why is this? is it not better to seek a wholesale solution to an important environmental issue than just to address one symptom OF it? or are large issues too all-encompassing to try to change all at once, and it's best to concentrate our efforts on the small picture, hoping that enough small pictures will be changed to eventually impact the big one?
how SHOULD we best concentrate our efforts to improve this world? are there any plans that look at changing philosophies, not just symptoms?Do environmental solutions applied to a SYSTEM work better than those aimed at a SYMPTOM?Yes, symptomatic responses often create other ills while resolving only one or two issues, like slapping a bandaid on a hemorrhage. So few are capable of grasping the big picture. Having lived in Canada near pulp mills I recall my initial revulsion at being asked, "Paper or plastic?", as if that alone was going to solve all the ills of landfills and recycling. Did you know how much cyanide and mercury a pulp mill pours into the water and sulfur dioxide into the air?(NO I do not agree that all plastic bags should be banned, that answer is too simplistic. There is a place for recycling plastics. What we maybe should attack is our increasing use of over packaging When I have to go through over four seals to get into a simple bottle of pills, something is wrong.) Cottonwood, Poplar, Silver leaf Maple, Manitoba Maple and Siberian Elm are not good replacements for the hardwood forests and boreal forests which have been here since the last ice age and continue to fall, despite farming these fast growing tree weeds as a renewable resource. There are recycled plastics which are effective replacements for lumber in many applications. And they don't require poisonous treatments to prevent rot and insects, or continuous staining and re-painting with chemicals that have no place in our landfills. At the same time Americans were being shown baby seals clubbed on the ice flows, cod stocks were suffering from the cod worm harboured by seals, and the bottom fishing of American factory trawlers, while the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador were having a hard time making it through the winters and depending on that annual hunt. The East Bay Company still has warehouses of furs from native trappers of the north who've depended on this way of life for some 3,000 years and have a great respect for nature and their connection to it. The James Bay project threatens to utterly destroy the caribou herds the Inuit and Cree depend on while supplying tidal electrical energy to people with an energy glut and unbridled greed. We live in a global village. We are not alone. The rapidly disappearing jungles of the Amazon supply the oxygen we breathe. The oil fields of North Africa and the Middle East may be the cause of our ultimate demise. God is for justice, not just us. China supplies WalMart with cheap goods out of human sweat and ungodly pollution. Why? Because like a dog licking itself it can, and it feels good.Do environmental solutions applied to a SYSTEM work better than those aimed at a SYMPTOM?As Robby Burns said,"O wad the Pow'r the giftie gie us, To see ourselves as others see us." The room is full, yet many can only see their tiny little corner. What I do at this end affects every person in the room in some way or other.
Report Abuse
Do environmental solutions applied to a SYSTEM work better than those aimed at a SYMPTOM?Another very complex question. In an ideal world look at one system that addresses many issues, on many levels for example Permaculture which is a whole systems approach that works across Countries, disciplines and boundaries. In Permaculture we see the problem as the solution. It is intelligent observation and design.Single symptom issues have a role. It is easiest to concentrate on one issue at a time. It is definite, open and shut when it comes to YES or No. You either do or do not support that one issue.
However, is very difficult to locate where Permaculture issues and solutions rest with the general public because it is a network/ideology/lifestyle. One poor conception may overrule support for all issues under the Permaculture 'umbrella'.
I have asked the same question in three different Yahoo Answers sections:
'Type Yes if you agree that all Supermarkets should totally stop supplying plastic carrier bags?
This is to judge a number of things:
Firstly: Where I am located on an issue. I would assume that most people would agree with the research that suggests that plastic carrier bags should be banned.
Looking at the number of Yes responses, this clearly is not a big an issue for many as I would have believed.
Secondly: Why are the No responses (everyone who has not said yes including all of those who have NOT responded to question) saying No? What is preventing them from saying yes? Are there other issues that need to be addressed before people will agree?
Next: Is there a difference in sections? Should we concentrate on some issues in some places? How do we determine this? Is the Green Section as large a YES population as you would have imagined?
Asking a single issue question acts as a control. Otherwise how do we know that raising issues is making a difference?
Ask a single issue question. Look to find solutions/educate on any issues that prevented people saying yes. Raise awareness. Then re-ask the question. Massive problems with this methodology but it is about the best we have to see if we are effectively raising awareness. If we are successful there should be more Yes responses. However, there is no guarantee, it may just be because more people are on Y/A due to a windy rainy day whatever.
So both have a role, in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment