I really liked this particular submission, and if you could give it a read over and comment on anything that strikes your fancy, that’d be great!
2/6/16
I’ve found that as time goes, I have an easier time reflecting on the concepts learned in class to my contemplative practices. I attribute this primarily to holding my practices in the outdoors, as the various events constantly occurring around serve as a stimulant for my thinking.
I decided to do some reflection in the park near my house, curious as to if the new environment would encourage my thinking. As I was sitting on the bench, I paid special attention to the cars driving past the park. I noticed a Corvette drive by the park during my observations, which got me thinking. Cars conveniently get people from place to place, however with this basic idea in mind, the question can be asked: Why pay more for an item that serves the same function as one that’s much cheaper in comparison? This emphasis on material goods and comfort encompasses a part of the lifestyle that many people developed countries live. We as humans have the ability to act (agency) and purchase these goods, but we often disregard the price the environment pays as a result of these choices. Increased pollution and destruction of precious land are a product of this disregard among other things. The Anthropocene to an extent can be used to describe man and nature as one, however nowadays it would seem that relationship is one sided. Whereas thousands of years ago nature may have had more control over humans (due to primitive technology), the power has moved over to humans, which can be shown through both the positive and negative impact we’ve had. Prior to taking this class, I figured that human impact on earth could only be negative, however I’ve realized that its that same negative impact that forces positive influence. This can be viewed as people advocating for wildlife conservation, clean water, etc.
Going back to materialism, the damage that it’s undoubtedly caused the environment is a result of humans (the majority) disregarding it in favor of personal comfort. Humans have developed the ability over time to manipulate the Earth in ways that benefit them, be it through food or technology. Some of the methods that have been practiced from the 1700’s to now were introduced to create more ease/availability for the people themselves. This can result in environmental issues such as water and air pollutions, wildlife conservation, and soil contamination. Looking at the news, you can see that there are some countries that are experiencing first hand what happens when the environment isn’t taken into consideration. China for example, has a serious air pollution problem due to the large amount of factories in place to create various goods. Seeing the poor environmental shape that China is in as a result of the political decisions made to maximize profit/comfort is quite depressing, but what’s even more frustrating is how their actions are starting to affect those around them. I decide to look up the issue of air pollution and found a study stating that the pollution China is emitting is moving over to the United States.
Thinking about the previous sentence, it leads me to ask: Should the sovereignty of a country be violated if that country begins to affect those around it in a way that’s deemed harmful? I believe it should be done, however I believe it would be a very slippery slope. China, for example, probably won’t be happy with being the only country that has to change. The decisions that they’ve made have been made to maximize the amount of personal goods (primarily) those in power have. As a result, this could be a snowball effect where if one large country has to change its production methods, then those around it may have to as well. But why would other less-harmful (environmentally) countries want to mold their way of life around a set of environmental standards that hinders their ability to reach their ideal comfort level?