Perspective

As I mentioned in the previous post, as a part of the "No Impact Man" website, Colin Beavan posts his answers to viewers' questions and comments. I was particularly interested in his answer to one question that asked why he and his family didn't take public transportation (as quoted from his "No Impact Man" website):

“Yes, public transportation is wonderful and once the No Impact experiment is over, we'll probably use it, at least when it rains or snows. But it still has an impact, environmentally speaking, that is bigger than walking, biking or scootering.

"It seems extreme, I know, but we are trying to have as low a negative impact as possible. Also, one of the questions underlying the No Impact experiment is what do we really need? Our experiment is deliberately radical. What happens when you give up everything?

"The culture tells us we need so many things, so many comforts, so many services--just to get by. But do we? We are stripping down our life, seeing what we really miss, and at the end we'll very deliberately put it back together. Michelle [Colin Beavan’s wife] calls it a life redesign.”

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my previous post on “The 3 C’s”. Like Colin Beavan says, “our culture tells us we need so many things, so many comforts, so many services--just to get by. But do we?” Here Beavan questions the ways of our society, as I do. Is it really necessary for every person to have their own personal car? Is it really necessary to package everything plastic bags? Is it really necessary to constantly upgrade cell phones with a camera, an mp3 player, internet access, etc.?

However, Colin Beavan also presents us with another point of view on the topic of public transportation:

“On the other hand, if you follow the argument of Wharton Professor Karl Urich, each year of cycling increases the rider's health and therefore his or her overall life expectancy by 10.6 days. The extra environmental resources consumed by living those extra days negatively offsets the energy saved by pedaling your way around. In other words, Urlich argues, by cycling and scootering, Michelle and I will live longer and therefore ultimately hurt the environment. Oy vey! Yet another mistake!?”

I found this take on the issue to be very interesting because it reminded me of how situations can vary depending on how one perceives the situation. With this issue on public transportation, we have one situation where we analyze and calculate the immediate impact one has on the environment by utilizing public transportation, while the other situation deals with the predicted increased impact one would have from their expected increased survival. Which one is correct? Is there a right or wrong? Who is the one to draw the line between right and wrong?