Discussion on The Restriction of Plastic Water Bottles

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/every-day-millions-of-plastic-water-bottles-are-being-discarded.php

There is always a tension between individual rights and collective rights.

We restrict all kinds of behaviour by law: even though I can make all kinds of money manufacturing and selling crystal meth, the law prohibits me from doing so.  Ditto the manufacture of child porn:   very few people question our laws on child porn .  (Except for Tom Flanagan!)   Slavery isn't legal either.  Here in Canada, we have restrictions on hate speech. Most people would agree with restrictions on       first three:  I'm guessing or hoping  most folks would frown on urging people to kill  LGBT people because their existence is an abomination. We also regularly send folks to a forensic psychiatric hospital in spite of said folks express wishes!

Once we admit that some actions and behaviours are not socially acceptable, and should be sanctioned, the discussion then becomes one of where the sanctions  should be drawn.   We may differ on where that line should be, but will agree that a line should be drawn somewhere that restricts  freedoms.

I think that the issues of environmental degradation/ destruction and climate change are of the same calibre as slavery and child abuse. Humans stand a very good chance of destroying our natural environments as the climate warms: once we do that, then it’s goodbye Charlie for humans.  ( Please watch the video in the immediately preceding post or read Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer for information on how bad things will get if we continue with business as ususal.) 

Even if one privileges humans over everything else, the choices we make, are causing the climate to change .  We are therefore are killing people right now with our choice of business as ususal : climate change is eroding land in Bangladesh; South Pacific islanders are buying land on larger continents so they’ll have somewhere above water to live; and people are dying of droughts in the Horn of Africa.  I think we have a moral responsibility to alter our choices and actions if our current ones are devastating other people.

So, although banning plastic bottles at the students request at TRU may seem like a small step that arbitrarily wipes out freedoms, I don’t think it is. Plastic bottles are manufactured with oil – are unnecessary for our  health as we have clean drinking water in Kamloops – and their ban would be small step on the road we have to take if we are to survive. If nothing else, the discussion on plastic bottles acts as consciousness raising and symbolizes our collective determination to cut down on affluenza.

What Makes a Good Life

If my vision in the post below is correct; and we, the people, have a collective death wish; what should environmental activists do about this? 

How do we enhance a 'life wish' in the collective unconsciousness? 

If we each embrace life, will a complex system change?  Maybe......

Most of us don't perceive that we have a good life right now.  In fact, the Happy Planet Index, as calculated by the new economics foundation, reveals that most countries in the world are moving in the wrong direction: we are no happier in the developed world than in poorer nations, and yet we consume more and more of the world’s resources. http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/happy-planet-index

We seem to be  suffering from affluenza.

Proponents of the term consider that the prizing of endless increases in material wealth may lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. They claim some or even many of those who become wealthy will find the economic success leaving them unfulfilled and hungry only for more wealth, finding that they are unable to get pleasure from the things they buy and that increasingly material things may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

Clearly, something is very wrong with our lives as measured by the Happy Planet Index.  This isn't just an individual matter:  the cultures and societies we have made seem sick and dysfunctional. 

 

How do we embrace life? What makes a good life? How do we model that?

It seems to me that, on an individual basis, self - awareness  coupled with compassion; lots of social connections/  bonds; and lots of physical movement make up a good life for those of us with a place to live, enough to eat, and a job.   It also helps to have something to do/ work on that gives one's life meaning and purpose.   And that old fashioned value, self-restraint, seems to me a good one - particularly when thinking  about buying stuff!

On a national basis, a nation composed of individuals living a good life will have a collective  awareness of natural limits; a social safety net; status assigned by how compassionate we are (instead of by how much we consume) ; a physical structure that encourages us to walk, talk to our neighbours, catch transit, eat local,  a progressive income tax structure that narrows income inequality, and an estate tax to prevent the accumulation of wealth; free education; laws about truth in advertising to prevent tobacco companies from lying about their products; and beauty.

Will this work?  Maybe - maybe not.  Global catastrophe may be upon us: see http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full.pdf  

 Modelling appropriate behaviour; revelling in life; and lobbying government and working for change are the best ideas I've got.

What are yours?

The New Economics Foundation - 21 Hours

I love the foundation's ideas and publications.   One of their latest is entitled 21 Hours.  They suggest that a twenty one hour work week become the new norm for three reasons.  Firstly, a shorter work week would eliminate unemployment and ensure that unpaid labour is distributed equitably between the sexes.  Working less may help break the "habit of living to work, working to earn, and earning to consume." Less consumption equals fewer ill effects on the ecosystems that sustain humanity.  Thirdly, less consumption and fewer paid hours may lead to a more resilient sustainable economy.

Sounds completely un-doable, doesn't it?   However, the nef lists examples of short work weeks in their paper and proves it can and has been done.  They point out that working less would give all of us more time to be active citizens,  among other benefits.  Part of a velvet climate revolution, don't you think?

Their paper is well worth time spent to read it - just click on the link to their site on my blogroll.