In the article by Orion Magazine, “Forget Shorter Showers” the author, Jenson, conveys that simple gestures that people do--such as driving in eco-friendlier cars or taking shorter showers, will not help the environment. The author instead proposes that people should be focused on bigger industries and trying to make them stop their mass consumptions of certain resources. The author recognizes that doing small gestures can have a minimal impact, but re emphasizes that people shouldn 't act as if this is going to cause a huge change. The author proposes some very vague solutions to these problems relating to stepping up to companies, but is not very clear. Although I agree with some of the way that the author frames the problems, I believe
…show more content…
The author conveys “acting decisively to stop the industrial economy…”(3). I feel as if the author isn 't very specific in how to stand up to these institutions and is mostly suggesting that people should do it. Of course, people should step to these companies if it 's killing their home day and night, but what the author does not take into consideration is that people may not even be aware of what these companies are doing, especially low income communities. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2014 there were 46.7 million people in poverty. Just imagine 46.7 million people that are uneducated about what these institutions are doing to their homes because they have their own personal problems to deal with. I believe that the authors first solution should be to help others become educated about the problems and then once people become educated then it would be possible for most people to be able to unite and stand up against these institutions. Furthermore, the author argues that small gestures do not really lead anywhere because they are just so small that they have little to no effect. The author states “personal change does not equal social change,” (3). Although this may seem trivial, it is infact crucial because I believe …show more content…
He explains “voting, not voting, running for office, pamphlets, boycotting, organizing, lobbying,protesting, and when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it,”(4). Although this approach does seem nice, I do reiterate that this seems to be not a fair option for all. In my personal experience, growing up in a low income community my parents first of all i 'd not worry about the environment, let alone had the choice to become some type of environmental activists. Both my parents have to work full time jobs and still have to worry about meeting other needs--such as food and clothes. Although they were able to do this, it did not leave much time for them to do other things especially boycott a corporation that is hurting our homes. All im saying is that Jenson’s solution seems very one sided as if everything would just be easy, but in reality it 's not. There are many low income families like mines that make up a great deal of the population, but the problem is time, which is very hard to juggle with. Although I agree with Jensen that there are several options for people to make change, for some people doing these things is very
The author conveys “acting decisively to stop the industrial economy…”(3). I feel as if the author isn 't very specific in how to stand up to these institutions and is mostly suggesting that people should do it. Of course, people should step to these companies if it 's killing their home day and night, but what the author does not take into consideration is that people may not even be aware of what these companies are doing, especially low income communities. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2014 there were 46.7 million people in poverty. Just imagine 46.7 million people that are uneducated about what these institutions are doing to their homes because they have their own personal problems to deal with. I believe that the authors first solution should be to help others become educated about the problems and then once people become educated then it would be possible for most people to be able to unite and stand up against these institutions. Furthermore, the author argues that small gestures do not really lead anywhere because they are just so small that they have little to no effect. The author states “personal change does not equal social change,” (3). Although this may seem trivial, it is infact crucial because I believe …show more content…
He explains “voting, not voting, running for office, pamphlets, boycotting, organizing, lobbying,protesting, and when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it,”(4). Although this approach does seem nice, I do reiterate that this seems to be not a fair option for all. In my personal experience, growing up in a low income community my parents first of all i 'd not worry about the environment, let alone had the choice to become some type of environmental activists. Both my parents have to work full time jobs and still have to worry about meeting other needs--such as food and clothes. Although they were able to do this, it did not leave much time for them to do other things especially boycott a corporation that is hurting our homes. All im saying is that Jenson’s solution seems very one sided as if everything would just be easy, but in reality it 's not. There are many low income families like mines that make up a great deal of the population, but the problem is time, which is very hard to juggle with. Although I agree with Jensen that there are several options for people to make change, for some people doing these things is very