The mobile technology of the last decade has swept the world, probably only second to the internet in all-consuming new consumer choices, so much so that it is now extremely rare to find someone without one. Even those who desperately tried to resist it for years had to eventually give in as they could no longer survive in a society that has now become completely dependent on it. But how does it happen that we go from being completely independent of something to being completely dependent on it in a matter of years?
Well clearly it was a great marketing ruse that caught on. It must have gone from ‘incredibly fun’ to ‘convenient’ before it became necessary. But was this fun and convenience that they bestowed upon the human race really necessary? Were people literally dying without mobile phones, like the people who live under the shadow of phone masts are dying now from contracting tumors? I guess it’s hard to weigh up the pros and cons, but all I know is the place where you are likely to find the highest number of mobile phones is also the place where you would be in least need of one- the city. The only real life changing advantages they bestow is if you find yourself in the middle of nowhere and fear starvation. So be sure take one with you next time you go on expedition to the Alps. Otherwise, in what way are they possibly urgent and life-saving? If the answer is: in no other way, and the science behind the health dangers of wireless technology is still non-existent, then wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of legitimate caution and wean ourselves off them completely? In effect, to practice what environmentalists call the ‘precautionary principle’.
Oh! But who would give up their beloved plugless drug? It could mean relative economic destitution- most big employers wouldn’t want to know you, but on the plus side, you would still have all the bare necessities of life and even the decencies thrown in for good measure. The most damaging effects would actually be social. For someone like me who can’t afford their own landline, I’d lose 90 per cent of my friends who live at least 5 miles away from me. With the amount of chatting I do, I’d be able to write a 60,000 couplet epic in my new free time. I may even be forced to befriend my neighbours. Who knows? Maybe my social life could get back on track- I would be all the rage with the pensioners down at the local bingo hall. Giving up the mobile phone would be a lonely road for anyone under 40, let alone under 25. But it would be fun to try, no? Come on! Who else is in? Anyone? No one? It’s not going to happen is it?
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Monday, 9 July 2007
Mass Stupidity
The planet will not be saved as much as we try to ‘green up’ our lives, no. This is not pessimism, this is number theory: big change needs big action, and unfortunately, by this I don’t mean a big-hearted action. If we want real results, its quantity not quality. Quality is by definition small and non-numerous, but it is quantative change that is required to reverse a problem caused by quantativeness in the first place: unhindered growth and economic greed.
Am I sounding a bit gloomy? I feel I am, but I wish someone would tell me it's otherwise. Of course, our green revolutionaries, and our moderate sympathisers must carry on in their quest, but will they not just be like Zen monks who exist solely as self-sacrificial beacons, who become idols for millions of devotees in centuries to come (if indeed this earth lasts that long), and objects of shrines, dotage and empty religion which these sheep-like masses will pay lip service to and aggrandize all their lives, maybe even fight wars over, but never truly embody the values of?
Hmmm. Maybe we need a new empty ‘green religion’. If the majority of people are not inclined to thoughtfulness, why not just be green out of stupidity?
Am I sounding a bit gloomy? I feel I am, but I wish someone would tell me it's otherwise. Of course, our green revolutionaries, and our moderate sympathisers must carry on in their quest, but will they not just be like Zen monks who exist solely as self-sacrificial beacons, who become idols for millions of devotees in centuries to come (if indeed this earth lasts that long), and objects of shrines, dotage and empty religion which these sheep-like masses will pay lip service to and aggrandize all their lives, maybe even fight wars over, but never truly embody the values of?
Hmmm. Maybe we need a new empty ‘green religion’. If the majority of people are not inclined to thoughtfulness, why not just be green out of stupidity?
The problem, and its Solution
To treat each other with sensitivity and empathy is to treat the environment with responsibility, for what other incentive could there be for people to take responsibility for their environmental impact? This is of course assuming that people are aware of their impact. As for being aware and simply not caring, well there is nothing we can do about that. We could always use the selfish incentive ‘you’re going to be killed by the floods too!’, but wouldn’t that be ignoring the root of the problem?
On a philosophical note, the root problems of the kind pertaining to carelessness: selfishness, greed, pride- all the classical vices- can never be totally eradicated from the face of human nature, and in some place, somewhere, someone will always be inclined to them. I don’t think we can expect a saintly revolution, as we’ve never been able to expect that at any time in human history, but what does seems more realistic is exercising a bit of common sense: Buying from seller ‘A’ sustains poverty, pumps unnecessary pesticides and chemicals into our natural environment and causes needless CO² emissions which in turn are causing the catastrophic warming of our earthly abode; seller B does none of these things. Who to buy from?
Come on, people! It's that simple!…How frustrating then, that we cannot do something so easy yet so damn important?
Relying on the hopes that most people on the whole do have common sense, we need to push the common sense incentive more than ever. We need to take environmentalism from the clutches of the stereotype of tree-hugging extremism, and make it one of the most popular agendas of our time. I’m positive or at least hopeful that most people are actually reasonable beings deep down and would choose the sensible option if only they knew that it was the sensible option and if only they were given enough opportunities to make that choice. Thus I am convinced our main problems lie in two areas: ignorance and lack of opportunity.
Society still doesn’t cater for the environmentally conscious who have to go out of their way to act according to their principles. Most ordinary people, although meaning well, put their principles on hold for lack of time in their busy and stressful lives to actually make a change- for change requires time, effort and commitment.
Therefore, I am going to outline three priorities in my agenda for change. The first is education education, education! (no, these are not all three priorities, just the first). We need more people to be more educated about exactly why this is such an enormous and pressing problem, because quite frankly, not enough people know why. The only two newspapers giving any real coverage to environmental issues being The Guardian and The Independent, the fact that The Sun is the best-selling newspaper in Britain is indicative of the enormity of the ignorance we have to tackle. Britain’s biggest environmental magazine (The Ecologist) is not stacked in one of Britain’s biggest book stores (WHsmith- at least not at my branch). The latter fact just places in a nutshell how far from basic enlightenment we really are.
The need, then, is to educate the general public, the average Joe, to bring the issue to their doorsteps and to the forefront of society. Showing shocking things is not distorting the reality- it is the reality. We need to publicise shocking images that don’t get enough publicity- like the photographs of wildlife filmmaker Rebecca Hosking which only got a black and white showing on page 16 of The Independent.
The second priority, once we’ve harnessed more people on our side, is to create more channels for them and the well-wishers that have been on our side all along, to make changes. These channels will take the form of more eco-businesses (all aspiring entrepreneurs welcome), charities, recycling, re-using and reducing schemes. The final channel- reducing- comes more under my third priority and this is the hardest one to implement- the advocating of changes to general lifestyle, attitudes and approaches to life- the type where you sacrifice creature comforts for greater internal satisfaction (not buying that latest iPod and striking up conversation with strangers instead, not buying the latest Kate Moss fashion collection because you believe you’re beautiful the way you are and because your true genuine friends tell you so, too- yes, this type of lifestyle change). And how do I propose to push these radical ideas? Well to write about the lives of revolutionaries past and contemporary, of course, who have gone against the grain of society to stand up for causes that were so pressingly important and, as in this case, urgent. But the most effective way to implement such a radical change is to quite frankly initiate it yourself, to show that it can be done, to use all your bodily energy to push these ideas by being yourself, the bastion for this change; a living, breathing, talking, walking visionary. I’m in, are you?
On a philosophical note, the root problems of the kind pertaining to carelessness: selfishness, greed, pride- all the classical vices- can never be totally eradicated from the face of human nature, and in some place, somewhere, someone will always be inclined to them. I don’t think we can expect a saintly revolution, as we’ve never been able to expect that at any time in human history, but what does seems more realistic is exercising a bit of common sense: Buying from seller ‘A’ sustains poverty, pumps unnecessary pesticides and chemicals into our natural environment and causes needless CO² emissions which in turn are causing the catastrophic warming of our earthly abode; seller B does none of these things. Who to buy from?
Come on, people! It's that simple!…How frustrating then, that we cannot do something so easy yet so damn important?
Relying on the hopes that most people on the whole do have common sense, we need to push the common sense incentive more than ever. We need to take environmentalism from the clutches of the stereotype of tree-hugging extremism, and make it one of the most popular agendas of our time. I’m positive or at least hopeful that most people are actually reasonable beings deep down and would choose the sensible option if only they knew that it was the sensible option and if only they were given enough opportunities to make that choice. Thus I am convinced our main problems lie in two areas: ignorance and lack of opportunity.
Society still doesn’t cater for the environmentally conscious who have to go out of their way to act according to their principles. Most ordinary people, although meaning well, put their principles on hold for lack of time in their busy and stressful lives to actually make a change- for change requires time, effort and commitment.
Therefore, I am going to outline three priorities in my agenda for change. The first is education education, education! (no, these are not all three priorities, just the first). We need more people to be more educated about exactly why this is such an enormous and pressing problem, because quite frankly, not enough people know why. The only two newspapers giving any real coverage to environmental issues being The Guardian and The Independent, the fact that The Sun is the best-selling newspaper in Britain is indicative of the enormity of the ignorance we have to tackle. Britain’s biggest environmental magazine (The Ecologist) is not stacked in one of Britain’s biggest book stores (WHsmith- at least not at my branch). The latter fact just places in a nutshell how far from basic enlightenment we really are.
The need, then, is to educate the general public, the average Joe, to bring the issue to their doorsteps and to the forefront of society. Showing shocking things is not distorting the reality- it is the reality. We need to publicise shocking images that don’t get enough publicity- like the photographs of wildlife filmmaker Rebecca Hosking which only got a black and white showing on page 16 of The Independent.
The second priority, once we’ve harnessed more people on our side, is to create more channels for them and the well-wishers that have been on our side all along, to make changes. These channels will take the form of more eco-businesses (all aspiring entrepreneurs welcome), charities, recycling, re-using and reducing schemes. The final channel- reducing- comes more under my third priority and this is the hardest one to implement- the advocating of changes to general lifestyle, attitudes and approaches to life- the type where you sacrifice creature comforts for greater internal satisfaction (not buying that latest iPod and striking up conversation with strangers instead, not buying the latest Kate Moss fashion collection because you believe you’re beautiful the way you are and because your true genuine friends tell you so, too- yes, this type of lifestyle change). And how do I propose to push these radical ideas? Well to write about the lives of revolutionaries past and contemporary, of course, who have gone against the grain of society to stand up for causes that were so pressingly important and, as in this case, urgent. But the most effective way to implement such a radical change is to quite frankly initiate it yourself, to show that it can be done, to use all your bodily energy to push these ideas by being yourself, the bastion for this change; a living, breathing, talking, walking visionary. I’m in, are you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)