I first read Cohen’s piece and honestly appreciated the way he laid out his comments. I got a good feel for what types of things there were to debate about over Leonard’s short film. Cohen seemed to approach the film from a market liberal perspective, recognizing that there is a problem with the waste we produce, but suggesting the use of technology and our ingenuity to help us better manage the lifestyle that we have developed. He stresses the interconnectedness of globalization, and how a decrease in American consumption would simultaneously harm those around the world, and lessen the burden on the planet. He suggests, as would be expected from a market liberal perspective, that our best option is to transition to a sustainable economy. Cohen highlights the merits of the market economy we have developed, and suggests that we change the way it functions in order to manage sustainability instead of shunning it altogether. This argument clearly defined the merits and faults of Leonard’s film, while going beyond what was laid out in “The Story of Stuff” and suggesting an alternative ending to the story.
As for The Heritage Foundation’s blog entry, I found its dangerously low level of professionalism to be highly detrimental to its central argument. This angle of the debate one-sidedly highlights the faults of Leonard’s film while throwing in propaganda of its own. However, I found the defensiveness to be quite interesting. Like Cohen, The Heritage Foundation wishes to defend capitalism, however it takes the debate a step further. Denouncing every aspect of truth to “The Story of Stuff,” The Heritage Foundation simplifies the argument. After reading this piece, I wasn’t even sure if it was about the film anymore. It seemed to me to be more of a jab at liberalism as a whole, in an “us versus them” spirit, alienating any room for an intellectual debate on the facts of the film and their consequences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cohen's article was definitely interesting, but I just can't get over this definition of human nature. Is it really my human nature to want IPods and new cell phones every few years? Or could my nature be to live on the earth I'm a part of, but society is so riddled with economists thinking like Cohen does, there's not getting around it. Frankly, I think this culture thing is a bad excuse. The fact that, as Fox News so often states in energy debates, American culture is defined by big SUVs and materialism in general, doesn't mean that is our human nature. It means that our economic system is one of greed and some darn good marketing. We are so convinced that our way of economic life is the right way, but there's actual proof that we'd be happier with less stuff. So why do people like Cohen cling to these ideals that are really a huge part of the problem we've gotten ourselves into?
ReplyDeleteSo if that's how I feel about the Cohen article, I'm sure you can imagine what I think of the Heritage Foundation article. Honestly, it scared me a little. Well, ok, a lot. When he gave the example of the kid asking if buying legos would hurt the environment and the author acted horrified, as if to say "no American should ever have to sacrifice their wants for the environment" I was upset to say the least. That is EXACTLY what we ALL should be asking ourselves. It's people like this blogger that make me really afraid that nothing is ever going to change.