Anti-environmentalist??

I'm second guessing myself again. I'm trying to come up with all kinds of reasons to debase my feelings of negativity about the growing focus on "causes" and "saving the world" and "doing good" and being sustainable and green and blah blah blah hippy bullshit. 

I've blamed my contrarian nature. I blame negative associations with supposed save the worlders. I blame myself getting old and curmudgeon and turning into someone that I would despise. I blame my inner troll. Really, I'm just trying to understand why all these so-call supposed good and green things make me want to go out and start dumping oil into the fucking ocean or exploding nuclear waste in flames or something equally stupidly retard and self-destructive in response to all the green save the world energy.

Tonight, as the boyf and I were cooking dinner, I asked him if I was really some shallow red-neck uneducated person who doesn't give a shit about the earth, the world? And he shot right back at me without a seconds breath - it was the self-righteousness. He of course hit the nail on the head. There is this holier than thou, this, I am doing such good to/with/for the world - and you should too - or if you're not I am a better person. It really turns me off. 

This self-righteousness is used as marketing, as a ploy to go "green". It's another way to stupidly compare/value yourself to someone else - and shore up that perceived lack with our easy green products! Lucky for us Americans, we can buy our way into not feeling bad that we live in the nation that uses the most resources. Yay!

This week I have been doing a lot of thinking about values - mine and the worlds. These two filmmakers /save the world types grabbed me in the TJs parking lot yesterday. I don't usually bother talking to anyone with a clipboard, but last night I was feeling ... I don't know... more open than usual. So I chatted with them. They were doing a "noble" job of getting people to sponsor children's clean water or education. I started grilling them on why they were doing this gig since both of them were in the film biz. They responded that it was a way to spend a day they weren't doing anything else doing, make a few bucks and feel good about helping these kids. I questioned them, couldn't they do better, more effective work applying their craft to this mission? But that did not fly. (I still think they needed the cash and yes it did make them feel good, but I bet they wouldn't do what they were doing for free!)

I admit, I baited them with some radical thoughts (why not let these children die? The world is too overpopulated as it is? Isn't it better for these kids to die young and allow a sibling a better chance of survival? I admit, it's a harsh line, and not one that I necessarily believe in. But I tried the idea on for a moment to see what it was like (and hear there responses).

Walking home, I thought about our conversation, and what I really believed. I know from my recent grad school studies that it's the underdeveloped nations that have the worst time of it - overpopulation, disease, lack of education. And to decrease world population you have to improve conditions through health and education before you see birth rate go down. And even then, I question whether with education and health improvements, population really does go down?

But back to values. I realized that I operate under a different value set from the one those guys were operating under. I didn't want to save every life possible. I mean, I used too, but that was too stressful and didn't matter that much in the long run.

I thought about my plants, and how sad I get when one plant is not doing as well as another. When my tomatoes last summer got infested with aphids it pained me to throw them out after I tried for weeks and weeks with natural and finally chemical pest treatments. My aunt remarked upon this, you have to always plant some for the insects. Now I'm not necessarily comparing these children to my plants, but why do I have more empathy to these growing/non-human things and not children. (Well, I do think children are alien energy suckers, but that's a different story.)

It was my values of saving every pedaco of life in my tomato plants that gave me stress. I was stressed out that I wasn't a good plant mom. That I did something wrong to attract the aphids. That I should have caught them earlier. That I felt bad they were suffering by having their energy literally sucked out their stems. If I had not tried to save the one plant that was infested first then all my others would not have ended up in the trash. (Well, not as fast at least.)

And is that so bad? I mean, a tomato plant is going to die eventually either from aphids or something else. Who am I to interfere with the world flow? Am I some God that thinks I can bestow immortality on my tomato plants or at least a longer growing cycle via Miracle Grow?

I don't _want_ to save the world. In fact, I don't believe the world needs saving. It's humans that need saving. (Oh Jesus, you were right!) The world will to continue to exist, whether or not us humans continue to exist. And some day, us humans will cease to exist - completely. Everything that exists now will no longer exist. All so-called artifacts or buildings or anything that is created by any of us will cease being in the form it is in. (I sometimes wonder what kind of oil our refuse will create.) Humans are some pretty fucked up animals. But then again, we're pretty amazing too.

Which is why I believe that to truly "change the world" you have to (and I quote Michael Jackson) start with the man in the mirror. Clean up your shit at home. God only knowns that's what us Americans need to do right now. Stop saving the world - and start saving yourself. But if you don't want to do that, that's fine with me too.

Personally, I'm rooting for the world. I don't think us humans can do it, although I'm trying my best. When it means the end of humanity as we know it, well then, it's been nice knowing you and living in the best of all possible worlds. I'll see you on the flipside of eternity either way.

Comments

[Susanna Schick]

true, sanctimonious pricks of any stripe are unbearable. how ever did you survive in Berkeley as long as you did? :-)

I've been thinking about the population issue for years, and it's part of the reason I chose to volunteer as a high school speaker for Planned Parenthood. Americans should be having fewer kids than anyone, the way we gobble up resources. So I did my best to convince kids to at least wait till after college to start families.

The truly interesting problem facing us is not how do we preserve resources for future generations, but how do we do so when our whole worldview/economy is built on MORE. Without selling MORE, companies are punished. How can they thrive if we consume less?

I want to find a way for this to happen. As much as some people like to go "oooh, evil corporations..." let's not forget, they are employing us, either directly or indirectly. Capitalism works, it's just that it's discovering that things will need to change if we want our grandchildren (rather, Your grandchildren) to have the same or better quality of life we enjoy.

The first answer seems to be- find new resources (and NOT corn!!!), ie- improve the technology for using recycled materials, and make it so all plastic, polyester, nylon, etc. comes from recycling instead of from the latest barrel of oil.

I guess you could stop thinking about all the annoying rhetoric and sanctimony and just do what you always do- think about the future and what you want it to look like, then go out and shape it.

[hvnt]

Yeah, what you said! In retrospect, I really like what you did with planned parenthood. I love that you are all about not having kids. The world has enough.

[Lars P]

Worse than the self-righteousness is that since the driving force of many is to feel "holier than the Joneses", the focus is on things that appear "green" and look good to a casual observer, instead of the often boring and invisible real solutions to real problems.

I very much disagree that "overpopulation" is a problem. At least I haven't seen a definition of the term that makes sense. The areas that most consider overpopulated, are among the least densely populated. The problems they have are due to phenomenally badly organized societies, not the head count.

We're not running out of "resources" in general, and the most valuable resource is humans.

I may sound whiny (my back is KILLING me today) but this is a message of hope. Things are gonna be mostly fine!

[Hippy]

high horses put off people, regardless of whether someone is telling you you should eat a certain way, worship a certain way, vote a certain way, or use a certain technology. environmentally minded people certainly have no monopoly on being annoying. That doesn't mean, for example, that i'm going to go out and buy a PC or a Zune just because Mac people can be annoying fawning fan-tards.

you are 100% correct about saving the earth. the earth is in no danger. the environment in which life evolved on this planet is. No worries though, you and I ~probably~ won't live to see the most devastating effects of that. It would be different if our environments were smaller. we could be like yeast then, and drown in our own feces without taking out a complex global system of dependencies.... but i diverge into annoying territory ;)

My personal take comes for a Long Now view. We're here because of the struggles our ancestors endured and the lessons they learned through thousands of years of trial and error. the decisions you and i make today don't magically get a pass. The future always rests on the shoulders of the present. owning that responsibility is a personal choice - one that I choose to honor.

I've thrown in with the permaculture people because they're not touchy feely hippies - at least not the ones i know in los angeles. it's about design. it's about working smart instead of working hard. it's about do-acracy. it's about radical self-reliance. we're not waiting for government to fix shit.

if an element in a system doesn't serve more than one function it's probably not the best solution. if a function isn't being met by more than one element, your system isn't robust - it's a house of cards. if you're generating waste in your system, you're a fool and you're wasting money (energy). there's no such thing in nature. everything is utilized by another element in the system. that's just plain using your noggin. ain't nothing hippie-dippie about it.

example: we live in a desert. $billions and a significant portion of our electricity usage goes to pumping water into and around the city. we spend $billions more building and maintaining a system to divert rainwater to the ocean as quickly as possible. it doesn't take a genius to realize that's just plain stupid. the same amount of money and work spent creating infiltration points in parking lots and homes solves the storm water issue, while alleviating some of the import needs. then you're done. no more effort or money is required for that problem.

but don't stop there. as a homeowner or business owner, if you build a system that can collect, filter, and store that rainwater (it's surprisingly easy) you decrease the amount of money you spend on water. consider that income. if you reduce your water needs (a lawn in los angeles can use 200,000 gallons per year - that's $800 - for something most people don't use), again, consider that income - better than income - once the system is in place, you expend no energy to receive the benefits.

Now, if you have such a system, and you've reduced your needs, viola! you've actually become radically self-sufficient instead of that faux version in the black rock desert that depends on you spending a shit-ton of money at Wal Mart. if disaster strikes or a terrorist slips something into the water supply you don't care. you've become your own master. it really is seditious, which is why it's so resisted by governments and big corps that lose if people are no longer dependent on them.

This is why we're loaning money to the nuclear industry instead of to homeowners and small businesses to purchase distributed solar, wind, & other clean energy tech. the latter investment results in self-sufficiency. once it's paid for, you no longer need to work for your energy needs. the former keeps you a slave to the energy company. they make the profits and donate a portion to the re-election campaign.

Almost every area of concern touted by environmentalists has similar solutions. ones that you don't need to wait for the government to fix, if you just think smarter. in almost every case, you're saving money. the proper way to think of it is you're earning money without a lot of work.

The bottom line, though, is i don't give a shit what reason people change their habits to smarter ones. if they want to show off their "greenness," more power to them. it affects me. law of supply and demand: each person who sits in traffic in their giant SUV commuting to work instead of buying an economy car for that task or using public transportation increases demand for a limited resource and drives up the cost i pay. i don't worry about it too much though, because i'm doing what i can to live smart, reduce my expenses, and reduce my dependencies. radical self-reliance, baby.

Glad you're thinking about this stuff and being honest, heather. it's important stuff for a future futurist :)

[Hippy]

and now... a test: see if you can get beyond the touchy feely interviewer and marvel at the radical self-sufficiency of this self-sustaining robust food factory on 1/5 an acre in portland. she's sticking it to the man ;)

http://livingmandalas.ning.com/video/tabor-tilth-permaculture-in

[Susanna Schick]

Lars, you're right in that the countries with the highest population growth rate have a governance problem more than a consumption problem. It takes about 11 Ethiopian kids to consumer as much food, fuel, etc. as 1 American kid. So even though the US birth rate is barely above replacement level, it's too high.

However, over the years, my POV has shifted away from trying to fight human nature (breeding) toward finding ways we can make all that stuff with less stuff. ie- use more recycled materials, and try to move toward zero waste in manufacturing products for mass consumption. But then we still have the growing water crisis, and of course the planet's capacity for recycling water has been greatly diminished by our impact as a species.