Human beings are embedded in nature. I think the implications of this run much deeper than our requesting improved pollution control or better environmental protections. This way of thinking continues the myth that we are somehow separated from nature. I think the environment is not a scenic backdrop, it is the play itself.
We are dependent upon nature, not the reverse. Going green, brown or whatever terminology you wish to use, requires that we shift from managing resources to managing ourselves.
However the rules of economics want continued growth forever. Economics tends to be a war of annihilation in order to compete.
The rules of Earth are to grow appropriately and no more. Rather than getting bigger, earth gets better. Novelty and complexity increase, but still remain within absolute limits. This is a community; take only what you need, leave your competitor enough. And whenever possible, cooperation is much more energy efficient than competition.
To save ourselves, we will have to want different things, seek different pleasures, and pursue different goals, than those that are currently driving us and our global economy. Do we have any intention on leaving future generations the means to exist?
This is way past being skeptical about ideas such as reusing dirty laundry, or not flushing. The Marriott Hotel chain claims it has saved 17% on hot water and sewer bills. Isn’t it more important to question what happened to this windfall? Or to point out to them the hypocrisy of selling bottled water?
Mike, I don’t think you are surprised that in our current industrial society, profit will always be the objective. So what is your motive for doing a public article pointing it out? To my way of thinking your ‘brown’ movement runs parallel to the ‘green’ one. You are profiting from this stance.
What is the true goal here? May I please say without drawing your ire that I think you want to remain within certain comfortable boundaries while trying to get your message across? I feel like you are dancing around the edge without jumping all the way in. I’m trying to get past my thoughts that you are just out to make a buck as much as the next guy.
I have long been convinced of the merits of being brown. Your show has given so many concrete examples of how this can work. Why do I get the sense that Mike Rowe is somewhat insincere in his delivery defending this? May I suggest that you are finding yourself in the slippery position of using your fame in a way that you have criticized others of doing? I would say it is better to defend your thoughts wholeheartedly than appear smug.
Kathy, It seems we are all still very interested in hearing more from Mike concerning the brown/green issue. I have not as yet been able to read the MensHealth article ...can't seem to find the new issue of the magazine. I am looking forward to it though.
Sometimes I think the earth is a conscious entity that takes care of itself when it needs to, kind of like the plants in that "The Happening" movie.
When people get too cocky, she creates a disease to wipe most of us out. Once balance is restored, she leaves us alone for awhile (aside from the 'normal' weapons she uses against us like floods or tornadoes).
But I will admit I have an occaionally askewed view of nature. When I was a little girl, I thought the reason we were told (over and over) to get underground or in a place without windows during a tornado is so the tornado couldn't SEE you.
I thought, if it sees you, it will go after you--kind of like Godzilla.
Sometimes I think we have taken Mother Earth for granted far too long . We've taken and taken ...far more than we even really needed. Maybe it's time we all grew up and realized the Earth is no longer our Mother but rather she has become our sick child. How much would you sacrifice to make your desperately ill child well??
I know some may say this is extreme...things aren't that bad.."the sky isn't falling". Personally I'd rather err on the side of caution. The trick is how do we do this without causing unnecessary hardship to the people here now. You know in medicine we do something called triage...rate patients according to need....sounds appropriate here.
I have to agree with the triage analogy. However, imagining we could ever come to a consensus on the priorities, we then have to negotiate the obstacle course called 'politics' and who can get the most money to "buy back" our environment.
When you think about it, every aspect of producing "Dirty Jobs" goes against Mike's premise of being brown.
Think of the innumerable flights he and the crew have taken to get from job to job, each flight burning thousands of gallons of fuel.
Then, they rent a gas-guzzling vehicle to haul them and their equipment to the hotel and job site.
Dave said once they often eat at Subway while on the road. All that disposable material used to wrap their food, and the plastic utensils with which to eat, all get thrown into the trash to lay in a landfill for who knows how long.
The filming itself has been said to take up to 18 hours a day. What happens to the film/discs that aren't used on the show? Do they end up in a landfill as well?
Then we have the monetary aspect of producing a television program. Discovery makes money; the advertisers make money; Mike and the crew make money. Money is green. If Mike truly wanted to go brown, wouldn't he ask to be paid instead with a tent to live in, provided produce on which to dine, and, a steady supply of good sturdy shoes so as to walk everywhere instead of polluting the air with his Ford?
I'm being facetious with this last bit, well maybe not entirely; but I think you get my point.
It shouldn't be "do as I say, not as I do" if he wants us to believe he is being entirely forthcoming in his beliefs.
I have to agree with the triage analogy. However, imagining we could ever come to a consensus on the priorities, we then have to negotiate the obstacle course called 'politics' and who can get the most money to "buy back" our environment.
Diana.[/quote]
Here in lies the problem exactly. It has been a major stumbling block all along.
Someone else also brought up Mike's rather flippant attitude. I do agree there are a lot of what I like to call "carpetbagging" opportunist getting in on the Green movement.
But, to throw the whole movement under the bus is at the very least narrow-minded. The whole spirit of going Green is to be what we humans who are at the top of the food chain should be. Stewards of the earth. Not greedy, selfish grasping thoughtless mindless users who just move on to what we can use up next.
In a romantic sense the Green Movement sees Mother Earth as a living entity as in the Gaia Hypothesis or Theory. Some aspects of the Green movement surely take inspiration from it. Something the skeptic "give me a break" attitude you see probably rolls its eyes about. For me it is just good sense. Would you wreck your home and then expect every thing to be there for you the next day. I don't think so. Some skepticism for me is born more from selfishness. An ingrained laziness that in other situations would never be tolerated by those who practice such attitudes when it comes to the environment.
What I see on Dirty Jobs, are businesses that produce a product and for the most part, see the waste all the way through to the end. They are not carting it off to the local landfill or passing it on for others to take care of. These businesses are finding ways to use the waste they make, without fanfare, as just part of the job. They are then helping themselves, along with helping the planet. Maybe this is what Mike means. Being green, by first being brown, then seeing the brown turn in to green by methods these individuals thought up, without being told to do it. I am always amazed at what some of these people come up with, in processing their waste. They are doing it on their own and it benefits everyone without hypocrisy.
You know, it's taken me a very long time to get over my cynical "Why doesn't everyone just stop BREEDING" approach and actually learn something about conservation. Well, at least I bought a filter for my faucet at home and stopped buying bottled water.
(Um, what? Now we can't quote?) Beccasue wrote: "When people get too cocky, she creates a disease to wipe most of us out. Once balance is restored, she leaves us alone for awhile (aside from the 'normal' weapons she uses against us like floods or tornadoes)."
I thought that was a great point, BeccaSue. I've always thought that the Earth will go through her phases and kick us off when she wants to, no matter what we do to it. (Anyone remember what happened to the dinosaurs?)
All rambling aside, I do believe that Mike cares. I know I've been incapacitated for awhile and haven't read the article in question, but Kathy are you calling Mike the "H" word? It would be interesting to hear more in-depth what his views are on the subject.
I think a large number of people believe in manmade global warming, which is the cause of the latest green movement. They have massive guilt about causing the supposed destruction of the earth, and so they're falling for every scare tactic and guilt trip used by companies to absolve themselves of their sin. They're using spaghetti lightbulbs, driving weird cars and feeling guilty when they flush the toilet. It seems every company in America is going green because it sells. I don't believe in manmade global warming, I could give you plenty of reasons but the fact is I don't think anyone wants to hear them, everyone is enjoying this "save the earth" movement too much.
I'd like to add that I care about the earth, I use and re-use and recycle, conserve and consider myself a good steward of the earth. I've taught my family to do likewise. I just don't believe the sky is falling.
[quote]I don't believe in manmade global warming, I could give you plenty of reasons but the fact is I don't think anyone wants to hear them, everyone is enjoying this "save the earth" movement too much.~Kay[/quote]
Kay, I'd like to hear some of the theories you've heard. I heard one that suggests that the poles are migrating and may actually flip.This intern plays havoc-making holes and thin spots etc. in the magnetic field that shields the earth. They also suggest an even greater threat than global warming.It's scary.
This being said we still are guilty of excessive waste production. Look at the landfills. It seems ludicrous to go on manufacturing products and packaging that will inevitably only end up in a whole in the ground. You know there is a problem when you have to negotiate with another country to get rid of your trash!!
Every time I pass a Dollar General store, or any other of the same genre, I can't help but think "what a waste!"
All that junk (and it basically IS junk) continues being manufactured, but I really believe the majority of what is purchased ends up in the trash because it is made of such shoddy material, or for sale at some flea market.
If we all just purchased a fewer number of well made products, they would last longer, serve us better, save money and not clog up the landfills.
I still use items in my kitchen that my grand- and GREATgrand-mothers used! But, if I bought a similar item at Wal-Mart, it would probably only last me a few years.
[quote]To save ourselves, we will have to want different things, seek different pleasures, and pursue different goals, than those that are currently driving us and our global economy. Do we have any intention on leaving future generations the means to exist?[/quote]
Yes I agree with you to a point Kathy,
We need to want different things, but we do not know how.
We have been raised to be selfish and needy people. Even the ones who claim to care, yes.
Try to tell people to have different goals? It is very easy to say these things, but how does one convince the public? If you have the answers, you could save the world my friend.
I have not yet had the pleasure of reading Mike's article (I cannot find one).
"Mike, I don’t think you are surprised that in our current industrial society, profit will always be the objective.
Hi Kathy
I'm not surprised at all. The problem comes when we conceal that objective.
"So what is your motive for doing a public article pointing it out?"
I don't appreciate being manipulated. I feel that way when a company plays upon fear or guilt to sell me a widget. I don't particularly care what the widget is. The vast inventory of "green" products are not being manufactured because corporations are overcome with a sudden desire to "save the planet." However, they are being marketed to us in precisely that way. It's disingenuous. Green says, "you should buy this environmentally friendly bulb because it's good for the planet." Brown says, "you should buy this environmentally bulb if it's good for your wallet." We will not create a healthy environment, in my opinion, if we continue to anthropomorphize nature, and insist on making every purchase a moral imperative. Such tactics will only succeed in the short term, and ultimately lead to resentment.
"To my way of thinking your ‘brown’ movement runs parallel to the ‘green’ one. You are profiting from this stance."
Absolutely. I've got no beef with capitalism. As I said, brown before green - not instead of green. Without profit, Brown and Green are both doomed. However, hiding profit, or deliberately presenting a business transaction as an ethical choice, will fail spectacularly, in my opinion.
"What is the true goal here?"
To promote Dirty Jobs. To take a position that doesn't fit neatly into a box, but still reflects the way I feel. To suggest, humbly, that the best role models for maintaining a healthy environment might not be movie stars and politicians. To further suggest that making money and being environmentally responsible are not mutually exclusive. To stimulate conversation. To put the people before the planet. To rankle. To amuse. The usual stuff.
"May I please say without drawing your ire that I think you want to remain within certain comfortable boundaries while trying to get your message across?"
Sure. But if I were concerned about being in comfortable boundaries, why would I take a position guaranteed to annoy many?
"I feel like you are dancing around the edge without jumping all the way in."
The environment is not my issue. I'm only jumping in to the point where I can apply my observations through the lens of the show I produce. I'm not qualified or motivated to jump all the way in.
"I’m trying to get past my thoughts that you are just out to make a buck as much as the next guy."
Are you asking me to try and convince you that I'm different? To reassure you that I'm not all about the money? To better explain myself? Or do you just want me to know that I am running the risk of disappointing you? I don't mind being judged or doubted. But trying to convince you that I'm one thing or the other is not something I do.
"I have long been convinced of the merits of being brown. Your show has given so many concrete examples of how this can work. Why do I get the sense that Mike Rowe is somewhat insincere in his delivery defending this?"
That's not a question I can answer. You can however, and perhaps you do in the next sentence.
"May I suggest that you are finding yourself in the slippery position of using your fame in a way that you have criticized others of doing?"
You may, but I'll disagree, respectfully. I have been critical in the past of celebrities who align themselves with a popular cause or candidate. I have done neither. In fact, I have taken a somewhat contrary position against a wildly popular movement that I believe to be flawed. Dirty Jobs is not about "saving the planet." It's about working for a living. I believe that saving the planet, (assuming it needs to be saved,) should be a function of working for a living. Not a cause unto itself.
"I would say it is better to defend your thoughts wholeheartedly than appear smug."
You might be right, but I'd rather appear smug than earnest. In the end, I find smug a lot less offensive.
Grasshooper writes,
"Maybe it's time we all grew up and realized the Earth is no longer our Mother but rather she has become our sick child. How much would you sacrifice to make your desperately ill child well??"
I think these kind of metaphors contribute to the confusion of what's really happening. The Earth is neither a parent or a sibling. It's a cold indifferent rock that has no awareness of our presence. It kills indiscriminately, with earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and the like.
Gayle writes,
"The whole spirit of going Green is to be what we humans who are at the top of the food chain should be. Stewards of the earth. Not greedy, selfish grasping thoughtless mindless users who just move on to what we can use up next."
Just for fun, what if we are not the "stewards of the earth." Imagine our current society millions of years ago, living on Pangea - the earth as it was before the continents began to separate. What would we have done when we realized the earth was falling into pieces and drifting off into the ocean? In the resulting chaos, how would we view our planet? Would we view her as a sick child? A gentle Mother? Would we look to ourselves as the cause of the problem? I suspect that many would. Because that's the natural thing to do when you see yourself at the very top of the food chain. But what if we're not? What if the earth is at the top, and we are merely at her mercy? From what I've seen, that's what natural history suggests. That doesn't mean we don't owe it to each other to clean up after ourselves. It just means the earth was here long before we were, and will endure long after we're gone.
And finally Kay,
"It seems every company in America is going green because it sells. I don't believe in manmade global warming, I could give you plenty of reasons but the fact is I don't think anyone wants to hear them, everyone is enjoying this "save the earth" movement too much. I'd like to add that I care about the earth, I use and re-use and recycle, conserve and consider myself a good steward of the earth. I've taught my family to do likewise."
[quote]Just for fun, what if we are not the "stewards of the earth." Imagine our current society millions of years ago, living on Pangea - the earth as it was before the continents began to separate. What would we have done when we realized the earth was falling into pieces and drifting off into the ocean? In the resulting chaos, how would we view our planet? Would we view her as a sick child? A gentle Mother? Would we look to ourselves as the cause of the problem? I suspect that many would. Because that's the natural thing to do when you see yourself at the very top of the food chain. But what if we're not? What if the earth is at the top, and we are merely at her mercy? From what I've seen, that's what natural history suggests. That doesn't mean we don't owe it to each other to clean up after ourselves. It just means the earth was here long before we were, and will endure long after we're gone.[/quote]
So Mike are you suggesting that we adopt a more laissez-faire attitude? And to be precise man did not initiate the continenetal drifting you speak of but we may indeed have caused the unnatural increase in global temperatures that are melting the ice fields... There is a difference.
I think people should stop asking what others think and think for themselves. We are on the earth for a small amount of time. (Time is so relative) If you are concerned, be frugal and not wasteful. MY life could be ended as quickly as a blink of an eye.
All this green and organic is just someone's way of making my life more complicated than it is.
NOLA, You are right. Nothing lasts forever and that includes the human race. I think the problem is the apparent need we seem to have to hasten its' demise. Remember it's not just the global warming problem we have but it's also all the carcinogens that these industries spew into the air. The area I live in has the highest cancer rate in the province...maybe the country. It's from all the auto industries and other manufacturing. As you said, you could die tomorrow...let's hope it's not from cancer.
