|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Materialism up, Conservationism Down
Laura Wray: “An inconvenient truth about youth” http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/22569.html Laura Wray wrote an article recently that appeared in more than one newspaper regarding the apparent tendency of youth to regard the importance of conservation inversely to their regard for material possessions. The more materialistic the youth the less inclined is that youth for conservation of natural resources. Since the 1990s materialism has risen in our youth while conservation has diminished. Youth constantly regard government to be responsible for conservation but not them personally. Evidence indicates that the attitude of our youth tend to mirror the attitudes of the White House. Conservationism was most highly regarded during Carter’s administration and it declined significantly during the Reagan administration. It picked up somewhat during the Clinton administration. The good news is that when governments respond positively to conservation so does youth. The bad news is that when the White House responds negatively to conservation so do the youth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned
|
It's true that in our general culture most people are stupidly materialistic...
But the world is not being destroyed by "depletion of resources," by any means. That's all ignorant hysteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
That's an interesting atricle to note though. I'm curious as to how much codependence the youth actually has on government and the government on the youth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Ugh, must join up to read article. Boo. Too lazy.
What exactly was meant by conservationism? Conservative political ideas? Conservation of nature? |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
|
Conservatism and conservationism are quite different. Yes, it means conversation of nature.
Quote:
In any case, young people are of course inclined to think in ways that benefit them in the short-term. Materialism is near-instant gratification, whereas conversationism is an effort to maintain the planet for future generations (very indirect gratification if any). It certainly doesn't mean those people won't start caring more in the future, it just means conversationism has gotten old.
__________________
hehe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
Quotes from article: According to data from Monitoring the Future, a federally funded national survey on trends in the attitudes, values and behavior of high school seniors since 1976, there has been a clear decline in conservation behavior among 18-year-olds over the past 27 years -- although we are not yet sure whether these attitudes follow youths into adulthood. This decline, interestingly, is coupled with a rise in materialistic values. Indeed, environmental attitudes of youth seem to mirror the opinions of those in the White House at the time. The highest levels of conservation occurred in the mid- to late 1970s, at the same time President Jimmy Carter was publicly petitioning citizens to take individual responsibility for conserving resources. The steepest decline in conservation occurred during the Reagan administration, which has been widely criticized for its environmental policies. Willingness to conserve enjoyed a slight surge around 1992-93, when Bill Clinton first took office, but this increase was short-lived. (Al Gore must not have been speaking up too loudly about the environment back then.) Laura Wray is a graduate student and Constance Flanagan a professor of youth civic development at Pennsylvania State University. They work with the MacArthur Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood in mapping the attitudes of young adults. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
I'm somewhat dubious about the connection between materialism and conservationism... I'd like to see it conclusively ruled out that the two main effects aren't happening due to differing causes, and that they exhibit an interaction. It doesn't seem clear at all to me that the problem lies within the youths (that when youths become materialistic, they somehow stop thinking about conservationism), it may well exist in the prevailing attitudes of the time, and the youths' susceptibility to those (ie simultaneous attitudes that happen to negatively correlate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: awsome
Posts: 2,946
|
Correlation.
Causation. Yeah.
__________________
hehe |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Yeah, the world's going to hell in a handbag. Damn youngsters. "Shonny, when I wash young"...wait, I'm still young.
I see conservation as a hopeless cause. This doesn't mean that I'm against it. I don't want to see the world turn into a vaste garbage heap, but the very act of living destroys something. Humans just happen to destroy a lot. But they also create a lot while they're doing it. No, the highway's not as pretty as the woods, but you can get from point A to point B because of that highway. Sure, those woods aren't holding wild animals for us to eat and kill, but we've got farms there now, and farming is sustainable, although not nearly as beautiful. I've been thinking lately about how in order for humans to develop at all, we put order into everything around us. Everything we rely on has got to be controlled, or else we die. Death = bad. Them's the breaks. And controlling things means destroying/changing them. I don't know whether I'm materialistic or not. I've certainly got no collection of things or money, although I appreciate technology enormously, and I also like art, in all it's forms. But art's materialistic. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|