport etcetera, but having set it down here in a somewhat comprehensible form might somehow help me.
I hope so.
I've been machine-gunned a few times recently for not doing my utmost to minimise my impact on the environment. Apparrently, according to a particular school of thought, if I believe that climate change is influenced by human behaviour, and that it is a bad thing, I should go and live in a cave, and subsist on leaves and roots. Re-planting as I go, of course, to ensure that I leave a minimal ecological fooprint. *sigh*
I can see where they are coming from, but I disagree. Of course. If all people who fit the 'believes humans are negatively impacting the environment' category were to retreat to what's left of the wilderness, it would be detremental in any ways. Aside from the obvious point that teeming hordes of naked, leaf-eating humans would make a serious mess of the described wilderness, ceding the field to 'progressive' memes would not help our biosphere at all.
As with the 'Zero Population Growth' movement, the problem remains one of swaying the vast majority of the populace toward our way of thinking. To flee and live in the hills would not achieve that. In fact, it would not achieve much of anything. It would give a huge advantage to those who live unfettered by concerns about pollution etc.
Personally, I'd like to contribute to efforts to sway humankind to more Earth-friendly behaviours. To promote environmentally sound memeage. To work toward solutions to the planets problems in some small way, or, failing that, to help to find and implement ways to mitigate the harm humans do.
I can't do that if I live nekkid in the scrub. As far as I can see, I have to work within existing social frameworks to garner knowledge and obtain tools to make the kind of positive contribution I want.
Besides which, if environmentalists cede the feild to unfettered consumerism, the planet will more rapidly become incapable of sustaining life in any comfort. And there is no life boat. There is no 'somewhere else' as in: "If you don't like how we are plundering the planet's resources and poisoning our environmnet, go live somewhere else." There is not even a 'somewhere else' as in: "They are screwing the planet ever harder and will not acknowledge the problem let alone make genuine efforts to change, so let's leave them to their fate and live somewhere else."
No lifeboats, people.
Anyway, back to the quote I did quote.
"If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem"
The observer, by observing, influences the outcome, IIRC.
So, simply by being aware of a problem, we are already part of it. An influence on it.
I believe that in order to be part of the solution, one has to be part of the problem, by default.
It's not something I can explain to a bunch of angry conservatives when I'm being told, yet again, that environmentalists are hypocrytes for travelling by polluting forms of transport etcetera, but having set it down here in a somewhat comprehensible form might somehow help me.
I hope so.
posted by Jac | 2:04 pm
4 Comments:
Loved your post. However and unfortunately, the problem and its question's remain. And here we are sitting and looking around not knowing what to do. Any suggestions?
Regards
Rham
As I see it, the problem lies between knowledge of actions and behaviours that will help, and implementing those actions and behaviours effectively.
It's not that humankind does not know how to conserve and preserve our biosphere, but that we lack the focus and cohesion to do it. Some changes cannot be retro-fitted to existing systems of living, and change will not be easy or popular. And at the moment, in a relative utopia, the people who controld the direction of the world do so by dint of being popular.
Nobody who rations energy by need and not whim in order to reconfigure the way we consume resources on a global scale will get elected. Not yet anyway. Perhaps when things break down to an extent where voters are focussed on who will *keep them alive* rather than provide the most bread and circuses, necessary controls and restrictions can be implemented. I fear, however, that that might be when we are well beyond many crucial tipping points.
~ sorry this is such a quick scrawl. I will attempt something more cohesive when I have time.
Unfortunately, I have to say that I agree with you: it seems that the only and inevitable solution to “the problem” is to crash. There may be however another solution: "technology". If this keeps advancing at its current rate, then we may find that the solution to all our "environmental" problems will be provided by the progress in "technology". The question remains as to who will get there first: the “saviour” changes produced by our technology, or the collapse of the current human civilization.
Anyway, whether the end of the world as we know it is on its way or not, what is certain is that we are somehow "privileged" to witness these times of extreme change.
Regards
Rham
Ah, I long for saviour technologies to swoop to the rescue.
But that is a bit like a fat person hoping that science will invent a miracle weight-loss pill to save them from developing type two diabetes rather than working on weight loss the old fashioned way.
Just look at the obesity epidemic of the Western World to see why I am so sceptical of the ability of the human race to control its consumption of resources.
Instincts still rule over reason, alas.
Post a Comment
<< Home