McMahonDebatePaper2

It’s the American dream. Have a two story-house, a pleasant family, sedan, refrigerator full of food, well-kept lawn, and still be able to vacation when work allows. This is the type of perfect American life most strive to have and will do most anything to maintain once reached. Unfortunately, this American ideal has lead to some questionable practices pertaining to our culture. Our need for products has lead to over-production, our frugalness had led to cheaper, less durable materials, and our demand for variety worldwide has lead to a horrific dependence on fossil fuels. These are only a few of the controversial issues surrounding American culture, but are the ones I will be focusing on. Since these problems stem from within American culture, all Americans are liable and effected by these dependencies. For the purpose of this paper, culture and sustainability will be defined as the set of shared goals and the long term maintenance of wellbeing respectively.

On one hand, the very source of the issues created by American culture may be its saving grace: pushing forward. In Regan’s announcement speech, he stated that Americans have the power to take control over their own future. It isn’t a place to be feared like most cultures, but rather a place where prosperity occurs if you are able to guide the present accordingly. This is the main reason that capitalism prevails in America: the cultural acceptance of constant expansion. If America runs into any problem that threatens the sustainability of itself or the planet, the technological capabilities, drive, and production of America will be able to respond accordingly. One example provided in the speech was the great depression, a truly terrible time for America. The drive for a better standard of living utilizing resources from within their own country caused Americans to pick themselves back up as it were. Currently, the United States is one of the largest manufacturing, scientific, and cultural juggernauts in the world, so if a crisis were to emerge, Americans would be the logical choice for the people to solve it. In fact, the ability for the people to protest and induce change in the government gives an advantage to social and therefore cultural malleability. This sort of political evolution will help Americans adapt and overcome.

The biggest problem with this argument is that constant innovation isn’t sustainable. After the interview with Mike if the yes men, I discovered that capitalism requires a 3-4% growth factor to function properly. Looking twenty or thirty years into the future, one can easily see that such growth trends are not only unsustainable, but reckless. The other problem associated with this mindset is that constant innovation is purely good. In fact, implementing new ideas can often have negative unforeseen consequences with varying severity. One example of this is history is using harmful propellants in spray cans. However, one may argue that even if an unforeseen consequence is caused, American innovators will surely be able to hand the issue. The problem that this model creates is that constant modification to a system will eventually lead to its ruin. Imagine, if you will, a car engine functioning as normal. However, something in the engine begins to overheat, so another element is added to the engine. In time, yet another part begins to fail, so more jerry-rigging occurs. This constant jerry-rigging eventually creates a highly unstable system held together with duck tape and fittings more than anything else. The same is true for the earth and resources. We need to maintain, polish, and preserve those that we have instead of trying to find away around problems that this causes. We need to polish, clean, and shine our engine since, in the real world, there are no real replacement parts to speak of. We only have one earth.

On the other hand, these ideas begin to lend to the theory that all of the components that American culture is comprised of might not be too sustainable. In a speech gave by Naomi Klein, she gives her thoughts on why American culture may not be as sustainable as Reagan thinks. Most of her argument revolves around the idea that the world is, in fact, not infinite. People treat oceans like they would dump sites because “mother nature can take it”. People drill for more oil pouring out more emissions than before instead of looking to greener, cleaner alternatives. In her eyes, these steps are seen as insanity. In the eyes of Americans, this is seen as progress as usual. The North American continent was discovered and wandered by brave adventurers, blazing down the path none have traveled. True American heroes exploring the world not yet touched by man, seeing all of the resources it has to offer, and then reporting on what lies behind the final frontier. In the eyes of the American culture, expansion into Canada to extract tar from the tar sand is seen as innovate, strip mining is and efficient way to power a home, and pesticides put proper amount of food on the table. These processes are done because either Mother Nature can handle it, or we can solve it. On the topic of global warming, people are beginning to ask themselves the wrong questions. Instead of asking, “How can we stop this from happening?” they ask, “How long can we wait? How much could we take?” On the scientific end, people are coming up with short-sighted ideas like polluting the atmosphere more to reflect rays away. These ideas lend to the struggling engine model that was provided earlier. The American culture simply cannot continue the way it is going, or the engine will sputter, stop, and go cold from over-modification.

Upon reviewing the speech given, there are a few flaws associated with this thinking. Perhaps Klein is thinking to small, too finite; after all, the universe is infinite. Who is to say that once man has stripped away all thing precious on earth, he would not be able to then reach to the stars. Off-planet drilling and mining operations are roughly within our grasp as technology has been increasing steadily through American progress. On the other hand, she recommends that we should switch to 100% clean power. While a nice sentiment, I don’t think that people understand what they are saying when they say this. Most of this country runs on coal and a lot of it. France has shown a great practice by switching to mostly nuclear power, but look at the country of France: small and dense. Supplying the entire US power grid with nuclear power right where you need it is unfeasible. At the same time, one may suggest energy sources along the lines of geothermal, wind, water, or solar. In truth, all of these technologies are situational and most of the “good” places have been taken up. Also, solar panels produced mass amounts of nuclear waste, hydro power damming disrupts river flow, wind power turbines require a ton of maintenance, and geothermal is close to non-feasible in countries other than Iceland. I am not suggesting that these technologies have no place, I am just saying that they have a long way left to go before becoming a serious contender for replacing the energy system that we have now and so desperately need to change.

For more perspective on the topic, I chose to investigate the topic of fusion. In the article published in Popular Mechanics, Elizabeth Svoboda, the author of the article, is able to visit a nuclear fusion facility that uses a super-charged laser to fuse hydrogen isotopes. This collision of nuclei creates, if only for a second, a small star which produces helium. The energy released from the fusion of atoms is captured. Ideally, this energy captured is greater than that used by the laser so there is a net gain in energy. This method of energy production has no downside: the methods currently exist, they are in use, and there is no waste. The only thing that is needed is fuel and more progression in the fusion field to improve efficiency. After going through all of the wasteful blunders of the American culture, its drive for technological progression may have finally stumbled on the solution that will solve the energy crisis and allow for the quality of life to be maintained. American culture may have saved itself. As long as it continues to do so, is it not sustainable?

Unfortunately, there are a few problems associated with fusion power. The first is the fuel: hydrogen isotopes. There just aren’t that many on the planet earth. However, there are an abundance of such fuels on the moon. In fact, a film called //Moon// starring Sam Rockwell was recently produced which depicts a scenario where corporations are mining the moon to sustain the people on earth. This doesn’t seem like a sustainable option. What will happen when the moon runs out? We cannot simply just keep going to other planets or moons, a more sustainable option needs to be found. The holy grail of “Cold Fusion” has been postulated, but it may be a false hope that will lead Americans to wait too long to change their wasteful and unsustainable ways.

Personally, I think that there is no possible way that American culture is sustainable, but what does that really mean in relation to the rest of the world? In my opinion, no culture is currently sustainable except for a select few, traditional peoples. As much as the human race would hate to admit it, we were never supposed to have all the conveniences and tools that we have today. We have stepped out of our niche long ago and took control of our own environment. As long as we maintain this idea of determining our own future instead of sharing this responsibility with nature, we will never be able to reach true sustainability. I know that such sustainability is possible. Growing up in the south, I experienced a very different culture than those that most at RPI experienced. I grew up on the banks of the Tennessee River and got my electricity from the currents that went by my house, captured a little bit down the river. I worked on a farm where everything was recycled, or homemade. I learned to work with metal, wood, and the earth to get everything that I needed. I homemade my own tools using the local forge in the town and war-era machines on the farm. I can honestly say that I loved my childhood. Some people may call it a poor style of living, but instead of being offensive it may simply not be for them. But their style of living, NYC, disposable products, and hummers, will never last. I find comfort in knowing that my style of living will always exist in some manner, unchanged, while to rest of the world keeps adding on to its machine with billboards, capitalism, and industry until the engine just won’t turn.

__Bibliography:__ Addicted to Risk. Dir. Naomi Klein. Perf. Naomi Klein. TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TES Talks, 01 Jan. 2010. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. .

Reagan, Ronald. "Candidacy Announcement." Reagan 2020. 13 Nov. 1979. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. .

Svoboda, Elizabeth. "Is Fusion Power Finally For Real? - The Future of Nuclear Fusion." Automotive Care, Home Improvement, Tools, DIY Tips - Popular Mechanics. Popular Mechanics, 21 June 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. .