As someone who has long been interested in the environment in an abstract and only semi-involved way, the issues and statistics cited in the first lecture were not all that surprising. They were however, very disturbing and quite sad. As a species, we have a destructive impact on so many different aspects of the environment. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the issue is so difficult to gain support for. There just seems to be too many things we have to change about our society and about our lives in order to make a difference in the health of our environment. The movement lacks a single issue or front to act as a clarion call because so many different people advocate for protecting different things. An especially salient or especially resounding topic might make it easier for the public to support a cleaner environment and all that entails.
Of course the individual issues that motivate activists to demonstrate and lobby despite all opposition are distinctly important. The resolution of any of those issues would doubtless contribute to the overall health of our ecosystem and surroundings but it is sometimes hard for the citizen without scientific training to follow the train of logic that binds the wellbeing of a distant bay with their own welfare and economic situation or to understand the gravity of the situation revealed by dry statistics and data. This is especially true in recent years with the propaganda campaigns by various special interest groups attempting to discredit climate change and even environmental science as a whole.
In effect, these people have succeeded in turning science into something intensely political whereas being fact based, it should naturally be in the realm of the apolitical. Rather than accept the facts as they are and simply argue for this or that policy in light of them, these groups have succeeded in twisting the very facts themselves. That citizens are willing to accept such corruption of the facts points to a fundamental deficiency in the attitude and norms of our society. Despite all the scientists and activists sounding the warning, the public concern has not yet reached the critical mass necessary for a cultural shift. For it is indeed a cultural shift that seems to be necessary for real environmentalism to take hold.
By this, I don’t mean that society should cease to strive for a high standard of living or give up many of the luxuries that we understand as being a part of modern life. However, the average citizen has at least to be aware of the impact that their actions have on the earth. Only when the conversation shifts away from a discussion of whether or not the environment is worth saving and toward a discussion about how to go about it will things begin to happen. At that point, I think government will be given the authority to step in with regulations and incentives to encourage research and development in green energy and related avenues. At the same time, people will start to make choices such as saving energy and buying more efficient electronics, changes that are small in and of themselves but will perhaps spur the industry toward further development in that direction.
Regarding the concept of deep ecology, I think Naess’ general idea sounds right. I don’t think he means that each organism and each species necessarily must be preserved only that a certain attitude should be taken toward nature. We should recognize that nature and natural creatures and landscapes in a sense, deserve to be preserved. Pragmatism in the judgment of what to do in each specific case still has a place but it is practicality tempered with the knowledge that every decision comes with a sacrifice.
