With
the COP21 we speak many of the environment at the moment. One of the
arguments is that it is necessary to act now to save the planet not
to find ourselves in an emergency situation where there will be
rationings for the water or the food. Such a situation would be an
obstacle in our freedom. The ecologists thus fight today for the
freedom of the man in the future.
We can make a link with the thought of Sartre or Beauvoir. Indeed we saw that they think that we have the duty to struggle for our freedom but also for that of the others. People who fight to protect the environment and inform the population of the importance of respecting the environment to protect the freedom to act future generations thus seem to correspond to this idea.
This thought is however a thought which was born in our society and which does not correspond necessarily to the vision of the world of the other companies societies. The ecology is a concept forged in the western societies which they intend to export all over the world. This approach is based on a material vision of the environment and leans for the majority of the ecologist movements on the market economy. But it is not a universal vision of how protecting environment.
For example Adivasis in India live
in a logic of symbiosis with the earth. They do not speak about
ecology because for them it is normal to respect the earth, they live
with her. That is then of no use to come to speak to them about
ecology while they respect the earth better than us. That is also of
no use to want to export a model. Our way of thinking and to act is
for them a negation of their freedom more than a liberation in front
of their future oppression. Their current oppression is the economic
model which we try to let in to their region and which risks to
destroy their way of life. Their duty for their freedom is not it
then necessary to fight against this model which we want to impose
them even if it seems to us to be the best? Every cultures and every
groups of individuals are different and have logics, is not it better
to let each invent its own ecology and thus invent its own fight for
the freedom of the man in front of the environment in the future ?
Hi Lorette ! Thank you for your post, I think that it is very important to talk about ecology today because if we don't find a solution to the problem we've created we are going to die killed by our own cancer !
ReplyDeleteBut for some crazy american people of a radical party (I don't remember the name actually), ecology is not a fight that can provides us freedom, that can liberate us from a poisoning, it is in fact an alienation of our liberty of consomation, of doing what we want to do. They defend that if we have to be saved, God will save us, and fighting against pollution means not trusting the good will of God. What will you respond to them ?
Hi Clara !
DeleteI don't agree with Beauvoir for some things but I think she's right when she says that we have to create our own values and norms. I know she said that because for her, like for Nietzsche, "god is dead" in people's minds. I don't have lots of knowledges about religion because I don't believe in something/someone and that's why I just can respond with the idea of Beauvoir.
But if I really have to respond something to them I think I will speak about free will which God has given us and the duty that I think that it involves.
And you what do you think about that ?
Hi Lorette !
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. In fact, we should not impose our model on societies which protect the planet better than us.
But in my opinion, the fight for ecology is one that looks the most like a delusion for Camus. Indeed, fighting for the planet is a great cause that is bigger than us and our little existences. I think this is our way to revolt against our condition of human. The struggle for the planet will be continuing well after our death and we won't probably see its results. It seems like it is a collective reaction to our mortal condition. By this fight, people are trying to give sense to their life and to let a legacy to the future generations.
Thus, the fight against pollution will be worth doing it no matter the results at the end because it will have accomplished its main aim : giving sense to numerous lives.
Don't you think so?
Hi Agathe !
DeleteYour comments is really interesting and I agree with you : fighting against pollution can help us to give sense to our lives.
But when you write "no matter the results" I don't totally agree with you and that's why I wrote my post about Beauvoir. For me, we should not forget that the "main aim", as you wrote, of this fight is to protect our freedom, and more important the freedom of people who can't fight for : those who were not born yet.
Hi Lorette !
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was interesting, particularly as we’re right in the middle of the COP21 hopefully waiting for a universal treaty to be signed ! I think what can also be interesting concerning this debate is the fact that some countries argue that the responsibility lies within the « developed » countries as they have been polluting the Earth since the industrialization. Indeed they argue it is unfair for them to have to pay for the most polluting countries and to be forced into adopting clean renewable energies when the « North » countries have emitted tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for decades already. In regard to Beauvoir and her universal fight for freedom, do you think these countries are right to argue in this way when so much is at stake ?
Hello Lorette,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to analyse the ecologist struggle through Beauvoir and Sartre. However, there are some points that I don’t really get. I agree on the fact that the ecology is a western-made concept that we are trying to export and also that other cultures can have their own way to protect earth.
However I don’t understand how ecologism can be an oppression on people as the Adivasis that you mentionne. Indeed, if we try to export ecologism it is in society that are similar to us in their ways of production and thus of pollution. We don’t expect people who don’t pollute to take ecologist measures, right ? That is why I don’t really get why ecologism could be seen as an oppression. On the other, I totally understand that they feel oppressed by the way of production Westerners would like to impose on them, but as you said, it is a economical oppression.
I don’t know if I am clear. The fact is that I don’t see ecologism as an oppression if we talk about peoples who do not pollute.
Hola Lorette !
ReplyDeleteHope you're doing fine,
Yesterday my connection deleted my comment so I write it again :
I agree : we don't have to force people from other cultures to change according to our views
However : Is change a bad thing ? Indian culture, chinese culture, french culture are beautiful just the way they are (1D 4ever) but cultures change. The will to stay in a culture, to conserve this former picture is vain. Culture change. For the best or the worst.
More, the middle class in Asia began to eat more meat, they choose to (because western countries spread their culture) but is the rise of middle class, of a more comfortable life a bad thing ?
And the last thing is : western countries tried hard to create democracy in some countries. I think democracy is about human rights, human rights can be applied everywhere, they're about each human. I'm not saying "we" had the right to intervene everywhere but is intervention such a bad thing ? Is the will to impose democracy really as selfish as we were told ?
Clem
Hello Lorette,
ReplyDeleteThanks you for this blogpost, it is very interesting to discuss ecology through the prism of Sartrian (and Beauvoir's) philosophy. I agree with you when you say that the fight for ecology is a fight for freedom and thus is a way to achieve one's own freedom in Bakounine's Sartre's and Beauvoir's perspective.
However i disagree with you on one point. Yes the ecologist movement is born in the western world (does this notion really mean something today after the collapse of the communist world?)
However i don't think than the western countries try to impose it to communities such as the Adivasis in India, but only to countries and societies that have developped polluting technologies.
Hello Lorette!
ReplyDeleteYou write “our way of thinking and to act is for them a negation of their freedom”.
I somewhat agree with you in an existentialist perspective, in the way of the western world always tries to export some of its concepts in all the countries, whereas it is sometimes impossible. You take the example of our conception of ecology, it is also true for our secular democracies or our states based on justice and integrity.
However, trying to find a universal accord is not for me a negation of the freedom of the others. Indeed, like Sartre would explain, people who accept this accord make a choice. Maybe they are denying their freedom to themselves by arguing that they cannot do anything else than saying yes to the project of the Cop 21, but, indeed, even if they are bad-faith-people, even if they behave themselves as lâches (they refuse to assume their freedom by using pretexts to justify all their decisions, in order to demonstrate that they cannot make free choices), they are responsible of what they decide and consequently, they are still free.
In a diplomatic perspective, I think that the most important was to find a global accord, even if this accord is really disappointing. It is a diplomatic success, not an ecologic one, but reuniting at last all the countries, despite their great differences, on a same accord, is a good encouragement for the future.
Do you agree with me?