Jeff wrote:
> Maybe One > By: Bill McKibben, 1998
>
> This book tiptoe's around population issues as if it
> is an explosive question. Here is an example:
> I don't consider population to be the problem, though that
> is what zealots have sometimes claimed. In the past I've
> written about overconsumption and about efficiency, topics
> that will recur in this book. It is essential that we
> consume less, and consume more intelligently -- that we
> live in smaller homes, and heat them with sun and wind.
> But, as we shall see, if the population keeps increasing
> those difficult changes will be robbed of much of their
> meaning.
>
> In the end the book concludes this is an individual choice
> and people need to talk about population. The problem is
> that our society does not provide information for an objective
> choice, and much of society wants to ignore this issue. I
> think the author is correct, this is an explosive issue.
Looks like a lot of fancy foot work to avoid the seemingly unwanted
conclusion that population is the/a problem. I particularly like:
" I don't consider population to be the problem" / "if the population keeps
increasing those difficult changes will be robbed of much of their meaning."
Anyway, from what I've read, I see population as a major factor in "the
problem." As the population rises, it gets increasingly difficult to for
humans as a species to be sustainable. This factor is independent from how
humans live. How we live (use of resources, creation of wastes, etc.),
obviously, also impacts our ability to be sustainable. When taken
together, their effects are exponential, in both the positive and negative
directions.
Many authors have said, and I agree, that we are probably already beyond a
sustainable number of people. So, I believe that we as individuals need to
work toward the smallest "footprint" we can manage while we work on
reducing the population. Reducing the population by any humane means
requires a lot of time - 50 years to stablize? 100 to reduce significantly?
In the meantime, our population will double again. With industrial
countries, and North American especially, using an unfair, and grossly
large, percentage of the worlds resources, this suggests that we should
work to find ways to drastically reduce our footprints and the sooner the
better.
Jeff often mentions that change is more likely if it is gradual and
enjoyable. Although I agree with the observation, I wonder if that natural
process will be sufficient. Perhaps we need to become better at changing,
encouraging change, and finding ways to make change more enjoyable.
> ----
> Earth Odyssey > By: Mark Hertsgaard, 1999
>
> What he found was a lot of people worried about the environment
> and not willing to act. Most were confused about what
> is needed. The same person who could see local environmental
> problems did not think any of it was related to global warming
> or that their actions had much impact on the environment.
>
> Most wanted to be optimistic about the future and that
> a scientific (magic) solution would be found. The idea
> that environmental problems can not be solved by science
> was not a comfortable subject.
Since conveniece and comfort are highly valued in our culture, it is not
surprising that people do not want to see the connections between their
actions and the problems. Nor do they want to be responsible for the
necessary changes. It is much easier and more comfortable to believe that
"someone" will fix it. (Kind of like a fatalism replacing "God" with
"Science") It is much easier and more comfortable to believe that their
effects on the environment are small and are therefore insignificant one
way or the other, thus allowing one to believe that they do not have to
worry about, or be responsible for, what they choose to do.
In other cultures, I'm sure, the mechanics are somewhat different (lack of
information, controlled information sources, traditions, etc.), and perhaps
that's why different countries seem to be better at environmental change
than others.
> What bothers me is that no one seems very interested in
> personal philosophy, individual action, and recognizing
> cultural conditioning. Am i missing something about what
> is important? Why do we have so many books about problems
> and so few books with answers?
Our society has been built on "freedom of the individual." Slowly this has
lead to the idea that "you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
hurt anyone else." Even that gets pushed at times into "I can do whatever
I want as long as I don't hurt anyone too much or get caught." Thinking
about personal philosophy, individual action and cultural conditioning
requires one to question wheather or not it is okay to be so self centered
/ selfish. It was never easy "to do the right thing," but it has gotten
even more difficult because we no longer have the support of the society,
because it's messages play to our hedonistic side. So, I don't think
you're missing anything about what's important. But, many others don't
want to consider what's important because it may mean giving up things they
hold dear.
Our culture likes and praises criticism, so books about problems are not
surprising. But, the book would not be popular (money), if it calls for
radical change or personal responsibility. We'd rather point he finger at
nebulous things like "big business" or the "government" than at ourselves.
We want "some one" to "fix it", so we can just get on with our lives.
So, what should we do? I'll save that for my next post . . .
Eric:
