I agree with Jensen; we need to take more than individual action. The 75% reduction of our emissions that needs to occur cannot be accomplished by only individual action. However, I believe that we cannot hope to change the infrastructure until individual action is taken. By saying "U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent" due to individual change, Jensen undercuts the significance of the individual. In my editorial on Beavan I stated that the more individuals who act, the bigger the impact we will have. The actions we take will inspire others to reduce their impact on the planet too. Once we have a base of individual actions, we can begin to change the government and force corporations to reduce their emissions.
Jensen's comparison of individual action to chopping wood and carrying water in an effort to free those in Tsarist prisons is offensive to those working for a difference. He is comparing events in seperate fields, which require different approaches. On the other hand, I agree that the environmental issue is just as pressing as preventing human oppression in Nazi Germany and Tsarist Russia. If we want to save our planet, we need to make an individual and industrial change.
I believe Jensen's tone in this article is very condescending of those who are giving everything they have to make a difference. Many people recycle, use cloth bags, turn off unnecessary lights, and do many other things in order have less of an impact on our earth. Most of them realize that the things they do don't make a huge difference. However, as long as they can make at least the slightest bit of difference, they are willing to try. I believe that sort of attitude is admirable. They don't usually get recognition for what they do, they probably never see a huge positive result from what they do, yet they do it anyway because they feel that they should. Jensen undermines what they do, especially with his reaction to their attempts at making the world better, when he says, "Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States." Yes, that may be a fact, but he states it in a way that seems to say, "what you do doesn't matter," when, in reality, every little thing does matter, even if just a little. Also, the "uh" at the beginning of that sentence seems very patronizing and unprofessional. It is as though he wants readers who do those things to feel as though they must be stupid for doing what they do. He could easily state his opinion without doing so in such a way that completely turns off the reader, even if they aren't one of the people he is accusing, just because of the way he is speaking to those people.
After reading this article, I find myself right back in the funk I was in when we first started No Impact Man. Again I am asking myself “What’s the point?” Jensen repeatedly highlights the idea that individuals can’t make a difference. I believe this to be true but after reading chapter five in No Impact Man, I was able convince myself not to focus on this idea. Beavan inspired me to try and make a difference not because it will actually work but because it’s what I believe in. Now after reading Jensen’s facts like “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.” or “Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.”, I am beginning to feel discouraged again.
Instead of just pointing out that everything we as individuals are trying to do to help the planet is not going to work, Jensen should have offered helpful ideas on how to get “those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself” to change. When a writer is constantly pointing out flaws without offering any solution, it is disheartening. When I come into contact with pieces like this, it is important for me to remember what I learned from Beavan. Even if my individual efforts aren’t making a huge impact, I am working for the good that I would like to see in the world.
I found myself very frustrated from the opening line not because of what Jensen said, but because of how he said it. He said, "any SANE person" as if we're all crazy. I don't think that he honestly believes that we're all crazy, I think he is using the same writing tactics as Jamaica Kincaid. His writing style got a rise out of me, made me want to prove him wrong, and made me think really hard about a way we can fix it. Of course, in the short time I was reading the article, I didn't solve the problem, but I think (and hope) that I'm not just going to walk away and forget it. This article makes me want to do something. Not just take shorter showers and reuse my shopping bags. It makes me want to write a letter to a congressman or go clean up the Chickamauga river. Also as the article progressed, I found myself agreeing with him. Maybe I'm just a sucker for statistics, but the numbers he shared seemed pretty daunting. I am convinced that we can't just sit here and watch this happen, but I feel helpless because I don't know how to fix it any better than the people whose jobs it is to know how to fix it do. But I also think that he doesn't give enough credit to individual action. Yes, we may only reduce carbon emissions by only 22 %, but that's 22 % better than we're doing now and that's 22 % closer to the goal and that 22 percent can tide us over until we find out how to get rid of the other 75%. It may not be the best option, but for now, it's all we've got.
This article conveys a hidden message: we should overthrow the government. Although most of the points are valid regarding the environment, the underlying message is that to fix the world, we have to “take down [the] system” which holds “oppressive power.” Although I do not completely agree with Jensen’s tactic of following the in the footsteps of Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, and the antebellum United States, I do think that changes need to be made. I tend to agree with Jensen in his belief that “personal change doesn’t equal societal change.” Although personal change sometimes initiates societal change, support of the masses is needed, and without this support, nothing can be done. Right now, not enough people whole-heartedly support the environmental movement for much change to occur. However, most importantly, it is not just the people that need to change. Society needs to also change.
In today’s world, big business rules. People may want to instigate change, and they can do this in their daily lives, but this change only accounts for a small percent of change benefitting the planet. I agree with Jensen in the fact that “[perceiving simple living as a political act] incorrectly assigns blame to the individual.” Although we all do things wrong, it is not only us harming the planet. There are corporations, companies, and governments harming the planet, and only the politicians and corporate executives directly control the acts of these powerhouses. It is their negative impact on the planet that is so potent in today’s world. The only way to cause these corporate and governmental systems to change is for the masses to unite. Perhaps it takes one man’s actions to convince the masses to fight for change, but change cannot be created without wide support. I do believe that we need to change the system, but I do not think we need to overthrow the system like Jensen suggests.
I do agree with what most of you guys have said already, that Jensen does discredit those who put all their energy towards saving the planet, but I also think that he is being honest. Brutally honest in fact. I applaud those who take action and put forth an effort to change the world and to help save the planet from the hole we’re slipping into, but Jensen is right, nothing can be done unless we change our government and the corporate society we now live in.
We need to buck up and face the facts. Big government and corporations are depleting the planet of its resources. We can’t just say that he’s being mean to those who are actually doing something. We have to look at the situation from inside his shoes. He doesn’t condemn eco-friendly people, but he does say that individual action won’t get the world anywhere near where it needs to be in the next decade. I’m not saying to stop to acting responsibly as a resident of the Earth, but I am supporting Jensen’s point that we have to join together if we want to see change in the world.
I completely side with Bronte when she says, “There are corporations, companies, and governments harming the planet, and only the politicians and corporate executives directly control the acts of these powerhouses.” This is so true and Jensen agrees. But I believe that the only way for any change to be enacted is to rework the system. If that means overthrowing the system, then let it be. We had to overthrow the system of slavery for it to end, we had to overthrow a whole nation to end the persecution of Jews. I don’t think that overthrowing the government isn’t a bad thing, as long as there is a justifiable reason to do so. I consider saving the planet to be a pretty important reason to change government.
I agree with everyone in that Jensen is being honest and undermining all of the people who recycle and reuse items. In my opinion his statistics might be right but his conclusion is wrong. When he says, "Personal change doesn't equal social change." Back in the 80's and 90's how did all those crazy hair styles and fashions become so popluar? Individuals bought those clothes and celebrities supported it. It was becuase of the individual that platform shoes were so huge.(pun intended.) After all who leads the big businesses? It isn't some robot behind a desk, its a human. People run businesses and they are individuals. If other individuals can pursuade them to change then that one indivudal has the power to change society.
I also agree with him when he says, "...humans can help the Earth as well as harm it." I hear a lot about how much destruction people have caused the Earth because we take so much without giving anything back. We hear this so much that we forget that we can give back. We can help. Instead of having no impact on the Earth like Beaven, people could try to have a positive effect on it. I feel like a hippie saying this but we can plant trees and clean up rivers like Sarah suggested. I believe we can make a difference if we just try.
From the moment I started to read this essay, it seemed to steal all of the environmental momentum and make me question the validity of No Impact Man. But then I would get to certain parts and I realized what he was saying wasn't all that different from a majority of what Beavan said.
He started from the beginning saying that one person can't save the world, least of all not him. I think this is what Jensen is saying. He also talks about many of the things that Beavan wanted to change: the capitalist society, consumerism, and the government.
In fact I really like one of his quotes because it really shows the dark side of capitalism that isn't often seen.
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it. (para. 10)
With this quote he reaffirms some of what we’ve been told out entire life, that we can make a difference politically by voting and socially by rebelling against “the man.” He also states that everything is more powerful in numbers.
Yes, I agree with the rest of the class that Jensen is very condescending, patronizing, and somewhat of a downer in this essay, but he does bring up some excellent points. If everyone thought like a combination of Jensen and Beavan, the world would be a much more ecologically healthy place. After all, just imagine a less extreme No Impact project with anywhere from hundreds to millions more people... Wouldn't that be amazing?
I don’t agree with this article. I think that one person can make a difference, environmentally or otherwise. Even though following all of the advice in “An Inconvenient Truth” would only result in a 22% reduction of carbon emissions, 22% is still a significant reduction. If we recycle all of our trash, we can still make a difference by that trash not being in a landfill. I don’t think that we should stop all industry and machines, but I think that we could make a difference if we all reduced our waste individually and if factorie took personal steps to being more environmentally-friendly. I did some research about Orion magazine and Derrick Jensen. Orion has been being published since 1982, and part of their mission statement is, “…the individual comes to sense this responsibility as he or she develops a personal bond with nature.” I think that this article contradicts the magazine’s mission because the individuals are the ones making the environmental decisions. Derrick Jensen is an environmental activist; he has received many awards for his writings. I am always suspicious of people who say that one person can’t make a difference, especially people who are published in magazines and therefore have the power to make many people think about what they write.
This article takes me back to the way I felt before we read No Impact Man. How is one man going to make a difference? After reading the book, I do feel like one person can be significant in helping our planet. It may be small, but their actions still count for something. Now, this article makes me wonder if that person's actions are BIG ENOUGH to make a difference. Were Beavan's actions really benefitting the world? Or in reality, did he find that he was saving a lot of money for his family but not having to pay for his water or heating bills? (That is one of my questions for Beavan.) Regardless, I don't like the way that Jensen goes about this article. He wrote as though he had no respect for those trying to make a difference or as if they were just complete lunatics. However, he did make good points. If we really are going to "save our planet" then we need to do more than individual actions. IT simply isn't enough to turn around the environment. Irrigation systems, swimming pools, and agriculture industries all need to reach some sort of compromise. No Jensen, they are not "stealing" our water, but I do agree that they do need to be aware that during these times, they do need to be considerate of their water consumption. That's reasonable to ask.
While reading this article, the one thing I couldn't help but notice was how different Jensen's view on the power of individual is, compared to Beavan's. After reading No Impact Man, this article was a slap in the face. Beavan made me feel as if an individual can make a difference, but after reading this article I can't help but feel some on my initial helplessness creeping back up. I agree with Morgan about how the more people who act, the greater the impact will be. One individual may not be able to make a world changing difference, but by choosing to act anyway, others may be inspired and choose to act also. I will always believe that when people come together to work for change, change will happen. I do agree with Jensen when he says that the role of an activist is "to confront and take down those systems," but I find it interesting that he said "an" activist instead of activists. I thought one person couldn't make a difference? Also, how can any system be confronted or taken down without the work or individuals? Although Jensen's tone is condescending and this article is discouraging, Beavan's upbeat and encouraging view still resounds in my head and I believe that one person can start the change and others will join.
I believe Jensen was terribly confused when writing this article. While I can see what he may have been trying to get across to the reader, he lost my respect as a reader at the title. As he continues into his first paragraph, I can't help but think he is intentionally misleading.
WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
The point he is trying to establish is that individual action does not create political change, yet for his examples he uses environmental solutions for each problem when it doesn't fit. Some of these issues, in fact, were highly influenced by 'personal solutions.' Take, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or even the entire Civil Rights movement. It would not have been successful without the individual acts of people boycotting busses. The individuals banded together are what motivated the political change, but it had to start with what he calls "person solutions." I know political change needs to happen, but it will never be successful if people do not believe in it enough to 'take a shorter shower.'
This article really frustrated me as I first read it. It made me feel that no matter what little things I am able do, I can't make a difference. But then I tried to see his point.
"... We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them" - Kirkpatrick Sale. This quote made me rethink the whole situation. I, personally, am not creating that much pollution when you compare me to a factory. So why change me? Why not change that factory?
There is truth in the statement that official reform only happens when you change the system, not your personal life. However, I firmly believe that when you make a personal change, you raise awareness. People can connect with you through your experiences. They start talking and start thinking of ways to make a difference. They become political activists and then they tear apart the injust systems.
So yes, changing the system brings real change. But to get there, you must take baby steps. You can't change the whole system in a day, but you can change yourself in day. And when you change yourself, you influence others. Change is always being made.
First, the information Jensen provides about the environment is not reliable fact. The fact that he mentions An Inconvenient Truth makes me hesitant to trust his statistics because the movie is so easy to discredit. I wish he would provide information on where he got his information, like Beavan did most of the time.
Secondly, I agree with Bronte that his underlying message is to overthrow the government. “It accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers.” Capitalism gives citizens more individuality. It’s simply an economic system in which the government stays out of business production. If Jensen really wants more individuality, I suggest he moves to a country with a drastically different economic and governmental structure – like China.
Thirdly, I’m sure he doesn’t realize it, but Jensen uses a quote which pretty much discredits his notion that individual change is ineffective. “Individual consumption…is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial…” I believe that if the people cut down on things like transportation and shopping, the big businesses are going to have no option but to cut down as well (supply and demand).
I also agree with Olivia that he needs to provide solutions. He’s telling us to tear something down…but what does he suggest we then build up?
I didn’t feel like this article was very effective at convincing readers of the writers point of view. The voice in the article seems to me to be yelling at me but at the same time trying to convince me that he and I are both the victims to corporations and industries' waste. This article is also contradictory in its message. Jensen says that living simply isn't bad and that he himself lives reasonably simply but spends the majority of the article arguing that individuals cant make a difference and making fun of people that do cut out waste. Also, after making me feel like I cant make a difference, he tries to convince me that I can help by taking down corporations. After hearing that creating no waste isn't going to change anything, how am I supposed to believe that I can make change by fighting huge companies? Although I do agree with Jensen that it takes more than one person eliminating their trash to change the world, he doesn’t give any concrete suggestions that the reader can put in to action against the industries.
So maybe we’re not the biggest contributors. The ripple effect is all I can think of here. If we start reducing, then I feel like companies will stop producing since their products aren’t being used. I get the feeling this guy isn’t happy. And he’s looking for big-time results, on a much bigger scale than is required. We can be happy personally, and in his words “win”. We don’t have to lose because we live simply and, “feel pure”. We could actually be happy. He wouldn’t know, he’s too caught up in being pessimistic and can’t take time to pull his head out of the ground.
Plus if this has nothing to do with the individual then the earth is being destroyed by industry and corporations. Who do you think runs the companies? And who does that individual live with? CEO’s are surrounded by plenty of individuals who influence him. Heck, the world around him influences him whether or not he realizes it.
There is an ounce of me that wants to stop trying. I hate it, but those percentages are hard to ignore. 75% of our waste is big companies, not us. But, like Olivia said, this is right where I started before the book, believing that we weren’t big enough to do anything. I want to keep in mind, that after the book my outlook was changed. I fully believe in the domino effect. And that the biggest thing we can do is be the type of person that will try. That’s what to keep in mind, “Be the Change you want to see in the world.” You never know what will happen. Look at Beavan.
You guys, Jensen is a nincompoop who doesn't understand the mechanics of social change. Don't let him get you down. He's just plain wrong.
Back in the 1960s, four black college students decided enough was enough and refused to move from the whites only lunch counter. By the end of the month, 70,000 students had joined them in sit-ins around North Carolina.
Who would have thought? They didn't. They just took their own individual action and it suddenly turned into collective action.
Listen to your hearts. Find the path to your own wisdom. Don't let your soul be blown around like a leaf in the wind of some intellectual clap trap!!!
I agree with Jensen; we need to take more than individual action. The 75% reduction of our emissions that needs to occur cannot be accomplished by only individual action. However, I believe that we cannot hope to change the infrastructure until individual action is taken. By saying "U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent" due to individual change, Jensen undercuts the significance of the individual. In my editorial on Beavan I stated that the more individuals who act, the bigger the impact we will have. The actions we take will inspire others to reduce their impact on the planet too. Once we have a base of individual actions, we can begin to change the government and force corporations to reduce their emissions.
ReplyDeleteJensen's comparison of individual action to chopping wood and carrying water in an effort to free those in Tsarist prisons is offensive to those working for a difference. He is comparing events in seperate fields, which require different approaches. On the other hand, I agree that the environmental issue is just as pressing as preventing human oppression in Nazi Germany and Tsarist Russia. If we want to save our planet, we need to make an individual and industrial change.
I believe Jensen's tone in this article is very condescending of those who are giving everything they have to make a difference. Many people recycle, use cloth bags, turn off unnecessary lights, and do many other things in order have less of an impact on our earth. Most of them realize that the things they do don't make a huge difference. However, as long as they can make at least the slightest bit of difference, they are willing to try. I believe that sort of attitude is admirable. They don't usually get recognition for what they do, they probably never see a huge positive result from what they do, yet they do it anyway because they feel that they should.
ReplyDeleteJensen undermines what they do, especially with his reaction to their attempts at making the world better, when he says, "Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States." Yes, that may be a fact, but he states it in a way that seems to say, "what you do doesn't matter," when, in reality, every little thing does matter, even if just a little. Also, the "uh" at the beginning of that sentence seems very patronizing and unprofessional. It is as though he wants readers who do those things to feel as though they must be stupid for doing what they do. He could easily state his opinion without doing so in such a way that completely turns off the reader, even if they aren't one of the people he is accusing, just because of the way he is speaking to those people.
After reading this article, I find myself right back in the funk I was in when we first started No Impact Man. Again I am asking myself “What’s the point?” Jensen repeatedly highlights the idea that individuals can’t make a difference. I believe this to be true but after reading chapter five in No Impact Man, I was able convince myself not to focus on this idea. Beavan inspired me to try and make a difference not because it will actually work but because it’s what I believe in. Now after reading Jensen’s facts like “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.” or “Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.”, I am beginning to feel discouraged again.
ReplyDeleteInstead of just pointing out that everything we as individuals are trying to do to help the planet is not going to work, Jensen should have offered helpful ideas on how to get “those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself” to change. When a writer is constantly pointing out flaws without offering any solution, it is disheartening. When I come into contact with pieces like this, it is important for me to remember what I learned from Beavan. Even if my individual efforts aren’t making a huge impact, I am working for the good that I would like to see in the world.
I found myself very frustrated from the opening line not because of what Jensen said, but because of how he said it. He said, "any SANE person" as if we're all crazy. I don't think that he honestly believes that we're all crazy, I think he is using the same writing tactics as Jamaica Kincaid. His writing style got a rise out of me, made me want to prove him wrong, and made me think really hard about a way we can fix it. Of course, in the short time I was reading the article, I didn't solve the problem, but I think (and hope) that I'm not just going to walk away and forget it. This article makes me want to do something. Not just take shorter showers and reuse my shopping bags. It makes me want to write a letter to a congressman or go clean up the Chickamauga river.
ReplyDeleteAlso as the article progressed, I found myself agreeing with him. Maybe I'm just a sucker for statistics, but the numbers he shared seemed pretty daunting. I am convinced that we can't just sit here and watch this happen, but I feel helpless because I don't know how to fix it any better than the people whose jobs it is to know how to fix it do.
But I also think that he doesn't give enough credit to individual action. Yes, we may only reduce carbon emissions by only 22 %, but that's 22 % better than we're doing now and that's 22 % closer to the goal and that 22 percent can tide us over until we find out how to get rid of the other 75%. It may not be the best option, but for now, it's all we've got.
This article conveys a hidden message: we should overthrow the government. Although most of the points are valid regarding the environment, the underlying message is that to fix the world, we have to “take down [the] system” which holds “oppressive power.” Although I do not completely agree with Jensen’s tactic of following the in the footsteps of Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, and the antebellum United States, I do think that changes need to be made. I tend to agree with Jensen in his belief that “personal change doesn’t equal societal change.” Although personal change sometimes initiates societal change, support of the masses is needed, and without this support, nothing can be done. Right now, not enough people whole-heartedly support the environmental movement for much change to occur. However, most importantly, it is not just the people that need to change. Society needs to also change.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s world, big business rules. People may want to instigate change, and they can do this in their daily lives, but this change only accounts for a small percent of change benefitting the planet. I agree with Jensen in the fact that “[perceiving simple living as a political act] incorrectly assigns blame to the individual.” Although we all do things wrong, it is not only us harming the planet. There are corporations, companies, and governments harming the planet, and only the politicians and corporate executives directly control the acts of these powerhouses. It is their negative impact on the planet that is so potent in today’s world. The only way to cause these corporate and governmental systems to change is for the masses to unite. Perhaps it takes one man’s actions to convince the masses to fight for change, but change cannot be created without wide support. I do believe that we need to change the system, but I do not think we need to overthrow the system like Jensen suggests.
I do agree with what most of you guys have said already, that Jensen does discredit those who put all their energy towards saving the planet, but I also think that he is being honest. Brutally honest in fact. I applaud those who take action and put forth an effort to change the world and to help save the planet from the hole we’re slipping into, but Jensen is right, nothing can be done unless we change our government and the corporate society we now live in.
ReplyDeleteWe need to buck up and face the facts. Big government and corporations are depleting the planet of its resources. We can’t just say that he’s being mean to those who are actually doing something. We have to look at the situation from inside his shoes. He doesn’t condemn eco-friendly people, but he does say that individual action won’t get the world anywhere near where it needs to be in the next decade. I’m not saying to stop to acting responsibly as a resident of the Earth, but I am supporting Jensen’s point that we have to join together if we want to see change in the world.
I completely side with Bronte when she says, “There are corporations, companies, and governments harming the planet, and only the politicians and corporate executives directly control the acts of these powerhouses.” This is so true and Jensen agrees. But I believe that the only way for any change to be enacted is to rework the system. If that means overthrowing the system, then let it be. We had to overthrow the system of slavery for it to end, we had to overthrow a whole nation to end the persecution of Jews. I don’t think that overthrowing the government isn’t a bad thing, as long as there is a justifiable reason to do so. I consider saving the planet to be a pretty important reason to change government.
I agree with everyone in that Jensen is being honest and undermining all of the people who recycle and reuse items. In my opinion his statistics might be right but his conclusion is wrong. When he says, "Personal change doesn't equal social change." Back in the 80's and 90's how did all those crazy hair styles and fashions become so popluar? Individuals bought those clothes and celebrities supported it. It was becuase of the individual that platform shoes were so huge.(pun intended.) After all who leads the big businesses? It isn't some robot behind a desk, its a human. People run businesses and they are individuals. If other individuals can pursuade them to change then that one indivudal has the power to change society.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with him when he says, "...humans can help the Earth as well as harm it." I hear a lot about how much destruction people have caused the Earth because we take so much without giving anything back. We hear this so much that we forget that we can give back. We can help. Instead of having no impact on the Earth like Beaven, people could try to have a positive effect on it. I feel like a hippie saying this but we can plant trees and clean up rivers like Sarah suggested. I believe we can make a difference if we just try.
From the moment I started to read this essay, it seemed to steal all of the environmental momentum and make me question the validity of No Impact Man.
ReplyDeleteBut then I would get to certain parts and I realized what he was saying wasn't all that different from a majority of what Beavan said.
He started from the beginning saying that one person can't save the world, least of all not him. I think this is what Jensen is saying. He also talks about many of the things that Beavan wanted to change: the capitalist society, consumerism, and the government.
In fact I really like one of his quotes because it really shows the dark side of capitalism that isn't often seen.
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it. (para. 10)
With this quote he reaffirms some of what we’ve been told out entire life, that we can make a difference politically by voting and socially by rebelling against “the man.” He also states that everything is more powerful in numbers.
Yes, I agree with the rest of the class that Jensen is very condescending, patronizing, and somewhat of a downer in this essay, but he does bring up some excellent points. If everyone thought like a combination of Jensen and Beavan, the world would be a much more ecologically healthy place. After all, just imagine a less extreme No Impact project with anywhere from hundreds to millions more people... Wouldn't that be amazing?
I don’t agree with this article. I think that one person can make a difference, environmentally or otherwise. Even though following all of the advice in “An Inconvenient Truth” would only result in a 22% reduction of carbon emissions, 22% is still a significant reduction. If we recycle all of our trash, we can still make a difference by that trash not being in a landfill. I don’t think that we should stop all industry and machines, but I think that we could make a difference if we all reduced our waste individually and if factorie took personal steps to being more environmentally-friendly.
ReplyDeleteI did some research about Orion magazine and Derrick Jensen. Orion has been being published since 1982, and part of their mission statement is, “…the individual comes to sense this responsibility as he or she develops a personal bond with nature.” I think that this article contradicts the magazine’s mission because the individuals are the ones making the environmental decisions. Derrick Jensen is an environmental activist; he has received many awards for his writings. I am always suspicious of people who say that one person can’t make a difference, especially people who are published in magazines and therefore have the power to make many people think about what they write.
This article takes me back to the way I felt before we read No Impact Man. How is one man going to make a difference? After reading the book, I do feel like one person can be significant in helping our planet. It may be small, but their actions still count for something.
ReplyDeleteNow, this article makes me wonder if that person's actions are BIG ENOUGH to make a difference. Were Beavan's actions really benefitting the world? Or in reality, did he find that he was saving a lot of money for his family but not having to pay for his water or heating bills? (That is one of my questions for Beavan.)
Regardless, I don't like the way that Jensen goes about this article. He wrote as though he had no respect for those trying to make a difference or as if they were just complete lunatics. However, he did make good points. If we really are going to "save our planet" then we need to do more than individual actions. IT simply isn't enough to turn around the environment. Irrigation systems, swimming pools, and agriculture industries all need to reach some sort of compromise. No Jensen, they are not "stealing" our water, but I do agree that they do need to be aware that during these times, they do need to be considerate of their water consumption. That's reasonable to ask.
It's such a win for losing type of situation.
While reading this article, the one thing I couldn't help but notice was how different Jensen's view on the power of individual is, compared to Beavan's. After reading No Impact Man, this article was a slap in the face. Beavan made me feel as if an individual can make a difference, but after reading this article I can't help but feel some on my initial helplessness creeping back up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan about how the more people who act, the greater the impact will be. One individual may not be able to make a world changing difference, but by choosing to act anyway, others may be inspired and choose to act also. I will always believe that when people come together to work for change, change will happen.
I do agree with Jensen when he says that the role of an activist is "to confront and take down those systems," but I find it interesting that he said "an" activist instead of activists. I thought one person couldn't make a difference? Also, how can any system be confronted or taken down without the work or individuals?
Although Jensen's tone is condescending and this article is discouraging, Beavan's upbeat and encouraging view still resounds in my head and I believe that one person can start the change and others will join.
I believe Jensen was terribly confused when writing this article. While I can see what he may have been trying to get across to the reader, he lost my respect as a reader at the title. As he continues into his first paragraph, I can't help but think he is intentionally misleading.
ReplyDeleteWOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
The point he is trying to establish is that individual action does not create political change, yet for his examples he uses environmental solutions for each problem when it doesn't fit. Some of these issues, in fact, were highly influenced by 'personal solutions.' Take, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or even the entire Civil Rights movement. It would not have been successful without the individual acts of people boycotting busses. The individuals banded together are what motivated the political change, but it had to start with what he calls "person solutions." I know political change needs to happen, but it will never be successful if people do not believe in it enough to 'take a shorter shower.'
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article really frustrated me as I first read it. It made me feel that no matter what little things I am able do, I can't make a difference. But then I tried to see his point.
ReplyDelete"... We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them" - Kirkpatrick Sale. This quote made me rethink the whole situation. I, personally, am not creating that much pollution when you compare me to a factory. So why change me? Why not change that factory?
There is truth in the statement that official reform only happens when you change the system, not your personal life. However, I firmly believe that when you make a personal change, you raise awareness. People can connect with you through your experiences. They start talking and start thinking of ways to make a difference. They become political activists and then they tear apart the injust systems.
So yes, changing the system brings real change. But to get there, you must take baby steps. You can't change the whole system in a day, but you can change yourself in day. And when you change yourself, you influence others. Change is always being made.
I’m not really a fan of this article.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the information Jensen provides about the environment is not reliable fact. The fact that he mentions An Inconvenient Truth makes me hesitant to trust his statistics because the movie is so easy to discredit. I wish he would provide information on where he got his information, like Beavan did most of the time.
Secondly, I agree with Bronte that his underlying message is to overthrow the government. “It accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers.”
Capitalism gives citizens more individuality. It’s simply an economic system in which the government stays out of business production. If Jensen really wants more individuality, I suggest he moves to a country with a drastically different economic and governmental structure – like China.
Thirdly, I’m sure he doesn’t realize it, but Jensen uses a quote which pretty much discredits his notion that individual change is ineffective. “Individual consumption…is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial…” I believe that if the people cut down on things like transportation and shopping, the big businesses are going to have no option but to cut down as well (supply and demand).
I also agree with Olivia that he needs to provide solutions. He’s telling us to tear something down…but what does he suggest we then build up?
I didn’t feel like this article was very effective at convincing readers of the writers point of view. The voice in the article seems to me to be yelling at me but at the same time trying to convince me that he and I are both the victims to corporations and industries' waste.
ReplyDeleteThis article is also contradictory in its message. Jensen says that living simply isn't bad and that he himself lives reasonably simply but spends the majority of the article arguing that individuals cant make a difference and making fun of people that do cut out waste. Also, after making me feel like I cant make a difference, he tries to convince me that I can help by taking down corporations. After hearing that creating no waste isn't going to change anything, how am I supposed to believe that I can make change by fighting huge companies? Although I do agree with Jensen that it takes more than one person eliminating their trash to change the world, he doesn’t give any concrete suggestions that the reader can put in to action against the industries.
So maybe we’re not the biggest contributors. The ripple effect is all I can think of here. If we start reducing, then I feel like companies will stop producing since their products aren’t being used. I get the feeling this guy isn’t happy. And he’s looking for big-time results, on a much bigger scale than is required. We can be happy personally, and in his words “win”. We don’t have to lose because we live simply and, “feel pure”. We could actually be happy. He wouldn’t know, he’s too caught up in being pessimistic and can’t take time to pull his head out of the ground.
ReplyDeletePlus if this has nothing to do with the individual then the earth is being destroyed by industry and corporations. Who do you think runs the companies? And who does that individual live with? CEO’s are surrounded by plenty of individuals who influence him. Heck, the world around him influences him whether or not he realizes it.
There is an ounce of me that wants to stop trying. I hate it, but those percentages are hard to ignore. 75% of our waste is big companies, not us. But, like Olivia said, this is right where I started before the book, believing that we weren’t big enough to do anything. I want to keep in mind, that after the book my outlook was changed. I fully believe in the domino effect. And that the biggest thing we can do is be the type of person that will try. That’s what to keep in mind, “Be the Change you want to see in the world.” You never know what will happen. Look at Beavan.
You guys, Jensen is a nincompoop who doesn't understand the mechanics of social change. Don't let him get you down. He's just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 1960s, four black college students decided enough was enough and refused to move from the whites only lunch counter. By the end of the month, 70,000 students had joined them in sit-ins around North Carolina.
Who would have thought? They didn't. They just took their own individual action and it suddenly turned into collective action.
Listen to your hearts. Find the path to your own wisdom. Don't let your soul be blown around like a leaf in the wind of some intellectual clap trap!!!