Return to the Sustaining Our Environment Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Superficial Conservation
| | |
Posted by jbest123 (My Page) on Tue, Jul 1, 08 at 18:15
Something has been bothering me for some time now. Its people that make a superficial effort at conservation then feel good about it. They claim that if you scale it up to millions of people it would make a big difference. What bothers me is the assumption that millions of people are also doing it. In addition, if you put many of these people under the microscope, you find out that they are extravagant with unrenewable resources in other areas and will not hesitate to tell me how I can be more conservative.
Descendants of PA Dutch farmers, who lived through the great depression, raised me, my parents. I have been a conservative all my life because of the standards, they instilled in me. Of coarse the motivation has been financial and not concern for the planet. The only way to curb today’s appetites for more energy, apparently regardless of price, is for a major life stile change by the masses. I do not think that is going to happen voluntary with the, me, I want it and I want it now and buy a cheap one if it breaks, throw it away and bay another one syndrome. As much as I hate government in my life, I thing it will take legislation in more areas than one.
John |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| Our capitalist form of government thrives on consumption and the accumulation of material goods. I'm fiscally and environmentally, very conservative-raised in a country family of five where mom stayed home and canned vegetables raised in the family garden. We wore hand me downs and were not wealthy by any means but we had happy childhoods. People now, want their cable TV, cell phones, new cars and huge, expensive homes (that it seems many cannot afford). I pay dearly for trash pickup and gripe because I pay the same for my one small can when everyone else in the neighborhood has at least three. At least people who pretend to care about the environment could recycle, compost and stop the chemical nonsense for those green, weedfree lawns. Linda |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| Linda is correct about consumerism as the leading principle of capitalism practiced in this country. Production is secondary to financial activities as well. The three of us grew up, probably, at the end of the Depression and WWII when times were tight and consumerism would have been discouraged by policy and by practicalities. Even the fifties were tight for many of us as great migrations of industry and people left many communities disrupted. I consider cheapening fossil carbon to have driven the age of consumerism, both as fuel and industrial raw materials for making many products. Governments have contributed through creating or allowing instruments and institutions of cheap credit and subsequent private and public debt accumulation. When replacing goods becomes cheaper than repairing goods, something is out of whack. I have a varieties of small appliances that were "rescued" and repaired. I'm not even a good handyman but found that with a little effort, I could resurrect such appliances. We do a lot of recycling. I am appalled by the amount of packaging and junk mail making up my loads to the recycling center. |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| "cheapening fossil carbon" That's it, simple as that. And now it is no longer cheapening, it's steadily getting more dear. The consumerist society will be finished within my lifetime, I reckon, and maybe a lot sooner. |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| Most recycling is really just a feel good measure, sad but true. Maybe since plastics cost more now packaging be reduced. |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| I'd planned to create my own post, but it seems just as easy to add to this one since it touches on what I wanted to write. When I look around me, I actually know very few people who truly conserve and I often feel as if I'm the Lone Ranger. It isn't that they are superficial about conservation, they just don't do it at all. I read an on-line article recently about "making your dollar stretch", and one suggestion was not to buy new clothing every year in order to keep up with the change in fashion. Guess I'm really out of fashion because I never did this to begin with. I know tons of women who own 15 purses, 25 pairs of shoes and closets full of clothing they rarely wear. My own children are like this. Perhaps part of the problem is that no one taught the younger generation that conservation is important. Many have not seen their parents conserve. People like to take the easiest route, and conservation takes works, so perhaps this another reason why so many don't conserve. Maybe I conserve because I am the daughter of a woman and man who both grew up in the Depression? Maybe I conserve because I've been poor, and I know how to make money stretch, which means you don't buy things you don't need, and you don't throw things away easily. When I buy something, I buy it with the idea of durability...How long will it last? I want to keep it forever. When I can, I buy wood, not plastic. I buy glass, not plastic. I buy metal, not plastic. Plastic breaks and rarely can be fixed. I will pay a little more for something I hope is made better. I re-use the water I use to wash my dishes in. I re-use my washing machine water. It's what has kept certain plants alive in my yard in the drought we've had. I hang my clothes on the line, compost, and recycle my paper, metals, and glass. I am also installing two 1,000 gallon rainwater tanks, but have been asked by friends why I'm doing this as it will cost a significant amount of money up front. I'm also told that hanging my clothes on the line isn't cost efficient when one considers the amount of my time it takes ot do this. Seems funny to receive such negative criticism for these small things. In short, until recently, it wasn't fashionable to conserve. However, I think our sour economy will finally force people to conserve simply because they have no choice. |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
| There is a psychological disconnect between consumption and conservation inherent in the movement to recycle. Recycling is promoted as an epitome of conservation even though reductions in the volume of material goods would be a higher standard followed by reusing and even repairing and renovating. Municipalities promote and even force recycling more to reduce volume going to incinerators or landfills than to promote conservation. A side benefit is cleaner environments. Now that the prices for fossil fuels, other commodities and even grains are collapsing, will we see a reversion to the glories of Hummers, SUVs, driving everywhere and often? |
RE: Superficial Conservation
| | |
I recommend watching 'the story of stuff' it's on you tube. I've become disgusted with the amount of 'greenwashing' going on that does nothing to solve the problems, just makes the sheeple feel better about themselves while they continue to consume. I read this somewhere a few months ago, it's become my mantra..."Use it up, wear it out. Make it do, or do without" |
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Sustaining Our Environment Forum
|
|
|