The Shotgun Blog
« A limit on government's ultimate power | Main | Iran's NIE Report »
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Going green by going so-con
Back in the days of B.C. Report (link here to the remnants of the old website), I assigned a story about an environmental activist who was on a crusade to persuade people to grow their own food, make their own clothes, do all their own baking, never buy packaged food, etc, etc.
It struck me that what the woman was describing was also a typical workday for a homemaker (aka housewife) of a few generations ago.
So, we asked the crusader about this overlap and about how her recipe for going green necessitated having a full-time homemaker in a family--something which our magazine, as proponent of "traditional family values" (and when was the last time you heard that phrase, eh?) found quite appealing. As I recall, the crusader didn't like our insight, but couldn't rebut it.
I was reminded of this story upon reading an honest and insightful column by Craig McInnes in today's Vancouver Sun. McInnes, writing from personal experience, says divorce causes more than just emotional hardship; it also wreaks environmental havoc by way of the fact that what was once one household now must become two, and two homes have a much larger environmental footprint than one.
So, once again, we have an environmental argument lining up with a social conservative position: just as it is "greener" for a family to have a stay-at-home parent, it's also "greener" for a couple to stay married than to divorce. Interesting stuff, I'd say.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on December 6, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fab050f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Going green by going so-con:
Comments
The story that divorce caused more environmental degradation is an interesting spin.
Take it the other way. The more people can be in committed relationships, the better it will be for the environment.
And, if children delay leaving the house while saving for their own future home purchase, the better it is for the environment, since they will not need their apartments.
Geez, who knows. We may even see the day when a child stays with their parents and looks after them until their deaths, as was the practise not that long ago.
Minimalism has always been a traditional value.
Heck, during this fasting period, I've even become a vegetarian for 40 days.
The traditional values have always been there. Now, it seems the secular world is starting to discover their worth.
Good ideas always stand the test of time.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-12-06 10:24:47 AM
From experience I can tell you that divorce more than doubles your environmental footprint. People's habits change drastically when they split from an established relationship. No more staying home to play scrabble. New girlfriends don't usually live nearby. Lots more packaged food.
When kids are involved it gets really crazy. Two vehicles to every football game, parent teacher interviews, graduation. When they start driving they can't share vehicles from one household to the other, so each must have an extra car.
This is bringing back some really painful memories so good-bye.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-06 10:27:38 AM
Beautiful Terry .... beautiful.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-06 11:37:17 AM
With all due respect.
If your mother had chosen to abort you as a fetus, that would have also reduced your family's environmental footprint. Accessible abortion (and heck, even infanticide) for everyone, all in the name of the environment? Ummmm ... no.
And wars are hell on the environment too. All the energy spent building the equipment, moving the army to its theatre of operations, and all the collateral damage, too. Should we have only small, defensive, "enviro-armies"? I didn't think so.
Ok, now that I got all that silliness out of my system, your blog thread does raise one interesting point.
There can be convergence from camps that have been traditionally on opposite sides of the table. There are "nuggets of wisdom" in capitalism, conservatism, socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, environmentalism, etc.
Lots of "-isms".
Here's a thought. We're stuck on this planet together, like it, or not. We could just keep attacking each other for our opposing points of "-isms", until the end of time (or until our lease upon this world runs out, whichever comes first ... anyone want to take any bets?)
Or ...
We could start genuinely looking for common ground, and try to build something together. Aren't you tired of the 6 o'clock news? I know I am.
Posted by: Harph | 2007-12-06 6:54:02 PM
"We could start genuinely looking for common ground, and try to build something together."
When you get the Islamofascists to agree, we can talk.
And don't give me the "Someone has to start" crapola.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-06 8:21:31 PM
To be clear, I was referring to the various "-isms" present in moderate mainstream Canadian thought. Instead of attacking each other, we should look for common ground, de-politicize the issues, and try discussing them outside of our traditional agendas.
Totalitarian, populist, fascist, neo-nazi, and religious fundamentalism (ex: islam-o-whatever) are a different case, as they seek to impose their view on others, by death & destruction, if necessary.
I don't think the same negative can be said of any mainstream, moderate, ideological strains of thought. But constant bickering does sap energy, create apathy, and prevent positive things from getting done.
I'd like to avoid that, if possible.
Posted by: Harph | 2007-12-06 9:59:43 PM
Harph -
How very reasonable of you to lump "religious fundamentalism" together with various Totalitarian flavors.
Interestingly, America is quite religious and "fundamentalist" in its wide range of options of religious belief-expression, yet Americans (other than the Communist-Democrats) never look for "higher authority" to make our economic chioces, which constitutes 99.9% of all "environmental" relevant personal decisions.
You are merely promoting big government Leftist "thinking" while being "moderate" (or lukewarm as the Bible would describe it).
Get more comfortable with the actual intelligence and wisdom of each wonderful individual human being on tis earth and you'll be less inclined to "dictate" your own brilliance from on high.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-07 10:18:32 AM
Fundamentalism:
from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-měn'tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
The key words of the definition would be: religious & fundamental, juxstaposed across: rigid, intolerance, militant, Evangelical, "inerrancy of Scripture"
I stand by my lumping of Religious Fundamentalism, as per this definition. This, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with conservative or orthodox religious belief, which while strongly held, does not impose on others, and is separate from the secular state, in any case.
======
My personal beliefs could best be described as "constitutional small government". I believe that government should regulate (and help provide sliding-scale insurance for) education and health care, but should not own any schools, school boards, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, or daycares. They should not directly employ teachers, doctors, nurses, daycare staff, etc., nor should they have to negotiate directly with their unions. Those groups should be in private hands.
Not big govenment. Not large corporate. Local hands.
I am suspicious of any powerful large legalized body of human endeavour that is not directly accountable to the people. That includes: the state bureaucrasy, the military, police forces, un-elected (appointed) judiciary and senates, religious institutions, large unions, and large corporations.
I'm not saying these should be done away with, as they also provide benefits. But, as they hold vast power, and are a way for unscrupulous humans to leverage power over their peers, I believe that these organizations must be regarded with suspicion; as a necessary evil in our current level of social development.
In the end, we need checks and balances, transparency and accountability, in all large organizations.
I am against anarchy. If you allow anarchy, you essentially leave a "power vaccuum" that will eventually be filled by groups that do not represent the will of the people. Not a good outcome, either.
======
I am strongly pro-individual rights, pro-constitution (granting individual rights), and yet I also realize a crucial failing of libertarianism.
The assumption of the founding fathers of the US had been that if you free a people from oppression, and guarantee them the tools (constitutionally) to remain free of oppression, then they would use these tools responsibly and would respect their freedoms and those of their neighbours.
It was an impressive experiment, and yet on many levels it failed. America is full of racial intolerance, homeless and dispossessed people. Freedom of speech is used to spread hatred and fear, and freedom to bear arms is used to perpetrate crimes upon one another.
These wonderful freedoms were never meant to be squandered such, and yet if you repeal them, then all is lost to the power of the state. Either way, you are at a most difficult and unpleasant crossroads.
=====
I am strongly pro-free market, as it stimulates the competition and drive that allows us to move forward and take risks. But I also grant that free-markets are inherently amoral.
If a saint is selling oil at 100 dollars/barrel and a "pedophile / mass murderer / nuclear tinkerer" is selling oil at 99 dollars/barrel, then the free market dictates that the cheaper ones will sell first, thereby enriching and enabling a monster. I have a problem with that, but at the same time, I have a problem with the state "telling us what to do", also.
In some ways, advocasy groups, like unions (worker rights), Ralph Nader (consumer rights), and "buy green" (environmental rights) that are organized by the people as grassroots organizations are preferable to state control. But the danger is that these groups grow powerful, and settle into central government as powerful lobbyist entities, thereby just adding to the fat, size, and complexity of the governing process, in the end. Not good. Sigh.
=====
The idea of socialism, or social responsibility to one another, has merit, too. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members: the old, the sick, the children. Socialism attempts to address our collective responsibilities to members of these groups.
Is socialism as implemented perfect, or even adequate? Hell no. Does it actually promote liabilities to positive change? In some cases, unfortunately, yes.
But what would you have as an alternative? Child slavery and starvation? Marginalization of entire groups? The problem with that (besides the obvious immorality) is that, in truth, the rich and powerful do gain their rewards at the expense and exploitation of their peers. Did they work harder, take more risks? Yes! Do they deserve the rewards. Yes!
But the marginalization of the working poor (and un-employable poor .. as things get worse) creates an underclass of people with the most dangerous asset of all .... that is that they have nothing to lose. Do the police and military have enough bullets for them all? History would caution otherwise.
So maintaining a balance of rewarding the risk-takers, while at the same time, redistributing some wealth and basic necessities of life towards all members of society, is a good way to keep your society relatively content, loyal, and rebellion free.
Also, any sucessful risk-taker should have a relatively equal chance of being rewarded for their successful enterprise, regardless of inherited wealth, gender, race, political affiliation, religion, or sexual preferences. (Obviously as long as none of the politics or preferences break the law.)
=====
Voting. What a wonderful little underwhelming experience that turned out to be. Oh yes, the citizenry needs to be able to vote. 100% percent necessary. But it needs to be implemented in such a way that it can actually force constitutionally allowable social change.
Right now, we are limited to vote for representatives, that incur zero liability if they don't do as promised. For now, the most that we can do in response, is to vote them out. So what? We only have the choice to replace them with more of the same.
Why is this?
Because we aren't able to regularly vote for policy. Only representatives that are not liable to bring about the policy changes they promise. I hope this changes, so that the citizens can really experience true democracy.
Right now, all we have is a "constitutional votocracy" that acts as a safety value against totalitarianism. It's better than nothing, but true democracy should be the goal. We mustn't lose sight of this, in my opinion.
========
I hate labels. Left. Right. Conservative. Neo-con. Liberal. Libertarian. Socialist. Communist. Populist. Environmentalist.
I think that labels trap us. They make us think in our own separate boxes. Label incite division, mistrust, even hatred. They sap us of our strength, our ability, and our hope to find solutions, togther. Labels limit creativity in looking for "outside of the box" solutions to some of society's most pressing problems.
I'm more interested in building bridges, identifying common needs and goals. We need to work together, if we're to survive long term, I think.
Actually, I do like certain labels: de-politicized, non-partizan, apolitical, grassroots, "of the people, by the people, for the people".
I don't have all the answers. Not even close. That's why I participate in discussions. To hear what others have to say. To experience the viewpoints of others.
I do get dismayed when some posters just insult, redicule, and pigeon-hole label the posts of others. But I am heartened that not everyone does this, so that is good. I believe that only by having engaging, constructive dicussions, where you try to validate your points (instead of merely insulting others that disagree with you), will you actually accomplish anything positive.
I also believe in the scienctific method of thought and analysis. True science that is never dogmatic. True science that is never so confidant that it is "right". Always looking for other points of view, always accepting that the "status quo" might be imperfect, and in need of revision. I like that way of thinking.
Posted by: Harph | 2007-12-07 3:58:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.