Alda Yuan
Professor Alexandratos
MHC 200
Week 8 Response
I feel that Macbeth was a particularly good choice for play adaption. The original already raises a lot of ethical and moral questions easily related to the issues we face today. Ambition and greed, the characteristics instrumental to Macbeth’s eventual downfall are also a part of the problem in changing our society so that we are no longer responsible for such sustained and horrendous harm to the natural environment. In this, I would say that all of us share guilt. Or course, unscrupulous businessmen like the one depicted in the movie can lay claim to large chunks of individual responsibility but we all, by virtue of living in and perpetuating our society, share some segment of the blame.
That is not to say that our societies and our place in history cannot be salvaged. In fact, I am firmly of the belief that it is possible to change our ways while sacrificing few of our material comforts. Indeed, I don’t believe that change is possible any other way than while continuing to preserve the way of life to which we have become accustomed. For instance, though I am well aware of the harm that carbon emissions from cars and planes do, I would hardly be willing to walk home to Virginia over the holidays or ride a sailboat to visit family overseas. But the key is that there does not exist the necessity to choose between extremes. I trust that human ingenuity, which has brought about so many change and so many benefits, has the power to offer acceptable solutions as well. And indeed, as the Principles of Engineering article shows, these middle ground solutions are already being developed and used. If we do not see their effect immediately, it is likely because there is always a barrier before the rapid evolution and dissemination of any technology or way of thinking. But, as pointed out by the article, once the changes are made, the financial benefits will come. And as long as people are conscientious about the need to recycle, these profits will come quickly.
The problem, as always is the get people to start taking these small steps, which do add up in the long run though it may not seem like it. That, I think is the idea behind the concept of the messianic moment. Many of the steps that we need to take toward redefining the problem and ensuring sustainability seem hopeless to a certain degree. This is especially true at the start, often because there are so few people around doing the same thing and providing moral support.
The same is true, I suspect of any major social movement or change. Just looking at our own past, the suffrage movements are prominent examples. Each individual protest and written tract was viewed by some as an exercise in futility. Much in the way that people maintain recycling or reusing is useless if you are the only person advocating it or doing it. And this serves as something of a cognitive barrier. People naturally shy away from positions and actions that are not accepted or at least not commonly adopted. Just as it takes an initial financial investment to kick start more efficient processes, success in something as comprehensive and overarching as environmentalism requires that one invest something as well. Participation requires an investment of time, effort but perhaps most importantly, of confidence your actions will matter. Perhaps it requires almost an element of something approaching doublethink to convince yourself that small actions will build up to a paradigm shift. But it should be a comfort to note that such things have been accomplished before.
