The Triangle...

I think Prof. Maniates was quite persuasive in presenting his "Trinity of Despair." When thinking about the lack of effectiveness in the environmental movement, the three corners of the triangle seem to be three concrete obstacles that stand in the way of real progress. This is not the first class where students have attributed man's inherent flaw (being inherently selfish) to the many problems of the world. I think it's natural that we make this assumption because we see it play out it our daily lives. People are out to get what's theirs and often what belongs to others. Perhaps the persistence of this flaw should open our eyes and make us realize as Leigh Ann said to "break the mold." Prof. Maniates said that humans are inherently social creatures and are a coopearative species. I think it is difficult to grasp our minds behind this idea because it may be a rare occurence. When I see cooperation take place, it's usually when there is a problem that needs to be solved--a large one at that.

This leads to the corner of Social Change. I liked his key phrase about finding "pressure points" in order for the system to change. While it may be ideal for everyone to be on board, we know that it probably won't happen. Therefore, even if everyone is not on board, we can't allow this to discourage the small masses who call for change and believe in the power of change. Personally, I think those small masses probably need to get a bit bigger before they can take off. I think it's also important that those small masses contain powerful voices and key players. Gathering the right spokesperson, leader, etc may make a big difference in getting more people interested in the environmental cause and getting the wrong people may "turn off" those who started out with minimal interest.

The Environmental Strategies corner is a place where I may still disagree with Prof. Maniates. He makes a good point that the simple environmental strategies lead to the problem of just being "good consumers." The light bulbs and green living books do not allow people to put "pressure" on something else. I go back to the last paragraph in my previous blog regarding his article we read, "I think it's great that people make the effort to become aware of the environmental issues and make small steps. However, it is impossible for the small actions of one man to save all of mankind. ... I believe that most of us have probably done too little in the past or even in the present to tackle the environmental problems that face us. Call me an optimist, but I'm a believer in that it's not too late to change our ways."

The unbreakable trinity of despair?

After engaging with Professor Maniates last Friday during our teleconference, and learning of his "trinity of despair" theory, I've come to a greater understanding of why many environmental scientists and activists have such a negative view of the possibility of effective citizen action to prevent our further submergence into the current environmental crisis. Firstly, the ambivalence demonstrated by the majority of the population regarding the state of our environment, and our overwhelmingly negative impact on it, is a result of Maniates' "human nature" point of the triangle of despair. He describes our inherently selfish nature as an obstacle to our effective environmental action, and thus the primary inhibitor to obtaining an effective course of action to stop the current course of environmental destruction. I very much agree with Maniates on this matter, I believe that the majority of the inhabitants of our planet are either unaware of our harmful effects on our ecological surroundings, or simply do not care enough to curb their actions into more eco-efficient, or environmentally friendly ways of being. In my opinion, this point of the triangle is the most important obstacle we need to overcome in order to change our ways, but at the same time, represents the most difficult aspect of the triangle to modify-in that it regards our inherent ways of being as the human race.

Maniates second point of the trinity regarded "social change". Basically, Maniates stated that unless we have a sufficient number of people on board and committed to environmental action, that the current environmental groups and organizations that exist, which are fighting to bring about environmental change, are holistically irrelevant. Until we have the majority of the world actively interested and engaged with the issue of curbing our behaviours to coincide with lifestyles that will either halt or reduce our impacts that lead to climate change and global warming--we will not be able to summon an adequate amount of action at the community level to bring about any real change. Maniates believes that the only way an increase in citizen action will occur will be as the result of some sort of environmental crisis. I agree in some sense as well. I feel that since we are not able to perceive the tangible effects of climate change on a daily basis, the impacts that will effect our everyday lives, that people don't feel the need to change their habits. Until we experience some sort of actual, dramatically obvious changes to the environment that effect the whole of humanity, people will remain indifferent and seemingly inactive in the matter. On the other hand, I do not by any means see the environmental organizations that currently exist in our communities as completely ineffective or excessive. I think these grassroots organizations are vital for stirring up the activism that will eventually lead to an overall awareness of the environmental issues we are currently facing, and the vitality of addressing these issues. We see the results of the effectiveness of these groups everyday, such as in the current "green" trend that is popular in many regions of the world. It is now "chic" and "in" to live, or at least to convey a lifestyle which is seemingly green/eco-friendly, and thus cohesive with nature. I contribute this positive trend to the actions of environmental groups, which are dispelling awareness and information about the environmental crisis to new mediums, such as to the young-20 demographic and to the likes of hollywood stars & celebrities, who have an important impact on our community and planet as a whole. Therefore, although eco-organizations and environmental activists will not provide the solution to preventing a further and intensified environmental crisis, they are at least the first step to acquiring the fundamental awareness and motivation needed to bring about cohesive behavioural, social, political and institutional change we need.

Maniates third point of the triangle referred to the existing environmental strategies we've seen applied as an attempt to solve the environmental issues. The most prominent of these strategies are the bottom-up approaches to consumerism, which encourage global customers to purchase more environmentally friendly small household and other consumer goods, such as eco-clothing, lightbulbs, food items-that are less environmentally destructive than the alternative options available in the global market. This is the point of the triangle about which I am most optimistic. I believe if consumers, overall, commit to buying these items on a small scale, that we can make a dent in the current energy accumulation/waste habits we currently incur. I am optimistic about these strategies because they also have something to do with the negative parts of our inherent human nature/behaviour. Since we as human beings are inherently selfish, I believe these products will appeal to consumers in the global market because while they are generally more expensive up-front, because they require a modification in their production process, they will provide an economic benefit in the long run because they are more energy-efficient, and therefore require us to spend less of replace the objects over time. Instead of buying 30 lightbulbs in a year, we can buy one, that will last maybe 5-10 years, reducing our expenditures overall. Of the three points of the triangle, I feel the application of these environmental strategies, albeit seemingly miniscule, represent the environmental action we, in today's state, are most capable of effectively taking.

Overcoming the Triangle

The “Trinity of Despair” was a little daunting, but it did seem to make a little sense to me in some ways. I do believe that humans are selfish and self-maximizing. Yet I do agree with others in the class that a lot of people break that mold. Generalizations tend to get us in to trouble. Of course some people will only think of themselves, but the world is full or spectrum's. So, on the other end of the spectrum there are people who never think of themselves and always put others first. I do not think that human nature should be something that inhibits us from going forward with solutions to this problem. We should recognize that human nature is part of our buildups, and then find a solution to make it easier for people to start trying these environmental ideas. That’s where environmental strategies come into play.

I was a big fan of the environmental strategies group that says that we do not need a crisis to stop this problem; a few more people just need to be aware of it. This is also the side that represents small actions first. In our previous blog with Prof. Maniates, I disagreed with his points on environmental strategies. In combination with other things, and as a first step, I believe they are necessary. People need to know how to take shorter showers and buy proper light bulbs before they are going to start riding a bike 20 miles to work and back. We have to recognize that human nature will have an impact on some people’s reactions, and prepare for that.

The social change aspect was also very interesting. I do believe in social change, and we have talked so much in this class about being not a consumer but a citizen. I think that is so important, and people need to be mobilized to support a cause. I do not think we need a crisis in order for things to change, but I do feel that most people are just trying to get through the day. I hope a smaller group than 80% of the population would need to care about environmental issues before changes were made.

I thought the triangle was an interesting way to conceptualize the problem, but like Maniates, I believe we can beat the trinity of despair and truly solve this problem. Using methods that will work to counter all three points of the triangle, to make social change easier, and environmental steps faster. We have been talking about most of these points in class, so it was so interesting to hear about it from another perspective in which the concept truly came to life in the triangle. I would definitely recommend trying to schedule this teleconference again next semester, it was extremely helpful!

Trinity of Despair?

Professor Maniates' Trinity of Despair ... here's how I scored:

HN (Human Nature) - 4
SC (Social Change) - 2
ES (Environmental Strategies) - 3

The trinity of despair exercise was, in my opinion, a good exercise in critical thinking. I think I misunderstood Mr. Maniates when he asked us about human nature; he distinguishes between selfishness and self-interest, stating that humans by nature have a high degree of self interest, yet are not actually selfish, but to me they are essentially the same thing. Self-interest becomes selfishness when one person's self-interest conflicts with that of another person, and both are disinclined to compromise.

As evidenced by the (comparatively) low value I gave to social change, I agree with Mr. Maniates that social change is not an issue in which everybody needs to be on board. I'm completely with him on the whole "it only takes a few really motivated people to make a difference" bit. We don't need a ton of people on completely board the environmental issue, we just need a few people to work hard to change our system to make it simple for a gamut of people with differing viewpoints to find it in their best interests (as well as in the best interests of the planet) to (grudgingly or not) assist reducing humanity's environmental impact.

On the third point of the Triangle/Trinity of Despair, environmental strategies, I opted for the safe middleground. Our consumer-driven attack on the economic system is definitely something to keep pursuing, but it is not what will see the world though this environmental crisis. After all, humans are diverse creatures, and there will always be someone who will want to buy a Thneed, and there will always be a Onceler willing to make and sell it to him. Consequently, we not only need to curb the demand for Thneeds, but we also need to prevent Oncelers from becoming Oncelers. However, our market economics driven world system makes this a hard task. Hard, but not impossible. We just need to adjust the system to encourage the development of Loraxes rather than Oncelers. Again, very, very difficult to do, but completely possible. Look at how far we have "progressed" in just the last few hundred years--or even in just the last few decades!

On a final note, I really liked Professor Maniates (and hopefully he won't read this blog post). He easily conveys his genuine interest in the topic, and his nice personality enouraged me to really try to think about what he was saying--not just critically analyze the logic behind his arguments, but also figure out where I really stand for each of the points of the triangle. And while I'm pretty happy with my score, I'm even now reconsidering and reconsidering points made in our discussion.