next »

[philo]

I wish my university offered a socially-responsible investment fund as an option.   It did, when I started.  I opted to use TIAA-CREF instead of entering the state retirement system, and I put a big chunk of my retirement money into it (along with putting some into real estate and some into bonds).  Then two or three years ago the state decided to "streamline" our retirement options.  Some entire companies were dropped.  TIAA-CREF, happily, was retained, but some of their funds were dropped, including the social choice fund.  A number of us agitated about that decision at the time, but of course nothing changed.  I could never figure out why the state cared which funds we put our money into.  How was it affecting them?

[dale1]

The only answer I can think of is that the number of choices impacts the institution's agreement with the company.  So if there are fewer choices, it's less to maintain and may cost less for the institution to be affiliated with the group (this is given that there's a fee for service on a university/college level, which I'm only guessing at).

There are other outlets for retirement savings, including those you see on TV.

[philo]

There are other outlets for retirement savings, including those you see on TV.

The state contributes 10% of the amount of our salary for retirement, but our options are limited to the state's own plan and certain plans offered by a couple of private companies.  Of course I can send my own cash anywhere, but with the state money I'm very limited.

[grasshopper]

I understand the author's guilt. I'm in an area that focuses on social justice and responsibility along environmental, gender, political, and economic lines. Know what I'm doing this afternoon? Going to the WalMart to buy a product I haven't been able to find anywhere else. After I finish my tropical fruit and non-organic, non-fair trade coffee and take a 20-minute shower, of course.

It is really difficult to have ideals and still live in the world. I think the ambiguity and dissonance (it really can give me a headache sometimes...) between what we want to do and what we can do or choose to do are things that should have a place in the classroom. And I applaud the author's inclusion of his own social sins into the course material. Social responsibility is not black and white. It's a constant and delicate balancing act. Recognizing this early on can impede that self-righteous finger-pointing that so often accompanies acts of social responsibility.

[larryc]

Ah, you perfectionists, how do you live?  I probably share the values of most of the posters here.  I buy what I can at local stores, then go to Walmart for the few things that I know they have there and nowhere else in my town. I drink fair trade coffee at home and don't worry about what I order when I am out.  I drive a fairly fuel-efficient car, but feel no compulsion to buy a hybrid until they get the technology right (and I can buy a used one!) When I go hiking with the kid we bring along a kitchen-sized garbage bag for any trash we find.  But once that is full (and usually it never is), we stop collecting trash.

At some point, we cross the line from having principals to striking an elaborate public pose.  The goal becomes not righteousness, but self-righteousness.  Yuck.

[busyslinky]

Some social responsibility consumerism literature may help to understand things a bit better.

People will wish to do the right thing as much as possible, but there are at least two things that may stop them,  effort and effect (or is it affect?).

If it requires too much effort (information gathering, paying a price premium, locating service, going too far out of your way...etc.) and that the effect is questionable (do socially responsible investment funds actually have only socially responsible investment funds?, are reusable diapers really better for the environment than disposable?) then there would be a question whether the consumer will or should purchase those types of products. 

There is a significant amount of gray area here and to say that one must feel guilty about not living a 'perfect' life style can get to be quite frustrating.  But, I think he should look at it as raising the consciousness of the students so that they can make efforts to at least practice these things such that the effort is reduced and that they can start demanding a little more clarity in the outcomes.

[agnfl]

Some social responsibility consumerism literature may help to understand things a bit better.

People will wish to do the right thing as much as possible, but there are at least two things that may stop them,  effort and effect (or is it affect?).

If it requires too much effort (information gathering, paying a price premium, locating service, going too far out of your way...etc.) and that the effect is questionable (do socially responsible investment funds actually have only socially responsible investment funds?, are reusable diapers really better for the environment than disposable?) then there would be a question whether the consumer will or should purchase those types of products. 

There is a significant amount of gray area here and to say that one must feel guilty about not living a 'perfect' life style can get to be quite frustrating.  But, I think he should look at it as raising the consciousness of the students so that they can make efforts to at least practice these things such that the effort is reduced and that they can start demanding a little more clarity in the outcomes.

So busyslinky...what are the non-gray areas?  I heard it once said that there are three things we can do personally that really help the environment...live in a smaller house or apartment, don't drive or drive as fuel-efficiently and little as possible, and a third that I forget.  Everything else didn't really make a difference.  I have a hard time throwing away recyclables (we don't have curbside recycling here), but I've also heard it doesn't do that much good.  If someone can lay out a few clearly worthwhile principles, I for one would be happy to at least attempt to follow them.

But I told my husband that unless we're planning on having five children, we would not be buying the five-bedroom  house down the street.

[conjugate]

I recall a fuss years ago when the coffee committee went from styrofoam cups to paper, because paper was recyclable.  After many burned fingers, somebody pointed out to the committee that:

1) paper cups were not recyclable; the plastic used to make them watertight made them no good for recycling;

2) styrofoam has some limited recycling ability (more since that time); and

3) people were really, really tired of burning their fingers on paper cups.

So they went back to styrofoam.  What's "green" today may not be what's green tomorrow.  As LarryC pointed out, we can only do so much and after that, we shouldn't worry about it.  We have no curbside recycling here, but I have a trash can full of aluminum cans.  I don't use lighter fluid to start charcoal when I grill outside, but I still grill outdoors.  I ride my bike to work despite great heat, instead of taking the car.  It isn't much but it's better than nothing.

[busyslinky]

I cannot tell you what is black or white in the arena of social responsibility (or the environment). There is gray all over, sometimes it's a lighter shade, sometimes darker.  It really depends on too many factors.  Reduction in consumption comes close.  But here's a splash of gray, what if that reduction in consumption causes someone to lose their job and thus live a quality of life that would endanger them?  There are ways of reducing the environmental impacts of things, but what happens to the other social issues?  I think the issues brought up in the article are more general.  But, this gets into philosophy and ethics...and well, I'm not even a novice into those issues, but I bet there are a lot of great philosophy terms to describe the grayness of life and decisions. 

[grasshopper]

I recall a fuss years ago when the coffee committee went from styrofoam cups to paper, because paper was recyclable.  After many burned fingers, somebody pointed out to the committee that:

1) paper cups were not recyclable; the plastic used to make them watertight made them no good for recycling;

2) styrofoam has some limited recycling ability (more since that time); and

3) people were really, really tired of burning their fingers on paper cups.

So they went back to styrofoam.  What's "green" today may not be what's green tomorrow.  As LarryC pointed out, we can only do so much and after that, we shouldn't worry about it.  We have no curbside recycling here, but I have a trash can full of aluminum cans.  I don't use lighter fluid to start charcoal when I grill outside, but I still grill outdoors.  I ride my bike to work despite great heat, instead of taking the car.  It isn't much but it's better than nothing.

But why does it have to be a choice between paper and styrofoam? You know what doesn't burn your fingers? Travel mugs. Ceramic mugs. Reusable stuff that you don't have to throw away. There's a fourth 'R' that too many people forget about: reduce, reuse, recycle, and refuse. It's real easy to refuse to use a throw-away cup.

We, individually, can only do so much - I'm with you there. But collectively, we can do a whole lot. We can, for instance, petition the university to offer travel mugs at the university bookstore at a reduced cost and to make a real effort to promote them.  And in the meantime, we could all bring the crappy mugs from home to leave in a shared departmental common room.

On a larger scale, we could petition our world leaders to support global environmental efforts. We could support initiatives to eradicate pesticide use on both public and private land in our cities. We could push for more public transit funding so that it actually makes sense to ride the bus. We could support urban development initiatives that foster neighbourhood living, rather than a commuter lifestyle. We can rally against the privatization of water. The list is endless. Pick your cause.

Sure, "what's green today may not be what's green tomorrow." For one thing, environmental crises are contextual, and contexts are continually shifting around. Stuff happens. And then other stuff happens. And how I react to stuff is going to depend on a whole lot of factors. But by pushing for green today, we're doing more than just 'going green.' We're changing the way we exist in relationship with the world around us. 'Going green' isn't limited to recycling and riding the bus. It involves a different awareness of our individual and collective roles and responsibilities in relation to nature, the environment, and others living on the planet. So when tomorrow's green 'need' comes along, those who have become involved in environmental actions will be more inclined to change their habits.

[rambling]

Hey, I really like mugs, good old ceramic ones, or even glass ones... How do we reuse them though? One needs to wash, at least a quick rinse, no? Water is getting more and more scarce, and I do not know what to think about that...

Incidentally I am thinking of asking threadkiller for her moniker; seems like many of my posts end up being the last of a thread...

[philo]

Incidentally I am thinking of asking threadkiller for her moniker; seems like many of my posts end up being the last of a thread...

Not this time... :-)

[grasshopper]

Hey, I really like mugs, good old ceramic ones, or even glass ones... How do we reuse them though? One needs to wash, at least a quick rinse, no? Water is getting more and more scarce, and I do not know what to think about that...

Sure, we're always going to make footprints. We can't live in the world without affecting it. Every 'good' choice we make is going to have a 'negative' to offset it. Does that mean that we shouldn't bother to consider our options, and make choices that will have the least possible amount of negative impact?

Maybe I'm misreading your post. Maybe you seriously are concerned with our wasteful habits around water usage. But your comment reads like a "well whatever I do is going to hurt something so why should I bother?" statement, and sounds an awful lot like an excuse to me.

[rambling]

Maybe I'm misreading your post. Maybe you seriously are concerned with our wasteful habits around water usage. But your comment reads like a "well whatever I do is going to hurt something so why should I bother?" statement, and sounds an awful lot like an excuse to me.

Yes, unfortunately you are misreading my post. Seems to happen often to me perhaps because English is not my first language (hope it will also not be the last :)

I really like to use mugs and I actually do not use paper or Styrofoam at the office. I have a nice collection of mugs that I use regularly. But sometimes I wonder if I am just being too naive, Whatever I do I will always harm some part of this Earth... Like you said, and you said it very well, we all have to leave footprints somehow but I do not know how to compare the relative impacts...

And thanks philo! But I could not help but reply to grasshopper, and thus tempting the gods yet once again...