The first thing that struck me when reading the Stanley Fish piece was the title of the piece itself. It declared, “I am, Therefore I Pollute.” This articulates something very true. That is, no matter how much we try, we still have an impact on the environment. Even if we utilize the most strict (and from the point of view of many, “insane-tree-hugging”) measures of minimizing our ecological footprint, the footprint is still there. For those like Fish, this implies hopelessness. Because really, what’s the point if it’s going to happen regardless of whether you use 300 tissues a day or one handkerchief rinsed only once a year with environmentally friendly soap?
Fish’s struggling to be a “good environmentalist” is understandable. Our effects on the environment are often not physically seen by us. Literally, we flush our effects down the toilet. We throw them in the garbage bin. They are for someone else to take care of. Thus, it’s fairly easy to fall into the trap that Fish describes. It’s difficult to care, and even if you do, it’s difficult to translate it to your own life. It’s an understandable phenomenon in the modern American life. But, it’s a terribly unfortunate one.
So what does it mean to live in an “environmentally friendly” way in modern American society? I feel like we have gotten to the point where, for many, it’s become too difficult to simply go “cold turkey” on environmental mishaps. Many of us are such offenders that attempting to suddenly turn eco-friendly would result in severe stress, changing everything in our lives all at once. It might be so overwhelming that it could very well result in the individual completely and totally giving up on “the whole environmentally-friendly thing.” So, I feel like, for many, the best option is to start small. Pick a product or a habit that, for you, is clearly an offender.
Fish mentions tissues. Yet, even if one dedicates some to boycotting the more harmful variety of tissues, things can get complicated. For example, one of the most disturbing things about American society for me is the utter lack of information we have on the products available to us. Fish comments on this: “...we would have to give those items up and go in search of green alternatives. But we had already done that once before when it turned out that the manufacturer of the paper products we used to buy...engaged in research on animals. That’s when we found Kimberly-Clark. So it seems that the pure were not so pure after all, and who’s to say that the next corporation won’t have an ecological skeleton in its closet, too?”
I feel that this is a very true statement. At times, it’s overwhelming to attempt to be “environmentally friendly” because we have such a lack of information. Companies aren’t required to tell us their deep, dark secrets. Figuring all this out often proves to require an immense amount of research. It’s as if we almost need to wait until someone releases a ground-breaking report to know the truth.
But it doesn’t mean we should give up and die by death of tissue overdose. It means that we just need to keep taking small steps, like buying a product that is biodegradable. Enough of these small steps, when added together, can pressure the system. Companies would see an increased demand for products they produced in an eco-friendly manner. Sure, you might feel like Fish: you’re here, you’re going to pollute inevitably so you might as well live it up. But what Fish seems to neglect to realize is that your small sacrifice, when added with the small sacrifices of others like you and the larger sacrifices of those “insane-tree-huggers” might actually result in something really positive.
No comments:
Post a Comment