April 23, 2015 - 03:41
From reading Klein and Kolbert's thoughts on the relationship between capitalism and climate change, I feel like there's this hope and belief that human's can and will take action against the further progression of climate change. While I do share that same hope, I still think it's unlikely. Before encountering these readings, I never really thought much of how capitalism and climate change were intertwined. I knew that a consumer-based society promoted the exploitation of the earth, but I never connected the consumer-based society back to captialism, in which it is rooted. I think that looking at the superficial causes such as driving too much, cutting down too many trees, like we tend to do. I'm thinking of campaigns that have stickers telling you to carpool, recycle bottles/papers/plastics. I think focusing on these kind of simple changes we could make is the result of us not wanting to get to the root of the problem. I can't imagine what the response would be to climate change campaigns that encourage the destruction of capitalism. Like Caleb said in class, it's scary because it's all that we've known.
I completely agree with Klein and Kolbert that capitalism is the cause of the earth's problems. However, I don't see capitalism dying down anytime soon unless there's another war or if our government collapses? Looking at the few government/political systems I know about, I feel like capitalism is the one that most closely resembles nature. Law of fitness. Those who can move upward, do so if possible. If you can't, you stay where you are. I think the earth is just at the bottom of this vicious chain. Nature prioritizes strength and the ability to fight and prosper. Capitalism?? Klein drew comparisons between the U.S.'s dependency on slave labor and our dependency on the earth. Maybe it's because the earth isn't a person that we can have actual, physical dialogue with (other than through climate and the disastrous changes coming with it). It's already dehumanized for us. It's hard to help something that doesn't communicate in the way that we do to promote change.
~~~~~~~~~Class Tuesday~~~~~~~~
I can't help but agree with Amala's statement that we would have to wipe out the human population if we wanted to recreate a world that lives in balance with the earth. But even then, I think something would go wrong. I believe that's how nature works. Law of entropy (if we twist it around) ?? I can't even imagine a world in which everything is in balance and coexisting peacefully. A part of me wants to think that it would be a boring world, because there would be nothing "serious" to worry about, I think.
However, I don't think that we should just sit and let it happen wildly. While I do think that some day it will all have to come to an end, our efforts in aiding the earth and pushing forward new policies to regulate our usage isn't futile. It's the morally right thing to do. It's like ensuring the quality of the end of something's life. Not just letting it die and in writhing pain. It wouldn't sit right in my conscience to just continue to sit and watch the expoitation happen just because destruction is imminent.
I think this is why science isn't sufficient by its self. In Freya Matthews' On Desiring Nature, she describes science as not having an emotional aspect. Maybe that's why Naomi Oreskes observes "that many scientists feel we’re approaching a point of no return." I think the humanities bring the hope and additional innovation and critical thinking about the matter. I feel that the humanities deter us from only looking at the facts and trends.