Monday, October 27, 2008

so, it's pathological to want to preserve the planet for our children, is it?

So Sharon Astyk was interviewed for the New York Times with regard to her blogs and books regarding how we might want to try to live in a post Peak Oil, climate changed world. Apparently, those who take their environmental and social responsibilities seriously are so threatening to The Establishment that mud must needs be slung at them, and labels affixed to them. Loony tune? Energy anorexic? I think not. Here's Peak Oil Blues's response to the subtly nasty and marginalizing article from the NYT. I particularly liked this sentence in the summarizing paragraphs:

"Articles like Kaufman’s are not merely dumb and sensational; they are carefully crafted not only to avoid the opportunity to educate one of the most consumptive nations on Earth, but, more importantly, to pathologize those who won’t spend."

Here, btw, is Sharon's response to the article.

Me? I'm working on it all. I have been bicycling a lot this fall, and as the weather has grown colder, I've added in more bus time as well. I've had the heat on exactly once so far, to bring the house up to 62 in the morning so the children can dress in something approximating comfort. I'd really like to have a bank of solar panels on my roof, so that I can run such luxuries as my downstairs freezer and dehumidifiers (though those need run only in summer). My needs are fairly simple, overall, and that's good, because my means are modest, too. And I, like Sharon, let my children play ball in the yard, while I work in the garden or hang out the wash or feed the rabbits. Reminds me a lot of when my brothers and I were little, actually - and we never felt deprived because of it.

Further from Peak Oil Blues - really, go read the whole thing -

This article is part of a new media genre that takes the serious worries of almost two-thirds of Americans, and creates a special brand of pathology designed to stigmatize, pathologize, trivialize, and marginalize their concerns.

What, are we a nation of ostriches now?

(cross-posted to

1 comment:

Katherine C. Teel said...

I think her response article was much more rational than the NYT article (not my favorite publication, anyway). But NYT always does this; under the guise of presenting a "balanced" view--showing us the pros and cons of this lifestyle--they resort to sensationalism and marginalization. I wish her blog got the readership that NYT gets; she makes more sense than they do.