I must say that Michael Maniates makes some interesting points in such a short article. It's easy to dismiss Maniates because it seems as if he undermines the "easy" tasks that many of us perform on a daily basis such as shorter showers or turning the water off while we brush our teeth. He is not denying that these things are important. Rather, he is stating that this just isn't enough. We're doing the simple things for ourselves and our children. But when we turn the lights off before leaving a room, do you think about how that may impact the life of your grandchildren? Will flipping that switch save the planet and reverse the planet's path?
Mahatma Gandhi said "We must become the change we want to see." We will all be wearing our "Live Green" t-shirts in our homes lit up by these environmentally friendly light bulbs, while glaciers continute to melt and average temperatures continue to rise. Is this all that we want to see in out future? I can be critical of Maniates because he himself does not offer any solutions or ideas as to what bigger steps we should take in responding to the "planetary emergency." He basically tells us to confront the issue at hand. In today's world, I believe it is easier to confront the issue and face the facts that the environment is changing and we are responsible for that change. It's not so easy to discover the solutions to solving our environmental problems.
I think most of us are "short-term" problem solvers. The price of gas is high, so I will ride by bike or take the bus. I will then pat myself on the back for helping the planet for one day. Does anyone see a problem with this? We are concerned about the environment when we are forced to. We can easliy manipulate a situation and turn it into an environmental crusade.
In our group discussions last week with TA Emily, we talked about how being "green" is a fad. And I don't think this is a good thing because like all other fads, they come and go. Maybe this explains the rise in the number of "environmental self-help" books that Maniates speaks of. While it is great that people want to be informed, are they doing it for the right reasons? When will the "green" fad be outdated? And what is more important to address is what could possibly replace the "green" fad.
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. In regards to the title of my post, 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for your comments on my work. I appreciate you taking it seriously enough to write about it.
We may differ on three points. The first is that a work can or should be dismissed (or at least disregarded) if it doesn't offer explicit solutions. Isn't recognizing the problem an important part towards coming together to creatively brainstorm solutions? It seems to me that that's what we need to be doing now, and my piece is a small part of trying to fire up that creativity.
A second point of disagreement may be over our differing views of human nature. You suggest that humans are short-term problem solvers and yet, when you go out into the literature on the psychology of problem solving, you see something rather different: Humans think across the short, medium, and long term, and they solve problems at all levels. And they get great joy out of being creative and solving tough riddles. I'm reminded of this by my friends down the street who play fantasy baseball, and the old lady next door who studies the ads to find the best bargains (to the point where she's recognized patterns and can now predict the timing of major sales.) I don't think that you'd be where you are today -- at American, doing good work -- if you or your parents were ONLY short-term problem solvers. We disempower ourselves and unnecessarily generate a politics of despair when we so easily assume that people are so small and limited...especially when there's so much countervailing historical, political, and psychological evidence to the contrary. So give humans a little credit!...and consider the possibility that the question we ought to be asking isn't "My God, how do we deal with those short-term problem-solving humans," but rather "How can we cultivate the long-term, creative problem-solving abilities of humans in ways that will help solve the big problems before us?"
Third, and finally, I do think that I offer a solution in my piece. And that's for a few of us who care about these issues to demand more of environmental organizations and elected leaders. In my experience, a few people demanding more can make change well beyond their numbers. Did you not see this as an offered solution? Or did it strike you as so idealistic that you didn't take it seriously? If it's the latter, I fear that you're selling the power of small groups of committed people short. It's safe to assume that things can't change -- but it's an odd stance in a world where the one constant IS change, and where someone alive 40 years ago in this country might not recognize the America of today.
And, really, in the end, what's the alternative? To screw in light bulbs and go quietly into the night? To imagine that the social and political consequences of environmental collapse will somehow spare us and the ones we love? I'm not prepared to accept either...and I don't imagine that you are as well.
All my best,
Michael Maniates
Allegheny College
Post a Comment