JessDebatePaper2

Debate Paper 2 Is American Culture a Sustainability Problem? American values have changed as the country has developed. The concept of success has stayed consistent but people’s views on it have changed. Success is earned through hard work and the accumulation of something. The issue becomes when success begins to trump the welfare of others. Sustainability is a global issue affecting everyone and everything in the world. The efforts of one country can be undone by others who are not working towards the same end. This makes global sustainability an extremely difficult problem. When we look towards our own home, we realize that Americans consume twenty-four percent of the world’s energy yet only make up five percent of the world’s population. The American culture that says that this ongoing consumption rate is okay, affects the entire world since resources everywhere are being depleted. Americans tend to react to issues instead of using the precautionary principle. They are led by their wallets, not overarching environmental concerns. Another issue is whose responsibility is it to deal with sustainability issues? We are all stakeholders in the issue, but no one wants to pay to fix the problems that we have caused. “The average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, fueling a global culture of excess that is emerging as the biggest threat to the planet, according to a report published today.” Americans have always had pride in their country, but at some point it became pride in their individual success which has spurred the debate as to whether or not their culture is at the root of their sustainability issues. In December of 2010, journalist Naomi Klein gave a speech at TED regarding the dangers of not implementing the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that “when human health and the environment are significantly at risk, and when the potential damage is irreversible, we cannot afford to wait for perfect scientific certainty, better to err on the side of caution.” She argues that we need to act to protect our planet, not react after issues are already created. In a case such as global warming, she points out that MIT physicist Evelyn Fox Keller says that the question we need to be asking is “what happens if the scientists are right?” not if they are wrong. She also states that our society is addicted to risk. We gamble with things that, if they go wrong, we may not be able to control. We have a belief that is instilled within us that things are limitless, yet we are reaching that limit and most of society does not want to see it. She explains that the cost of recklessness exacts a cost from people as well as the environment, and that making a profit cannot be the sole responsibility of society. She does not specifically talk about American society, though she does mention America ‘specific problems’ such as the oil spill. One of her arguments is showing that the exploitation of the tar sands in Canada is destroying the environment and will have effects that we cannot even predict. She identifies a proponent of this development as American greed and hubris. Her argument is weakened by a lack of scientific data. She argues very convincingly and covers a lot of topics but her statements come across as opinion not fact. She only references one person and the quotes are not scientific data, but more opinionated statements. An issue with the precautionary principle that she does not address is the initial cost that it takes to start an initiative. She states that greed and profit should not be the main drivers of society, but in order to effectively ‘save the world’ money is necessary. Another issue is that ‘playing it safe’ does not create societal advancement. It is interesting when Klein notes that as investors, women take fewer risks than men. She attributes this to women not having the same levels of overconfidence as men.  A study by the University of California showed that women see negative outcomes as more severe and therefore less worth the risk. The study also goes on to claim that “people who view an activity as having a severe potential negative outcome also tend to view the potential negative outcome as more probable.” Women do not take less risks because they are overconfident but because they see the issue as larger than men do. There are confident men leading both sides of the sustainability efforts. In Ronald Reagan’s announcement of candidacy for the 1979 Presidential nomination, he states that Americans are proud of success and that while believing in the impossible “man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what are told is fact.” He goes on to argue that the state of affairs is not a reflection of the attitudes of the people but on leaders who attempt to falsely accuse outside circumstances for their inadequacies. “The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit; it is failure of our leaders to establish rational goals and give our people something to order their lives by.” He states that it is the government’s faulty that things lie as they are, and most of the issues are ones we are still battling today. The sustainability issue lies with the government, not its people. He shows us that by taxing business, which the government says will ‘solve’ the issue, we are in fact only taxing ourselves. Only people can pay taxes and so the tax on business is relayed to the business consumer. Reagan also says that the government cannot be relied upon to give us a fair estimate of our situation. “If you ever had any doubt of the government’s inability to provide for the needs of the people, just look at the utter fiasco we now call ‘the energy crisis’.” The only way to create our own prices is to remove our dependency on outside fuel sources. We need the American people to create and develop new sources of fuels. He would see “government once again the protector of our liberties, not the distributor of gifts and privilege.” Reagan does not see American society as the cause for the issues the country faces but instead accuses the government for distorting its role and failing to protect its people. “The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.” A fault in Reagan’s article is that he argues for government protection of our liberties while also limiting the role of government. It is very difficult to remove power, and even as he says that we need to develop principles of self-reliance and self-discipline, this becomes increasingly difficult under various political circumstances. He blames government for the state of affairs, but never discusses the history that brought about the changes nor does he project into the future to determine the long reaching effects his plans have. He has a great trust in Americans which is also one issue with his argument. He relies on the development of ideals and ideas and hopes that those creative forces will help propel the country forward. Greed began to trump innovation and this has led to the current state of affairs.  An article from //The Journal of the American Enterprise//, states that “the principle traits of entrepreneurs in Asia are ‘humanity, patience, willingness to learn and total commitment to the business.’ The picture contrasts with American brashness and pride.” The article goes on to state that we are transferring jobs overseas because we can pay people less and continue to give consumers the cheap products that they want. This logic also sends the much needed jobs overseas and creates a level of dependence on other countries, the sort of dependence that Reagan argued against. American culture has not always been a sustainability issue, but it is quickly becoming one. “The problem, in part, is that the leaders of big American firms are no longer overwhelmingly concerned with the future of the United States.” The Chinese have always done what was in their best interest. Their government, though in stark contrast to ours, has managed to maneuver itself into a position of world power. Their culture is still very focused on keeping a level of harmony with the land. “In America, entrepreneurs are supposed to disrupt order; in China, they are supposed to perpetuate it.” Though neither model is a fantastic example of a country with sustainability practices, the American one works to self-defeat and is therefore less sustainable. American culture is a sustainability issue, though this has not always been the case. I believe that this goes to the issue that Americans do not self-identify as Americans. In a discussion with some of my studio professors, they agreed that they became more ‘ethnic’ after leaving their native countries and coming to America. Though this does not mean that they do not support the United States, it demonstrates how it is difficult to get Americans to rally behind a cause simply because it affects Americans. In the movie, //The Persuaders//, it was stated that political campaigns break voter demographics into over two dozen specific categories in order to best sell themselves.<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> After World War II, there began a feeling of anti-nationalism and this has continued to mentally divide the country. This division works against sustainability efforts since they try to bring people together around a central cause. American pride has shifted to arrogance and this has damaged our reputation in foreign countries. We are also perpetuating these issues by bringing our children up in the same fashion. To work to correct these issues, we need to change the way we teach and reintroduce a feeling of nationalism in our school system. Other countries all know their national anthem, yet our school children refuse to say the pledge of allegiance to our country. If they start with this level of detachment, they can only continue to foster it. If our school systems also introduce various sustainability issues to children, awareness levels will go up and the next generation may have a chance at working to correct these reoccurring issues with our society, our environment and our world.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> “American Values.” [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> “Consumption by the United States.” [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> Goldenberg, Suzanne. “US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat”. //The Guardian//, 12 Jan 2010. [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> Ted Talk, December 2010. Naomi Klein: Addicted to Risk. [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> Harris, Christine R. Harris and Michael Jenkins. “Gender Differences in Risk Assessment.” University of California, 1 July 2006. [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Ronald Reagan, announcement of candidacy for President, November 1979. [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;"> “In China’s Shadow: The Crisis of American Entrepreneurship.” //The American: The Journal of the American Enterprise Institite.// December, 2006. [] <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> ibid <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> //The Persuaders//. PBS, 2004.