In the last two days I've seen several (that's approximately more than a few but less than a bunch) news articles promulgating one of the great American myths: everything (should) boil down to money and economics. As only two examples, I perused an article detailing how some cities are on the verge of dismantling their recycling programs because they are losing money and an article discussing how people should stop buying organic foods in order to save money.
That last article is just stupid. Aside from the fact that many "organic" foods are not, in fact, organic, encouraging people to continue using a system of agriculture that is known to be unhealthy and unsustainable is just ridiculous. Why not spend more money on food with a modicum of propriety in its creation and reduce expenses elsewhere such as using less gas or watching fewer bad movies at the theater? Why must we save money by cutting out those things that are often most beneficial? Sometimes doing the right thing costs more. We have to get over this idea that cheapest is best, easiest, and most correct.
We can't let hard economic times push us back into doing ridiculous things like not recycling. The problem is seeing recycling in dollar terms and not accounting for all the stuff that we don't put in dollar terms (i.e. positive externalities). Think of it this way: recycling stretches our resources further, it reduces expenditures of energy and time to dig up new resources, it prevents environmental problems from resource extraction, and when environments aren't mined, logged, or farmed for resources nature is allowed to do the things it does for us for free. That last point is VERY important. Think of all the things nature does FOR us that we currently don't pay for. Wetlands help clean our water. Forests and ocean algae provide oxygen. Forests and grasslands help retain soil fertility while reducing erosion. Aquifers store and clean water. River floods (think Nile or Mississippi) increase land fertility by depositing nutrient-rich silt created from rocks further upstream. The list goes on and on and on. If we keep leveling mountains, draining wetlands, and turning forest into corn and beef we will have to pay for the things that nature does for free (and usually does better). The small amount of money it costs to keep recycling programs running is chump change compared to the cost for us to extract all the resources, fight wars to grab more resources, and then replace nature's work with our machines.
We need to go beyond the monetary sphere. Some things are more important than money. If we reduce everything to monetary terms, we lose a lot of our humanity because we see only our own gain and our own rewards rather than our impact on other people and on our planet. The pursuit of money often means individual needs and wants triumph over what is good for the group. These are not mutually exclusive ideas but we often act as if they are. Everyone is so worried about "losing" something (think taxes) that they forget that money, like all things on this planet, does much more good when shared with the group than when horded by individuals. We need to find a better balance between the two concepts of money and humanity because community and group cohesiveness is necessary for our well being as individuals and as a species.
(As an addendum, I am not against capitalism. I believe that hard work and taking risk should be rewarded. The pursuit of money or success is not bad in and of itself. It's the larger cultural idea of "mine" that is the problem. We have the idea of capitalism so ingrained in us from day one that we forget it's only an economic philosophy. It says nothing about how to create socially, ethically, and environmentally responsible people. We must make these social concepts part of the economic philosophy. As long as they are separate, they will continue to be seen as opposing each other rather than as tools we can integrate to make the system and community stronger.)
4 comments:
We must also stop having babies because the expenditures spent raising a baby out-weigh the dependant tax break.
And get rid of all the extraneous animals. If you can't eat it, how does it help our bottom line?
Paying for trash and sewer services adds to monthly expenses, so let's go back to dumping it in the streets.
And do I need to mention old people? Retirement funds and health care costs are getting too high. So let’s go back to encouraging them to end their lives for the good of the family budget.
Hey! Let's leave the babies and old people out of this argument!
On a serious note, the conservation movement is EXTREMELY important, much more so than a recession. The future of the planet and humanity depends on conservation and clean energy sources.
If people must save money, maybe they should consider cutting back on the $4 lattes...that's a thousand dollar a year savings in itself. But keep doing things that are helpful to our planet.
Since conservation and recycling are so serious, can't we do better than Ed Beglay, Jr. as a role model? Who can take him seriously?
Or Greenpeace? Greenpeace also hurts the conservation movement more than it helps...a radical group like them seriously harms their own position and therefore the whole movement.
Funny that you mention Greenpeace. I'm working on a follow-up entry all about ridiculousness like that.
PETA and Greenpeace are dicks, agreed. 100%
But in muted defense of radicalism everywhere: what other environmental group gets national media coverage? If the stated purpose of Greenpeace is to spread awareness of environmental issues, then is not being big enough dicks to make the front pages of CNN and FOX kind of the ultimate goal?
I have a hard time fully condemning many of these groups because, let's face, no one pays attention to the moderate groups. For as much bullshit as Greenpeace and P.E.T.A. involve themselves in, without that bullshit millions fewer Americans would even be aware that certain issues existed.
Does it hurt them more than it helps them? I don't know-- I'm not a doctor. What I do know is that even though the line does get crossed sometimes, it's hard to argue that toeing the line every once in a while is quite possibly the most effective way of getting the word out.
Post a Comment