In text 1, Written by Elizabeth Scott, we see her attitude towards Simple Living, which is most favorable. The idea was to pare down and get rid of all the extra”(line 3-4, page 1). She states that, by removing all that we think we need but don´t, we can focus on more important “stuff”, like stronger relationships, exercising and “utilize our natural gifts”, but also, by cutting down on the budget, save money in the process. Furthermore the simple lifestyle will help us find out “who we really are”. In the interview with Journalist Judith Levine (text 2), the attitude is generally the same – Simple living is good. She thinks that people in the US is to dependent on consumerism, in fact so much, that it is turning into a national identity. The massive consumption results in environmental degradation and substantial social divergence. Although being positive, there is a downside. “The assumption is that once you stop buying stuff, you´re going to start looking inward”(line 33, page 2). By not buying unnecessary items, the abstinence from the mentioned will become a “personal enterprise” like consumerism itself, therefore making it partly selfish. She says that only trough collective force and compulsory participation, national and international cooperation, and big policy solutions, the environmental and social problems can be solved. In the last text, text 3, the attitude changes course. Derrick Jensen says, that although taking private action towards global pollution is a good thing, the results are far from sufficient. He says, that personal change doesn´t equal social and political change, and that each individual are not responsible for our planet running out of resources. He doesn´t say that we should not live simple, but if we want to stop the pollution, we need to be a part of a political discussion towards reducing the many corporations CO2-emission, because they are the sinners. Does a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document