Fish: Majoring In Environmental Apathy

Environmentalism, for some reason, has been a cause close to my heart from an early age. After uncovering my second-grade journals, I discovered an entry about my future plans, where I explained that I wanted to be the President when I grew up, because then I could outlaw the destruction of the rainforest. I don't know how an eight-year-old learned about ecosystem degradation, but the lesson stuck, and I've been that girl who glares at you when you throw away a recyclable ever since. I was even voted "Most Likely To Go Green" for senior superlatives, which was kind of exciting, not to mention tempting to put on my resume. Anyways, as an environmental studies major, I'm taking this class as a major requirement; I'm also a chemistry minor, so I thought that this class would be an excellent balance to the heavy load of science courses. On a non-environmental note, I also really enjoy coffee, Scrabble, and celebrity gossip blogs, and will gladly partake in a cup, game, or gab session with anyone friendly enough to offer.

Fish's article, I Think, Therefore I Pollute struck a chord with me for several reasons, some more serious than others. Firstly, my roommate and I were just discussing how ridiculous people sound when they name-drop Foucault, and sure enough, Michael found himself smack-dab in the middle of this refreshingly candid commentary on an individual's approach to environmentalism. Secondly, the example to which he refers at the end of the article, about his friend's wife making the former unplug his appliances, could have been extracted verbatim from my house this summer. Every day, after making a cup (er, four) of coffee, I would unplug both my machine and my mother's. About two hours later, they would both be plugged in again by my mother. After several heated debates about the merits of energy efficiency v. aesthetic dearth caused by clumsy cords, we reached a stalemate.

The coffeepot conundrum makes a point about Fish's view of collective institutionalism over personal responsibility; I concede the point that one's consumers purchasing power, one recycled can, or one unplugged appliance, is not going to solve the mammoth of today's environmental crisis. However, disregarding the momentum of these small actions is arrogant, as it conveys that one believes one is above nature, and that one's decisions are exempt from the realm of environmental ethics. Also, if everyone thought the way that Fish did, talking the talk but only begrudgingly trudging the walk, we would be in a lot of trouble (or, more than we currently are). There is no way to be 100% environmentally friendly at all times, but it's worth striving for, and the effort must be there at the very least if there is to be any positive change.

Living green in America needs to mean both taking those small, tedious tasks that Fish so "resents," and also changing our world views and decision-making process from an anthropocentric mentality to a biocentric one. There needs to be responsibility taken by each individual citizen to do his or her part to prevent further environmental degradation, as well as the initiative to make larger, global changes that have the possibility to reverse the damage.