I was thinking about this, and in my opinion, the "things" we all want to
"save" (polar bears, rainforest, amphibians etc) are all on a marketplace so
to speak, and are in competition with one another as to what gets the most
attention.
We may "pay more" as a society to save cute cuddly polar bears than they are
"worth" in the grand scheme of relative importance of things, because
without a doubt even people who are not environmentalists per se love
wildlife and animals (I think there are some studies on this - I know one
mag, I think Smithsonian, said their sales go way up when they put a cute
animal on the cover). Every organization out there has to compete for money
and the public's attention. Right now global warming has (finally) gotten
the attention it deserves in the mainstream. It's reached the tipping point
in terms of attention and people are paying attention who could dismiss it
before.
The question is, how do "We Who Care About the Environment" make sure that
our societal group effort and money is expended on the decisions that will
TRULY make the most difference in terms of turning the planet into a place
we truly want for future generations. First we have to know which decisions
are the most important (why I like that book about Effective Consumer
Choices), then we have to know how to harness that energy and effort to
educating others about the relative importance of those things so everyone
is not just going in a million directions. This is where solid leadership
comes in.
When I say wildlife are of less relative importance, I mean each individual
species "Save the whales" type thing. This has shifted to "save ecosystems"
over the past 30 years I think, and I also want to add that wildlife can be
an entry-drug (so to speak) to those less ecologically/environmentally
minded, and so their importance in the "economics" of ideas may be worth
more than ecologically each individual species may be.
Anyway just some thoughts.
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology
Freelance Writer-Photographer
http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
Bohemian Adventures Blog
http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CRIKEY!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Absolute Addiction to Catastrophic Consumption
Folks --
It seems like every day, week, or month I see in the mainstream press
another matter-of-factly presented alert that a species, an ecosystem, a
critical planetary cycle is out of whack, with likely devastating
consequences, often sooner rather than later.
Polar bears, sage grouse, the North Banks fishery, the western Pacific,
major river systems, major aquifers, rain forests, ocean levels rising,
desertification, carbon dioxide/global warming, glaciers melting; and the
list grows and grows over time with the pace of new alarms itself increasing
alarmingly.
And the consuming public is told by their government that the solution to
"terrorism" is to go shopping. More ways to shop are devised through
electronic and cyber-media and advertising.
The Shopping Channel on television is supplanted by EBay and Craigslist.
People tune out the drone of warnings of ecological catastrophe, but focus
intently on businesses handing out free products and services to bring in
yet more paying customers.
We are a world of catastrophic consumption, with the lines totally blurred
between wants and needs. Human survival is increasingly being put at risk
by destructive consumption. Resource wars are killing many, many thousands,
with planning being laid by governments for yet more such wars. Terrorism
is a buzz word for those who resist colonization and imperialism through
armed force, with the underlying impetus for these conflicts being
competition for increasingly scarce resources with petroleum far and away at
the top of the list of valued resources. Petroleum greases the pathway to
consumption, and consumption of petroleum itself is the underlying factor
for wars past, present and future.
During World War II, Americans were asked to consume less of many consumer
goods in order to allow for resources to be devoted to the war effort. Now,
Americans are asked to shop during wartime. The American economy drives
armaments production of high technology implements of war that are capable
of killing countless citizens of other countries whose national needs are in
competiton with those of American citizens. So we shop and kill and kill
and shop and it is all one endless destructive cycle, as interlinked as any
ecological system's components.
We are used to killing our competitors. Ranchers kill ground squirrels and
prairie dogs that compete for grass. We kill coyotes and wolves that
compete for our livestock. We kill termites that compete for our finished
lumber. In a world of increasing competition for resources, with a
still-growing human population and retaining the idiotic priority of yet
more economic growth, the killing will only continue and increase.
Will we ever learn? I think we may be asking the wrong question.
Can we ever learn as a species that an appropriate level of consumption is
the key to survival, but catastrophic consumption kills? And our
society/culture is as addicted to catastrophic consumption as a junkie is to
heroin. The junkie often harms only himself, but we are harming
biodiversity, ecosystems, planetary cycles and processes, and our unborn
children.
Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
It's tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.a
spx?icid=HMMartagline
