Orr 2011

"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

This Native American proverb speaks to the main sentiments of the author.

The first chapter that we encountered in our reading focused on the declining vocabulary of the youth of the world, in conjunction with a declining interest in real issues.  Just as the news media presents information on the potential homosexuality of Justin Bieber with more consistency and greater attention than the rape crisis in India, popular culture also consumes more of the attention of an average US citizen.  As a recent Facebook post clearly states, what would shock people of the 1950s about today is that we have pocket devices capable of tapping all the known knowledge in the world, and we use it to look at cat videos and start online arguments on trivial matters.  The chapter argued for a common literature to be reintroduced in the US, for people to begin to use language directly, and for a reintroduction of philosophy and religion into conversations.  While I think that philosophy and religion are indeed great subjects of inquiry, I do not know how much they influence the current shift in the mainstream culture toward increasing disinterest and stupidity.

Although I agreed with Orr's conclusions that climate change is happening, and that people are systematically ignoring it, I did not appreciate many of his examples and felt that some of them were particularly offensive.  In chapter 29, he outlines Pascal's Wager as a justification for reconsidering climate change.  While the premise is honorable, the argument is flimsy at best.  Pascal's Wager is fraught with religious issues that needed to be addressed before he tried to use this argument to justify why people should reconsider their view toward climate change.  First, Pascal's Wager is very offensive to people who do not hold to a religious belief system, and even offensive to those that do.  The wager holds that all religious individuals are better people, nicer and with long-term goals, while those who aren't are focused on frivolous pursuits and instant gratification.  This is wrong on so many different levels that to address them would be a major deviation to the goal of this post.  Suffice it to say, as a teacher of religion and as a child of very religious individuals, I have my doubts that Pascal is anything short of a fraud.  Regardless, the points made in the course of the chapter, mainly that no one can foresee the future implications of climate change and that we, therefore, need to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, are good.

Perhaps my favorite line in the book was from chapter 30, during which Orr discussed the coal industry, which has dire effects on surrounding populations and settlements.  "Coal companies' efforts to plant grass and a few trees here and there are like putting lipstick on a corpse."  These companies destroy natural habitats, disrupt ecosystems, subject the surrounding humans to negative health effects, and yet any monetary gains from this exploitation end up leaving the state.

Again, as an anthropologist, the connections drawn between global warming and slavery were enough to make me very indignant.  The thought that anyone could compare the atrocities suffered at the hands of US slave-holders, to those enacted by the corporations and governments that ignore climate change is insensitive to say the least.  A quote was even presented (on page 303) that basically said that the slaves could be freed, but the victims of global warming can expect no reprieve.  I don't understand how this statement passed the editors, and I further don't understand how someone with such a coherent and thoughtful explanation of the detriments of climate change could expect to use this as an example and get anyone to listen to him!  The cries of those subjected to slavery for centuries need to be louder than those who are subjected to the negative effects of fossil fuels!  I cannot begin to decry this comparison enough.  The subject of slavery is one that holds great emotional power, so I can see why so many different groups looking for a change in the way that they are treated or viewed have created a comparison between their movement and slavery.  However, many of those groups, and this chapter included, have only served to alienate anyone who might have listened to them.  This is a misuse of comparisons, a misuse of the power presented to Orr through the publication of his words, and a misuse of the power afforded to Orr through his status as a white man living in the US.

To the defense of Orr, he brought up a point that Lester and Hart failed to make, and that was acknowledging that climate change often effects those least able to adapt.

In chapter 33, again, I feel that Orr overstepped his bounds as an author.  He compared climate change to abortion, in that abortion kills a life that has the potential to live, while climate change kills many humans and other animals that might otherwise have lived.  To say that abortion kills a life is a very subjective statement that needs more documentation.  Abortion disposes of cells with the potential to someday form into a human, if it continues as a parasite for about 9 months, and as a baby with limited means to sustain itself for many years after.  On the other hand, climate change negatively changes the lives of many species that have the full potential live, and have been living independently for many years.  These are not equal comparisons at all!  Again, I do not understand why this comparison, which merely served to boil my blood, was even brought up.  Fully functional animals with clear quality of life and success as an active member of society cannot begin to be compared to fetuses with no distinguishable quality of life who are not members of society.  I understand the comparison as it should have been made, between potential life and potential death, but it does not belong in an academic setting and should never have been addressed in the course of this book.

Americans, as Orr correctly states, are both addicted to greed and consumption and have not been told the total picture of the climatic state.  They are told to replace devices and recycle, not to reduce their overall carbon footprint and to stop using and consuming as much as they desire.  The solutions presented by Orr, which I see as viable, include a focus on local goods, community outreach and cooperative interactions, and a return to incorporating nature in our daily life.  As a product of a rural hobby-farm, I am aware of the vast benefits of being raised with a healthy exploration of the great outdoors.

Finally, Orr discusses non-violence, bringing up Gandhi.  He states that wealth and weapons only serve to make us cowards, and that we need to move away from our dependence on weapons and the military.  As an advocate for non-violence, I tend to agree with his conclusions.