The book A Conservationist Manifesto by Scott Russell Sanders is book that looks at ways to preserve life on planet earth. Sanders has some very extreme views that I, personally, find difficult to relate to. He has a clear agenda to have people live more simply in order to preserve the planet for generations to come.
The book starts by talking about building “Arks” This is a direct reference to the book of Genesis when Noah was told to build an arch for himself and a male and female of every species while the forty-day flood came and destroyed all evil in the world. Because of this an “Ark” to Sanders is land that is dedicated to the preservation of the Earth. Although some people are doing this, the whole world needs to be viewed as an arch in order for the planet to be saved.
The amount of consumption by the human population is cited for being the reason why the earth is being destroyed. We have a demand for lots of material items and comfort. If it is easier to drive than it is to bike (the environmental friendly alternative) we will of course always jump in the car and pollute the air. Sanders feels like we have a sense of entititlement because we are bigger and smarter than all other species. It is also generated from advertising, politics and the culture of always wanting more in society. Advertising along the lines of, “One world revolving around you,” “I am what I shop,” and “It’s all about you” are what makes us an extremely consuming culture. Sanders states, “While the world decays around us, we are urged to buy our way to security, as if we could withdraw inside a cocoon of money. This story, the dominant one in America today, is a self-centered fantasy that leads to loneliness for the individual and disaster for the world” (pg. 36). This means that self-indulgence takes its toll on the planet and brings you further away from your friends and family.
The author is painting a picture that American’s do what is best for them and disregard what is best for the community as a whole. Sanders believes another image needs to be created quickly. He is referring to a life of extreme simplicity. A life where it is just living, sustaining energies, creatures, ideas and activities. According the Sanders, in order to truly help the environment Americans must provide for themselves as many necessities as they can, share tools, and cars with neighbors and friends, and exchanging labor with others in the community. Americans cannot rush from one pleasure to the next but instead savor the pleasures of nature. This includes hanging clothes to dry (instead of using a dryer), cooking homegrown food (instead of driving to get fast food), and talking with friends and family instead of buying a ticket to the big game or concert. (Pg. 17). Americans must think about the community, not the individual.
While there is a big problem with pollution and deterioration of our natural recourses, there are better solutions than the one that Sanders is offering. I believe in a more conservatist approach where we use our resources but in a way where we don’t waste. Without waste, Americans could severely cut down the amount of damage that is occurring.
The world has become a place where people maximize convenience by resources and technology. By becoming more efficient through technology means individuals have a leg up on the rest of the world. For example, I can get more done in one day by owning my own car, rather than biking, and grabbing a quick lunch (rather than growing it). The more one can get done, the more attractive he/she becomes to an employer (who supplies income).
Sanders view and agenda is silly and EXTREMELY unrealistic. There is no way for the entire earth to become an “Ark”. People have become accustomed living a certain life. A lifestyle of personal consumption. A lifestyle, that Sanders believes, where humans are intentionally destroying the earth. People will not take a step backwards when society is always moving forwards to create economic growth. Sanders wont achieve his agenda of people living more simply by getting rid of their current lifestyles.
Personally I will continue to use the resources given to me on this planet for the betterment of my life and career. I think a better solution would be one where we preach to not waste. This means that we can continue to live our lives the way we feel comfortable, we would just be more conscious not to waste what we have.
You claim that "Sanders['s] view and agenda [are] silly and EXTREMELY unrealistic" in one portion of this entry, while contending that there is indeed "a big problem with pollution and deterioration of our natural [resources]" in another (para. 7, 5). Initially it seems that you disagree more with the way in which Sanders wants us to address the issues at hand, not the actual issues themselves. What you find ridiculous is, as you say, the audacity for "people to live more simply in order to preserve the planet for generations to come" (para. 1). You make a good point that cutting back on waste is an important part of the process necessary for conserving our natural resources or decreasing GHG emissions. But how is this sort of waste reduction not an integral part of Sanders’s argument? Living a more simplified lifestyle IS a form of producing less waste and wasting less energy. I am a little unsure how this idea doesn't make itself apparent in Sanders’s writing. I feel that saying 'no' to any form of a more simplified life while being "conscious not to waste" is contradictory to say the least (para. 8).
ReplyDeleteVery well put. My post has a lot of the same ideas and arguments you speak of. I think Americans are quite accustomed to their standard of living. Sanders proposal of how to deal with our depleting resources is unrealistic. We have grown up with technology at our fingertips. Everything is instantaneous. Why would we give up valuable time? Love this line, "The more one can get done, the more attractive he/she becomes to an employer (who supplies income)." It's the motto that has been preached to me since I was a youngin'.
ReplyDeleteTotally on board with brett.
ReplyDeleteThe line and way we ought to be approaching the problem throught a "conservatist approach where we use our resources but in a way where we don’t waste" is a damn good one. Rafe, i also agree with you. that i and chris both agree with sanders that, yeah sure, there is a significant problem, but there is no effin reason to make life harder for us. We have athe ability now, and it will only grow in impact and strength, to use technology to expedite our problems to their solutions.
cost effective is not everything, because it does not how then should we help the enviorment if it isnt knitting our own sweaters or growing our own food?
holler
I AGREE WITH EVERYONE! Just kidding, I don't.
ReplyDeleteChris I think your argument is super well-conceived but you're not conceding the overarching, valuable point that Sanders is trying to make. People are destroying the planet. We can nit-pick it anyway we want to but no matter what Sanders deserves acknowledgment for telling the truth. He proposes some interesting, and, yes, extreme solutions but at least he is proposing solutions for existing problems and not just dwelling on the problem itself.
Thank you for everyone commenting. What I was trying to get across in this blog is that Sanders' ideas are extremely unrealistic. At the same time I do realize that we do have a problem with how we are currently treating the environment. With that being said, there has to be other alternatives to Sanders theory to be able to make the earth a sustainable place. Most people will not give up their current lifestyle for the environment. This is why I think it would be more productive to concentrate on ideas that are both friendly to the consumer and to the environment.
ReplyDelete