This semester, we have covered a variety of sustainability-related works in our class touching on a range of topics from a watershed in Iowa to the ice deposits on the moon. Although each piece served its purpose for our class, there were two specific works we covered that particularly caught my attention when it came to the question of, where the fate of the world stands. In enrolling in this class, this was the question that I was most interested in getting to the bottom of.
In the reading, “Our planet is not doomed. That means we can and must act” by Dagomar Degroot, the author speaks on the dangers of climate “doomism” as it has become the default perspective of most people when they think of the Earth’s future. He goes on to share that doomism only stifles progress in the movement toward a stable climate because people have already given up hope. The primary argument he is making here is that because change is still possible and we have not passed the point of no return, the fight is still worth fighting.
Conversely, in Greta Thunberg’s short film, “Our Relationship with Nature is Broken” she presents her argument differently. Just by comparing the titles of the works, Thunberg introduces her case in a much more negative and urgent manner by saying “Our relationship with nature is broken”, which allows the viewer to assume one question before even watching the film: can it even be repaired? Furthermore, when looking at Degroot’s title we can see that the argument is presented in a more optimistic light by saying “Our planet is not doomed”.
Although Greta ultimately makes a very similar case to Degroot in the overall message of her film, the way she delivers it, not only in the title, may deter people from joining her in her efforts to counteract the damage made to the planet. As Degroot says in his article, when addressing the fate of the planet coming from a doomism perspective only discourages people because they believe the fight has already been lost, which I believe is what Thunberg did in her short film. There was an eeriness to the message she presented which brought on a feeling of guilt and panic for me as a viewer. In my opinion, invoking an audience to feel this way will not make them want to move forward with any cause you are trying to promote.
As I analyzed the delivery and presentation of each work, I asked myself, which was more effective at prompting me to make a change? I think the answer to that is quite clear by now. Degroot’s optimistic outlook on the future of the planet and reassurance that we still have time to repair the damages done made me feel positively about the future of our planet. Knowing there is a brighter future ahead makes me want to be a part of building that future and continuing the fight for sustainability. In contrast, I could certainly see how Thunberg’s delivery may be more effective in prompting change in others because it creates a sense of urgency that may encourage people to act as soon as possible. Although this may be productive for some, I would much rather be motivated by positive reinforcements for building a renewed and replenished future for our planet than by negative ones that are fueled by the fear and distress of the public.