Couch Potatoes Aren't non-GMO

Slacktivism is the new black. As the neoliberal society turns evermore towards a knowledge economy, the coolest thing to be is informed. And, as Malcolm Gladwell phrases it, the only type of commitment this society craves is "the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgment and praise" (2010). There are immense benefits to having a society founded on the acquisition of knowledge, even if that knowledge is, for the most part, useless. It implies that people are curious, and, even if it is only to keep up with the masses, willing to participate in current events. However, as Gladwell explains, curiosity and willingness to participate do not necessarily equate to the type of activism required to create serious change, and to save the planet from the exponentially increasing threat of climate change, we need serious change.

I wonder, with tongue in cheek, whether people whose phones are attached to the palms of their hands would be more socially active if their desk chairs weren't so ergonomic. I wonder, also, whether the comfort arises not from expertly designed lumbar support, but the familiar homeostasis of the capitalist model, so deeply hegemonic that any subversive act is dispelled or reworked to reinforce its walls, rather than break them.

Unfortunately, these musings reach no conclusions if they are not accepted by a great enough population to incite the change we need for the magnitude of our problems. But it is not just numbers that matter, it is the type of change. Showing off to your 1,000 Facebook acquaintances that you care about animals by reposting a "Save The Great Barrier Reef" video does nothing to save the Great Barrier Reef, in fact just the opposite; as you sit in front of your un-recyclable computer, which sits on your clear-cut-tree-wood desk, while you sit on your perfectly ergonomic un-recycled fabrics chair, in your foreign-made clothing, you systematically contribute to the destruction of the very thing you have claimed to care about on a screen comprised of 0s and 1s. But at least if you're destroying the world, you look cool doing it?

I cannot discount social media entirely; in some regards it has created an efficient way to promote advocacy. But, as this post emphasizes, at a certain point advocacy must evolve into activism, and we must be willing to make that jump.

"Activism that challenges the status quo—that attacks deeply rooted problems—is not for the faint of heart" (Gladwell, 2010).


Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, October 4.

13 going on 30

Today, kids are using social media, engaging in topics far beyond their years, and forming smart, valid opinions about a range of topics. For example, politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM

These children contest the values that Donald Trump displays with reasoning and counter arguments. While not the best example available, it is proof that children are active enough in society at a young age to be included in the debate about and the efforts towards reducing climate change.

As Kasser, Crompton, and Linn explain, children are evidently receptive to the messages they are shown, but what reaches them is often advertisements and commercials, increasing their likelihood to be consumers (which we've discussed is destructive for the environment) and taking away from the time that they could be delivered other, more pressing information. The idea of advocacy is particularly important within this demographic, because they may not have the autonomy or means to be overly active participants in the battle against climate change, but they are receptive and impressionable, and they have influence over their parents. So, rather than tying to convince their parents to buy them the new flat screen TV for their Barbie mansion, or the burger king meal with the G.I. Joe toy, children should, and could be convincing their parents to recycle, to compost, to buy local, etc.

Advocacy endeavours geared towards audiences that include children have already begun, such as the picture below, which is taken from the Ripley's aquarium in Toronto; a place where children go with their families to observe unique aspects of nature, and, in small ways, how to care for it. This is progress, but it must go further - ultimately to the television screen, where children are either not shown advertisements (like Quebec has already included in legislation) or are shown educational and informative "ads" about things they can be doing in their community or households to help combat climate change.

Kasser, T., Crompton, T., & Linn, S. (2010). Children, Commercialism and Environmental Sustainability. Solutions, March-April.

Consumerism costs more than money

As I sat in the bathroom the other day, staring down at the clothing label innocuously staring back up at me, I realized that it was far more harmful than it seemed. I mean, how much threat can a 1-inch by 2-inch piece of pink, silky fabric really pose? Depending on what you think is being threatened, quite a big one, actually. The garment lists 7 different countries where some type of production happened, though since the majority of writing is in foreign languages, the actual process is hard to determine. Nevertheless, the smallest article of clothing on my body first had to visit the following 7 countries before reaching me: China, Turkey, Jakarta, Malaysia, Romania, Colombia, and Dubai. Not only am I jealous that my clothes have done more travelling than I have, I am also disconcerted by the amount of energy, fossil fuels, and precarious labour that have gone into making a piece of clothing that wouldn't even use a quarter of a yard of fabric.

The solution seems relatively easy: buy locally-made clothes or demand that larger companies be held to a higher standard of production and environmental awareness. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done, and the change must been seen on a far greater scale than a single clothing company. The biggest challenge is that the audience for these products just don't seem to care; they would rather read television guides than clothing labels, so this threat to our environment flies completely under the radar. This trend is a vicious cycle; as Jennifer Good points out, "there is a correlation between television viewing and a sense of apathy" (366) and "[r]ecent research has investigated the relationship between television viewing and materialism and found that heavier television viewers are more likely to be materialistic than lighter viewers" (366). So people would rather watch television than read about or research environmental impacts of consumerism, and watching television both lessens this desire to care, and increases the desire to consume. In and article by Neff, Steinberg & Zmuda, the consumer is blamed for not being active enough in the environmental choices that are available within the context of consumerism. Personally, I don't think they're off the mark. It takes two to tango, but ultimately the consumer decides which companies stay in business and which ones go bankrupt.


Good, J. (2007). Shop 'til We Drop? Television, Materialism and Attitudes About the Natural Environment. Mass Communication & Society, 10(3), 365-383.

Neff, J., Steinberg, B., & Zmuda, N. (2010). Marketers blame the consumer in new save-the-planet pitches. Advertising Age, 81(16), 1-94.