Ironically, environmentalism itself can become a means of advancing our own selfish interests, as when we barely adjust our lifestyles in order to feel a disproportionately strong sense of smugness....If a well-intentioned environmentalism does nothing for nature, it only has ["morally bankrupt"] anthropocentric value: its contribution to the environmentalist's sense of self-satisfaction.Is the smugness the bigger problem here or the uselessness of the pursuit? If I do all sorts to try to save the world, and still feel devastated because I recognize what little impact I have, I'm still doing precious little for nature, and then my acts don't even have anthropocentric value. My "Sisyphean" efforts do little to actually prevent global warming. My letters and petitions aren't being acted on in parliament.
I know I have little effect on my own, but I hope that if people can see how easy it is to live without a car, A/C, and drier, or how easy it is to produce minimal waste, avoid plastics, get solar panels on the roof, or be vegetarian, AND how much money they can save, then it could have an impact. Is it okay if my acts potentially have an effect in the future - even if the potential is minuscule?
It feels better than doing nothing. It's painful to watch the planet fall apart, and the little I do keeps me going. I'm not going for self-satisfaction as much as I'm making an effort to avoid guilt knowing I'm adding to the problem with frivolous use of fossil fuels. And I never stop trying to do more than I'm already doing.
Now I'm just struggling to rationalize to myself that it's okay to reduce energy and waste which, I'm pretty sure, is not what Altman was going for!
|This Bentley has the highest GHG emissions in all the land!|
In Altman's essay, he starts with praise for Peter Singer's claim that speciesism is a prejudice like racism that must be eradicated. We have to care about animals the way we care about people (or, for some, the way we care about people currently in our in-group). We should act to decrease suffering regardless the species. He adds Richard Sylvan's theory that we "have direct duties to holistic entities" not just sentient species - a biocentric theory. And he applauds Ecofeminism for recognizing that we have a duty to withdraw from domination in general - obliterate the perspective of forests and people as resources for our use. Then he concludes,
In this intellectual landscape, it is not enough for us to change our behavior slightly by buying "green" products and recycling. Rather, we first need to transform our way of thinking about how we are related to nature....Once we adopt a new ethic, an environmental ethic, we will finally recognize our direct obligations to all living things.I'm confident I recognize this obligation, yet it doesn't really matter if there's only a few of us scattered around and scant political representation to help us actually change anything. Why does this new attitude change anything. It's hard enough to get the masses to change their behaviours; it might be a total lost cause to require an attitudinal change as well. If we change attitudes, then behaviour will follow, but that's a long and tricky road. Much easier and faster is to legislate a change in behaviours. BUT, with our current political climate, that's not bloody likely either.
I get that he's really bashing people who just buy "greener" crap instead of less crap and with an eye for getting a bit of social praise for their efforts instead of actually looking at the world differently. They're trying to do something without it having any effect on the conveniences of their lives which is lazy and inauthentic. But at least they recognize environmental work as useful enough to want to appear to be followers. I'd rather 100 green-washed friends, neighbours, and colleagues than be surrounded by people who buy bigger and more, suggesting environmental efforts are all for naught - even if they might be right.
I have this same conundrum when I read this bit of the Tao Te Ching (ch.29 - Stephen Mitchell trans.):
Do you want to improve the world?But I like to fix thing! I get a lot of pleasure from the upward struggle to make things right. I love a challenge! And I think it's just sheer dumb luck that what gives me pleasure happens to be something that could benefit the world. Except that maybe it can't.
I don't think it can be done.
The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it....
The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.
Here's the thing: I think smugness is all we've got right now - a little self-praise that we're doing the right thing. I do what I do in part for the internal reward of self-righteousness (I get no social kudos for any of it - people generally think I'm crazy), but also because of a blind faith that it might do some real good if it ever snowballs. To clarify, I know if everyone lived like this it would dramatically help the human race survive on this planet - that's a scientific fact. But the faith part comes in when I consider the leviathan trial of getting everyone else to actually get with the program!
Or at the very least, living as we do, my family has slowly acclimatized to the heat and to walking everywhere, so when we start having black-outs and gas shortages, we'll be less-suddenly deprived than most people in our neck of the woods. Perhaps environmentalists will survive because they're better adapted to living with less. And then we'll be unbearably smug!
(Cross-posted in A Puff Of Absurdity)