-
Would any sane person think that dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler,
-
or that composting would have ended slavery
-
or brought about the eight-hour workday,
-
or that chopping wood and carrying water
-
would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons,
-
or that dancing around a fire
-
would have helped pass the Voting Rights Act of 1957
-
or the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
-
Then why now, with all the world at stake,
-
do so many people retreat into these
-
entirely personal “solutions”?
-
Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims
-
of a campaign of systematic misdirection.
-
Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset
-
have taught us to substitute acts of personal lifestyle choices
-
for organized political resistance.
-
The same is true for spiritual enlightenment.
-
This is not organized political resistance.
-
An Inconvenient Truth helped to raise consciousness
-
about global warming,
-
but did you notice that all of the solutions presented
-
had to do with personal consumption—
-
changing lightbulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—
-
and had nothing to do with shifting power
-
away from corporations
-
or stopping the growth economy
-
that is destroying the planet?
-
(Al Gore) “Each one of us is a cause of global warming,
-
but each of us can make choices to change that
-
with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive,
-
we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero."
-
But even if every person in the United States
-
did everything the movie suggested,
-
U.S. carbon emissions would fall
-
by only 22%,
-
and scientific consensus is that emissions
-
must be reduced by at least 75%
-
worldwide.
-
Or let’s talk water.
-
We so often hear that
-
the world is running out of water.
-
People are dying from lack of water,
-
rivers are dewatered from lack of water.
-
And while this is true,
-
we’re told that because of this,
-
we must take shorter showers.
-
But see the disconnect?
-
Because I take showers, I’m responsible
-
for drawing down aquifers?
-
Well, no.
-
More that 90% of the water used by humans
-
is used by agriculture and industry.
-
The remaining 10% is split
-
between municipalities
-
and actual living, breathing, individual humans.
-
Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water
-
as municipal human beings.
-
That’s insane.
-
People, both human people and fish people,
-
aren’t dying because the world
-
is running out of water.
-
They’re dying
-
because the water is being stolen.
-
Well, let’s talk energy.
-
Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well.
-
“For the past 15 years
-
the story has been the same every year.
-
Individual consumption—
-
residential, by private car, and so on—
-
is never more than about a quarter
-
of all consumption.
-
The vast majority is commercial, industrial,
-
corporate, by agribusiness and government.
-
[He forgot the military.]
-
So, even if we all took up cycling
-
and wood stoves,
-
it would have a negligible impact
-
on energy use, global warming,
-
and atmospheric pollution."
-
Or let’s talk waste.
-
In 2005, per-capita
-
municipal waste production
-
(basically everything that’s put out at the curb)
-
in the United States was about 1,660 pounds.
-
Let’s say you’re a die-hard,
-
simple-living activist,
-
and you reduce this number to zero.
-
You recycle everything.
-
You bring cloth bags shopping.
-
You fix your toaster.
-
Your toes poke out of your old tennis shoes.
-
You’re not done yet, though.
-
Since municipal waste
-
includes not just residential waste,
-
but also waste from government offices
-
and businesses,
-
you march down to those offices,
-
waste reduction pamphlets in hand,
-
and convince them to cut down on their waste
-
enough to eliminate your share of it.
-
Well, I’ve got some bad news.
-
The municipal waste
-
accounts for only 3 percent
-
of total waste production
-
in the United States.
-
I want to be clear.
-
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t live simply.
-
I live reasonably simply myself,
-
but I don’t pretend that not buying much,
-
or not driving much, or not having kids,
-
is a powerful political act,
-
or that it’s deeply revolutionary,
-
because it isn't.
-
Personal change does not equal social change.
-
So how, then,
-
and especially with all the world at stake,
-
have we come to accept
-
these utterly insufficient responses?
-
I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind.
-
A double bind is when you’re given
-
multiple options,
-
but no matter what option you choose,
-
you lose,
-
and withdrawal is not an option.
-
At this point it should be pretty easy
-
to recognize that every action
-
involving the industrial economy
-
is destructive,
-
and we shouldn’t pretend that
-
solar photovoltaics, for example,
-
exempt us from this.
-
They still require mining
-
and transportation infrastructures
-
at every point in the production process.
-
The same can be said
-
for every other so-called green technology.
-
If we choose option one—
-
if we avidly participate
-
in the industrial economy—
-
we may think in the short term we win
-
because we may accumulate wealth,
-
the marker of so-called success
-
in this culture.
-
But we lose,
-
because in so doing we give up our empathy,
-
our animal humanity.
-
And we really lose because
-
industrial civilization is killing the planet,
-
which means everyone loses.
-
If we choose the “alternative” option
-
of living more simply,
-
thus causing less harm,
-
but still not stopping the industrial economy
-
from killing the planet,
-
we may in the short term think we win
-
because we got to feel pure,
-
and we didn’t even have to give up
-
all of our empathy,
-
just enough to justify not stopping the horror,
-
but once again we really lose,
-
because industrial civilization
-
is killing the planet,
-
which means everyone still loses.
-
The third option,
-
acting decisively to stop the industrial economy,
-
is very scary for a number of reasons,
-
including but not restricted to the fact that
-
we’d lose some of the luxuries,
-
for example, electricity
-
to which we’ve grown very accustomed,
-
and the fact that those in power
-
might try to kill us if we seriously impede
-
their ability to exploit the world—
-
none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet.
-
Any option is a better option than a dead planet.
-
Besides being ineffective at causing
-
the sorts of changes necessary
-
stop this culture from killing the planet,
-
there are at least four other problems
-
with perceiving simple living as a political act
-
as opposed to living simply
-
because that’s what you want to do.
-
The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion
-
that humans inevitably harm their landbase.
-
Simple living as a political act
-
consists solely of harm reduction,
-
ignoring the fact that humans
-
can help the Earth as well as harm it.
-
We can rehabilitate streams,
-
we can get rid of noxious invasives,
-
we can remove dams,
-
we can disrupt a political system
-
tilted towards the rich
-
as well as an extractive economic system,
-
we can destroy the industrial economy
-
that is destroying the real, physical world.
-
The second problem,
-
and this is another big one,
-
is that it incorrectly assigns blame
-
to the individual, and most especially
-
to individuals who are particularly powerless,
-
instead of to those who actually wield power
-
in this system
-
and to the system itself.
-
The third problem
-
is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us
-
from citizens to consumers.
-
By accepting this redefinition,
-
we reduce our potential forms of resistance
-
to consuming and not consuming.
-
But citizens have a much wider range
-
of available resistance tactics,
-
including voting or not voting,
-
running for office, pamphleting, boycotting,
-
organizing, lobbying, protesting,
-
and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
-
we have the right to alter or abolish it.
-
The fourth problem
-
is that the endpoint of the logic
-
behind simple living as a political act
-
is suicide.
-
If every act within an industrial economy
-
is destructive,
-
and if we want to stop this destruction,
-
and if we are unwilling or unable to question,
-
much less destroy,
-
the intellectual, moral,
-
economic, and physical infrastructures
-
that cause every act
-
within an industrial economy
-
to be destructive,
-
then we can easily come to believe
-
that we will cause
-
the least destruction possible
-
if we are dead.
-
The good news is
-
that there are other options.
-
We can follow the examples of brave activists
-
who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—
-
Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia,
-
antebellum United States—
-
who did far more
-
than manifest a form of personal purity.
-
They actively opposed the injustices
-
that surrounded them.
-
We can follow the example
-
of those who remembered
-
that the role of an activist
-
is not to navigate systems
-
of oppressive power
-
with as much personal integrity
-
as possible,
-
but rather to confront
-
and take down those systems.
-
Let’s get to work.
Graciela Kunrath Lima
Thank you deborahd!!! :)