Environmentalism for the Twenty–First Century

Sam Borchon wrote:

This makes me laugh! It seems that environmentalism ONLY works if it saves people money -- even if it's so little that they don't realize notice. I think that's in part because in the U.S. everything important is valued in money ...

I'm confused. So, are you saying I was wrong to replace my incandescent bulbs to save money? Is the proper motivation more important than results?

Paul Anthony wrote:

Sam Borchon wrote:

This makes me laugh! It seems that environmentalism ONLY works if it saves people money -- even if it's so little that they don't realize notice. I think that's in part because in the U.S. everything important is valued in money ...

I'm confused. So, are you saying I was wrong to replace my incandescent bulbs to save money? Is the proper motivation more important than results?

I think energy conservation can be one of those win/win propositions if you keep your eyes on the big picture.

Paul Anthony wrote:

I'm confused. So, are you saying I was wrong to replace my incandescent bulbs to save money? Is the proper motivation more important than results?

This question about the proper source of motivation reminds me of the Nature/Culture dichotomy discussed above.

Money is an artificial motivator, but it pushes all the same buttons as food, sex, fear, love, etc. Almost everything humans do, besides basic bodily functions, is artificial. And yet, the term "artificial" has recently taken on negative connotations of Evil, rather than the positive associations of Art.

The activities and products of human culture are viewed by some of those-who-hold-Nature-sacred to be, not just unnatural, but anti-natural, hence Evil. For them, money is inherently immoral, just as humans are inherently sinful. Money, being a man-made motivator, is viewed, like Adam's apple, as a potential corrupter of innocent morals, rather than merely a tool for good or ill.

Is buying energy-saving lamps a moral issue, or an economic choice? Yes.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Sam Borchon wrote:

This makes me laugh! It seems that environmentalism ONLY works if it saves people money -- even if it's so little that they don't realize notice. I think that's in part because in the U.S. everything important is valued in money ...

I'm confused. So, are you saying I was wrong to replace my incandescent bulbs to save money? Is the proper motivation more important than results?

No, no no, don't misunderstand, please. I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying that is a perfect reason to replace your bulbs! I think the only way environmentalism will ever truly work is if it saves people money. The idea that one must have "higher" (?!) ideals to be an environmentalist is silly. That's great, but let's face it -- nothing will ever change in the U.S. if it doesn't hit the pocketbook the right way.