We covered a lot of ground in a very short discussion of No Impact Man this morning! I wish we had even more time to talk about the issues raised in the movie.

Here are some of my thoughts, and I hope that you’ll post some of your own in comments (just click “leave a comment”–they can even be anonymous–and it counts toward class participation).

One of my thoughts early on in the movie is that Michelle (Colin’s wife) has a key role in the film. Since he’s the one that is committed to the change, she represents the internal conflict any of us might have when contemplating a lifestyle change.

But more than that, she represents something morally significant: a loss of liberty or individual choice. Any moral framework has to take a loss of liberty seriously. Even utilitarianism would have to weight the benefits of a low-carbon economy to the environment against both the good things that are produced by a high-carbon economy and the increased options we have in this economy. A utilitarian like Mill might argue that people OUGHT to change their life-styles to reduce consumption but also argue AGAINST any coercive measures that would force people to do so unwillingly.

One thing I liked in the movie was when Colin was asked whether he thinks individual action is important, especially considering that this experiment was no walk in the park. What he said was “It gets people to be engaged.” What does he mean by that?

Also, and working against depending entirely on individual action, he emphasized that collective action is vital. Many of the things we take for granted now, like recycling beverage bottles, would not have happened if there were not a deposit law in NY. Colin says that individual actions (like his) support collective action by building community. People can share ideas and can support each others’ endeavors. I want to point out: this is virtue ethics at work. Virtue ethics holds that the virtue of individuals is bound up with the virtue (virtuosity?) of their communities.

Random thoughts:

  • Technology is a big deal for No Impact Man. Some of it fails (the pot in the pot), some is lo-tech (the tricycle), some is hi-tech (the solar panel).
  • The sacrifices and the benefits are apparently not easy to anticipate, are inseparable from one another, and depend on perspective and attitude (the laundry scene).
  • Why did he and his wife get so much criticism? Someone said “What you’re doing is extremely dangerous.”

Finally, do you have any thoughts about how the issues in this movie map onto the (stereo)typical political spectrum? It strikes me that although there are some historical ties between liberals and the environmental movement, current environmental issues are post-political. That is, they raise some issues that are problematic for liberals and other issues that are problematic for conservatives.

Advertisement