After reading the posts from last week, I appear to be the black sheep of the group. Accordingly, I think Michael Maniates is largely correct. Easy doesn't fix the problem. I am not advocating that we collectively stop doing the little things. After all, less, even if just a tiny bit less, is preferable when it comes to negative environmental consequences, but these changes are not what we generally refer to when we talk about a lifestyle overhaul. We all laughed a Cameron Diaz, but she's just do exactly what she has been told and passing her wisdom to the rest of us.
So why is green living sold to us in this way? I don't think it's as patronizing as Maniates claims. Perhaps its just one way to get regular people engaged in the process on a regular basis. Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all extraordinary innovators who adopted a core mission as their life's work. Similar innovators exist and will continue to emerge in the field of conservation, so as the rest of us pursue other callings, lets support them in the ways that we can.
Alli Gerhart
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for commenting on my work. Alas, all the available evidence points to an annoying conclusion: trying to get people "started" through simple acts of consumption does little to enhance their imagination, boldness, or self-confidence as citizens -- and, in fact, these simple acts may divert people from doing more aggressive things. I'm all for starting out people with simple tasks, and having them build their confidence. But if we want them to be active as citizens, demanding that our leaders make the tough choices and supporting them when they do, wouldn't we want to start "regular people" off with simple things that enhance citizen, rather than consumer, abilities?
ReplyDeleteIf you're trying to get someone comfortable with flying a 747, you don't start them on small bicycle. You get them comfortable in a flight simulator, then in a single engine plane, etc.
Thanks again for commenting on my work.