KimDebatePaper+2

Timothy Kim 10/24/2011 Sustainability Problems Word Count: 2,111

//Is American culture a sustainability problem? //

It is difficult to define American culture since America is a large country with demographic diversity. Culture is defined as the behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. Although American culture has a strong sense of national pride among the population as whole, the culture reflects both conservative and liberal sides, military and scientific competitiveness, political structures, risk taking and free expression, materialist and moral elements. For this reason, American culture that is discussed in this paper is only limited to what has been shown across the globe through modern mass media. In addition, any behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics will be viewed as an example of American culture. In order to explore both side of the argument, the paper will focus on Naomi Klein, an author and activist, and it will focus on a former President Ronald Reagan. Although they have very different opinions of American culture, they share some common perspectives. Both believed that Americans have supremacy over others and over nature. Klein argues that Americans cause many environmental problems that are resulted in sustainability problem. On the other hand, President Reagan argued that our supremacy could be the solution for economic and environmental crises. For this paper, environmental problems are viewed as sustainability problems. This clarification will be explained on the sixth paragraph in depth.

According to Naomi Klein, who spoke at TED Women in December of 2010 in Washington D.C., she points out the risk taking behavior of Americans and explains that this behavior is a sustainability problem since the behavior doesn’t consider the environmental consequences. She argues that American culture “[has] become far too willing to gamble with things that are precious and irreplaceable—and to do so without a back-up plan, without an exit strategy.” She alerts American by stating that “deciding what do to… about climate change” is the “highest-stakes gamble of all.” She argues that “climate policy in the wealthy world… is not based on precaution, but rather on cost-benefit analysis.” She further explains that “taking big risks… pays a lot of money… and greed and hubris are intimately intertwined when it comes to recklessness.” She strongly stresses that greed promotes Americans to be reckless and risk takers. In addition, she illustrates Sarah Palin and her reality TV show as an example of American culture that Americans “ignore those creeping fears that we have finally hit the wall.” The show encourages Americans to believe “there are still no limits” and “there will always be another frontier.” Ultimately, the show has a clear message: “Stop worrying and keep shopping.” Klein is not pleased with the American culture that is continuing with business as usual. She hopes Americans will face the reality that “we have already exhausted so much of the easily-accessible fossil fuels that we have already entered a far riskier business era, the era of extreme energy.” By showing the powerful image of the Alberta tar sands with the operation that can be seen from space and could grow to an area the size of England, she clearly proves that the era of extreme energy is a prime example of recklessness. The truth is that “on average turning that gunk into crude oil produces about three times more greenhouse gas pollution than it does to produce conventional oil in Canada.” She projects the future of American culture as “civilizations commit[ing] suicide by slamming their foot on the accelerator at the exact moment when they should be putting on the brakes.” She reminds Americans to be precautious and remember that “life is too precious to be risked for any profit.”1

While Klein made her arguments and conclusions based on many studies and scientific data, her conclusion on the war was overstated. After she argued that Americans is taking the risk “without a back-up plan, without an exit strategy,” she continued to examine American leaders. She explains that American “leaders barrel into wars, telling themselves happy stories about cakewalks and welcome parades, then it is years of deadly damage control” without an “exit strategy.” Her argument has a flaw since war itself is a risk taking event. If she identifies any culture that goes to a war as a risk taking culture, all cultures are risk taking cultures. It is difficult to project outcomes of war. Despite the intention of the war, war produces more conflicts and damages. Other than this point, her presentation had in feminist tone since the talk was given to women. It doesn’t mean that there was a hole in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways evidence is mishandled. I would like to point out that her feminist tone may affect how audiences understands her arguments.2

Ronald Reagan provided the counter argument through his Official Announcement of Candidacy for President on November 13, 1979. Instead of seeing American culture as a sustainability problem, Reagan views American culture as a device to solve the problem. In the following statement, he clearly acknowledges that “the energy crisis” is a sustainability problem: “[America] was built on cheap energy. Today, energy is not cheap and we face the prospect that some forms of energy may soon not be available at all.” In order to solve this problem, he suggests that Americans must “remove government obstacles to energy production” and “make use of those technological advantages we still possess.” He describes a role of the government in American culture as “the protector of our liberties” and “our servant, beholden to us.” By promoting individualism, which is a prime example of American culture, capitalism flourishes and strengthens business and industry. In addition, he argues that the US does not have to rely on oil from OPEC, and then suggests using technological advantages to explore and develop “oil and natural gas here in our own country.” He encourages American culture to capitalize individual initiatives. For example, “by reducing federal tax rates” and “personal income tax rates,” he argues that “we can restore incentives, invite greater economic growth and at the same time help give us better government instead of bigger government.” Reagan’s positive attitude comes from a strong belief that America culture has no concern for the future. Reagan argues that Americans should not have to change their way of life since he believes America is full of ambitious and insightful people that can overcome any obstacle we may run into in the future. He describes American culture as “a living, breathing presence, unimpressed by what others say is impossible, proud of its own success, generous, sometimes wrong, never mean and always impatient to provide a better life for its people in a framework of a basic fairness and freedom.” He further explains that “an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place. Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures.” In Reagan’s announcement, it is clear that American culture is not a sustainability problem, but it is a solution for any problem and concerns for the future of America are unnecessary.3

Instead of finding a hole in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways evidence is mishandled, I would like to challenge the policies of the Reagan’s announcement. From many documentaries we watched in class, especially //The Corporation//, we all know how Reagan Administration allows the corporations to gain much power and the controls of government shrink down significantly. Former President Reagan was actually a puppet of the corporations who praised America culture with ideas of freedom, liberty, individualism, initiatives while he use those ideas to empower the corporations. The corporations’ domination over people and the government we face today is a direct result of the Reagan Administration. In addition, without Reagan allowing the exploration and development of oil and natural gas, the oil and natural gas industry would not be as powerful as today. Although many people respect Reagan and describe the time of his administration as the Golden Age of America, it was the bubble that the corporations created to maximize their profits. After 30 years, we finally come out from the illusion the corporations created and we are paying the price for letting the corporations rule America and persuade American culture.

In order to answer the debate question, understanding the relationship between culture and environment is critical. “Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Across Culture” by P. Wesley Schultz is an excellent article that “examines differences in attitudes about environmental issues across cultures.” Understanding how culture affects individuals and their attitudes toward environmental issues sets a clear ground for the debate question. Schultz clearly defines the term sustainability: “the balance between the rate at which a particular system is depleted and the rate at which it replenishes itself.”

To narrow the debate question, setting the clear range of sustainability problem is critical. A brief list of some of the environmental problems that have resulted from human activity and consumption is selected by Schultz. //From “Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity” by Oskamp // Schultz argues that “as environmental problems have become more apparent, our understanding of the problems, and the solutions we develop to address the problems, occur through the filter of culture.” Then she examines “the influence of culture on the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of individuals relevant to environmental issues.” By surveying the level of environmental concern in US and other countries, Schultz concludes that “concern for environmental issues is high in countries around the world. Even in poorer countries, people are concerned about environmental issues and even favour protecting the environment over economic growth.”
 * Global warming due to the greenhouse effect. The primary source of human-made greenhouse gasses is the burning of fossil fuels in cars and to produce electricity.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Loss of the earth's protective ozone layer due to the release of cloroflourocarbons (CFCs).
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Global climate change and loss of biodiversity due to destruction of tropical and temperate rain forests.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Overfishing and exhaustion of the world's ocean fisheries and decreasing agricultural productivity due to many unsustainable harvesting practices.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Acid rain, which damages forests and crops and also kills fish, plants, and other organisms in lakes and rivers.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Toxic pollution of air and drinking water supplies.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Genetic and hormonal damage and cancer due to exposure to dioxin and other toxic chemicals.

<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">During research, she finds that “there are different types of attitudes, and that two people can be equally concerned about environmental problems, but for very different reasons.” She classifies as egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric attitudes. She explains that //egoistic// concerns are focused on the individual and reflect a concern about environmental problems for self, including personal health, financial well-being, quality of life, and availability of resources; //altruistic// concerns focus on people other than self, including friends, family, community, future generations, or humanity; //biospheric// concerns focus on all living things, including plants, animals, ecosystems, and the biosphere. These attitudes play significant role in drawing her conclusion. She concludes her research that “people in the United States tend to be less concerned about environmental issues overall than people from most other countries. In addition, the attitudes that people in the United States develop tend to be more focused on local issues that are related to the individual, while people in many other countries tend to develop broader, more biospheric attitudes. We have suggested that these differences are the result of cultural differences, and that collectivistic cultures, which tend to focus more on social relationships than on the individual, are more likely to foster biospheric attitudes.” She then clarifies her argument that since it is evident how cultures affect the environmental problems, “psychology can play an important role in moving toward sustainable lifestyles.”4

<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Although I still have a problem with the wording of the question, I agree with Klein’s argument that American culture is a sustainability problem. There isn’t enough strong evidence to draw a same conclusion from all Americans. But for those people, who believe that their way of life and living style is not sustainable, they will argue that American culture is a sustainability problem. As I define in the beginning, culture is the behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. So instead of researching the different points of view on the debate question, I believe that a simple self-assessment can answer the question without any doubt: Is your behavior or way of life sustainable? If one answers no, one will realize that American culture is sustainability problem. As we educate people and grow their awareness, more people will change their unsustainable behaviors. When large number of people adopts sustainable life style, American culture will no long be a sustainable problem.

<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">References Cited: <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">1. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Klein, Naomi. "Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk | Video on TED.com." //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">TED: Ideas worth Spreading //. TED, Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. < <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">[] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">>. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">2. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Klein, Naomi. "Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk | Video on TED.com." //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">TED: Ideas worth Spreading //. TED, Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. < <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">[] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">>. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">3. Reagan, Ronald. "Ronald Reagan - Candidacy Announcement." //Reagan 2020//. Federalism and the New Conservatism. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. < <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">[] <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">>. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">4. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Schultz, P. W <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">. "Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Across Culture”. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Aug 2002. Web. 24 Oct 2011. < <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">[] <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">>.