Bens+Debate+Paper+2

Ben Clemence, Debate Paper #3 October 25, 2011 American Culture Word Count: 1577 **Is American culture a sustainability problem?** To try and define American culture would be a difficult task but there are some things that can be said to sum it up. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are three basic rights given to all US citizens by the Declaration of Independence. The “pursuit of happiness” sometimes seems to have become synonymous with self advancement without regard for others. Americans have always sought to improve their quality of living through innovation, growth, and entrepreneurship. These efforts have led to many improvements in any number of fields, for example the amount of illnesses that we can not only just cure, but prevent from ever happening has increased leading to more people living longer lives. We can now communicate with other people in all corners of the world via the internet. The number and variety of products that are available locally to consumers has been consistently increasing due to globalization. The often overlooked side of all these advancements is that this American culture has lead to over consumption, over production, a reliance on fossil fuels, and a market that relies on growth just to sustain itself. The biggest flaw of capitalism is that is requires growth to continue. This then raises the questions of if the culture that Americans have become so accustomed to is a sustainability problem in itself. Is it possible that Americans can continue their path of innovation, production, and consumption, or is the planet really limited in its ability to continue to support this entrepreneurial growth?

In Naomi Klein’s December 2010 TED talk, Addicted to Risk, she explores the issues with the current American business model, specifically the fact that these corporations are taking larger and larger risks not only with their company, but with the planet and people on it. Klein points out that we are asking the wrong questions about this risk taking as well. Instead of asking questions such as, “how can we improve sustainability?” or, “can the planet support this new product of process?” we are asking, “what is the last possible moment we can continue this?” Americans have become too willing gamble with this they should never have had control over in the first place. These risks are often taken without any exit strategy either, meaning that corporations have no plans for how to end their destructive production processes. According to Klein, it is the greed, hubris, and overconfidence of those in control of these critical decisions that have led to these issues. She brings up a quote meant to inspire innovation and growth, “What would you attempt if you knew you could not fail?” Corporations have taken this statement to the extreme and seemed to have included another section to this quote which would add, “…and there would be no risk to people or planet?” There seems to be this underlying assumption of limitlessness to our planet and that there will always be more resources, instead of being viewed as the finite planet that it is.

While Klein’s argument does a good job of pointing out the issues with the current business models, it does little to reference the actual American people. Consumers are also part of the problem because they are the ones who demand a new product each year that’s better than the last. Consumers want things cheaper, quicker, and easier, and there is a huge disconnect between what they value in a product and what they value in a company. While the product may be exactly what they want, consumers often make little to know consideration towards the company they are supporting by buying their product. If unethical methods that damaged the planet were used, then buying the products from that company is the same as voting in favor of their business practices. Klein should have emphasized more the power of the consumer both in a negative and positive way. Consumers vote with their dollar and companies will sway if less consumers are ‘voting’ for them.

The article providing the counter argument was Ronald Regan’s announcement for candidacy in November of 1979. In his address, Regan stresses that Americans should not have to change their way of life, or have to sacrifice those things which they have become accustomed to. To do this we have to have faith that America is full of ambitious and insightful people that can overcome any obstacle we may run into in the future. In fact, Regan states that we should, “live in anticipation of the future,” rather than “fear the future as a repetition of past failures.” He follows this statement by saying that, “man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what we are told is fact.” Regan is saying that there really is no problem that we cannot solve and that we should be excited for these solutions instead of worries about things such as the impending energy crisis. There is some discussion of solutions to the energy crisis of the time, and that they need to begin to look for alternative reserves of oil and pursue nuclear power more. Regan also argues for an unrestricted business model to allow American capitalism to flourish, which in turn creates revenue and jobs.

The issue with this is that capitalism requires constant growth, finding new places to get oil still depletes a finite resource, and the solution to every problem is not to produce our way out of it. To address the first issue, constant growth requires that markets increase, companies diversify, and more stuff is available for people to buy, and that people buy that stuff. The problem is that there is no way that this level of growth can be maintained. In addition, if it were maintained the planet would be all but depleted because of the increasing use of resources. The example of the tar sands was brought up in Klein’s TED talk and how we are now destroying entire landscapes to get access to mud that contains oil. Then through methods which are very harmful to the environment we extract that oil. This process not only wastes water but contaminates the ground water around it. These tar sands are taken advantage of with no concern for the health of the planet and the safety of those living on it.

The argument that American culture is sustainable seemed to be more difficult to support so I looked to my third resource which was in The Economist, in which there was an article called //The United States of Entrepreneurs//. In this article they do an excellent job of pointing out all the benefits that have come from taking away restrictions on corporations and how hundreds of thousands of small businesses are started each month. Large corporations such as Google and Facebook were started in someone’s garage and have grown to become multimillion dollar companies. The reason the US has been able to grow and prosper is because of its deep rooted history in challenging current ideas and taking risks on new opportunities. No one told Henry Ford that the automobile would be such a great success but he took a risk and built it and was hugely successful for it. People such as Ford push American culture to be better and to advance itself and that only happens by taking risks and exploring new frontiers.

My personal belief after reading these articles and from my previous experiences is that American culture in itself is a sustainability problem. I would very much like to believe that it is not a problem, and that growth and technology is the solution because the reason I got into engineering was to be able to be able to work on innovative products and take advantage of our capitalist system. The thing that I must realize though, along with others, is that there is plenty of room for advancement and innovation but it must be done with the planet and people in mind. There needs to be a paradigm change in the way that consumers think about products and their standard of living. Evidenced by the huge emergence of “green” products, American consumers have become more and more demanding of products that are made in a sustainable way. The question of whether or not these “green” products are actually sustainable is another issue but the consumers are looking for more sustainable options. The real problem here is that no one is willing to sacrifice their quality of life in return for a more sustainable lifestyle. So while companies may be making products that are more environmentally friendly, they know that customers would still rather have the same lost cost product over the more expensive “green” alternative. This mindset is what needs to change, that the lowest cost alternative is the best, and that we need energy by any means necessary. If the public were to demand these things from companies the change can be made. The same way that our innovation and entrepreneurship got us into this mess, it can get us out and lead us to a much more sustainable future.

References: Klein, Naomi, Perf. Addicted to Risk. TED Talk, 2011. Web. 24 Oct 2011. .

Reagan, Ronald. "Federalism and the New Conservatism: Reagan 2020 US." OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT. Patriot Post, 13 Nov 1979. Web. 24 Oct 2011. .

"The United States of Entrepreneurs: America Still Leads the World." Entrepreneurship. The Economist, 12 May 2009. Web. 26 Oct 2011. .