Join | Log in

Channel Button
Debate_icon

Politics, News & Issues   >

Conservation

Get a Widget for this title

Do individual consumer choices make a difference in creating a more sustainable society?

Title endorsed in part by:

Results so far:

Yes
86% 179 votes Total: 209 votes
No
14% 30 votes
Yes

In my household alone, there are five people. My garbage has to be taken out daily. Years ago, my former husband went on a TV dinner kick. The kids and I joined in. I tolerated about six weeks of this before I decided that, as convenient as these box and tray meals were, I was really disturbed to see how much waste we produced. Back then, two to three bags of garbage were taken out of my house on a daily basis; that included plastic bottles and several cans. I could have just bought a giant garbage can, but instead put a stop to it. And some of us lost a pound or two after that.

But those frozen meals were more affordable than fresh produce. I guess this is because real food isn't as popular as junk food. That's unfortunate, because many Americans can't even afford health care. Yet, with the physical ills brought on by the modern lifestyle, there is a great demand for health care. As a result, emergency rooms are often filled with people who are really just needing to see a nonemergency doctor. They can't pay at the time of the visit, so they just opt to receive a bill for many times what they would have paid for a doctor visit. (I can see how desperation leads to this, especially when you're in pain. It's kind of like getting an instant loan from a check cashing center; you promise to pay back a whole lot more than you would have to had you not been so desperate in the first place.)

Furthermore, most of those employed by the industries and distributors of all these junk products earn minimum wage, or close to it. Individual consumer choices add up. They are what the stores base their shipments on. They are what keep the industries going.

We live in industrial times. Never in history has there been so many consumers. Consumers absolutely rule. They rule through their choices. The choices have led to a lot of social and environmental ills. Aside from shallow conveniences, most of our choices don't benefit our society. But they could. Sadly, the very choices that are infused with the modern American way of life only keep us in the position to follow the very trends that cause inequality between classes and environmental uncertainty. Half of what is considered either cool or just highly acceptable is slowly injuring both our environment and our society. Every other commercial wants to sell you something that will either add to all the waste we already produce, decline your health in the long run and addict you in the process, or put more money into the pockets of the wrong people.

Everyone knows that you can judge a society by the kind of trash it leaves behind. Archaeologists know this; they dig up even the garbage that ancient people have left. Often they can find hints to who they were as well as what happened to them. Everything we do leaves a print; every consumer choice makes a difference.

So, if we can look back to see how things were in a particular society, then can't we also see how things will be? Individual consumer choices make an impact. That impact can be desirable or undesirable. They aren't just a bunch of invisible phantoms who are making all these consumer choices; they are consumers. Just think of the population of all these consumers; there are more of us than just about any other animal species on the planet.

But, as civilized, intelligent creatures, we are capable of making civilized, intelligent choices. What should be outdated ideals are still lingering. We should know better by now than to indulge in unhealthy, non progressive choices. We can't be part of "we' without being an individual. Whatever is done by the "we" is first done by each one, separately. Each individual added up equals "we". Whomever is one of us is all of us. At least in this case.

This is why those marketing researchers who poll the general public are not selective about who they will poll; unless they are trying to reflect the demographics of the area. But any female who walks by will do if they are interviewing females; same for males, Blacks, Whites, and so on. And they often get pretty accurate marketing information as a result. They call me randomly all the time. They are prepared with multiple choice questions to ask me because they don't know me as an individual, but as a consumer, As such, most of my responses can be anticipated enough for them to approach me with an already narrowed down list. They know that my individual consumer choice is part of the group consumer choice.

So, to those who fancy themselves as so separate and unique, all the way down to consumer choices, I'm sure you are unique; but in a world of consumerism, you are just part of the collective. Funny, how we're all assimilated for the sake of material gain. Yet, society is far from where it wants to be. We're just the batteries that power the current system, rather than individuals.

We're all involved. We're all responsible. Through better choices, we can update our expectations for society. Or, we can just cling to the old and outdated and follow the crowd. But currently, we all contribute to the status quo; one person at a time. No individual consumer choice goes without making an impact on society and the environment; one way or the other.

Learn more about this author, Lana Evans.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

Sustainability is a requirement of defining economic development regionally and nationally in the context of defined parameters for growth. It goes beyond the individual or personal level. To accomplish it policies need to be established at the Federal, state and local levels that facilitate a smooth transition. Issues regarding public infrastructure, such as transportation systems, water management, agrarian reform, and energy production cannot be phased in by consumer choices.

Bioregionali sm is a concept that seeks to make sustainability a focus of local political activity. It addresses the concepts of an ecological democracy in which stakeholders have an open and equitable input in the decisions that impact on them. Adaptive governance has been used in many aspects of land and water management already. Our political institutions lag behind our recognition of the requirements for the technical expertise and the experience of those in the region that will clarify the impact of decisions on the local populations.

Individu al decisions do not redefine the capacity of our institutions to address the fundamental questions of sustainability. Currently, mayors and governors have initiated actions in addressing climate change. The impact of these actions are profoundly limited by the constraints imposed on them. Right now California is involved in litigation with the Federal government. They are being told that they cannot establish more rigorous standards for pollution control in automobiles. They will continue to go head-to-head in endless and fruitless disputations. We will continue to have certain interests exercising a disproportional influence in the decisions that are being made. Structural reform would provide new mechanisms for governing that would be less subject to these influences.

Individua ls can take the bus; they can use energy saving light bulbs; and they can recycle to increase the reuse of waste. But they cannot establish by themselves the means to establish sustainability. This is simply beyond their capacity to influence significantly. Support systems, tax incentives, transitional models, and encouragement for research and development come from government at the Federal, state and local levels. Water administration and management policies are implemented by political action of state legislatures and Congress. Sustainability is inherently tied to the bioregions in order to address issues in the watersheds that vary significantly from location to location.

New Mexico has had to take action in regards to the Pecos River water allocations as a result of a suit filed by the state of Texas. This has forced it to make very unpopular decisions as a result. Throughout the West there are interstate compacts regarding the use of water allocations. As the groundwater is depleted and surface water become a more significant source for drinking and agricultural water, there are fewer options that can be made without some segment of the population being impacted more than others. This is not an individual consumer choice. It does demonstrate the need for regional water planning for long-term use. It does demand a definition of the public welfare in prioritizing water allocations.

Without planning the burden will be passed on disproportionately on some and to the benefit of others. Sustainability establishes a common system of values for decision-makers and a mechanism for implementation that incorporates the needs and concerns of all. We can function effectively, if we incorporate all views and take them into consideration before the worst case scenario manifests itself. The option is to disregard the needs of the many in favor of the benefit to the few. As we have seen in New Orleans this results in a higher price paid by some than by others when the worst case scenario occurs.

Learn more about this author, Martin Zehr.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA