NickLawDebatePaper2

Nicholas Lawrence Is American Culture a Sustainability Problem? In the past years western culture has been increasingly blamed for sustainability problems. Being an American myself it is a very difficult issue to face head on. Is the way we (Americans) live sustainable? It is only recently that this question has gained momentum here in the US. There may have been a few whistleblowers in the 60’s, but it wasn’t until recently that sustainability and going green became so very commonplace. This is a very hard issue to deal with for we can see where sustainability problems are, but is the way we think about issues a problem in itself? It’s a question not commonly asked because we are all raised immersed in the American culture so very often we do not see its role in our lives. Whether or not we can continue to live the way we do is going to be a crucial identity crisis the west must face. The list of stakeholders in this topic are: American citizens, countries that have American interests in their borders, countries that have assimilated western culture and countries that are economically tied to America.

The yes position is maintained by Naomi Klein. The information given is presented at a TED talk. Klein argues that American culture is a sustainability problem. There are several themes or points she addresses in her speech. First is that we live in a risk society. We are taught and raised in this country to take on risks. What would we do if we could not fail? If you take big risks, you gain big dividends and we are taught to ignore the consequences of failure. This is okay depending on the stakes. However when the stakes are something as global and important as climate change; we should rather focus of what will happen if we fail. Klein makes the point that cost-benefit analysis causes us to ask the wrong questions. Instead of asking what if we are wrong, we ask when is the last possible moment we can fix the problem. Or how much worse can it get and we still survive? These are not the right questions to be asking when the stakes are this high. And who are we to think we have this level of control to manage these risks? This brings us to the second point of Klein’s speech, that we tell ourselves different narratives that delude ourselves to the consequences and power of our actions. We are overestimating our abilities as a society to control the climate. We see all this technology around us and think we the power to control something as large as the earth. Yet the truth is we don’t understand how our pollution will affect the earth. This also ties in with another narrative of western culture; that we are meant to control nature and “slap nature in the face”. This finds its root early on in our countries life with manifest destiny. “We’ve always slapped mother nature around and won because it’s our destiny”. But in addition to that story we also tell the story of how large the earth is and how nature can absorb anything we throw at it. Life is resilient and abundant; we can only scratch the surface of this network. Klein very clearly points out there is a disconnect in these two stories; something doesn’t add up right. This leads to another cultural belief of more. There will always be more resources for us to find. The economy will always spring back once again. There will always be some new technology to get us out of the mess we created with the last one. There’s enough room for us to fix any mistake we make. And this brings us to the last point of Klein’s speech. Despite all this, despite us knowing there is problem will are going to get saved. It’s answer to our problems within our cultural narrative. Technological advancements will save us just in time. In conclusion we justify the enormous risks our society takes by deluding ourselves through a cultural narrative.

Naomi Klein does a very good job of presenting argument. Very much of what she says about us living in a risk society and the cultural narratives roles in sustainability clicks very well. It’s very obvious our society takes risks. Just look at the BP oil spill. Her examples are very well presented and relevant to her point. However, the drawback to her talk is that if you don’t believe in her analysis of western culture narratives than you’re likely to remain unconvinced. She says we tell this story to yourself, or this other story to yourself. She then shows some real world event to prove that this story exists. Yet one could write her evidence as being cherry picked. However her talk had to fit into 20mins and this limited the depth of her analysis. So despite a lack of depth her argument was good because it captured the correct feelings and overall nature of the problem.

The no position is outlined by Ronald Reagan in his announcement of running for the presidency. Although the speech is somewhat outdated the ideas presented by Reagan are still being talked about today. One of the main points in Reagan’s speech is that the doctrine of less and conservation marks the decline of America as a world power. The people who warn that the future will be less prosperous due to excess consumption are contributing to America’s decline as a world power. Reagan instead believes that American can regain its power not through changing its ways, but through increasing the efficacy of its current practices. In other terms, instead of changing the cultural narrative of America, Regan instead wants to expend even more energy in reaffirming the current one. The people of America need not to give up on the American dream; the American dream is a perfect ideal that will always be there for the people. Reagan outlines several ways to do this, first starting off with economic measures. He first says that taxation on corporations is an over extension of the federal government. Cutting corporate taxes will help the economy and the country. He then wants to deregulate the market area citing that the federal government is overstepping its bounds. By deregulating the market, companies can have the freedom to grow and restore the economy. This fits in with capitalist ideals of the free market. Reagan then addresses the energy crisis of that time period; decreased oil supplies. Once again Reagan says that instead of using less to ease the crisis that America must instead expand. Expand in the sense that America must find other sources of oil, which may not be cheap. He then hints at finding such sources in Canada and Mexico. Other forms of energy such as solar will be needed one day, but not today. Today more oil is needed and that’s all the country needs to worry about. Overall Regan’s entire speech is laced with the theme that the cultural ways and standards of living in the US need not be changed. The way Americans live is what gives the US its great power and we should always strive to live this way. Anyone who says any different hates America.

Regan makes a very compelling speech. For one he made this speech in a time of economic decline. People were beginning to question the way America works. And here Reagan comes with speech saying that the prosperity Americans had can be achieved once again and that we don’t need to give up our luxuries and standards of living. It’s very obvious that Reagan is in favor of small government and makes the typical cut taxes argument and deregulation argument. However once again while proclaiming to have foresight to see that the American Dream will always be possible he doesn’t go into depth the consequences of limiting government power. He links the cause and result without much to support it in the middle. Cutting taxes will strengthen the economy, how? Deregulation isn’t the place of the government, is it? Also he does a little bit of name calling by linking those who call for conversation and limitation with being unpatriotic and a threat to America’s prosperity. He then puts many example of patriotism from Americas past, far and recent, to create an emotional reaction to unity and pride to obscure the holes in his speech. It was somewhat difficult to find an online article that is relevant to the debate topic. There are no easy articles out there that examine how American culture could or could not be a sustainability problem. The best I could find was article about American culture and analyze how some aspects could relate to sustainability problems. I found this article from AllAboutCounseling.com. They have a web page that goes in depth on American culture. One section in particular that is relevant is where the main characteristics of American culture are defined. Women are to be supporting and not too loud. Males are to be strong and independent. This relates to sustainability problems in that with these observations men are more likely to be risk takers. This leads to the analysis Naomi Klein made that men are more often in positions of power and more likely to take risks without analyzing the consequences of failure. Another relevant observation made by this article is where it defines the dysfunctional elements of American culture. American culture reinforces our superiority, rights over the earth and consumerism. The link between these habits and sustainability is very clear. It gives us a superior attitude and the belief we can we do whatever we want to the environment with no consequences. Then there’s the issue of consumerism. We are encouraged to buy more and more things that we may not need. We are bombarded with media images that link consumerism with happiness. This perpetuates overuse and wasting of energy and materials.

Personally I believe that American culture is a sustainability problem. The largest problem with American culture is our habit of consumerism. Just go through a mall and just look at the sheer number of individual items on sale. There are just massive amounts of product, and only in this one mall. Then think of all the energy and material that had to go into making and shipping all these items. Then think of how many of these items aren’t really needed. Many are just plastic pieces of junk that have no real purpose except for someone to own it. Just the fact that we produce so many useless items as a society exposes a deeply rooted flaw in the way we perceive value; not only the value of material objects but the environment. We don’t think of where all these things come from, all we care about is their price. And that leads to a second problem of American culture; we want to consume these items. We are bombarded from a young age with media images that link happiness or power or sex with material things. We then go and willingly buy these things without understanding or caring where they came from. And we see nothing wrong the sheer amount of ads everywhere. We see nothing wrong with buying anything anytime we want it. Our culture is one of convenience; if we want to go buy an umbrella at 2 in the morning we can. In fact, we get angry if this convenience is taken away. And this sort of attitude, this convenience, is not sustainable. It costs too much energy and too many resources to continue forever. But we get rid of any mental dissonance by telling ourselves different culture narratives. We have the right to dominate nature, it is our destiny. Nature is so large that there is always somewhere else to exploit and grow in. And if we get into any problems, our technological prowess will save us. These attitudes will only lead us to disaster. We can’t dominate nature and never have. The biosphere is very complex and we understand only a fraction of how it works. So when we run out of space, I think we’ll find that our technology won’t save us. As for course of actions to address this problem, we, the American people, as a whole need to consume less. We take far too much and the best way to reduce environmental stress is to reduce the amount materials we take out and pollution we put in. We need to start advocating mindful consuming. No more blind consumption of useless gadgets. We need to educate the public about the effect their actions have. In addition to that we need to educate the public about pitfalls of American culture. The idea of our supremacy over nature and other countries needs to broken. We need to reduce the American ego. We need to look in the mirror my friend, and see ourselves for what we are.

Work Cited
 * 1) "Q and A on Cultural Issues." //All About Counseling//. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct 2011. []
 * 2) Klein, Naomi, Perf. //Addicted to Risk//. TED Talk, Film. []
 * 3) Reagan, Ronald. "Ronald Reaganb Candidancy Announcement." //Federalism and the New Conservatisim//. N.p., 13 Nov 1979. Web. 25 Oct 2011. []