Reasons to be Cheerful

We are finally in the age where it is quite obvious that we are in a crisis. This is visible both through the mindset of the people, the policies of the government, the educational programs in higher education, the labels on our products, and many other aspects. It has become quite clear that no one can really deny the state of the world right now and the sense of panic that is approaching. The question is now what do we do, how do we do it and why do we do it?
These questions have many approaches. It is the mindset of many that there is a need for government action, that people need to wait and pressure the government to do something about it. This in my opinion has stemmed from the way the climate crisis is presented to the world. Many people feel that they are almost helpless to do anything about it, that the most that they can do is buy some energy saving light bulbs and save some money on electricity, or buy a hybrid car or take a bus. However for the most part this is a lot of what the information campaigns have argued for. The belief that the general population needs to take baby steps into the climate crisis, work their way slowly upwards till they can begin to make massive sacrifices for the kind of change that really needs to happen. This is because the crisis is presented to be large, foreign, dreadful and unmanageable. As Hobson puts it in his article "Reasons to be Cheerful" "the environment becomes a thing ‘out there’ to feel guilty and responsible about."
How then can we begin to understand that the environment is not something 'out there' but something that is here, small, simple, manageable and comprehensible. Would not that seemingly be the answer? Do we need to find a villain, someone to blame or hate? Do we adopt the philosophies of deep ecologists and begin to live an eco-centric life placing natures needs above our owns, instituting population control worldwide and changing our lives? Do we follow Earth First and start a massive sabotage campaign destroying cars and trucks, oil drills and tractors? Do we begin to understand that we are the villains? How can we begin to understand that the environment is 'in here' when "climate change scenarios and their ameliorative pathways are often framed and experienced as a lack, a sacrifice, a going without that no one really wants to endure. It is also hard for us, whether poor or rich, to imagine the potentially profound changes ahead without feeling overwhelmed and despondent at the potential breakdown of our ways of life" (Hobson P. 6).
And how in the world are we supposed to be cheerful about this? According to Hobson "‘being cheerful’ is a fundamental prerequisite to conducting research into pathways to a healthy and sustainable future." His argument is precisely that we need to be cheerful and that we should be. This is more than just the understanding that we can each do our own little bit and help the world. Some policies try to emphasize imagining that 1000 people did what you did. And yes it does put our little energy saving light bulbs into context and makes us feel that we have some sort of impact but that isn't why we need to be cheerful. It seems we need to be cheerful because we can start from 'where we are.' Hobson states "recent research argues that seemingly ‘ethical’ or ‘green’ consumption practices (e.g. buying Fair Trade goods) do not originate from or exist within a sphere of thought and action set apart from the other, more mundane practices of the everyday. Rather, they are extensions of already existing ‘ordinarily ethical’ modes of being, which are the basis from which a myriad of conscious daily decisions are made. What this means is that people already have an inherent want to live a mindful lifestyle. That we are not putting in our energy saving bulbs because we are making ourselves think about the environment and the impact of regular light bulbs but rather we do it without thinking about it, because it is not something that is foreign to us. I believe that as a people we all have an inherent love of nature, this is visible through the ways in which we create gardens, and lobby for parks, the pets that we own, the trees that we plant. It is visible by the price of real estate on a tree lined block vs a block without trees. It is visible through the advertisements of cars driving through gorgeous scenery, through the houses that overlook the seaside and our wants and needs of them. I agree that 'green' thought is not something that arises from a different part of us but it is rather in us. This means that beginning to understand those problems that we are so scared of is not by targeting through massive numbers, and it is not necessarily through governmental policy but rather it is something that we already know and feel. It is a matter of perspective, we already love nature, we already want nature, we already domesticate the environment and the world around us, it is in us.
This is the answer to our question, that the environment is not something 'out there' but it is rather something that we keep in our minds, that influences our decisions and our actions. The reason that we need to be cheerful is because we do care and love nature, and the ways in which to begin to live in a world that loves us back is precisely by starting 'where people are.' It is not about the energy saving light bulbs, or the hybrid cars, or the Kyoto Protocol and Obama Stimulus plan. It is about the simple fact that we all inherently care and thats what we need to start marketing, that is what people need to realize.

deep ecology and its problems

The environment is a complicated issue. There are many beliefs about how we should be handling the crisis that is upon us, and there are many different views on how significant the crisis really is and whether or not a crisis even exists or not. The study of the environment is dubbed ecology and inherent to ecology are many issues of conservation, however deep chasms exist in ecology, and it becomes clear that many of these chasms have been around for long periods of time prior to many of our lifetimes. Some view the environment as a resource, some view the environment as a creation of god, and some view the environment as a member of their own community whose needs they need to put before their own.

            One good area to dive into in beginning to understand some of the viewpoints that exist is that of Deep Ecology as outlined and explained by Norwegian Philosopher Arne Naess in his writing of “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” Naess describes Deep Ecology as “the ecology movement that questions deeper.”(p. 250) And what this basically means is that there is no reason for definitions, as Naess says “there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any definition, for that matter.”(p. 242) What I find interesting in the way Naess frames Deep Ecology is that he specifies that it is not a philosophy but it is a movement. Movement means that this is not something that is grounded in the realm of theory but rather it is action, it is doing. Deep Ecology seems more a frame of mind or a way of living than it is a belief and there is no way to define a way to live. Deep Ecologists are people that as Naess puts it share similar ideals and many people who think that they aren’t Deep Ecologists may in fact be Deep Ecologists. What Naess argued and started his paper with is the idea that anyone “even those who completely subsume ecological policies under the narrow ends of human health and well being cannot attain their modest aims, at least not fully, without being joined by the supporters of deep ecology.”(p. 241) Because as Naess puts it sooner or later we will all be doing work so deep ecology becomes the premise from which conservation work will stem. This is Naess offering a middle ground, a place where both sides can converge in order to ultimately forward the goals of ecology and conservation. Naess establishes eight points that all deep ecologists agree to unanimously and one of these it that “humans have no right to reduce” the “richness and diversity” of non-human life “except to satisfy vital needs.”(p. 243) what Naess is saying here is that we are not the conquerors of this planet, the earth and life that surround us do not belong to us, we merely inhabit it like we rent our apartments. And so Naess says that when the non vital needs of humans come into conflict with the vital needs of non-humans than humans need to pull away and leave. But Naess makes no effort to define what constitutes a vital need. Are vital needs of humans the same worldwide? If so then what does he mean when he says that “differences in climate and related factors, together with differences in structures of societies as they now exist, need to be taken into consideration.”(p. 246) What are these structures and what exactly does he mean by this? Is Naess implying that not all humans are equal? Are these structures social in context? Are they biological? Naess provides no explanation to what exactly is meant by this rather he says that the goals of non-industrial or 3^rd and 4^th world countries “should not be seen as promoting lifestyles similar to those in rich countries.” And that we need to protect non-industrial countries from “invasion by industrial societies.” (p. 247) What exactly classifies invasion and how is it that these countries should work in order to attain their vital needs. Naess classifies many prohibitions but no solutions nor workable models. And given that we need to classify people by structures of society and that vital needs differ worldwide, who determines what is a vital need to every person in this world and while these needs are being determined what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Naess Presents many interesting and provoking arguments but he gives us nothing that we can grasp in our hands, there is nothing to understand, and he seems to eliminate the middle ground that he calls for in the beginning with every argument that he proposes.

However the most problematic part of Naess’ deep ecology model is something very different than anything that I have touched on thus far. Deep ecology’s most crucial premise I feel is one that Aldo Leopold proposed where the person is not a conqueror but rather a citizen of this planet on equal footing with everything that exists apart from us. This is primarily the belief that we view the world in a very anthropocentric manner and deep ecology seems to be screaming out with every fiber of its being that this needs to cease to exist. Where then does Naess get the justification to use the term “Non-human” to describe nature. It seems to me that the problem with Naess’ argument is one where the very language that he employs seems to undermine his entire belief system and the entire movement he is fighting for.