Okay, I know I’ve been blogging negative like I’ve got a stick up my rear–I’ll explain later this week. In the meantime, let me continue the trend…
I’ve been getting hit a lot by the new eco-movement. I don’t know if this is the proper term for the movement, but you know what I’m talking about: the granola eating, “intentional living,” simplifying types who are always talking about living green and simple. It’s not just environmentalism–I consider myself an environmentalist–it’s environmentalism on steroids. The common trait proponents share is that this new agey philosophy runs their lives–they use terms like “simplify,” they focus on “kindness,” and they emphasize “compassionate living.” They’ve meshed the whole environmental thing with Buddhist and yogic philosophies, and it’s become a huge movement, especially with upper class folk.
I don’t disagree with what these people do. I think it’s admirable, and I’m glad they’re reducing their footprint. I also see that people are making a financial killing off the promotion of this lifestyle, and I’m envious.
However, there’s a kind of…how shall I say…cockiness…and complacency…that has developed within this movement. I’m beginning to find it annoying. It’s like some of these people do weird stuff and say crazy things just to act holier than thou.
Take, for example, No Impact Man.. The guy spent a year filming himself and his family as he helped the environment by walking up stairs instead of taking the elevator, eating food that was local, supposedly producing no trash, using less electricity, and only in rare instances spending money on anything other than food. One of the supposedly great (and disgusting) actions he took was swearing off toilet paper for a year.
I haven’t seen the movie. I’m not going to. But already, I’m leaning towards agreeing with someone who did:
Mr. Beavan’s evangelical, self-congratulatory demeanor has the effect, especially early in the film, of playing to the unfortunate perception that what drives many environmentalists is, above all, the need to feel superior to their neighbors and fellow citizens.
I just don’t see how this “documentary” helps anyone or anything. It’s a stunt, but what does it really teach us? Not using toilet paper is just plain gross. Not taking the elevator is great for your health, but I can’t imagine that it’s a long term solution for people who work in big buildings. I’ve heard of environmentalists who forego showers and do other weird stuff.
The movie critic is probably right about this film, and he/she’s definitely right about many proponents of the movement. It doesn’t offer a real alternative lifestyle, educate people on new scientific discoveries, or really provide a model for change. It’s just a means of feeling superior.
I think real change will take place when we regulate the way businesses operate and limit the emissions for cars and other transportation. Not using toilet paper is like stepping over Benjamins to pick up pennies. It doesn’t do much in the grand scheme of things. Sure, limiting emissions or revamping the way businesses use power is boring, but I think it’s far more effective than avoiding your building’s elevator or swearing off light bulbs. And it’s a lot less invasive than using your hand at your most private moments.
No related posts.
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
That’s what turns people off about these movements: dogma and condescension. Environmentalists, animal rights advocates, veganazis, Free Tibet supporters. The far right and the far left may have completely opposing viewpoints, but they have the same annoying self-righteous attitudes.
In other words, it’s becoming a religion. The religious left.
I agree! I’m cool with the tree huggers, but not showering? No toilet paper? Sounds kinda cultish to me.
I have to mention – NOT that it’s something I’d like to do anytime soon – that, in countries where they don’t have toilet paper, swearing off toilet paper is not a huge deal. I lived in a couple countries where one wiped with leaves OR left hand pinkie. That’s why you don’t go to someone’s house and eat with your left hand (because people also didn’t use utensils but used their right three fingers).
I’m all for environmental consciousness and mindfulness but I have seen those self-congratulatory people who pat themselves for doing what all those other people in “third world countries” are already doing out of necessity. Like vegans who constantly preach to others how THEY are making less carbon footprint… um, not exactly true.
Clearly what we need are more ideology mongers.
I’ve realized something. It’s usually White folks that are eco-freaks. It’s a way to feel superior and be “cool” and lord it over the less enlightened masses. Asians need to feel superior also but we still tend to do it the old fashioned way: money and status. One of the most asinine aspects of American society is that it is often resembles high school, writ-large.
Penn and Teller fools hippies to sign water banning petition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Mama Nabi,
See, that’s something great about this country. People can be ambidexterous or use their left hands without being gross!
Okay, I just found this in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304711.html
You see, this is the problem with some eco-freaks. They could use their craziness to draw attention to real measures people could take, but instead there is no lesson. I never knew there was that much of a difference between soft and non-soft paper. According to Consumer Reports, it looks like Kirkland brand is just regular paper. I wouldn’t have guessed that, given the sparse packaging.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/june-2009/home-garden/toilet-paper/overview/greener-toilet-paper-ov.htm
Heh – So at work (Engineering – weee. Such a white field) my cubicle partner is completely about reducing his carbon footprint. He’s recently has gotten solar panels to provide enough energy to credit him for each year… which isn’t that much energy since he’s very energy conservative.
But…. Since we’re all engineers at work…
We wonder things like:
How much does it really reduce his carbon footprint? (it may reduce his long term annual carbon footprint, but upfront it’ll shoot up)
How much does it take for an economical return? (since in capitalist America, it is a luxury item until its affordable, and therefore much more practical)
Anyways, he completely acknowledges the fact, that his carbon foot print is offset to upfront. He just likes to claim how little he is…and is quite proud, even when everyone else thinks it’s quite silly at work.
On the green note; I personally havn’t seen a new “green” automobile, that offers the practicality that we need for really reducing our carbon output, while offering the same convenience of liquid stored fuel. But as I feel right now, i’m for the development of a mass transit infrastructure and change in american culture away from its car-commuting style.
Back to the movement thing:
In general, aren’t movements started by a group of people with common beliefs and goals getting together and taking some action? If religion is a set of practices, stemming from those beliefs and goals – every single movement is going to have religious attributes to it due to the fact that those beliefs and goals are exclusive.
But really, I don’t care as long as nothing is forced upon my poor soul.
You know… I envy those “Granola eating” people…
I’m allergic to oats.
On a sidenote: I met Cindy Ryu this last week. The first and only Korean American Woman Mayor in the US. She’s very inspiring.