First, Angie, let me say I admire your optimism. I also want to commend you on a very well written piece. I hope you won't forget that praise when you see the rest of what I have to say.
My response is going to be kinda lengthy. I will quote some things you've said and identify them by preceding them with YOU: and I will precede my responses with ME:
All that because Medium doesn't give us any tools like italics or color to distinguish one thing from another. So here goes...
YOU: ...the climate is changing and not in our favour.
ME: The problem is much more than “climate.” Don’t get me wrong, climate is a very big problem, but as you point out later in this article, pollution, excess resource consumption, excessive waste production, and many other things are equally problematic.
YOU: Does it mean that we have to give up everything we love in order to save the planet and, ultimately, ourselves?
ME: Not “everything”, but far more than any of us really wants to give up.
YOU: When all you can think about is how everything is fucked, all you see is how fucked everything is.
ME: I don’t agree. The human species is amazing. I do think about “how everything is fucked”… a lot. But I also see the many very good and wonderful things we humans have created and done. Unfortunately, those good things are part of the cause of the problems we face. We are so enamored with the wonderfulness of our creations and actions, that we fail to see the price that is exacted. Or even if we see the problems our creativity has brought forth, we refuse to accept the idea that maybe we can’t have everything our hearts desire. That maybe we have to live more simply… much more simply.
YOU: You stop seeing the good in the world. You stop seeing hope.
And when you stop seeing hope is when you throw in the towel.
You can’t save the planet if you’re checked out.
ME: We can’t save the planet if there are millions and billions who will not look beyond what is specifically in their own self-interest. What is needed to save the planet is far more than riding bicycles instead of cars, or taking a reusable bag when we shop… FAR MORE. What is needed to save the planet is for the vast majority of humans to accept the reality that we must forgo most of the modern-day conveniences we enjoy. At this point, saving the planet is way beyond anything most of us are willing to do. I’m not sure exactly when we crossed the Rubicon, but I’m pretty sure it was no later than the nineteenth century industrial revolution. Good luck getting mankind to back up to that lifestyle. And yes… you are quite correct, I have thrown in the towel.
YOU: That is why vegans won’t shut up. Once they see the cruelty, they can’t unsee it and can’t understand how anyone would want to play a part in it.
ME: It is fair to call me a hypocrite. I eat meat that is raised in the horribly cruel meat industry. If I thought that cruelty would stop, or even be mitigated in a small but perceptible way… I would stop in a heartbeat.
YOU: When you choose to eat healthier foods — i.e., less processed, less packaged, less cholesterol-packed — you will be doing the planet a favour.
When you choose to chase those steps or kilometres or calories burned by walking or biking instead of driving — you will be doing the planet a favour.
When you choose to save yourself the debt and clutter of filling your home with more stuff you can’t take to the grave with you — you will be doing the planet a favour.
ME: If I choose any of those things, if 10 thousand or 10 million people did the same things simply because I did it… It wouldn’t be enough to save the planet. We are on a runaway train… and when it finally comes to a stop, it’s not gonna be a pretty sight.
Finally: I am going to quote something I said on another article with a somewhat similar topic... I think it is kinda cheesy to repeat myself in this way, but I think what I said there is just as pertinent here... and I am desperate to find someone who will read what I have written... so I hope you won't be offended.
From another article: First of all, the sustainability equation should include, in addition to human population numbers, human activity.
It is not strictly a matter of how many of us are doing things that impact the environment, it is also how much each of us is doing. Our consumption of resources and production of waste has skyrocketed in the last 200 years.
If we are going to keep planet Earth a life sustaining place, there needs to be far fewer of us OR we need to do far less... and optimally, fewer humans AND less human activity would be best. I haven't got a clue how to make any of that happen.
It took roughly 200,000 years for the human population to expand from nearly zero to 1 billion... Then it took only 200 more years for the human population to reach 7 billion.
There are more than 3 people living on planet Earth today for every person living on the day I was born... 70 years ago.
Western civilization is steeped in the notion that more is always better. We, those of us born into the good fortunes of western civilization in the 20th and 21st centuries, are blinded by the comforts and security we enjoy... comforts and security that is so scarce for so many others.
Finally, I always find it disheartening that the survivability of non-human creatures never seems to figure into the calculation of how much is enough. 150 species go extinct every day, EXTINCT... because of human activity. How many people do you know that would say, "Okay, that's not fair! I will live more simply so that other species can simply live."
Sorry for the encyclopedic sized post. Thanks for the inspiration, and for giving me a place to post my thoughts. :o)
