I found Michael Maniates article about going green interesting because he frames his argument in an almost...economics-based format. Based on his evaluation of other study on the topic, on how to "be green", he explains how human beings, by nature, would prefer greening methods which are the simplest to do; that is, those that do not change our usual routine too much. These do not necessarily return the optimal results, though. This rings of economics to me in that it is an example of how we prefer to function to the best of our natural capabilities, not necessarily what is best for our neighbors or the environment.
So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Amy,
ReplyDeleteI fear that you've fundamentally misunderstood my argument, or I your blog entry. Nowhere do I mean to suggest that humans, by nature, prefer the "easy" solution. Indeed, I think just the opposite holds: humans are drawn to challenges, and find reward in struggling with others for the "big things" that count. There is abundant psychological, political, and -- yes -- even economic theory and data to support this more nuanced understanding of human nature.
I'd ask you, then, to have another look at my essay. Maybe you'll see what I was up to the second time around.
Finally, I'd ask you to revisit your understanding and evaluation of economics as a discipline. You may be operating off of some false assumptions about the kinds of questions that economics asks (we ponder issues like allocation of resources under scarce conditions, or how one gets the most effective outcomes with the least amount of input or effort). There's quite a bit in economics that would argue that doing the easy things are silly if they prove to be ineffective. I don't mean here to defend economics as a discipline...only to suggest that if you better understood the field, you may be able to discover more hopeful avenues for change than those you offer in your brief blog entry.
Thanks for reflecting on my work.
Yours,
Michael Maniates