So when I launched the topic of environmentalism and the problems and solutions therein, both my uncles took strong stances on the issue and put forth ideas that did nothing but reinforce my own. But then I heard my grandma's boyfriend arguing with my Aunt and it reminded me of how much this man loooovveeesss to play the devil's advocate. (Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet..)
So I walked up to him later that night and talked about future careers I was considering and I let him know what I had learned this year and how strongly I felt about the fact that we should try to change the system, rather than changing the people. I then made the statement that the world would be a much better place if people could think long term rather than short term and just move away from fossil fuels today because we have alternatives rather than wait another 25 years until supplies run out and we've polluted the Earth that much more. Surely enough he counter-argued my point. He answered Well if we do a sudden transition what will happen to the poor miner in a third world country. No one will be here to train him on renewables, he'll just loose his job and his life will be done for. I listened to him go on about how we can't just change the system, we are too engrained in the system for any change to occur without negative impacts on people, etc., etc. Basically saying we messed up and our Earth is going to pay for it. I listened to him awhile, fighting the urge to counter his arguments and finally I just asked the simple question: well then, should we just let things happen and watch the earth get destroyed even though we have a solution to this problem? And of course, to this he answered No. But it's going to be a long and strenuous process.
This talk made me realize that, if the person you are talking to shares the same concern as you, it is important that both parties be aware of it so that even if they differ on ways to solve this common problem, they listen to each other's comments and arguments in a constructive way.
(It was difficult to do so in that case though because Paul wasn't exactly listening to my reactions to his comments...) It also made me frustrated that a lot of the good arguments I had against his comments came to me later in the night.
I tried to present to him the ideas expressed by Cradle to Cradle and Maniates, but his answer was on the pessimistic side, saying that since the system is too complicated to change we shouldn't try. I think part of this comment is rooted in the fact that he is 80 years old and has seen people try and fail too many times for things to actually work. He actually mentioned the health care bill as a proof that even if people had the right ideas, things just can't get by politics in the US. But by the end of the conversation I was able to make him agree with me that through innovative schemes, we would be able to make a difference and a change in the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment