Someone asked me today “is it too late to save ourselves” in reference to pending environmental doom, and I caught myself wanting to slip into a usual explanation of how being “saved” isn’t the correct jargon for how we should approach the problem. However, after a second consideration of the question I realized that it was not too plagued with environmental extremist bias. After all it is fair to ask if we can survive at present course.
The extremist environmentalism comes in when we start to determine who'll be our savior. Presently, it is the tendency of our society to look for a single figure to pull us to safety. I call this the Jesus affect. Often times this is manifested in a call for unnecessary policy from our politicians, or similarly unnecessary organizations acting as social welfare nets. All in all this movement towards a populist leader shows a lack of trust in market-based methods to solve our problems, which I would argue to have the highest propensity to be our actual savior. We are no longer in a monarchy!! The king isn’t going to save us!! Become an entrepreneur; that’s where “change” will really come from!! (and no it is not too late.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would like to respectfully disagree with your disregard for the power a leader holds over his or her country. If we look at history we notice that great men and women (Eleanor Roosevelt..Kennedy) have singularly changed the outcome of history through their exemplory leadership abilities. To completely disregard the "morale" effect a leader has on his or her country might be slightly naive. Good post though. :D
In no ways am I trying to degrade the accomplishments of any individual in history that has done wonderful things for humanity. As a philanthropist, that would dumb to imply.
However, what I am referring to in my post is not the actions taken by a leader and the ability for that leader to guide a society, but rather the effect that the people have on society and economy when they systematically look to a leader or policy as a solution to problems rather than acting for change themselves.
How does one act for change? Many times people would think change comes from rallying against a politician or supporting causes: in this way they are asking for policy solutions to promote social change. A centralized (top down, or planned) policy approach to changing a society’s mindset towards the allocation of their resources rarely leads to the “optimal allocation of resources.” Solutions to problems like those proposed by environmental degradation are going to come from divers technological development on multiple fronts from many different competing Roosevelts and Kennedys acting in the private sector who will allow us to individually decrease our footprint of carbon both directly and indirectly.
The reference to populism comes from my experience in Latin America where time and time again societies have fallen into their own trap of populism. Examples, Chaves in Venezuela, Correo in Ecuador, the list goes on. This poses another question, which could link their obsession with populism to their association with the church: the Jesus affect. Besides that it is important to note that by definition populist leaders lack objective critique from their societies and, more often than not, have imposed policies that actually do more harm than good.
I suggest that you read: Hayek, F.A. “The use of knowledge in Society.” Or “The Fatal Conceit”
I'm excited by the idea that through entrepeneurship we will meet the current economic challenges and I'm so excited that someone like you is out there involved in the endeavor. Rock on, Lincoln!
Sarah
Post a Comment