The environment and our convenience...
The environmental issue, the way it's portrayed by the media, comes together and depends on something very basic: convenience. We constantly hear about how we have to fly less, drive less, start cooking or even planting our own food more, buy less, recycle more, etc... We've been carelessly destroying our planet because we haven't been shown many sustainable alternatives which we are comfortable enough with.
But are there, or can there be solutions which are as convenient to us as the destructive ways have been for so long? Or will we all have to learn how to control our desires for the sake of the environment?
can go hand in hand
Side Score: 3
|
 |
one has to go down
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
The problem is not that we do things that hurt the environment, the problem is that there are too many people doing things that hurt the environment. If we were to cut out population by 2/3 then the impact of the remaining 1/3 wouldn't be significant enough to worry about. ;) Side: can go hand in hand
"We constantly hear about how we have to fly less, drive less, start cooking or even planting our own food more, buy less, recycle more, etc... We've been carelessly destroying our planet because we haven't been shown many sustainable alternatives which we are comfortable enough with." The big catch with relying more on truly renewable, infinite sources of energy is that once we do that...we will no longer have to be concerned with how much energy we are using. It's a win-win situation for the long term. "Or will we all have to learn how to control our desires for the sake of the environment?" Again, it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. No one is advocating that we all grill our food outside over an open fire and then eat in total darkness. Side: can go hand in hand
|
1
point
A. Products are made by companies B. Environmentally friendly products are more costly, in terms of research and materials C. The goal of a company is to make profit D. Costs are lowered in order to make products affordable to both the consumer and the producer E. The products made (and which are available) are not environmentally friendly- and if they are, they are more expensive. therefore, we, as consumers need to make sacrifices on behalf of the environment. One of the reasons that no one does anything for the environment is because it requires more effort. As consumers, it is easier to throw all our trash into one heap instead of sorting it out for recycling. It is more convenient to buy one pet bottle drink after another, instead of carrying our own thermos. It is easier to drive our car to the supermarket than to walk it out. And for poor countries, it is even worse as the majority of the population cannot afford products that are "organic" or "chemical free". They are expensive due to the technology involved. Producers have also made the most "convenient" choice when making the products that we love and that make our lives oh so convenient. It is easier to dump their toxic wastes in nearby rivers than to implement high tech (high cost) technology to clean their waste. It is easier to use such a fantastic material as plastic to bottle their drinks than to go back to better more durable alternatives such as glass (fortunately third world countries still use glass to bottle soft drinks, though the vendors and buyers have to go through the inconvenience of returning them to the manufacturer after their use). It is easy to cut down trees in the name of "development" and marvel at the new malls built on previous forest land which cater to our needs, than to admit that industrialization does not necessarily mean development. Our constant need for "convenience" has led us to where we are. We want things "our" way. The human race prides itself on conquering nature, but this is done through its mindless destruction. We need to shift our paradigm and reassess that we are not just "masters" of this world, but that we coexist with its other living beings (plants, animals). We need them and they need us. We all need each other. Our convenience should not be the main driving force of our efforts. Coexistence should be. Unfortunately we didn't start investing in research for environmentally safe products until lately. We thought we would have the resources forever (or maybe we just didn't bother out of pure stupidity), so we built up a system that is harmful. Now to start investing in research is expensive, as it feels like we are just discovering how to make things work. The only alternative we have? is to change our ways as consumers, to choose to walk, to choose not to buy pet bottles over and over, to choose to recycle, and most importantly, to choose not to consume things that we do not need. Only then can we hope that producers will listen and invest everything they have into environmental research for the products. And in a while, maybe the costs will go down. But in the meantime, we must accept that in order to save the environment we need to sacrifice something. Everything big requires a sacrifice. But it is worth it. no? Side: one has to go down
Environmentally friendly products are more costly, in terms of research and materials Is this true for every case? Research is still being done for non-environmentally friendly products as well... What do you mean by more costly? no one does anything for the environment is because it requires more effort. I don't think this is how everything is today, much less how everything will be forever. Japanese people are very busy, but not to the point of not being able to separate their garbage. Assuming that doing things for the environment will always require sacrifice is a dangerous way of thinking which has unfortunately spread around. The options are not "buy a pet bottle or drink from your thermos", there are many unexplored possibilities out there. How about "always have a bottle with you and you can refill it anywhere with a variety of refreshing drinks which haven't been sitting inside your bag the whole day"? Sounds more appetizing, no? Maybe not even that would be a perfect solution in terms of environment or convenience, but I just made a nice alternative up, don't you think that if we put our efforts on the right place, we could get to a nice solution? My fear is that this "environment and convenience can't go together" mindset might slow down the coming up of nice solutions which everyone is happy with. Producers have also made the most "convenient" choice when making the products that we love and that make our lives oh so convenient. In this part I agree with you, but to a certain extent. Yes, producers have been making decisions which are convenient to them in economic terms. Bur personally, I don't think money is an end in and of itself. I wouldn't say big CEOs get happy simply by making heaps of money. In fact, many of them say they hate what they have to do to the environment, but the system in which they are in doesn't give them options. So I agree with you that economic convenience is bad: far from being a pleasant comfort to human lives, is a sad side effect of the sick system we live in. When I talk about convenience, I talk about making lives pleasant. As for the rest of your argument, I agree with you that for now the best we can do is control our impulses as much as we can. I just don't think this should be considered the final objective and the one and only way to save our planet. We are smart, CEOs are smart, the system is DUMB! We just gotta do something about it.... Side: can go hand in hand
1
point
A choice always entails sacrifices. People weight the cost and benefits of their choices on many things, one of them, their convenience. I do feel that convenience is a value that has been inculcated by capitalism, but that is also naturally embraced by us. A great majority of the population view "easy" as being "best". This is not true. The value of convenience is an "anti-value" for it not always brings the best for society in general. It is easier to throw trash out than to sort it out. You can't argue with that. BUT it is not the best. The Japanese, with a culture which harbors values that benefit society in general more than the personal satisfaction of the individual, make better choices in terms of the public good. They value society more than their own personal convenience. I think that the most dangerous way of thinking is to continue placing our personal convenience above anything else. We need to have our hierarchy of values reorganized. First I think of others (society, the environment) then, Ill think of myself. The first thought may or may not entail going through things the "hard" way (depending on the technology that is available - e.g. , carrying a pet bottle or finding machine that refills) , but we shouldn't see that "hard way" as something undesirable. I think it is a matter of values and change in mentality of what importance to give to our personal convenience v.s. our well-being as members of a society. Products are meant to make our lives more pleasant, agreed. But does pleasant equal better? My life is certainly more pleasant with a car. But in the end it wont be better because of it. This clash wouldn't have been a problem if we had had our hierarchy in order in the first place. Then we would now have a whole range of products that not only make our life pleasant, but also better (electric cars for example!). Because we would have started the design with society in mind, instead of just the individual. We may not like the word "sacrifice", but at some point in time we will have to understand that every-time we choose one thing over another, the other thing is sacrificed. for a long time we have been sacrificing society for our own good, and to continue with this train of thought is more of the same thing. It is not just about convenience. Side: one has to go down
|
