This article, Forget Shorter Showers by Derrick Jensen shows how humans are gullible on personal consumption. For instance, how saving water in order to not pollute the environment is extremely important. Or to even use not as much waterer, energy, and waste to keep the environment “simply”. Jensen continues to explain how individuals are being led into believing that their personal consumption is immensely damaging to the environment. On the contrary, Jensen believes that is completely wrong since majority of people are ignoring industry consumption, along with business and even economy growth. He then explains how even if individual emission use declined, it would only change 22%. Unfortunately, in order to make a difference there needs
…show more content…
Jensen gives a firm viewpoint on how industrial consumptions is the main reason our environment is polluted. Jensen also gives detailed points and data to back up his arguments, “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emission must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.” (Jensen, 1.) Given this, it also covers not only consumption from individuals but also business and the destructive industry consumption. While Jensen did give methods to fix the overall problem of keeping the environment clean, he gives methods like, “If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we're unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.” (Jensen, 1) This contradicts a lot of the other given methods to solve the problem since no matter what we do the only change that will help keep the environment clean is if we were dead. On the contrary, this article does examine and explain the need to not worrying about cutting down on individual consumption …show more content…
I do agree with Jensens argument and thesis in a way; how individuals are not the ones destroying the environment since we only have a small contribution to keeping the it clean. For carbon emissions it would only fall 22% however scientist found out that it would need to fall more than 75%. Jensen also mentions how everybody would have to be dead in order for the earth to be completely “clean”. I do not fully agree with this statement, because it makes keeping the environment seem pointless for personal consumption. Majority of emissions are used by industries, however the blame is still technically on individuals since we are the ones to work and buy from these places. I certainly do believe recycling amongst other forms of keeping the environment clean (waste, water, and energy) should be continued because of its long term importance. Moreover, I do agree that individuals should not have to worry about keeping the environment clean but I do not agree with the argument Jensen is trying to make on how industry is to blame. Regardless individuals would be to blame since we run industries and have control over emission use and keeping the environment
Jensen gives a firm viewpoint on how industrial consumptions is the main reason our environment is polluted. Jensen also gives detailed points and data to back up his arguments, “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emission must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.” (Jensen, 1.) Given this, it also covers not only consumption from individuals but also business and the destructive industry consumption. While Jensen did give methods to fix the overall problem of keeping the environment clean, he gives methods like, “If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we're unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.” (Jensen, 1) This contradicts a lot of the other given methods to solve the problem since no matter what we do the only change that will help keep the environment clean is if we were dead. On the contrary, this article does examine and explain the need to not worrying about cutting down on individual consumption …show more content…
I do agree with Jensens argument and thesis in a way; how individuals are not the ones destroying the environment since we only have a small contribution to keeping the it clean. For carbon emissions it would only fall 22% however scientist found out that it would need to fall more than 75%. Jensen also mentions how everybody would have to be dead in order for the earth to be completely “clean”. I do not fully agree with this statement, because it makes keeping the environment seem pointless for personal consumption. Majority of emissions are used by industries, however the blame is still technically on individuals since we are the ones to work and buy from these places. I certainly do believe recycling amongst other forms of keeping the environment clean (waste, water, and energy) should be continued because of its long term importance. Moreover, I do agree that individuals should not have to worry about keeping the environment clean but I do not agree with the argument Jensen is trying to make on how industry is to blame. Regardless individuals would be to blame since we run industries and have control over emission use and keeping the environment