Water is the source of life and has been the foundation of humanity’s development throughout our years on this planet. Water shortages represent a concern that a government must face and be made its primary concern. Water is a basic need that is taken for granted and abused by most industrialized society. Today we face major global catastrophes, whether they are environmental, economical, or anthropocentric disasters. Water shortage is but one of the many problems that has come to light due to a rise in our global catastrophe’s. It is too late to solve or have any immediate solution to water shortage, because put simply this minor basic need issue stems from other much larger issues created by humanity. The answer really lies in how we change the social contingencies that have reinforced the behavior of overusing water and viewing this elixir of life with disrespect.
Industrialized societies will view water as just another commodity where they can dump their waste and not think twice about the effects it will have in the future. If we are to have some hope in our future and to mitigate the issue with water shortages we must move toward stricter laws that change the behavior of abusing water. Stricter Laws combined with technology can move us toward a brighter future. We have the power to make a change through education and taking more collective action in our government to make a change in what is in place now. The hope lies in us loosening the grip corporations have on the governments that represent us the proletariat class.
I think when it comes down to defining a life or placing a meaning behind something it heavily relies on how the individual views it. Each person has their own set of beliefs and values that are usually instilled to them by the environment they grow up in. Collectively these values add up to defining the rules and regulations that a society abides by. When we collectively place a meaning behind it then it becomes something that is sacred and respected. I don’t think the issue lies with how a person defines a life but how the society they live in shapes their views of the different lives that make up our environment. So when we apply the behavior of a society when it comes to the food industry, we can start seeing patterns in how they define animal rights. The importance of an animal’s life lies with how a society molds its citizen to view it. If the norm of a good meal is to eat at McDonalds or KFC then a society will place more value in keeping that industry alive even if it means to continue the abuse of the animals that make that business flourish. Our society values these overconsumption behaviors that objectify animals as just another resource that can be used and abused for their own selfish needs. I believe if we want to reduce the environmental issues that come with environmental issues and health issues then we need to value life at a deeper level whether it includes consciousness or not instead of valuing life as just another resource.
In some sense I do agree with Peter Wenz in his regard of environmental racism where we are placing our burden of waste on the poor. But I feel the argument is not just stemmed from the rich abusing the poor or minority by placing their waste on them, but instead is more related to fallout from our way of thinking. Normally homes near toxic waste or dumps are sold at cheaper prices and normally this means those of a lower socioeconomic background can afford to live there. It’s a systematic setup where the poor are stuck with dealing with waste simply because the system is built that way. When we take a closer look of how these communities are setup most of the people that reside in these communities either deal with waste management or can’t afford to live in an area away from the waste.
People choose to live a life of bliss and don’t think twice when they throw something away about where it ends up. The socioeconomic structure of our culture is built in a way that keeps the poor in these types of areas, not because they’re poor but because it’s the affordable living that we offer to those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. When we apply this knowledge abroad we see system of governments that have a lower GDP ‘s making profit from renting their lots of land to put waste in and it serves as their income. Waste to the poor serves as both their destruction and their means of life. If we want to change we must change our way of thinking and all share the load of our waste instead of creating a system where the poor have no choice but to live with waste since it’s what they can afford.
Observing the political system we live in and the process of obtaining a position in office shows us that there are many flaws to this system. Implementing a new policy in our country is near to impossible to pass within the time that you’re in office. Positions are held for short periods in order to prevent abuse of power by those that hold positions, but this comes with an expense when it comes to the efficiency of implementing Policy. When Obama came into office his platform was filled with promises and changes that he was ready to implement, but he soon realized that some of these promises would be met with negation. Our system is built in such a way to prevent any one person to rise to supreme power. Implementing policy must satisfy the needs of the many and not the few. Environmental policy falls short when we look at it in a business standpoint; this country is built under capitalist ideals. Making the most profit with as little of expense as possible. My belief is that in order for us move forward and to implement such policies that may be contradictory to others would be to uproot our political system. But this comes with a great cost to freedoms and it would lead to a system where the interests of the many are no longer represented. I agree with Obama on his stance that though it may not be easy, we have made some progress in be more environmental friendly. But if we expect to make greater changes it would mean to adopt a more radical way of thinking, the capitalist system is not compatible with such policies as environmental policy.