A Changing World

Before reading the rest of this blog, I would like you to take a "quiz" that Bell provided in his book in order to classify people as more post materialist, materialist, or a mix between the two. For this survey, Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist with a theory about post materialism asks: Which two of the following four choices should be their country's top goals--

1. Maintaining order in the nation

2. Giving people more say in important government decisions.

3. Fighting rising prices.

4. Protecting freedom of speech

"Goals 1 and 3 are the materialist responses" which means they are the more traditional responses. Typically they would be chosen by the older population. "Goals 2 and 4 are the post materialist ones" which would be the more modern perspective typically from the younger generations. A mixture of the choices would be people who maintain both traditional and modern ideas of the way the country should be run. I personally fell under the mixture group.

In the past, security in terms of money, property, and safety were what people strived for. In today's world, there is a "greater emphasis on freedom, self-expression, and the quality of life" which are classified as post material values. As you can see on the pyramid below, the focus has shifted to the categories that are considered less of a necessity. This is called post materialism.




This idea of post materialism and finding self actualization is more common than it may seem, and the numbers keep growing. In simpler terms, it means that people are beginning to strive past their basic needs. After their basic material needs are met, they work toward deeper understandings and true happiness in all aspects of their lives.

I feel that this is very common in the society that I live in. Finding people that solely work toward their most basic needs is rare. This probably has a lot to do with my age as well. Because I am in a young generation, these modern ideas and practices seem normal to me because of their growing popularity.













Some people think that modernization and less traditional values aren't the best thing. However, focussing on things that are less materialistic seems to be a positive transition, rather than negative.

Environmental Invisibility

In Chapter 7, Bell talks about theories of environmental concern; postmaterialism [shift from concern about health and nature, materialism to a post materialistic view or freedom of self-expression view] and ecological modernization [recognition of environmental problems and how we can make it a part of our everyday lives]. The main topic of each of these theories is materials and how we view materials. 

I personally believe that we, in the US, are a combination of post materialism and ecological modernization. We are both an industrial and an aware of ecological problems society. Also, we value materials differently than we have in the past. I think that we have changed over the past years due to change in materialism. We went from appreciating traditional things like: concerns about economic and physical security to wanting freedom of expression (Bell, 187). The problem with this is that we are not focusing on what is important, the environment. We chose to ignore what we cannot see or touch. As we have learned in Bell, greater power does not lead to greater concern. My question is, why?

I think that we could help share some of the advances that we have and work together with other countries in order to distribute environmental awareness and prevention of further destruction. We have so much wealth in our country that we do not see how desperate other countries are. We walk around with non- environmentally friendly items like phones, car [most], and electronics while others figure out a way to make it through life. How is it that we are okay with not helping the environment when other peoples' and our lives depend on it? It is ironic to me that we have so much wealth but so little concern for our own environment. Doesn't that bother anyone else?

Dichotomy at its Finest

Man - Woman

Reason - Emotion

Civilization - Nature

Mind - Body

Human - Animal/Nonhuman

These dichotomies characterize everyday culture and we do not really have any control over it. Subliminally we are told that one of the things in each of these is better than the other, and as a result the group with the positive image has more power than the other group. As long as there is a stigma attached to one group, they will suffer at the hands of the other.

As one of the above dichotomies points out, civilization is pitted against nature. Civilization dominates, controls, and, in general, is not particularly concerned with nature's existence. However, Bell suggests that once people become concerned with the rights of people and society, they also become concerned with the decent treatment of animals and nature as a whole. When this occurs, environmental exploitation just doesn't feel right.

I find it crazy that we have removed ourselves so far from nature that helping ourselves isn't the same as helping nature. Helping humans is demeaning and destroying nature and helping nature is demeaning and destroying civilization. Everything that is nature is exactly the opposite of civilization so it helps all of us to forget that we are as much a part of nature as it is a part of us. Even using democratic sensibilities skews people's perception of the environment: it is something different from humans, an afterthought that has to be improved in relation to it's civilized counterparts. "Fixing" things, particularly nature, implies that there is something wrong with them to begin with. Personally, I believe that something is wrong with us, the "civilized" ones, and we are blaming the environment and nature because we cannot live with ourselves if we screwed up so horribly that it is irreversibly damaged and it is our fault.

Nature wins in the end because nature is in all of us. Nature is where we came from. Nature is who we are. Forgetting that is where many of our problems stem from.

Social Status Vs. Environmental Concern

In our discussion of Chapter 7 in Bell, we talked about whether wealthier or lower income people were more concerned with the environment? At first when this question was posed I really did not know the answer. I can also see explanations for how both wealthier and lower income people can be concerned with the environment more than the other.

The wealthier can be more concerned because big businesses who contribute to the majority of the reasons why we are concerned,  recognize this issue and have the means to fix it. On the contrary, big business might recognize they are harming the environment, but because fixing it might result in a lower profit, fixing it is out of the question.

Lower income people might be more concerned because as we discussed before, these are the people who are most effected by the causes of environmental problems such as pollution. Even though they recognize environmental issues, these people may not have the ability to fix the problem in turn making the concern for enviromental issues a non concern because it is simply something they have to deal with.

I found a youtube clip about a story in Detroit that relates to environmental concerns of both the wealthier and lower class. This clip shows the concerns of both sides, and is a way to look at social status vs. environmental concern as something that is in combination as a posed to against each other.
I posted the link instead of the actual video because the tool above did not list this video on youtube when I tried to search it so I apologize for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDGb2_FQO8M

Wal-Mart or World-Mart?

Check out this article about Wal-Mart taking over the world! But really, it's pretty interesting...

Wal-Mart or World-Mart? A Teaching Case Study

Religions and the environment.

Have you ever actually sat down and thought about what different religions say about the environment? Do they tell us to care for the environment, or do they tell us that we dominate the environment, thus, can do anything with it?

Personally, I have never thought about it in that sense. Not until recently have I looked into what different religions, say about man and the environment. 

Below, I will start off by presenting a deeper description of the Christian view regarding the environment, and then briefly present Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Please note that the relationship between the environment and religion is focused on roles of inequality and hierarchy in the way we tend to think about the environment. 

Christianity-

In Christianity, Genesis 1:28, God orders that humans control the animals, and the earth. But what does God actually mean by control? This claim does not only challenge people from inside the church, but people from outside of the church as well. Many believe that the earth was created in order to be used for "profitable purposes" (Wolf, 1981), as people are on their way to life after death. However, I do not think this gives people the power to destroy what God affirms as good in His sight, his creation (Genesis 1).

Yes, God did give humans dominion over the earth, but not to destroy it, He gave them the privilege to take care of it. God put Adam in the garden of Eden to take care of it. Interestingly enough, when "take care" is translated to Hebrew, it means to watch, preserve, attend, and maintain.

In the west, the major source of ideas comes from Christianity. And ideas change the economy, just as much as the economy changes ideas.
The two major theories of Christianity, economics, and their relationship as dominions over the environment are that of Max Weber (Protestantism and capitalism) and Lynn Whites (the moral parallels of Christianity, science and technology).

According to Max Weber, we work for more money than we need. But have you ever asked yourself why that is? Well, to maintain a place on the consumption and production treadmill. But why are we even on the treadmills to start off with? Well, that would be due to the moral anxiety from Protestantism.

Moreover, Lynn White explains that it is no ideal to separate environmental problems from the western origins of science and technology because of the mold-board plow that occurred in the 7th century. Early Christianity however does teach man to exploit the environment (tampering with the it is not a sin). However, the greener side of Christianity supports the taking care of the environment, and that it challenges science; opposition to genetic engineering, and opposition to Galileo.
Being so, the bible asks to be fruitful and multiply. This biblical command does not only go out to man, but to all creatures.

Islam- 

Muslims believe that Allah gave humans the responsibility over the earth. Being so, man is impelled by Islam not to abuse the trust that Allah put, but instead to care and protect nature, and to be kind with the environment. Islam also tells man to make use of the creation, but to be careful at the same time (Quran, Sura 55:3-10). Lastly, the Quran provides guidance to its peoples relationship with the environment, as well as in dealing with nature (Quran, Sura 2, 11). 

Buddhism- 

Nowadays, I believe Buddhism is the inspiration for the protection of nature. The right livelihood, one of the noble eight fold paths, teaches man to take in consideration his/her actions as it would impact society, and the future. Buddhism has actually been influential in government (i.e Thailand) decisions when attempting to improve the economics by 'development', while damaging the environment. Based on Cakkavattisihanada Sutta, it is not only required and expected for man to protect people, but to protect birds and quadrupeds as well. 

Hinduism-

In ancient Hinduism texts, respect for nature and ecological awareness are significantly presented. Yajur Veda, 5:43 and Rig Veda, 6:48:17 are examples of of principles and traditions that are in relevance to man future, and are important to one's present life. In Hinduism, it is believed that if trees and animal life are protected, then man and his community will be safe and survive. Here, people are expected to defend our nature and our environment. 

Being so, the different religions do tell us to protect the environment, but as human beings, we misinterpret what is said in these different religions, and we think of ourselves on a higher level than nature. Religion places man falsely above nature. 

Please take some time and watch the spirited debate with Jeff Schweitzer regarding whether or not religion is harming the environment.  

What are your thoughts about what the different religions say in regards to man and nature? Do you think we are taking advantage of our 'dominance' over the environment?

~Please comment with your thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Thank you

Green Christians

     No, not necessarily an alteration of tared and feathered. It's a movement. Start by going to thegreenchristian.org and checking out what they have. I spent some time on their site and can really start to understand some of the views and beliefs that they link together to gain their philosophy. Watch the video below on a church that takes environmentalism seriously.

     The people at The Green Christian work with churches and pastors, giving them the tools they need to talk about stewardship of the earth, and what the bible says about caring for the planet and our animals. They work to inform Christians about the fact that there are almost a billion people in this world without access to clean drinking water, and that sadly in many cases this is the result of pollution and pesticide runoff from fields. They also supply logic and plenty of information to those who want it, while focusing on spirituality, ethos, and pathos; personal stories about how the environment actually affects people and it’s role in the Christian faith.

Reading some of their sermons and blog posts has really made me think about things I've read in the Bible. Take a second and go check them out. Make sure to watch the videos they have on their website.