![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
You don't have to do everything.
Sure, we could save the world in three days or less if some enterprising group blew up all the oilfields and power plants (other than windmills and solar cells, of course!) and car factories. And cows (do you even know how environmentally unsound big cattle farms are? Do you want to know?) too.
But is that really necessary? At this point, I'd like to say no. Yes, it's good if you can get your house off the grid (that's just a good idea anyway), and it's great if you can convince your municipality to switch to more renewable energy sources.... But it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
I remember two different, unrelated articles I've read, with funnily congruent quotes. One was about a Peace Corps worker who had observed that there were people who could do everything, and would - for three months until they burned out. Then they were useless, and had to be trucked home, while the less obsessive workers got more and more shit done.
The other was about convincing people to go vegetarian. As one person said (paraphrase), you do more good if you convince three people to eat half as much animal products than if you concentrate on convincing one person go give this stuff up altogether. (Or if you don't even convince that one person because you're just going on and on about it, all the time.)
And that goes for anything. If you can't switch your lightbulbs, that doesn't mean you can't drive less, or carpool more. If your neighborhood isn't really dense enough to make a complex bus system sensible, that doesn't mean you can't start a movement for sidewalks and school busses.
If you can't convince people to change their entire lives, you can at least get them to change some part of it. I was talking to the mom of one of Ana's friends yesterday about this. She said "I'm not too concerned. I don't know why, I'm just not. I guess because I'll be dead by then."
Well, no, based on my very unscientific calculations, she won't be dead, she'll be seventy. I don't know - a few decades, a century - that seems unimaginably close to me, but so distant to her. And I'm younger than she is. So I don't know if I could convince her to change everything. But maybe I can get her to make one change, or two - her kid's only three, she'll be bound to be alive then. And grandkids? Sheesh.
Sure, we could save the world in three days or less if some enterprising group blew up all the oilfields and power plants (other than windmills and solar cells, of course!) and car factories. And cows (do you even know how environmentally unsound big cattle farms are? Do you want to know?) too.
But is that really necessary? At this point, I'd like to say no. Yes, it's good if you can get your house off the grid (that's just a good idea anyway), and it's great if you can convince your municipality to switch to more renewable energy sources.... But it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
I remember two different, unrelated articles I've read, with funnily congruent quotes. One was about a Peace Corps worker who had observed that there were people who could do everything, and would - for three months until they burned out. Then they were useless, and had to be trucked home, while the less obsessive workers got more and more shit done.
The other was about convincing people to go vegetarian. As one person said (paraphrase), you do more good if you convince three people to eat half as much animal products than if you concentrate on convincing one person go give this stuff up altogether. (Or if you don't even convince that one person because you're just going on and on about it, all the time.)
And that goes for anything. If you can't switch your lightbulbs, that doesn't mean you can't drive less, or carpool more. If your neighborhood isn't really dense enough to make a complex bus system sensible, that doesn't mean you can't start a movement for sidewalks and school busses.
If you can't convince people to change their entire lives, you can at least get them to change some part of it. I was talking to the mom of one of Ana's friends yesterday about this. She said "I'm not too concerned. I don't know why, I'm just not. I guess because I'll be dead by then."
Well, no, based on my very unscientific calculations, she won't be dead, she'll be seventy. I don't know - a few decades, a century - that seems unimaginably close to me, but so distant to her. And I'm younger than she is. So I don't know if I could convince her to change everything. But maybe I can get her to make one change, or two - her kid's only three, she'll be bound to be alive then. And grandkids? Sheesh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-21 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-21 11:49 pm (UTC)She's a nice person, but I want to smack her hard, right before the next election.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 09:59 pm (UTC)Anyone who feels that way and has kids... I can't fathom it. I'm not sure I'd want anyone with that attitude to be allowed to have kids.
Not that I'm doing that much to keep the Earth in good shape. But I'm not totally ignoring it either or saying that I don't care.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-21 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-21 11:49 pm (UTC)She's a nice person, but I want to smack her hard, right before the next election.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 09:59 pm (UTC)Anyone who feels that way and has kids... I can't fathom it. I'm not sure I'd want anyone with that attitude to be allowed to have kids.
Not that I'm doing that much to keep the Earth in good shape. But I'm not totally ignoring it either or saying that I don't care.