As not only an American but a member of the entire human race, I feel the pervasive tension between America’s Cornucopian mentality and the world wide push for Environmentalism. It is quite unfortunate predicament that we cannot somehow balance our need to conserve/ preserve the natural world in order that the economy can continue to exist and function for longer. However, since I must side, I find myself largely supportive of economy and being concerned with the here and now. Albeit selfish and short-sighted, I believe that the natural world will function and continue on an appropriate cycle—so long as business remains ethical and controlled. I would identify as a cornucopian because I do not support the complete denunciation of all government regulation. I recognize the government as an institution as something to merely protect the people (as much as I want to say “and their best interests,” I will refrain because it is only the individual who knows best for themselves). One major player in this equation is the government overseeing business to some extent. It cannot be a laissez faire market. Corporations and big business have the power and the extreme potential to cause serious ruckuses in the environmental world which will undoubtedly jeopardize humanity in some instance. If a spectrum did exist--
Cornucopian……….. …………… me …………………………………………Environmentalist
I do, however, really like the idea of technology being able to act as a feasible alternative to hardcore sustainability. The types of technology that we use every single day were discovered, enhanced, and perfected to serve a purpose. Why? It was done simply because businesses recognized the market would use it and chiefly pay for it. With that kind of dedication and focus it seems probable or reasonable to expect that technology will soon be able to produce energy and make our use of the natural world more efficient. In theory it sounds wonderful. Nut I really believe that with monetary incentive and the need for it—it will happen that easily.
I find it incredibly frustrating whenever anyone asks me to pin point my political affiliation. To be honest, I’m not sure I have everything figured out. In spite of not having a specific answer to the overall ideology, I do believe I am prepared enough to answer the question: “what do you think should be done about _________________?” (fill in the blank). Fortunately, in this instance we have the environment to base my thinking off of.
Economically, I stand as a firm conservative minded individual who believes strongly in working for what you want. It is second nature to me to work harder for more and if you forfeit working, rightfully so, should your income. I am a firm proponent of most redistribution. There are a few minor exceptions such as social security (FICA tax). The population surge of the baby boomers is targeted as the cause for the lack of social security available for future generations. As this is true, it is not the reason people will not get their money back. The government has been borrowing and “stealing” money from this idle pot of cash. The theory of the system should play out to reality as every person who is to collect has already paid their fair share. This clearly exemplifies my struggle to understand why someone would want to pay more taxes to pay for others to benefit when you worked very hard for your dollar. When it comes to the market, it should remain relatively free with miniscule governmental intervention. If a business has the ability and the resources to monopolize and industry, so long as the citizens are not harmed, I would not object.
However, I’m not a stringent social conservative. To reemphasize, I believe the Government exists to protect people from horribly outlandish business and any other threats posed—war, natural disasters, etc…things that lie outside of the typical American’s control. Poverty is not a threat to an American’s wellbeing that the government is responsible. I do have a huge issue with turning the educational and healthcare systems into profit-driven industries. These two industries are public services that every person is entitled to. I do believe that private options—not better, simply private (important distinction to be made)—ought to remain available for those who choose to invest their capital in that manner. In no way am I suggesting that a public option is the best answer. The public school system in this country, as it is now—funded by the property taxes of the area—must cease. It is incredibly unfair to everyone who does not have the control or ability to pick where they live. Also, with regards to healthcare, it is wrong that better care is available to people with more money and are willing to pay for it. I’m not sure I know the answer; but, I do know that both of the current systems need to be shattered and rebuilt from the lowest level bureaucrats up to the top administrators. In general, I advocate minimal governmental intervention in day to day life. Services ought be prioritized and paid for by individual.
A true relationship with the environment is nonexistent in my world. I’m not sure I have ever been really into that stuff or motivated to be on [its] side. This may have to do with a fairly conservative background and lack of exposure with my parents having no dealings in this field. But, who knows? In the end though, I feel a small obligation to sustaining what’s here for the next people to come. I’m also very confused on what I think when it comes to whether or not the nature can suffer. It is a dictating distinction and I have no idea on what I think. I’m inclined to say, no!, of course it does not. However, when trees die or are removed and nutrients are taken from the soil as a result, other vegetation cases or minimally wanes. Biologically you are suspending life; but, do the plants feel emotionally hurt?
So as I began in tension, I end with my mind in a knot quarreling over how to make money and develop a successful economy, while respecting the natural world as another person—or race.
No comments:
Post a Comment