i am not a preacher
it makes me angry and frustrated when people feel threatened and get defensive by my opinions on certain issues. like vegetarianism or global warming.
today i almost fought instead of debated with rachael about it. she didn't want to bother with ecology, i worried about it.
due to that, i think she felt slightly guilty. i just said i was worried about these crazy temperaure changes, or this freak snow in march (uni closed early today and we were kicked out in mid-studio lesson due to the non-stop snow), how winter was delayed, and by that, she thought i was blaming it all on global warming. but i didn't say so. she said it sounded like i did. i said i didn't explicitly say so, and didn't mean it, that sure, maybe global warming is natural, but we're increasing it. 'no we're not' she said.
then i said i was going to try to save up water, gas and electricity to do my bit, she pointed out that unless i killed off all the polluters and forced people to stop, i wouldn't make a difference, i was a speck in a galaxy of dust, that the majority of people don't really care, and i replied that i wasn't asking anyone to follow what i was planning, i had only stated it.
she called me an extremist. just because i, individually, didn't want to waste energy uselessly.
instead, this extremism, to me, would involve not using any energy whatsoever, and recurring to violence, to force, in the 'suggestion' to the rest of the population on following this example. but throughout the discussion, she was the one using extremist scenarios of flattening cities and me becoming a world leader ecological dictator-type person as the only solution to my dilemma.
which pretty much, in retrospect, really proves she adopted a defensive position towards me in that conversation.
also, i think she throws all ecologists, of whatever gradient or discipline, into the 'purist treehuggers' category, as she said 'why do i get the feeling you'll have a house in the middle of nowhere, growing your own crops', and i promptly replied 'no, i'm a city person, that's not my ideal lifestyle'. this was very black and white of her. we are not all stereotypes.
in fact, one could say she tried to prove i was in error, and convince me not to bother about ecology, that anything i'd do was futile. repeatedly. that by having my computer on for less hours i wasn't going to save the world, that the media was making us all paranoid.
sure, she may be right. but there is guilt. even if the government is pushing us into consuming energy, even if no one cares about the environment, even if humanity is only a small percentage of the global warming cause, it's not an excuse for any complacency or laziness from my part. i refuse to collaborate in this excess.
i never said i wanted a complete overhaul of our lifestyle. it's the small changes, the tweaking, the rechanneling of habits that make the difference, ease development and our cultural evolution. electric cars, better public transport, cleaner energy sources, etc. not reverting back to the middle ages.
rachael says she's a realist.
i say she's a defeatist.
but i will admit anytime i'm an idealist. i only think of utopias.