reading+notes,+framing+sustainability


 * Lakoff, George, "Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment," //Environmental Communication//, March 2010.**


 * David Orr, "Framing Sustainability," //Conservation Biology//, April 2006. [|OrrDavid2006FramingSustainability.pdf]**

"....every man has a right to his opinion, but 'no right to mislead others, who have less access to history and less leisure to study it'" (Orr, p. 265). This quote should frame every issue discussed in the United States. (Dan Fancher)

"By a similar logic, ours is in the principle that no human has the right to diminish the life and well-being of another and no generation has the right to inflict harm on generations to come." (Orr, p. 266). This single quote should erase any shadow of a doubt that we need more sustainable practices. Almost any sustainable change could be rationalized with this message. I can't believe I've never heard anyone come out and list this as a reason for change (not to say I've never heard anything similar, but this is by far the best). (Dan Fancher)

"He spoke directly, often bluntly, but he softened his words with humor and the adroit use of metaphor and homespun stories. The result was to place the horrors of combat and the bitterness of sectional strife into a larger context that motivated many to make heroic sacrifices, and a legacy of thought and words that “remade America,” as Garry Wills (1992) puts it. Now perhaps more than ever we turn to Lincoln for perspective and inspiration." I drew a few main points out of this article and this quote sums it up pretty well. An idea must be framed in the context that its intended audiance can understand and relate with. (Tom Holland)

"Lincoln’s example is instructive to us because he understood the importance of preserving the larger framework in which the lesser art of defining particular issues might proceed with adequate deliberation, which is to say that he understood that the art of framing issues is a means to reach larger ends. In our time many things that ought to be and must be sustained are in jeopardy, the most important of which are those qualities Lincoln used in defining the specific issue of slavery: clarity, courage, generosity, kindness, wisdom, and humor." (Lindsay Poirier)

"Lincoln did not equivocate or agonize about the essential nature of slavery. He did not over think the subject; he regarded slavery as a great wrong and said so plainly and often." That first sentence is golden. You must be direct, and you must understand and consider your audience, and how they will perceive you. "Lincoln was a relentless logician but always spoke with vernacular eloquence in words that could be plainly understood by everyone." (Dan Powell)


 * Matt Ridley and Bobbi Low, "[|Can Selfishness Save the Environment?]" //The Atlantic Monthly.// September 1993.**

According to this article, the 'selfish gene' is part of the reason society has had problems achieving environmental goals. This is expressed in this quote: "We are going to argue that the environmental movement has set itself an unnecessary obstacle by largely ignoring the fact that human beings are motivated by self-interest rather than collective interests." (Dan Fancher)

"Why had Du Pont made that decision? Conventional wisdom, and Du Pont's own assertions, credit improved scientific understanding and environmental pressure groups. Lobbyists had raised public consciousness about the ozone layer so high that Du Pont's executives quickly realized that the loss of public good will could cost them more than the products were worth. This seems to challenge the logic of tit-for-tat. It suggests that appeals to the wider good can be effective where appeals to self interest cannot." (Tom Holland)

"We conclude that the cynicism of the economist and the biologist about man's selfish, shortsighted nature seems justified. The optimism of the environmental movement about changing that nature does not. Unless we can find a way to tip individual incentives in favor of saving the atmosphere, we will fail. " (Lindsay Poirier)

Reminds me of the articles I read about French Parenting vs American parenting. Check out[| this article]from TIME magazine which is in response to the book //Bringing Up Bebe. (Russell Brown)//

The article presents two viewpoints. The Economic standpoint, and the Environmental standpoint: "Economics has hewed ever more closely to the idea that societies are the sums of their individuals, each acting in rational self interest." "The environmental lobby posits a view of the human species in which individual self-interest is not the mainspring of human conduct... " Then it says, "One of the two philosophies must be wrong. Which?" Don't you think that calling one of them wrong is kind of a silly idea? I'm by no means a well-educated economist or environmentalist, but I think both viewpoints are missing something: who the individual is. As we saw in the other article about the data from a survey about peoples' views on sustainability, there is no one 'individual.' Especially today, two human 'individuals' can be brought up in radically different environments, and come to believe and act in radically different ways. I therefore disagree with the economic viewpoint; individuals do have self interest, but some of them act altruistically (an easy negative example: suicide bombers). I'm also unsure about a society being the sum of its individuals; trying to sum all the altruists and self-interested people in a society seems naïve. Perhaps like trying to sum vectors and scalars.. ha. The environmental viewpoint says that "when properly informed of the long term collective consequences of their actions, people will accept the need for rules that impose restraint." This also fails to account for the variety of individuals. Some individuals are brought up to think big-picture and some aren't. Example: The other day my roommate was walking around brushing his teeth while the faucet was on full blast. I told him there were gallons of water going down the drain and his response was "So what? We're not paying for water!" Perhaps you can argue that he is not properly informed (and I will agree), but despite that.. I think the point at which habit/convenience outweighs altruistic action varies incredibly per individual, and has little to do with how well-informed they are. So.. to hopefully enhance my challenge of the basis of both arguments, I'm going to reference an article I dug up from a high school research project I did about evolution and natural selection. It's about this guy at Harvard who studies ants, and his fairly revolutionary stance about the social level at which natural selection operates. Kind of reminds me of that Tyrone guy. Here's a quote from the article: Morality and religion, he suspects, are traits based on group selection. “Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed.” I'm not sure I want to draw a conclusion yet.. but I feel like this gets at what the article missed, and what this class is about; trying to get more children to grow into brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic 'individuals.' (Dan Powell)