Transforming Human Desires From Part Of The Problem To Part Of The Solution
. . . I think most environmentalists would identify human desires as a problem. In this view, people want more . . . more money, more toys, more fun activities. And almost all of it means more conservation problems as we use more resources to satisfy the wants.Powell goes on to talk about chef Barton Seaver who is trying to promote sustainable seafood using a different approach, one that harnesses desire on behalf of eating and enjoying fish (like sablefish) that are abundant and well-managed, rather than fish (like Chilean sea bass) that are scarce and endangered.
Do we really focus on trying to defeat human desires to achieve conservation? Yes, we do. We try, usually with minimal success, to scare or limit people to stop them from fulfilling their wants. We tell stories of impending crisis so they'll stop out of fear, or we try to make rules that stop the damage by denying people their desires. Conserve water or we'll run out and you won’t be able to flush your toilet! Stop driving your SUV or we'll all cook together on a warming earth! Etc., you've heard it before.
It's a reasonable way to go, but it isn't working. And perhaps even worse, it creates problems for the environmental movement. It casts us as the enemies of human desire, not a good role to be in. In fighting desire, we cast ourselves as grouchy preachers promising fire-and-brimstone for those who stray from the straight and narrow. That might be ok if it worked, but with this approach, our successes are often partial and short-lived. And it takes a toll on us; when we KNOW we're right but we still lose, our attitudes turn pessimistic, cynical or even bitter.
Of course Powell's overall point is well-taken and important. From a marketing standpoint, you never want to be in the position of defending negativity (fear, guilt, No) against positivity (optimism, pleasure, Yes). This is the mistake the Hillary Clinton campaign got boxed into a few weeks ago, when their candidate started mocking Obama's message of change and hope. Does Hillary really want to be identified as the "anti-hope" candidate? I don't think so.
Here is a crucial role for businesses involved in sustainability--to lead the quest for the right ways to market sustainable lifestyles and to make them feel cool, joyful, satisfying, luxurious, and self-indulgent. Because, let's face it, the vast majority of people in the developed world are not interested in developing new value systems (even if that might be a good idea). So our challenge is to show them how sustainable consumption fits into, expresses, and even fulfills their current value systems.
And after all, this is not really deceptive. Because, if we are going to frame the conversation in terms of "human desires," what do people actually want out of life? It certainly includes good food, cars, hot water for a shower, etc., etc. But it also includes clean air and water, thriving forests, vibrant coral reefs, abundant species, and all the other goods that only sustainability can guarantee to us and our grandchildren. Surely selling the fulfillment of such desires shouldn't be an insurmountable challenge for the greatest marketing civilization in the history of the world.
Labels: Barton Seaver, Blogfish, Mark Powell, Sustainable Consumption, sustainable fishing
Comments
Add a comment
By adrian2514, on April 2, 2008 8:01 PM

Thanks for the nice comments, Adrian. For other sources of information, start with the blogroll on the right-hand side of our site. These are all good sites, well-written, interesting, and current. Happy exploring!
By Karl, on April 3, 2008 12:05 PM

OK, Karl, I'll bite. You said, "So our challenge is to show them how sustainable consumption fits into, expresses, and even fulfills their current value systems."
Let's start with what you mean by "sustainable consumption". Care to explain?
Mark
By Mark W. McElroy, on April 4, 2008 9:22 PM

A big question. But here's a little answer: "sustainable consumption" = a pattern of consumption that, in the long run, doesn't deplete the overall resources of the planet and that therefore leaves future generations in at least as good an economic position as we enjoy.
By KW, on April 5, 2008 12:50 PM

"Contributive consumption" is another way to put it. The idea is on the right track. All of life is consumption (hence the term "food chain" before "circle of life" came into vogue), and we are wrong-headed to assume the ultimate goal of sustainability is to defeat consumption. Reduce it, sure; redirect it, even better; make it a process that gives back something of value to replace what it takes: bingo.
By Michael, on April 7, 2008 12:25 PM






Hey thanks for the great blog, I love this stuff. I don’t usually do much for Earth Day but with everyone going green these days, I thought I’d try to do my part.
I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming (I don’t plan on buying a hybrid). Has anyone seen that www.EarthLab.com is promoting their Earth Day (month) challenge, with the goal to get 1 million people to take their carbon footprint test in April?... I took the test, it was easy and only took me about 2 minutes and I am planning on lowering my score with some of their tips.
I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do. If you know of any other sites worth my time let me know.