There have been more mass protests around the world this year, and for various reasons, but mostly revolving around either the predictable outcomes of engineered inequalities caused by late-stage capitalism, or the impending collective doom of climate change. I have mentioned my inherent skepticism of the effectiveness of protests, although I tend to support them as far as the basic principle of collective democratic expression goes.
The economic protests actually make more sense to me, as there is very little one can really do about not having enough money to survive or thrive, if you can't afford to move or you don't have enough time to find a better job. Pretty much every problem in life can be resolved with more money and/or time, but if you're already strapped for both, it can be very difficult to claw back more of either one.
Climate change, though, while a much bigger problem looming over us all, is oddly much more within the grasp of even a poor person. You can control how many children you have. You can control what sort of food you eat, and where it is produced. You can control what types and brands of products you choose to consume. You can control what sort of car you drive, whether or not you vote for politicians who will try to do something to address the impending crisis.
Now, we all live in the real world (except for religious fanatics who think this is all divine will and some providential intervention will save the righteous from catastrophe), and of course very few people truly have complete 100% control over all those things. The good news is that you don't have to have total control of those things. If a large enough number of people simply cut back ten percent on all those things, that would make a difference, and it would push companies and politicians alike to make real changes.
Perhaps the biggest dispute between climate change "believers" and skeptics is whether (or how much) of it is caused by human activity. The believers accept it as a given that it is mostly or wholly caused by human activity. And yet, curbing human overpopulation seems not to be a priority in the discussion. This is baffling, to say the least. No doubt there are historical, political, and cultural reasons why some people might be reluctant to address that factor, but as a purely practical matter, it is irresponsible not to talk about it. In the next few decades, there will be two billion more humans than there are right now. Where the hell are they -- and we -- supposed to go?
The photos of those massive public assemblies around the world were nothing short of inspiring. Tens of thousands of people in dozens of countries getting out there, demanding action. But what immediate effect can they have if they simply make a few modest changes as mentioned above? Start with ten percent and keep working it to a sustainable balance.
We are taught to make our consumer choices to project our idealized versions of ourselves to the rest of the world. The style and make and model and color of our vehicle tells them about us. The knick-knacks and collectibles we populate our houses and garages with tell our visitors who we are.
So when some know-it-all comes along and explains how these objects we purchase and take for granted, how even the means of packaging and shipping them are contributing to the destruction of the planet, it becomes overwhelming to comprehend, and we react. Oh, I guess I have to ride a bike everywhere and eat weeds and twigs, huh?
And that's not the case at all. You can still drive a car, you can still eat meat. But if you give half a shit about what kind of world you're passing along to your kids and grandkids, you can very easily cut back on those things by ten percent. You might find pretty quickly that you can go twenty or thirty percent on some things; maybe a full-vegetarian diet suits you, or you can trade in your F150 for a Fusion hybrid without it cramping your lifestyle.
But I guarantee you that just about everyone in the western world living above subsistence level can do something. The trick is that after that feel-good event is over and you've shown the powers that be your collective will, you have to be willing to go back home and make those simple, modest changes in your lifestyle tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, without the crowds and cameras and media coverage.
It all comes down to whether enough of us actually want to do the work. We're going to find out how many people are willing to walk the talk, or if they're just expecting someone else to solve the situation for them. There is no "solve" anymore, there is only the choice of making modest changes now so that maybe most of humanity doesn't have to make truly drastic changes in the near future.
And vote for people who aren't in thrall to the fossil-fuel industry.
The economic protests actually make more sense to me, as there is very little one can really do about not having enough money to survive or thrive, if you can't afford to move or you don't have enough time to find a better job. Pretty much every problem in life can be resolved with more money and/or time, but if you're already strapped for both, it can be very difficult to claw back more of either one.
Climate change, though, while a much bigger problem looming over us all, is oddly much more within the grasp of even a poor person. You can control how many children you have. You can control what sort of food you eat, and where it is produced. You can control what types and brands of products you choose to consume. You can control what sort of car you drive, whether or not you vote for politicians who will try to do something to address the impending crisis.
Now, we all live in the real world (except for religious fanatics who think this is all divine will and some providential intervention will save the righteous from catastrophe), and of course very few people truly have complete 100% control over all those things. The good news is that you don't have to have total control of those things. If a large enough number of people simply cut back ten percent on all those things, that would make a difference, and it would push companies and politicians alike to make real changes.
Perhaps the biggest dispute between climate change "believers" and skeptics is whether (or how much) of it is caused by human activity. The believers accept it as a given that it is mostly or wholly caused by human activity. And yet, curbing human overpopulation seems not to be a priority in the discussion. This is baffling, to say the least. No doubt there are historical, political, and cultural reasons why some people might be reluctant to address that factor, but as a purely practical matter, it is irresponsible not to talk about it. In the next few decades, there will be two billion more humans than there are right now. Where the hell are they -- and we -- supposed to go?
The photos of those massive public assemblies around the world were nothing short of inspiring. Tens of thousands of people in dozens of countries getting out there, demanding action. But what immediate effect can they have if they simply make a few modest changes as mentioned above? Start with ten percent and keep working it to a sustainable balance.
- Pick one or two days a week to not have any meat. (And no, "impossible whoppers" don't count. That's a scam, both nutritionally and as a point of sustainability.) Personally, I hate most vegetables, but things like black beans and polenta make great meatless meals. This is probably the single biggest area in which individuals can make a collective difference.
- Get as much (or at least ten percent) of your food from local sources as possible. This can be tricky for a lot of people, as farmers' markets can be expensive, or not as geographically prevalent in some areas. But one in eight Americans lives in California, which has everything everywhere as far as fresh produce and meat, and one in four Americans is in California, Texas, or Florida, all of which have abundant and diverse agricultural sectors. If just ten percent of the people just in those three states made the commitment and effort, it would make a difference. Food, especially processed and fast food, gets transported hundreds of miles on average. Many non-chain restaurants let you know about how they locally source as many ingredients as possible. Support them when you eat out.
- Vehicle choice is self-explanatory. Poor people can't afford SUVs and king-cab trucks in the first place, so that one is strictly a matter of Americans being conditioned to signal their prosperity and self-actualize through their choice of vehicle. Look, if you're really a farmer or a construction worker and you have a practical use for a beast vehicle, so be it. But if you're just an asshole trying to overcompensate or show off, that's a different story.
We are taught to make our consumer choices to project our idealized versions of ourselves to the rest of the world. The style and make and model and color of our vehicle tells them about us. The knick-knacks and collectibles we populate our houses and garages with tell our visitors who we are.
So when some know-it-all comes along and explains how these objects we purchase and take for granted, how even the means of packaging and shipping them are contributing to the destruction of the planet, it becomes overwhelming to comprehend, and we react. Oh, I guess I have to ride a bike everywhere and eat weeds and twigs, huh?
And that's not the case at all. You can still drive a car, you can still eat meat. But if you give half a shit about what kind of world you're passing along to your kids and grandkids, you can very easily cut back on those things by ten percent. You might find pretty quickly that you can go twenty or thirty percent on some things; maybe a full-vegetarian diet suits you, or you can trade in your F150 for a Fusion hybrid without it cramping your lifestyle.
But I guarantee you that just about everyone in the western world living above subsistence level can do something. The trick is that after that feel-good event is over and you've shown the powers that be your collective will, you have to be willing to go back home and make those simple, modest changes in your lifestyle tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, without the crowds and cameras and media coverage.
It all comes down to whether enough of us actually want to do the work. We're going to find out how many people are willing to walk the talk, or if they're just expecting someone else to solve the situation for them. There is no "solve" anymore, there is only the choice of making modest changes now so that maybe most of humanity doesn't have to make truly drastic changes in the near future.
And vote for people who aren't in thrall to the fossil-fuel industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment