So my mind was wondering, and it stumbled upon the subject of the disabled. I thought back to one of our first classes, when we talked about how many children we would each have and what that meant for the environment. If we make our child-rearing decisions based on how many resources it (the hypothetical child) will consume, then wouldn't a disabled child take up considerably more resources (medical evaluations, treatment, equipment, etc)? If environmentalists are comfortable with saying that people in the US should have fewer babies because they would consume more, what about other types of people who consume more (the elderly/the disabled)? Should they also be regulated the way we do the population?
[I really hope I don't offend anyone. Just curious about what you all think.]
Laura,
ReplyDeletethis is a REALLY good question and I honestly don't have an answer to it. I have been thinking about that as well, as whenever restrictions are placed upon something, the criteria for passing become stricter. I personally often look to indigenous communities when trying to remind myself that our way of life of more being better is not the only way. However, when considering that elderly people often left (or were made to leave) the tribe once they could no longer be sustained, I'm not sure whether I would agree with treating for example my grandma like that (given the case she reached that stage already a long time ago). I believe that questions of exctaly this manner are one reason why infleuntial actors are so reluctant to dealing with difficult issues such as environmental degradation and the human impact, as although the issue itself is already hard to dealing with, but the possible solutions for it are even more so. When placing it in "neutral" relations, I would have to say that spending more resources on my 91 year old grandma and causing more damage to the environment than taking care of 4 children ina developing country is probably "wrong" but my personal involvement, my morals, etc. would not allow me to change it for a more sustainable manner - do I with that further the system of destruction and this, with my selfishness and self-centerdness on my own family, actually do more harm than good? Maybe - but what is the alternative? Would a change in menatlity be possible that I don't think in this way anymore? Maybe. So as you can see, by trying to comment on your question - I wouldn't dare calling it answer - I'm left with even more questions... What are your thoughts on the issue you raised????
I talked with my friend today about environmentalism and dealing with the dead. It's pretty depressing (...ly logical) that our laws do not allow us to let our dead naturally decompose because that gives leeway for murderers. Environmentally, the best way to deal with the dead (and I don't think I'm mistaken) is to let them naturally decompose open on the earth. The problem is the odor and, of course, the ethical/sociological implications of watching a loved one be eaten by uncontrollable forces. Burying is also not bad, since we don't go too deep to disrupt much soil/ecosystem. That takes away both the smell and moral issues. Cremation is not a good solution, since, like any burning process, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteI would ask when we started making such a big deal of funerals, but we know it dates back thousands of years --the egyptian civilization certainly did it. As cultures became more and more materialistic, their death rituals followed. The difference, though, between funerals and other practices, even weddings, is the emotional ties we have to death. Because people see environmentalism as a series of compromises, honoring a loved one is the last thing people will compromise. We try to put a monetary value on how much we loved some one.
Livia, I think you're right. The ties between humans are stronger than our ties with Earth. We are all guilty of it. "I would do anything for you"? Yeah it's cheesy, but every person has said it about at least one person in their life. People who claim to be environmentalists look down their noses at people who don't recycle or use LED light bulbs, stressing priorities ("I prioritize the environment over convenience"). But perhaps the true environmentalists are the ones who really do put Mother Nature first. I would truthfully have a hard time deciding between saving the planet and saving the wonderful woman that is my mother.
But therein lies the difference -- the earth is a communal good and is affected by every person living on it. That is why we are able to make the decision to keep our loved ones alive on modern medication. We can calculate our impact by ecological footprints and other methods, but the results are all hypothetical. None of us live perfect lives, but death represents the last straw in our relations with the environment. And society encourages it -- though we are all now supposed to use reusable shopping bags, an environmental death is considered downright weird.