Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex, Rock 'n' Roll and Global Warming

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted August 3, 2007.


If the Live Earth concerts are to continue, they ought to evolve to serve the transformation not just away from consumer society but toward a culture where we dance and sing and find our bling in things that are healthy for us and the planet.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Can globally synchronized music concerts change the world? Was Al Gore's Live Earth extravaganza worth its cost in carbon emissions? Since the July 7 event, a number of commentators have groused about the carbon footprint of the events, the lack of focus on measurable goals and the inherent wastefulness of mega-stars who fly their bloated entourages around in private jets.

These complaints are all valid enough, but the organizers also never claimed the concerts to be anything more than the launch of a public education campaign about global warming. In the long run, however, the organizers have extremely outsize ambitions. They hope the Live Earth concerts will have been the tipping point for a transforming change in consciousness. The proof of this concept, that a global entertainment event can start a revolution, will only be available as time shows us how Live Earth has impacted mass consumer culture.

Preliminary returns are not greatly encouraging if you go by such barometers as People magazine. People's story on Live Earth, wedged into the back half of the July 23 issue, ran barely 250 words with a scant half dozen pictures. The article's main point was that the music "helped the medicine go down." These are not words to start a revolution.

Dissecting the rest of this issue of People shows you what the problem is. From the cover story, "The World's Richest Teens," to the multi-page spread on the million dollar Eva Langoria-Tony Parker wedding, it was all about bling. Clearly, to save the planet, we'll have to find other role models than the winners of the most lavish wedding competition.

But according to culture experts, we'll never separate the people from their bling. Dr. Matt Prescott, in a column for the BBC News titled: "Sex Sells, But at What Cost?," argues global warming and other environmental ills are just a side effect of our need to impress the opposite sex with our conspicuous consumption. The fast car, the big house and the endless parade of fashion are hardwired into us.

Prescott explains: "In early human societies, people were able to compete in non-lethal ways by collecting beautiful objects such as feathers, unusual pebbles or animal skins ... Now that we have succeeded in harnessing the world's fossil fuel reserves, our brains' fixation on visible status symbols has become something of a hindrance ...."

That is putting it mildly!

Dr. Prescott is head of the British "Ban the Bulb" campaign that seeks to ban the incandescent light bulb and replace it with much more energy-efficient compact fluorescents. It is important, he says, to know ourselves, to know we have a deep-seated need for status and security that often makes it impossible for us to think rationally about resource use. He recommends we start small in changing people's behavior. He says easy first steps like changing light bulbs can "help us to feel secure about our social status, foster a sense of achievement and encourage changes in everyday activities."

Changing light bulbs becomes less like medicine and more like bling. The new light bulbs transform into jewels you can add to your low-carbon crown.

One of the reader comments on Prescott's story also caught my eye. Colleen Sudekum of San Francisco, California wrote:

Fast cars and conspicuous consumption are definitely part of sexual display. But we females choose our males based on what we consider best for long term relationships and families. Girls, we need to tell the guys with the hot cars that they aren't husband material, and we aren't impressed by this behavior. We did it once, when we chose men who weren't going to kill each other in sword fights, we can do it again. Choosing the guys who protect the future, even for that one night stand, is promoting your own welfare.

Though I'm not sure exactly what she is referring to regarding "sword fights," the idea of female solidarity to alter male status-seeking behavior is worth pursuing. In fact, I have just returned from the annual meeting of a consortium of feminist, peace and environmental groups that is focused on exactly this strategy.

The Up the River Endeavors consortium was founded six years ago to examine the root causes of poverty, violence and environmental catastrophe. The purpose of the consortium is not so much to issue reports or influence policy, but to help its member organizations think more deeply about their strategies. Each year the consortium invites a number of associates to add spice to their discussions. I was invited to attend as an associate this year, along with several other writers and an anthropologist.

The anthropologist was my friend Chris Knight, professor of anthropology at the University of East London, whom I have written about here. Knight is at the center of a group of anthropologists who have formed a very compelling theory about the origins of human culture that may have great relevance to the culture conflicts that will determine our future survival.

According to Knight and his colleagues, human culture was seeded by a particular bit of biology unique to humans: a menstrual cycle that is synched with the moon. With an average 29.5 day length, the human menstrual cycle corresponds exactly with the lunar cycle. In cultures all over the world, women are found to have synchronized their menstrual cycles with the moon and with each other. Menstrual synchrony gave early human females the power to regulate the larger social order by regulating sex.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: capitalism, consumerism, global warming, live earth

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl. Greg Bear, author of Darwin's Radio, says: "Primal Tears is primal storytelling, thoughtful and passionate. Kelpie Wilson wonderfully expands our definitions of human and family."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It was a slick, celebration of consumer culture, nothing more
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 3, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What struck me after the concert was watching all the brand new cars and SUVs driving away from the event. It made me reflect on how far society has to go to even come close to stop wasting so much energy. I love cycling and when it works well, have no problem with public transport. I have never owned a car and never will. I try to walk as much as possible. But as far as I can tell, me lifestyle and attitudes is shared by about 1 percent of the population in the western world. And that is a fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and sadly Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: and sadly Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: 1% ? If even that. Posted by: parmenicleitus
"the old days" weren't so idyllic
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 3, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people seem to have the wish that we go back to a supposed idyllic time when everyone "lived in harmony with nature" and everything was "a low carbon footprint" blah blah.

Let's move everything 100 years to, say, the year 1900. First of all, be prepared to take about 30 years off of your life expectency. Get diagnosed with diabetes? Too bad--give you about 6 weeks to live, there ain't no such thng as insulin. Be sure to pray your kids don't get exposed to diptheria, measles, or scarlet fever. About all the doctor can do is prescribe aspirin and cold packs. Diagnosed with cancer? Sorry no radiation or chemo to treat it. About all they can give you for the pain is opium. Your kidneys fail? No kidney machine. Your elderly parent has heart trouble, and the 100 degrees days in the summer are killing him. No fans or air conditioning. In the winter, the food gets pretty monotonous. No fresh fruits or vegetables. No electric stoves. To cook something you have to haul into the kitchen coal and get black coal dust over everything. You might have an icebox--be prepared to be constantly putting ice in it. If you forget to empty the drain pan you will have water all over the floor. And even with the ice the food preservation is only so-so.

I could go on, but I don't think many of us--especially the pampered people who put on the Live Earth concerts--care to go back to those days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reductionism is easy Posted by: MadFlacc
The most dopest.
Posted by: MadFlacc on Aug 3, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article really made me smile, not because I entirely agree with it but because it highlights the important things in life: sex, food, and music. The promise of eating good food, rocking out to the Mars Volta or whatever and getting naked with pretty girls is what gets me through the day - carbon footprints and global consciousness be damned.

And I'm all about matriarchal society. If there's one thing I can't stand as a male, it's this bizarre expectation that I'm supposed to dominate other males and take what's theirs - which includes their women. I'm sure that was a useful mechanism a couple evolutionary stages ago, but we're above that now... or at least we could be. It really makes me think less of a dude when he exhibits that kind of needless 'competitive' behavior, i.e in gyms where dudes are clearly trying to impress each other, on the street where many males make it a point of displaying some kind of "don't fuck with me" attitude by glaring and strutting, etc. Maybe if women ran things we wouldn't feel the need to show off & beat each other down all the time...

The quotation from the BBC article about conspicuous consumption reminds me of that Futurama episode about why humans shouldn't date robots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article but goes too far
Posted by: nlg108 on Aug 3, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really love the premise of this article, both with respect to the origins of some of our gender-related customs, and the way it explains how women truly played a central, controlling role in the shaping of human society in such fundamental ways. But I have a gripe, which is this article, like so many written by my brothers and sisters in the progressive community, argues too much and in the process risks losing some of its plausibility/credibility. For instance, the statement about declining life expectancy in industrialized countries -- I'd love to see some serious citations for that one; I'm dubious. Also, and perhaps this is just a stylistic thing, but I would prefer to see the author acknowledge that some of what is being conveyed is mere hypothesis -- the theories make a lot of sense to me, but they are just theories, and yet are phrased as if they were facts.

I just think we progressives would be far more effective in convincing some of our less progressive brothers and sisters if we took care to write our articles and arguments in a way that gives rise to greater credibility from the outset. I guarantee you that some who read this article, for instance, won't give it any credence whatsoever simply because of how things are worded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crock of Shit!
Posted by: vertical on Aug 3, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Live Earth Concert was a crock of shit. I can't imaine the environmental footprint from all the people that went to it, or how much jet fuel was blown taking those rockers to their gigs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kelpie (the author) once dared to promote ecologically-based birth control.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Aug 3, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two decades ago she used to write a great little column called "Little Poo Poo Head" in the Earth First! Journal back before the publication (and movement) was taken over by terminal political correctness.

In that column Kelpie, with gentle humor, exposed the folly of coercive pro-natalism.

Since then, she (like most environmentalists) has abandoned public oppostion to overbreeding. It's sad.

In those intervening 2 decades, over sixteen hundred million more humanoids have joined the insanity, with yet more billions on the way.

NO "alternatives" (of whatever kind) will enable our apex-techno-predator species to continue like this.

Kelpie, where's Little Poo Poo Head??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Garrett Hardin Posted by: parmenicleitus
» Nice work, Kelpie -- as always. Posted by: Pat Kittle
Note to writers:
Posted by: josh7337 on Aug 4, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You lose 100% credibility when you use "bling" in an article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]