Discuss: Forget Shorter Showers

Interesting angle, but I have to disagree with the overall message. Placing blame on industry in my opinion only removes the blame from the individual, and thus makes it less personal. Living simply may not change or save the world on it’s own, but it is a symbolic start to a larger movement. We as individuals are responsible for the industry which seems to be to blame. What is it that “industry” does? It creates the products and services that each individual consumes. So only by collectively saying no to these products and services are we able to truly change our destructive path. Let’s use golf courses as an example, perhaps they do use as much water as the rest of a municipality, but why? It isn’t the golf courses fault as implied, but those that play golf. The golf courses wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the demand. This analogy can be used just about everywhere and helps bring back the responisiblity to the consumer and not project it onto some foreign concept such as the government or corporations.

This answered a lot of questions I had following the first “upping the stakes”.  : )  There was a fine statement near the end of the comments on the first article in the series which piqued my interest to a similar degree,
: -)
“The Ancients lived simple, but complex lives.  We need to back step and implement a lot more of their “uncivilized customs”.  Now is the time.”

Derrick Jensen’s position here is a fine example of why the so called progressives have made so little progress over the last 50 years.  We hear the same message, over and over again about all the things that are wrong with the world.  No matter that it is true, there is never any alternative other than stop doing what you do now.  And then, what?

For that, Jensen provides no answer.  Neither did Nader. He might have made a real difference had he been able to tell us what his future looked like and how to get there.  Nader did not do it and is now relegated to providing a few comments when the media needs someone to disagree.  I doubt that Jensen will get that much.

There is an alternative.  The vision of that started the Green Party, one of ecological sustainability and an industry the practices sustainable permaculture on a massive scale, a vision of citizens who respond according to their needs, not their wants; a vision of a world at peace and not at war.

Too many Greens are themselves caught in that old paradigm of protest. Remember, we do not remember Martin Luther King for say stop it, but for sharing his dream with all of us.  I wonder if Jensen dreams.  You would never know.

I was going to make the same argument that Joel did, but since he said it so well, I have very little to add.  Industry and agriculture are not solely to blame - they cater to the consumers.  There are certainly better methods to produce products, for instance in sustainable agriculture vs. industrialized agriculture.  However, we must realize that until we collectively decide to forego the $0.99 hamburger, things will not change.  The other comment by Wes needs a response - Wes claims that Jensen offers no solution or alternative.  That is simply not true.  While I disagree with Jensen’s main thesis, I do agree that more political activism is needed to help change the system.  This is the point that Wes somehow missed in his reading of the article.

I think I have to agree with the overall message, but also argue that the 22% we could account for with our own actions is not negligible.  But I think Jensen’s point that our individual actions make us complacent on the political and social level is valid…and important.

I largely agree with Joel, but would place my emphasis on the human rather than the economic. For me, the most persuasive case for living simply is not to reduce the economic demand that fuels industry. Rather, it is the way that changing my own actions contributes to changing cultural values and norms. When I bring my own tupperware to a restaurant instead of taking a to-go box, I am not just reducing the demand for styrofoam by a minuscule amount. I am also helping shift our collective cultural norms towards a world where using resources to create a single use to-go box is no longer acceptable. In turn, this might eventually move us towards a world where creating any item for a single use - be it industrial, corporate, military, etc. - is not morally defensible. And it is only once we as a society come to regard single use production as unacceptable that large scale activism has any chance. Without simultaneous efforts to shift our underlying cultural attitudes, our activism has very little probability of succeeding and may even appear as hypocrisy.

No claim here to have thoroughly read everything Jensen has written, but I will side with him that we do need much more activism and much more truth in the face of power, lies and pablum.

Could it be his frustration with those who peacefully go about living their simple, low-impact lives, knowing that behavior can be contageous, is that there is no time to wait for that behavior to catch on in a large scale?

We do need revolutionary change and we need it yesterday. And I suspect what really bothers Jensen (because it bothers me) is that the compromise/hope/diplomacy effort (growing a green economy, for example) may convince a lot of people that everything is going to be okay if they just shorten their showers, change the light bulbs and put up a wind turbine.

Still, I think there is a place in this transition for all - a place for revolutionaries (and I count myself one) and a place for more diplomatic change agents.

Dave Gardner
Producing the documentary
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com

Derrick, I think you have made some very important points about the clever way capitalism obscures political action by promoting smaller acts. Another example is the way the finance world is embracing microfinance ‘cause it doesn’t challenge the political system (well, until it gets to a very large scale).

Still, I think you have not included the importance of spiritual practice and individuals entering processes of political change through the doorway of individual action.

I have seen this in the fair trade system. It is largely focused on consumption and, yet, it also helps people understand some of the system dynamics at play in trade. This makes it an easy way to begin the journey which sometimes leads to political action.

I love the sharpness of your insight! Thanks for sharing.
Jonathan Rosenthal