To begin with, Jensen argues “would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery?”. Dumpster diving may not have stopped Hitler, but by getting a mass to recycle with dumpster diving you can change the mindset of people and enact huge change by influencing lawmakers. Composting did not end slavery, but Harriet Tubman, an individual, saved more than 70 black people while making a big impact in the abolition of slavery.
Jensen argues how all the solutions for climate change have to do with personal consumption, like shorter showers, and not with shifting the power away from corporations. However, as individuals and consumers, we have the power to make an impact in corporations …show more content…
In a capitalistic society, inevitably humans are always going to end up harming their landbase. The point is in minimize that harm as possible. Secondly, Jensen argues how living simply “incorrectly assigns blame to the individual,..., We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them”. This statement is key to understand why Jensen’s approach is not accurate: we, as citizens, are causing the problem, indeed, we are the problem. We are enabling our political and industrial leaders to sit back and do nothing about it. Materialistic society exists because of consumers. Removing the blame from the individual only makes it less personal. Besides, living simply is not a matter of blame, is a matter of taking personal responsibility to not feel helpless. In the third place, Jensen maintains making personal changes accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. However, the reality is that citizens are consumers. And through our consumption habits, we have the power to make a big impact. The fourth problem Jensen writes about it’s: “the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead”. As I stated before, it’s inevitably for humans to cause destruction. But thanks to small changes and culture shifting, we are able to minimize harms. All in all, living simply as a political act may not change the world on its own, but it is a symbolic start to a larger
Jensen argues how all the solutions for climate change have to do with personal consumption, like shorter showers, and not with shifting the power away from corporations. However, as individuals and consumers, we have the power to make an impact in corporations …show more content…
In a capitalistic society, inevitably humans are always going to end up harming their landbase. The point is in minimize that harm as possible. Secondly, Jensen argues how living simply “incorrectly assigns blame to the individual,..., We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them”. This statement is key to understand why Jensen’s approach is not accurate: we, as citizens, are causing the problem, indeed, we are the problem. We are enabling our political and industrial leaders to sit back and do nothing about it. Materialistic society exists because of consumers. Removing the blame from the individual only makes it less personal. Besides, living simply is not a matter of blame, is a matter of taking personal responsibility to not feel helpless. In the third place, Jensen maintains making personal changes accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. However, the reality is that citizens are consumers. And through our consumption habits, we have the power to make a big impact. The fourth problem Jensen writes about it’s: “the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead”. As I stated before, it’s inevitably for humans to cause destruction. But thanks to small changes and culture shifting, we are able to minimize harms. All in all, living simply as a political act may not change the world on its own, but it is a symbolic start to a larger