(no subject)
May. 6th, 2007 02:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ocelotI'm reading No Impact Man, the blog of a New Yorker who is trying to have his family go for a year with zero net impact on the environment by making as little impact as possible, and then making positive contributions to offset the impact they do make.
The comments are nutso.
The majority are "That's cool, good luck" and the like. But then there's a few sets of weirdos.
Set 1: "You live in NYC, therefore it's impossible for you to live environmentally responsibly. All 8.1 million of you need to go move out to 60 acre plots in the middle of nowhere and grow all your own food."
One particular woman in this group apparently lives on a 60 acre plot in the middle of nowhere, and writes that when her niece and nephew arrived from Sacramento, they were shocked by the amount of green and open space, insinuating that Sacramento was some sort of urban wasteland. Ok, so perhaps parts of it are - but the lack of green is due to climate differences ("Oooh, green!" was our first reaction upon arriving in non-rural Virginia), and if they've never seen non-urban areas, that's their parents' fault, as it isn't far to the Sierras or rural areas of the central valley.
In any case, it seems to me that an individual might reduce their net impact by not living in the city, but that it isn't a good choice environmentally if large numbers of city-dwellers decide to do it.
Set 2: "Global warming doesn't exist. Mankind cannot possibly have any positive or negative influence on the environment." Ok, I'm open to the idea that An Inconvenient Truth may be more sensation than truth in some parts, but to flat out say that we can't influence the environment? Huh?
Set 3: "It's too late to do anything, so it's a horrible thing to even try." Ok, pointless I can understand, though I don't necessarily agree. But wrong? I guess if you believe we're all supposed to be immanentizing the eschaton.
Set 4: "You're being elitist." I don't even know how to respond to this one.
And then there's this guy whose all "This is great, but I can't be that strict. Give me a lite plan." WTF? Do it yourself - take the suggestions that work for you and implement them as far as you can in your own life. Why should this guy whose going to have enough on his hands already washing his clothing in his bathtub do it for you?
I rarely rant like this, but reading these responses just plain scares me, because they're exactly the thing holding back positive change.
ETA:Another genius comment from No-Impact Man's blog...
And what about books? What's a life without books? Do you participate in BookCrossing or something? Sit in the library and read there?
I could almost understand if they forgot libraries existed, but they apparently have that part down. Did they forget that libraries check books out to people so you don't have to sit there and read them?
And then there's people accusing him of running a server 24 hours a day to host is (typepad) blog...
The comments are nutso.
The majority are "That's cool, good luck" and the like. But then there's a few sets of weirdos.
Set 1: "You live in NYC, therefore it's impossible for you to live environmentally responsibly. All 8.1 million of you need to go move out to 60 acre plots in the middle of nowhere and grow all your own food."
One particular woman in this group apparently lives on a 60 acre plot in the middle of nowhere, and writes that when her niece and nephew arrived from Sacramento, they were shocked by the amount of green and open space, insinuating that Sacramento was some sort of urban wasteland. Ok, so perhaps parts of it are - but the lack of green is due to climate differences ("Oooh, green!" was our first reaction upon arriving in non-rural Virginia), and if they've never seen non-urban areas, that's their parents' fault, as it isn't far to the Sierras or rural areas of the central valley.
In any case, it seems to me that an individual might reduce their net impact by not living in the city, but that it isn't a good choice environmentally if large numbers of city-dwellers decide to do it.
Set 2: "Global warming doesn't exist. Mankind cannot possibly have any positive or negative influence on the environment." Ok, I'm open to the idea that An Inconvenient Truth may be more sensation than truth in some parts, but to flat out say that we can't influence the environment? Huh?
Set 3: "It's too late to do anything, so it's a horrible thing to even try." Ok, pointless I can understand, though I don't necessarily agree. But wrong? I guess if you believe we're all supposed to be immanentizing the eschaton.
Set 4: "You're being elitist." I don't even know how to respond to this one.
And then there's this guy whose all "This is great, but I can't be that strict. Give me a lite plan." WTF? Do it yourself - take the suggestions that work for you and implement them as far as you can in your own life. Why should this guy whose going to have enough on his hands already washing his clothing in his bathtub do it for you?
I rarely rant like this, but reading these responses just plain scares me, because they're exactly the thing holding back positive change.
ETA:Another genius comment from No-Impact Man's blog...
And what about books? What's a life without books? Do you participate in BookCrossing or something? Sit in the library and read there?
I could almost understand if they forgot libraries existed, but they apparently have that part down. Did they forget that libraries check books out to people so you don't have to sit there and read them?
And then there's people accusing him of running a server 24 hours a day to host is (typepad) blog...
