 |
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17829665 |
We are obviously living beyond our means, and it is important to recognize that. But is it fair to start to tell people what they can and cannot consume, even if it is going to help their personal physical health as well as their overall footprint? And is giving developing nations an equal share in the “cutting back” process fair as well? They are not the ones who are facing an “epidemic” of obesity.
Is there a fair way to save our planet? Is it possible that we can really reduce our footprint while maintaining—if not enhancing—the prosperity of all Earthlings? What cost will it come at, since there really is no such thing as a free lunch? Are we expecting this to fix everything, and if so, who will be the ones most effected by whatever plans to go green
This article also goes into detail about how a lot of what is affected by our overconsumption and environmental degradation cannot be measured in a strictly monetary cost-benefit analysis like the GDP measures they have been using. They cite bee populations as a primary example. It’s refreshing to see that non-financial effects are finally receiving their due recognition, but will this be enough to convince people that they need to alter their behaviors? Summer blogged about how people are better about looking at—and cutting back—their consumption when they can see the direct costs and benefits to them. Are we able to do this when this article is claiming that we’re eating too much and generally over consuming while having copious amounts of babies?
What do you think? Is there a fix-all to solve all the problems in this article? Or are we trying to do too much at one time? Do you think that all the aspects they cited are what really needs to happen? Is that justice to try to curve behaviors in what might be a disproportionate, those-who-can-afford-it-get-to-keep-it manner? Or will some other way need to be looked into? Maybe a little bit of both?
I think this article is really interesting, and Kelly Dawn’s comments about freedom really made me think. It’s a hard pill for many people to swallow, but in reality a lot of the “freedoms” we enjoy end up harming us and our planet, including people who did not make the same destructive choices we did. I think of it this way: while I am free to go to a store, purchase a bottle of vodka, and go home and drink it, I am not free to get into my car immediately afterwards and drive, because that is dangerous and potentially harmful. I feel the same way about consumption/overconsumption; if overconsumption is harmful and dangerous, then there need to be restrictions. Of course, limiting consumption can also be dangerous when being controlled by extremists; the article mentions family planning as one method to limit consumption, but then it’s easy to worry that other countries could adopt the same practices as China does or has in the past, such as forced abortions and sterilization.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, as the article mentions, reducing consumption would be a choice – done of “human volition.” Anti-consumption movements are gaining popularity, but a person’s willingness (or resistance) to limit their consumption is rooted in so much more than just a concern for the environment, with various cultural, psychological, and economic motivations at play. The fact of the matter is that this issue isn’t going away, no matter what; so my hope is that more people will see the necessity of reducing their own personal consumption. Ultimately, it won’t just be for the common good, as eventually the consequences of over-consumption will affect us all on a day-to-day basis if we continue to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.