Doom vs. Wimpy?

The New Scientist's discussion of conservation psychology is quite interesting.

They say to use social pressure and people's instinct to follow the herd:
Tell people about the steps their peers are taking to make things better, and they may follow suit.
Well, then we hear people on the other side of the coin who keep talking about how individual steps aren't enough. Just today, in fact, Alex Steffen of WorldChanging posted what's bound to turn into a well-discussed rant:
Almost all of us believe that someone who buys local food, who drives a hybrid, who lives in a well-insulated house, who wears organic clothing and who religiously recycles and composts and avoids unnecessary purchases is living sustainably.

They are not. [...]

We can no longer afford to mistake the symbolic for the effective, or put our hopes in the mystical idea that if enough of us embrace small steps, our values will ripple mysteriously out through the culture and utterly transform it.
The full piece is definitely worth a read.

But when compared to the New Scientist piece, these two perspectives seem to be at odds. So my question is this: how do we balance not scaring people off with doom and gloom against spurring big, real, meaningful, non-incremental change?

1 Response to "Doom vs. Wimpy?"

  1. Unknown says:
    November 16, 2009 at 5:43 PM

    Thanks for the articles Beth. These ideas have come up in my conversations with Julie about how we can best encourage people to take action and share their stories with video.

    While I agree with Alex Steffen's perspective, most people are not in a place where they are ready to start thinking about systems level change - it's too big. I agree that composting, recycling and driving a hybrid are not going to save the world but it does get people engaged and thinking along the right lines. It sets in motion a lifestyle where people will be more likely to meet others who are a step or two ahead and get inspired to engage more deeply.

Post a Comment