Comments on: More reasons why we (tend to) destroy our planet

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:30:32 +0000

I agree, we are not static thinkers but what is it that is changing the way we think? As culture kid pointed out, these changes depend on external influences. For those of us drawn to environmental issues, it is the books, speakers and discussions we are currently engaged with, for others it may as well be the current emotional argument. Given how fast these external drivers are changing; and if we are so dynamic in our thoughts and actions, then understanding how to lengthen our environmental attention span will be particularly important.

By: crocus

crocus — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:02:40 +0000

The point addressed by Culture Kid is a good one. People have many different reasons for why they destroy the environment: be it â€œlogicalâ€ cost-benefit reasons, or emotional reasons. For that exact reason, there must be logical and emotional arguments for preserving the environment. I think we have gotten a good sense of what these arguments are based on lectures that we have attended. The importance of preserving the environment to prevent expensive remediation for essential services (i.e. provision of clean water), is just as important as making sure our children have a safe place to play one day. I think that the potential solutions and arguments for change are just as diverse as the reasons for the initial degradation and it is the dissemination of these arguments and solutions that is important.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:24:08 +0000

Merle and Parasite Kid both draw on important points here, but I think the main problem lies in how we generalize the population. There are people for whom economic cost/benefit analysis prevails in mentality, and thus guides all decision-making – thus, with discounting, there is little incentive NOT to exploit the environment. And there are also people for whom emotional slogans are the primary driver in decision-making and/or general attitude towards the environment. For these people, strong rhetoric (arguably, propaganda) from authorities such as national governments guides action. The two groups I’ve described above are not mutually exclusive, either. Perhaps a problem we should consider further in understanding the ways in which people react to the ubiquitous “environment” is that we are not static thinkers, and our perspectives change relative to who we’re listening to, what they are espousing, and how convincing their arguments are. This blog is an example of the very ways in which students of 650 change our minds constantly, as we try to figure out what we really think about many, many issues.

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:05:57 +0000

In your second description of more reasons why it seems “logical” that people should destroy the planet, I think you may be giving too much credit to the factors driving the majority of the population. In many ways it seems to be a lack of logical connection between current action and future consequences that has contributed to our current circumstance. I would suggest that the success of advertising, not to mention the results of the past 2 national elections in the United States, support the idea that people respond very strongly to emotional slogans rather than weighing the costs and benefits of their actions…especially those relating to consumption.