Sustainability is one term that we've simultaneously become adept at ignoring, while becoming increasingly hard to do so. And sure enough, while on an endless barrage of binge watching Youtube videos I stumbled upon something on sustainability, but which also somehow managed to catch my eye.
It was on the social dynamics of enabling action towards combating climate change, global warming and sustainability in general. With a looming crisis such as this, our response has been to simply divert our attention. As a species, we're terrible at dealing with panic, and solving these issues calls for a study into the social aspect of it as much as the technological.
In one study undertaken at the Climate Lab, UCLA, the effects of different types of persuasion on the benefits of saving electricity were compared -
1. Letting the participants know how much money it enables them to save
2. How it provides a better future for their children
3. Having a little a competition between participants of the study.
The result turned out to be that reducing bills caused the least push toward action while competition provided the greatest. In hindsight, this makes sense. The decisions we make are more informed by the change they bring to our place in society than by lofty ideals.
Therefore if global warming is to be tackled, and more generally sustainable living be encouraged, mechanisms that provides such social rewards must be made more widespread. What is called for is to have sustainable lifestyle be perceived as a reward in itself. To make this certain virtue as something of a fashion statement.
Root of the problem is that right now, we reward the elevation in social status that consumption brings, even if done indiscriminately. Wearing new clothes elevates ones social position while re-using the current wardrobe does not. What if we have a means to instead socially reward re-use? This could extend to re-using other devices. Perhaps a resource sharing score as opposed to individual ownership? This also extends to diet, rewarding discriminative eating.
At this point I can almost here cries of disapproval from many. Such cutting down is often perceived as a diminishment. I believe there are primarily two reasons why such a view exists and I shall try to address these in the remainder of the post.
First, the notion that this inherently involves a sacrifice to one’s lifestyle. But this is not true. Less is sometimes more. What I want to emphasize here is that beyond a certain level of consumption, it’s the quality of objects at hand, their interplay, which if delicately done makes the whole much larger than the sum of its parts. There’s examples of this in cultures whose values provide some useful guidance as a starting point.
Japanese is one. The emphasis on such minimalism is intimately tied to the Japanese Shinto heritage. For instance, 'Shibui', a Japanese word that roughly refers to objects that are extremely simple, but which retain their subtle elements, making them beautiful. This principle is what is said to make sushi absolutely delectable. An awareness of the subtlety around us, the whispers as opposed to the shouts, can make our lives profoundly rewarding.
Second, about how it might impact our present economy. The criticism is that our economy is dependent on ever increasing consumption demand, that being what drives production, translating to better services and prosperity. Now I could put on a more socialist hat and go on about how the present structure benefits only the very few at the top. But I realize that’s not the most popular opinion to have and will not, for now.
But consider this. A more sustainably woke society will also spur the growth of entirely new industries dedicated to creating and managing sustainable products. New industries that should offset the fall in consumption. We already see this motto become increasingly popular. Apple is one, with their MacBook Air made entirely out of recycled aluminum. Instead, we’d like to see this taken to the next step. A longer refresh cycle of these products, even at the cost of making them more expensive, provided they last longer.
Taking this further, if we are to move to a subscription basis rather than ownership. For then it is in the company’s interest to not have to replace products, and therefore makes business sense. This also provides better service to the customers since at no point are they stuck to using a defective product, as is often the case in the years post warranty.
Moreover, with the current reach of social media, this change in attitude can be rapidly enabled. Facebook/Instgram/Twitter could create a portal where people may enter information about how long they use a particular product. Social scientists could help create a score on the impact of each, and a badge could be displayed next to each’s profile, seeding such a lifestyle.
Similar, more sustainable models may be studied for the other major contributors - the food industry and transport. I believe it’s only with such structural social changes that we can truly solve climate change, and more generally, sustainability. As much as we’d like it to be, Teslas aren’t the solution.
I must, however, post a disclaimer that much of this is an armchair analysis. A more rigorous analysis is necessary, and I welcome any thoughts/criticisms. But the possibilities appear to be very exciting and this is one angle that I intend to pursue, and study more about in the time to come.
It was on the social dynamics of enabling action towards combating climate change, global warming and sustainability in general. With a looming crisis such as this, our response has been to simply divert our attention. As a species, we're terrible at dealing with panic, and solving these issues calls for a study into the social aspect of it as much as the technological.
In one study undertaken at the Climate Lab, UCLA, the effects of different types of persuasion on the benefits of saving electricity were compared -
1. Letting the participants know how much money it enables them to save
2. How it provides a better future for their children
3. Having a little a competition between participants of the study.
The result turned out to be that reducing bills caused the least push toward action while competition provided the greatest. In hindsight, this makes sense. The decisions we make are more informed by the change they bring to our place in society than by lofty ideals.
Therefore if global warming is to be tackled, and more generally sustainable living be encouraged, mechanisms that provides such social rewards must be made more widespread. What is called for is to have sustainable lifestyle be perceived as a reward in itself. To make this certain virtue as something of a fashion statement.
Root of the problem is that right now, we reward the elevation in social status that consumption brings, even if done indiscriminately. Wearing new clothes elevates ones social position while re-using the current wardrobe does not. What if we have a means to instead socially reward re-use? This could extend to re-using other devices. Perhaps a resource sharing score as opposed to individual ownership? This also extends to diet, rewarding discriminative eating.
At this point I can almost here cries of disapproval from many. Such cutting down is often perceived as a diminishment. I believe there are primarily two reasons why such a view exists and I shall try to address these in the remainder of the post.
First, the notion that this inherently involves a sacrifice to one’s lifestyle. But this is not true. Less is sometimes more. What I want to emphasize here is that beyond a certain level of consumption, it’s the quality of objects at hand, their interplay, which if delicately done makes the whole much larger than the sum of its parts. There’s examples of this in cultures whose values provide some useful guidance as a starting point.
Japanese is one. The emphasis on such minimalism is intimately tied to the Japanese Shinto heritage. For instance, 'Shibui', a Japanese word that roughly refers to objects that are extremely simple, but which retain their subtle elements, making them beautiful. This principle is what is said to make sushi absolutely delectable. An awareness of the subtlety around us, the whispers as opposed to the shouts, can make our lives profoundly rewarding.
Second, about how it might impact our present economy. The criticism is that our economy is dependent on ever increasing consumption demand, that being what drives production, translating to better services and prosperity. Now I could put on a more socialist hat and go on about how the present structure benefits only the very few at the top. But I realize that’s not the most popular opinion to have and will not, for now.
But consider this. A more sustainably woke society will also spur the growth of entirely new industries dedicated to creating and managing sustainable products. New industries that should offset the fall in consumption. We already see this motto become increasingly popular. Apple is one, with their MacBook Air made entirely out of recycled aluminum. Instead, we’d like to see this taken to the next step. A longer refresh cycle of these products, even at the cost of making them more expensive, provided they last longer.
Taking this further, if we are to move to a subscription basis rather than ownership. For then it is in the company’s interest to not have to replace products, and therefore makes business sense. This also provides better service to the customers since at no point are they stuck to using a defective product, as is often the case in the years post warranty.
Moreover, with the current reach of social media, this change in attitude can be rapidly enabled. Facebook/Instgram/Twitter could create a portal where people may enter information about how long they use a particular product. Social scientists could help create a score on the impact of each, and a badge could be displayed next to each’s profile, seeding such a lifestyle.
Similar, more sustainable models may be studied for the other major contributors - the food industry and transport. I believe it’s only with such structural social changes that we can truly solve climate change, and more generally, sustainability. As much as we’d like it to be, Teslas aren’t the solution.
I must, however, post a disclaimer that much of this is an armchair analysis. A more rigorous analysis is necessary, and I welcome any thoughts/criticisms. But the possibilities appear to be very exciting and this is one angle that I intend to pursue, and study more about in the time to come.
