I watched this video entitled The Story of Stuff the other day, and it has changed my perspective on a few things. It talks about the consumerism our society is based upon and consequences we face from living the way we do. We often talk of ‘green’ technology, so much so that it has become hackneyed. Green tech has the intended purpose of reducing the stress we humans place upon our world, and while this is obviously a noble cause, is it enough? Hybrid cars may use less gasoline, but the production of their batteries creates enormous amounts of pollution. Ethanol seems like a great alternative fuel, but its production expends as much energy as it creates.
One particular facet that drives our consumer society is fashion. I realize from a marketing standpoint that the purpose of commercials is to sell things. However, the Moloch driving this thing demands we constantly sacrifice for the sake of progress. So fashion is simply a force that drives us to consume more, to throw out the ‘old’ (but still functional) and buy something new because everybody else has or will.
As a student in business school I constantly hear creeds such as “Cash is the ONLY thing that matters to the entrepreneur,” and I am faced with sound advice everyday that encourages a mission of exploitation; the exploitation of resources, the exploitation of opportunities, or the exploitation of anything in order to make profit.
So what is important? - It’s not fashion or monetary profit or even the survival of our social standard. Life (not just yours, but all Life), humanity, the survival of this precious planet Earth is what is universally important. What holds meaning for you?
My question to you is what can we do to work towards a truly sustainable way of life?
Posts
The fact is that life naturally drives against nature, viewing nature as a collection of all other life. There is a natural struggle, and this struggle should be seen as part of rather than in contradiction to the harmony of the universe. I would argue that unequivocal equilibrium would be contrary to the very nature of things. The goal of life is to carry on life, living long enough to reproduce. This goal may at times seem contradictory to the 'equilibrium' of nature, but it must be realized that there is no such measurement. Ecosystems are created to be destroyed. When resources are plentiful, life thrives, and when they are scarce, life struggles.
ReplyDeleteHominids in general, and even more so Homo sapiens, may have offset the balance, and the unintended consequences of our actions may come around to bite us, but I do not think this is a problem unique to humans, and i do not think there is necessarily a solution either.
An excellent example for this are the single celled algae and cynobacteria that populated the Earth in the Precambrian, (2.7 BYA). These early Earthlings developed the innovative system of photosynthesis, which transformed Earth's atmosphere from one low in oxygen to one high in oxygen. This change in the atmosphere eventually led to the termination of these early plant forms, but it also paved the way for life to further evolve.
I'm not saying we shouldnt do eveyrhting we can to make the world a better place for our children, but the fact is, in the bigger picture, we are hyping up our own influence. The natural climate shifts, for example, far surpass the climate change attributed to man. And anyways, on an aside, Homo sapiens are biologically adapted to heat, it's the ice age that gonna kill us.
While we may ‘struggle against’ nature we not only absolutely depend upon it but are in fact part of it. I would agree that flux is natural, but equilibrium is always sought. Equilibrium can be seen everywhere from the pattern of relationships between predators and prey to the working of erosion and sedimentation. If a predator becomes too populous for its prey base, the whole system will collapse, only to arise again once the prey reestablish themselves. That being said, we depend wholly upon organic resources, if only for our sustenance.
ReplyDeleteWithout ecosystems, specifically the general one that has treated us so well, we are doomed. Even if we could learn to live in a dramatically altered environment, our quality of living would be dramatically altered. Aesthetics and the concept of beauty, some of our higher pleasures, have their basis in the natural world. Therefore nature has value.
While we might be hyping up our own influence it follows that we are hyping up our own importance. I don’t think an argument that we do not influence our environment can be supported.
It isn’t an ice age that gunna kill us. But it could be us that kills us. We came pretty close once upon a time (the doomsday clock reminds us of that). And we have not only to power to kill ourselves, but literally kill everything.