Local actions are the best and easiest way to improve the environment on a global scale. As a previous student of an agricultural program in high school, I learned that the best way to learn how to do something is by doing it. Whether it was learning how to grow food or simply to respect the environment, our classes were mainly hands-on and caused an overall impact on my life. I learned that making a small difference in one’s life or community really makes a big difference in the long-run.
Teaching someone the importance of taking care of the earth using words can create an impact on anyone, but I think using real experiences, visuals, or examples that people can relate to have much more of an influence on people. For example, videos like Planet Earth give people a real sense of what nature is. Websites like 350.org help spread the word. Picture of a possible dystopia or utopia gives people an image to work with. Pictures make the idea seem more like a reality. They give people a pragmatic sense of wanting to do something, or perhaps needing to do something to change the world, even if it’s just one step at a time.
Everyone has a view of a perfect world, whether it’s a Utopia or Dystopia. For animal conservationists, maybe that means an abundance of animals. For hunters, perhaps that means an abundance of game. My point is that though we all, as environmentalists, seem to be striving toward the same goal, our reasons and therefore future purposes, are sometimes vastly different. This is why the only way of getting people to change their views or actions to a more sustainable, more “green” way is by uniting people to the same purpose. We can’t just tell people that we are destroying the earth or possibly causing global temperature changes. We have to show people that we are creating destruction. We have to show people that our actions can and do affect our lives, our health. These are not just global issues, but local too. It is the local part that I think we, as environmentalists need to stress to everyone.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree with you that the greatest way to improve the environment is by working on a local scale. This makes an issue easier to tackle, is direct (that is, you can see the results), and makes people feel like they're united in a common goal. In my post from this week, I spoke of participating in a townwide program to preserve some land. I felt this was worthwhile for a few reasons:
ReplyDelete1) I grew up in those woods -- there was personal meaning for me.
2) It promoted local sustainability. (Of course larger ecosystems like the Amazon are very important, but even small ecosystems have relevance.)
3) The area can continue to serve as a habitat for some species.
There are more reasons, but you get the point. And I strongly agree with you on your post.
Picturing possible utopia or dystopia is an effective means to convince people to help in environmental causes. The thought of blue skies/green pastures is far more scenic than that of acid rain and smog. Likewise, the idea of apocalypse is powerful -- it evokes terrifying images, and thus frightens people into wanting to do their part.
In your opinion which image is more powerful: Utopia or dystopia? Which leads to environmental awareness and the desire to improve certain conditions?
Thank you Valerie.
ReplyDeleteAs to your question, I think the image of dystopia is much more powerful than utopia for several reasons. First, I think negative imagery provokes us into taking a stand to improve the situation as soon as possible. A utopia only shows us an image of a distant reality; either what once was or perhaps what should be. A dystopian image resonates more with our human emotions and gives us the idea that we need to do something or else. A dystopian image definitely brings more awareness to the idea that this kind of environment could be a not-so-distant future.
Also, at least from my point of view, dystopia seems more of a possible reality than utopia. I think the world will never really be as perfect as a utopian viewpoint, especially considering how much damage we have already done to the earth: pollution from pesticides and CO2 emissions, deforestation, poaching, just to name a select few. It will take more than a few years to regain some of our former, cleaner, environment, but we will never get back our non-renewable resources. I think the image of dystopia clearly shows us that. It gives us an acute awareness of the situation and lets us know that both the environment and our health are at stake.
I agree with your blog post and opinions on dystopia and utopia. Dystopia is used as a threat, but it is also becoming reality much faster than utopia is.
ReplyDelete