My Utopia

        I think that the government should get involved regarding the environment when it is "common knowledge" that not taking steps to regulate interactions with the environment will lead to dramatic negative changes in our world.  For example, today's world is one in which I would advise government regulation.   
        Human interaction with the environment is mostly value-based, which is the major issue when dealing with the saliency of environmental issues.  These can be summed up with the following questions: Do you care about the earth's future (when you will not be living in it), and do you care about the quality of life of others enough to do something about it?
        There are some basic assumptions I must make about humans in order to make statements regarding human's relationship to the environment.  I believe that humans inherently desire a beautiful natural environment in which to live, but have succumbed to the pulls of technology and science (almost blamelessly) and forgotten that the world was meant to be beautiful.  Less cryptically, I am saying that humans naturally care about the environment.  The issue lies in the extent of this care.  For some people, as long as the skies are semi-blue, and they can see on their way to work, the environment is fine and pollution is a myth.  For other more knowledgeable people, visibility would not suffice.  I also like to think that all humans are innately "good," meaning that as long as they are surviving comfortably, they would prefer that the rest of the world is as well, and will, as long as the first condition is met, go to some means to make others feel the same.  Some humans may go further to be sure that others are living comfortably before improving their own quality of life.  But I believe that no humans desire the discontent of others, and most would desire common happiness.  This sounds like a very wimpy definition of "good" to me, because it doesn't seem as idealistic as my other beliefs, but it is realistic.

As I implied in my definition of a "good" person, there are many people who can be "expected to act on such feelings without some incentive or coercion," meaning that they want to help others and do help others without being told to do so.  In fact, most of my friends and myself are examples of those people.  "Acting out of care for the wellbeing of others without incentive or coercion" seems almost like a duty when phrased like that.  It seems so intrinsic and natural, and it really makes my definition of a "good" person seem a bit weak, though I stick by it, because of my tendency to over idealize things.  But a few words in our previous description cause some issues . "Incentive" and "coercion" are very ambiguous terms which are hard to define within our circumstances.  When my sorority rewards volunteer activities with "house points," and then rewards those with lots of house points with the better rooms, am I being coerced to feign my caring?  When I see a news article glorifying the work of a local high school student at the neighborhood soup kitchen, and decide to volunteer there myself, am I hoping for the same incentive?  I think that the answer to both these questions is "Yes, but does it really matter in the end?" (Sorry for answering a question with a question!)  In summation: Everybody wants everybody to be comfortable.  Most are willing and eager to help, once their own comfort is attained.  Society's praise of such work obviously has an influence, but it's a good one. 


I believe that what happiness means for one person is entirely different than what it means for another.  (Obviously)  I would not be happy if I were only able to wear one pair of shoes for an entire year, whereas the Bolivian children from the water privatization video would be happy, maybe elated with the same prospect.  This example is repeated everyday, but it helps one lead to a conclusion.  Yes, I am more satisfied with my new Patagonia rain jacket.  Yes, I am more comfortable with it.  Seemingly, "happy" would come next, and it almost does, but for some reason, I hold back.  I equate happiness with things not tangible, with (prepare for cheezy/corniness!) the drive from Bloomington to Brown County and all it entails: the wind through the windows, the  playing, the multi-colored leaves, the bails of hay, the hot pink sunsets, and the cows and horses.  Obviously this example includes some material things, like the car and the CD.  But put me in a car in a very polluted city during rush hour with the same CD and I most definitely will not be writing about it as the epitome of "happy."  This is my opinion, but I tend to think that there are a lot more people out there who, though they may not even realize it now, and maybe never will, agree.  


"Society" (I use that term loosely, to mean essentially "people like you, socially and economically") has a huge influence on what we want.  I truly believe that with a large number of charismatic and passionate people advocating the "living more lightly" that Sanders promotes, a new trend would emerge and "always wanting more" would exist no more.  It's very difficult to believe that now, becuase I can guarantee that everyday, at some point, I think about that new pair of shoes or headband that I just couldn't live without.  But even just after reading Sanders, my own habits have changed.  And he is just one influential writer!!! I have the utmost faith in the power of good persuasion and charisma.  And numbers.