what do you mean "we"?

I've been thinking how to talk about disagreeing. Arguing. Criticising. Guilt tripping. 

Someone asked a while back "why environmentalists don't talk about population" and many of us responded "which environmentalists? I do"

Our language is clumsy with its single YOU, though we could bring back THOU. But English never had different WEs for
1) you and I (sorry thou and I) and
2) Us lot (unspecified probably) 

So it's easy to manipulate our feelings and polarise us between US and THEM.

So as this is the personal is ecopsychological - do I talk about population? 

Would I try and dissuade someone considering a third baby? Difficult. But so is questioning friends who fly several times a year. Challenging allies who drive their dog to the riverside in their SUV for its walk. 

I'm trying to do it though, just by raising the issues and then trying to listen, being less attacking.

And do "WE" support coercive measures to limit population? Well we aren't coercing flyers and drivers and general overconsumers are "WE"

The way to curb population growth is by empowering women, educating girls. And free access to safe appropriate contraception and abortion of course. 

So lets practice constructive disagreement.

This is getting a bit incoherent, probably it's two posts scrambled together. I'll stop now. And hope somebody argues with me :-) Please.

Comments

[Janice]

There are so many issues like the population one. I think 'we' tend to judge others based upon what we do ourselves. I don't own a car, but of course a lot of environmentalists do, and sometimes I can't help seeing the contradiction in that. On the other hand, I'm a meat-eating parent of two who would like more children, and I know that some would frown upon that.

If we realise this we can overcome being judgemental, and talk about the issues without placing blame. That's what I aim for anyway :)

[Medusa X]

Yes. If we can talk honestly about the things we ourselves find difficult and give each other space to think.

[Ann Jarnet]

I am glad you raised this, Medusa, as I am having thoughts similar to yours in recent days. I did not own a car for 30 years and then bought one when I retired and move to a rural area with no public transit. Said car is not liking the -32 degrees celcius weather we have had for 4 nights in a row and is wanting to be warmed up before I undertake any journey, i.e., idling for about 10 minutes and using precious fossil fuel during the process. I alternate between guilt and the need to be warm and for the systems in my car to function properly. I remember being pretty self-righteous when I was in "one less car" mode; I also remember being questioned, "why aren't you buying a hybrid car?", "why are you moving to a rural area?" and all the usual questions coming from the type of person I used to be...

Then, the population issue. I am teaching an applied ethics course this term and one of the issues of interest to me is population ethics, without knowing too much about this. I ran into a concept which was new to me in name but familiar to me in thought: the repugnant conclusion. Central to that is the idea that some lives might be worth more than other lives, something I find intolerable. How to debate, discuss such an idea? Where is the possibility of finding common ground? No matter how honest we can be on some issues, it seems we will always be at an impasse....

Thanks for your thought-provoking post...

[Medusa X]

thanks Ann, lovely to hear from you, I'm still muddling along trying to engage without aggression but with passion (or something)

Food for thought as always, miss your posts, I'm glad your still teaching.

I tried to read up about the repugnant conclusion and found it basically nonsense, postulated as a sort of philosophical thought experiment like Schrodinger's Cat and then taken seriously as a practical proposition. But philosophy isn't my strong point.

I'll stop here, maybe it's a whole other post...