As
I have been doing research for my paper and for the sustainability
video project we did this week, and just generally talking to people,
I've run across some interesting and confusing perspectives on
environmental issues. We're focusing on Climate Change for the next
few weeks, and it's great because as terrible as it sounds, I have
been needing some reconfirmation that the dire state of the
environment, is actually as dire as I have been holding it to be, and as all roads lead to climate change it's the perfect source of reconfirmation.
This week I went around
campus (with the assistance of my classmate Gab) and interviewed a handful of
people about their views of environmental issues.
Many of the people I spoke with were students, but there was also a
prospective student and a staff member. All but one of the students I spoke
to, as expected, admitted concern for the environment. For me the most striking response came
from the staff member I spoke with. I've been particularly interested as of late in perceptions of environmentalism, and of nature, and humanity's role
and place in regard to nature. I discovered that Western thought
places nature as something separate from man. The staff member I
spoke with is Chinese, and he informed me that in fact in China they
view man as a part of nature. He also informed me that in Chinese landscape artwork you will always find some indication of mans
presence. Whether a human figure or a dwelling or tool, there is always something human.
This got me thinking about how these two differing perspectives on nature and man might lead a person to view environmental issues differently, and how
China and the US are both guilty of large amounts of pollution. Viewing the environment as
something as separate from mankind may make you see the environment
as something in a box, something that exists between the cities,
something we can go visit. This view may give the impression that we have
no effect on nature, but it may also make people see nature as something we should take care of, something that we need to protect. On the other hand viewing nature as
something humanity is a part of may impress upon people the fact that
if nature is deteriorating so too are we, and what we do individually has an effect
on the whole. However, it seems that the way this staff member viewed
things was more along the lines of- humans are a part of nature, so
what we do is natural, and everything that is happening is natural. I
most recently encountered this point in an article in which Michael
Pollan interviewed a group of environmentalists, and it struck me to hear it again in this context. As my interviewee explained his view of current
environmental issues, I grew perplexed… in my
heart of hearts I know what we are doing and allowing to happen to
the environment, and to our fellow human beings is wrong. However, I
saw very clearly his point. I didn't discuss climate change with any
of the people I spoke with, and no one brought it up, but I did
mention biodiversity issues in my conversation with this staff member
(I actually started having a conversation with him after asking him
my questions), I mentioned the vast number of species going extinct. In response he cited the past mass extinctions that occurred before man was
around, I pointed out that the current extinctions were caused by us… and therefore weren't natural… then I found myself caught in my own Western view… for him these extinctions are natural because we are
natural… but also because they've happened before.
I've mentioned before that it's important to remember that we are in a bubble, our environmental discussions are not the norm, they are the exception. In the SIS building, on the AU campus, everyone else is busy and concerned with different issues. I think it is very important to remember this and to keep things in perspective.
In keeping things in perspective… I would like to pose a question, a simple question, one that the readings this week discuss in detail, and one which I think we need to keep in mind:
What
is Climate Change? I mean, at its core what does it entail? I am
of the opinion currently (all of my opinions are very subject to
change at any moment) that we, as people who care deeply about the
environment, need to promulgate the issues and impress upon others
how important this situation is. I'm also of the opinion that
missonary work is unattractive and offensively obstrusive. So how do
we do this? How do we share with others this view? Certainly not
everyone will take to it regardless of how it is delivered, but I feel that there are plenty of people
out there who would if it was introduced in the correct way. That
being said, I havent quite figured out what that way is. However, one
thing I really think we should do, and this might be controversial,
but I think we should avoid using the terms 'Climate Change' and
'Global Warming,' particularly when addressing Americans. These terms
are highly politicized, and people will connect them immediately with
a lot of things that will hinder rather than aid in the transference
of the importance of environmental issues. By avoiding use of the term I in no way mean that we should avoid discussion of the situation. This is where my question comes in, we need to know exactly what climate change is and what it means that it is happening in order to share our sense of concern with others. Basically, climate change indicates that human actions have an impact on the environment, that human presence has grown so large that we are actually starting to shift and change things in the natural world (I am aware of the Western nature vs human implication in that statement), we can take this to other more basic levels as well… I haven't delved deep enough into this yet to figure out exactly how I think this should be framed, but you get my point, right?
Ok that's enough of my rambling jumbled every confused thoughts and opinions for now. a plus mecs.
No comments:
Post a Comment