Fighting Instinct

Seeing as both of my parents having opposing political views to mine, I was worried that I would encounter a resistance when I brought up the environmental issue. Surprisingly, they seemed to understand my side and where I was coming from. I will mention what I said - indeed, who I borrowed from - but I want to quickly comment on the way I said it.

While it may not inherently make sense why I am mentioning my tone before mentioning what I said, after my debating experience, it is clear to me that tone, inflection, cadence, etc. is paramount. Talking about climate change can be a very touchy issue; yet, by being calm and polite while talking about this issue, I was able to engage in a civilized and thoughtful debate. By keeping the tone calm, I was able to avoid the tension and harshness that is the constant accompaniment to this issue. It is as if being "normal" depoliticizes issues.

While there is a sense of urgency for change in these matters, not putting that urgency in my speech seems to civilize people. I think, then, that urgency is the nemesis of reason. If people are forced to make sudden moves, those moves are instinctive, unplanned, and the first reaction is to revert back to the only things you know - in this case, your politics. If I attack someone with a different opinion than mine, their instinct is to fight back with the only knowledge they know. Clearly, one will not try to form an argument when under siege. Thus, I just made the conversation person-to-person, not advocate-to-advocate. Without urgency in my speech, the reasonable side to my parents was evident. They understood what I was saying - they heard my evidence - and then processed it. Whether they believed me or not, I cannot say. What I can say, however, is that my side of the argument was listened to without any apparent resistance. This seems the better option than constant bickering. Even if there is bickering going on in our thought processes during this talk, not to have it advertised - indeed, out in the open in public debate - can only strengthen the cause of the pro-environmental movement.

The thing that seemed to resonate most sense with my parents was Leopold's "land ethic". My parents agreed with me that humans do not see themselves as part of the environment, but rather its master. This paradigm, my father said, "needs to be changed." He went on to say, "If we don't know how to control what we think we're in control of, then it's clearly going to bite us in the a**." He later went on to say that this situation is like Terminator - close enough.

When I brought up Maniates' "Individualization", though, my parents started having some trouble. "I don't get it: How do we stop climate change from happening if we're not allowed to do anything on our own?" I explained - calmly, of course - that taking steps to reduce your impact is a good thing, but it cannot be the only thing. There must be collaborative action at some point. It is possible that that collective action is a bunch of individuals doing things that add up to collective efforts. Regardless, I personally cannot save the world. In fact, my household's efforts cannot save the world. But, if the households in my town started changing, and then the people in my state started becoming eco-efficient, and then the people of my country and so forth, then big changes can be made. I alone, though, am not the CO2 Crusader (although a superhero costume would be sweet). Together, and to continue superhero references, we could be climate change's kryptonite.

I finally mentioned "Cradle to Cradle." This business-oriented approach appealed to my right-wing parents the most. Becoming eco-efficient via business? What a dream! I explained the notion of "being less bad is not good," which I tied to "Individualization." Sure, my house can be less bad than anyone else, but that does not make us energy free, just efficient. The goal, of course, is being environmentally free - so to speak - so how can we say that efficiency is good? All design must be done so that we are being good to the environment. In return, it will be good to us. Then, using my tour guide skills, and the knowledge from the tour, I talked about the new SIS Building.

So, did I win the argument? I can say with decent certainty that I made the best points, but I don't think the assignment of bringing this up during the break was about "winning." I took the assignment as a way to synthesize all that I've learned and use it to my advantage. Maybe if the stakes were higher, I might have pushed for "victory." But, let's face it, my parents aren't very influential save inside my mom's classroom and my dad's laboratory. Yet, maybe I won the battle for eco-efficiency in my household. Of course, it's not a win if I'm by myself - I need the collective effort. I'll ask for my parents' cooperation as nicely as possible.