It is cliche of me to write a Martin Luther King Jr. blog today, and doing so would result in one that is less informed and less personal than so many writings by people who were actually close to the movement and the man. Still, like so many of us, this holiday has brought about a lot of reflection on the nature of social progress. My little girl told me how wonderful it was that King’s “Dream” had come true, to which I responded that it is wonderful that the “Dream”, has somewhat come true. Regardless of an Obama presidency, it is clear to see that we don’t yet live in a country of racial equality. You need only look at prisons, schools and wage disparity to see obvious signs of this. I told my daughter this, but also didn’t want to depress her, as the country is a better place than it used to be in most ways. I watched a Meet The Press clip of an interview with Dr. King, where they quoted former President Truman actually saying that Dr. King’s work was a waste of time. This is hard to imagine now. The whole King philososophy and how it did lead to progress does make me think of contemporary models for future progress. Certainly where equality is concerned King still holds much relevance, as same sex marriage movements are largely peaceful in a way that King would have certainly endorsed. Same sex marriage is also a population driven movement not a formal political one, as politicians now as then, are nearly always behind the curve on human rights for some reason. So this made me think of another issue that I care about, and how it could be addressed in order to make true progress.
I read and posted on Facebook, here, about a method for factories and farms to reduce carbon emissions, which will actually be business efficient, and a huge improvement in reducing the release of Greenhouse gasses. A friend responded that this was indeed great, but that we should be careful not to take our eyes off of the political ball, by holding the politicians to the fire. I responded that there was a problem with this reasoning. Also another response was that it was perhaps dangerous because it would take away personal responsibility for the environment.
All of this is not like the MLK situation directly, but there is a common thread to my reaction to those particular comments. First environmental problems need to be recognized as the cause of suffering. Also nothing can happen in isolation and individually. There needs to be a certain critical mass. In the case of taking personal responsibility for the environment that can only happen if there are very big results possible. Recyclying or using green counter tops makes very little environmental impact, so it doesn’t excite the imagination and hopes of people. I have even argued that they are counter productive. They make people think they are doing something useful, that makes nearly no difference. Reversing damage due to global warming does, but most people are smart enough to know that only major scientific advance will make that happen. The article I posted is one of those. I imagine if MLK were to have said in his dream speech “I have a dream that one day people of all races will be able to use the same trash cans.” This wouldn’t be an inspiring or big dream. Instead he pictured everyone living as equals together. The environmental equivalent to the first statement would be “I have a dream that we all recycle and that therefore plastics will be reused instead of taking 100 years to biodegrade.” This is a boring proposition. Instead I propose a dream for environmentalist which is “ I have a dream that science will find solutions to reverse all harms due to global warming.” This is a call people would get behind, and more importantly if funded it would make a difference. All of these years of Al Gore ideas on global warming statistics have done nothing positive, because they provide a lot of little things to do, such as I mentioned before, therefore resulting in a collective lie that we can reverse global warming through conservation. I also think it is something that can start in labs, and doesn’t need Washington leadership up front. Washington will follow with money and legislative support, once there is a unified voice of what should occur.
So I would say, lets stop all baby steps. Lets look to the big things. Lets stop LEED certification, and recycling programs, and hybrid cars. They just don’t make a difference. The planet is changing no matter how much we do this. If we care to reverse global warming we need to look to nanotechnology, to modern farming procedures. We need to look to the solar industry reaching a tipping point where solar is the cheapest way to provide electricity to a house. We need to make sure that that solar works in all climates, and with IR radiation so that it works at night. We need to use LED lighting for all general lighting purposes. We should make sure that the great advances in water purification are scaled up to levels which eliminate the upcoming water crisis. These are not things that any individual can do, but they are things they can support. They can prioritize our environment by prioritizing our science, and give up the delusion that choices they make individually are of much importance. MLK was a leader, but without a collective consciousness, and collective action nothing would have been accomplished.
This whole analogy with King is deeply flawed, and should not even be looked at as directly analogous. King put himself in direct danger, and was eventually killed for his beliefs. I don’t forget this. No one has, or likely will take such admirable risks for the environment. Instead it was the inspiration that linked these two ideas. The big issues of our time, with the big issues of the past, and how they can be dealt with.
I read and posted on Facebook, here, about a method for factories and farms to reduce carbon emissions, which will actually be business efficient, and a huge improvement in reducing the release of Greenhouse gasses. A friend responded that this was indeed great, but that we should be careful not to take our eyes off of the political ball, by holding the politicians to the fire. I responded that there was a problem with this reasoning. Also another response was that it was perhaps dangerous because it would take away personal responsibility for the environment.
All of this is not like the MLK situation directly, but there is a common thread to my reaction to those particular comments. First environmental problems need to be recognized as the cause of suffering. Also nothing can happen in isolation and individually. There needs to be a certain critical mass. In the case of taking personal responsibility for the environment that can only happen if there are very big results possible. Recyclying or using green counter tops makes very little environmental impact, so it doesn’t excite the imagination and hopes of people. I have even argued that they are counter productive. They make people think they are doing something useful, that makes nearly no difference. Reversing damage due to global warming does, but most people are smart enough to know that only major scientific advance will make that happen. The article I posted is one of those. I imagine if MLK were to have said in his dream speech “I have a dream that one day people of all races will be able to use the same trash cans.” This wouldn’t be an inspiring or big dream. Instead he pictured everyone living as equals together. The environmental equivalent to the first statement would be “I have a dream that we all recycle and that therefore plastics will be reused instead of taking 100 years to biodegrade.” This is a boring proposition. Instead I propose a dream for environmentalist which is “ I have a dream that science will find solutions to reverse all harms due to global warming.” This is a call people would get behind, and more importantly if funded it would make a difference. All of these years of Al Gore ideas on global warming statistics have done nothing positive, because they provide a lot of little things to do, such as I mentioned before, therefore resulting in a collective lie that we can reverse global warming through conservation. I also think it is something that can start in labs, and doesn’t need Washington leadership up front. Washington will follow with money and legislative support, once there is a unified voice of what should occur.
So I would say, lets stop all baby steps. Lets look to the big things. Lets stop LEED certification, and recycling programs, and hybrid cars. They just don’t make a difference. The planet is changing no matter how much we do this. If we care to reverse global warming we need to look to nanotechnology, to modern farming procedures. We need to look to the solar industry reaching a tipping point where solar is the cheapest way to provide electricity to a house. We need to make sure that that solar works in all climates, and with IR radiation so that it works at night. We need to use LED lighting for all general lighting purposes. We should make sure that the great advances in water purification are scaled up to levels which eliminate the upcoming water crisis. These are not things that any individual can do, but they are things they can support. They can prioritize our environment by prioritizing our science, and give up the delusion that choices they make individually are of much importance. MLK was a leader, but without a collective consciousness, and collective action nothing would have been accomplished.
This whole analogy with King is deeply flawed, and should not even be looked at as directly analogous. King put himself in direct danger, and was eventually killed for his beliefs. I don’t forget this. No one has, or likely will take such admirable risks for the environment. Instead it was the inspiration that linked these two ideas. The big issues of our time, with the big issues of the past, and how they can be dealt with.
No comments:
Post a Comment