The original No Impact men

After my post about Kant and No Impact, an assistant professor of philosophy at Indiana State University, Brian Morton, wrote me a very long email telling me what he thought philosophers from Locke to Sartre would think of the No Impact Experiment. Fascinating! This post is my edited summary of what Brian had to say about the intersection of some of the thinkers and No Impact. Any grammatical errors belong to me. Comments in square brackets are mine.

Confucius focuses on living the life of virtue, and he firmly believes that one person being virtuous can induce others to imitate them. Indeed, his recipe for political change is for good private people to do right until rulers decide to imitate them, and then many, many people will imitate the rulers, and the government will be reformed…For Confucius, the key virtue is benevolence, or humaneness (jen) and it is about being genuinely human, and caring for all other humans.

Confucius would approve of setting up rules to prevent Americans from taking more than their fair share. He would suggest that these rules could be enforced by being made to seem part of politeness. If we treated excess as being vaguely impolite, people would start conforming to austerity more. Confucius is also a big fan of frugality.

Aristotle believed that the key virtue is prudence (sophrosyne) or the wise balancing of many competing interests. Each moral vice always has its opposite flavor on the other side of the mean. Eating too much, so that it harms you health is the vice of gluttony. Eating too little so that your health suffers is over-strictness. Thus, the key virtue of prudence typically manifests as moderation of action.

Aristotle says little of environmentalism, but if he saw a culture where people spent natural resources too freely, he would condemn it as a moral vice, comparable to being spendthrift and urge moderation of action. Indeed, he’d be a little more censorious of others than No Impact Man has been.

But how much spending is too much spending is something that rules can never really do justice to. It takes a human using wisdom or common sense to decide on a case by case basis. Rules are just substitutes for judgment that can be useful guidelines, but are by their nature never quite as appropriate to the situation as a wise human’s judgment.

Aquinas believed that voluntary poverty [and more moderately self-restraint? NIM] is the foundation of perfect love. It is a quite different thing from involuntary poverty which is spiritually dangerous because humans will be tempted to do bad things to escape it. But choosing to be impoverished [or to restrain one’s consumption? NIM] for the sake of love that is a special thing for those in special walks of life.

Aquinas also has a famous doctrine called double effect. What do you do when an action will have both good and bad consequences, like NIM’s breaking his no buying anything new rule to buy sticky putty for the poster? Aquinas says that this is OK sometimes, but there are lots of restrictions.

You have to intend the good part and merely allow the bad part (if you knew a way to get the good without the bad or some comparable bad, you would take that). The action can’t be intrinsically wrong in anyway, but can only be wrong through its effects (a lie to do good wouldn’t pass this hurdle). The hoped for good must be enough to compensate for the bad. The hoped for good must be at least as causally proximate as the bad (you can’t do a bad thing now, in hopes that a good will come of it later, the good and bad must be together).

==========

By the way, Plug It Out!--Unplugged in NYC and Beyond, which promotes collective monthly unplugged days is having its fourth monthly unplugging event on Saturday. To join in or read more go here.

Comments

[Lori V.]

Confuscius say, "Great post, Colin... thank you for sharing!" ;-)

[Kay Mcleish]

The philosipher Bertrand Russell distinguished between two opposing types of human "goods". Firstly, there are those kinds of benefits and pleasures which by definition exclude others( for example the private ownership of land ). Secondly, there are which are non-exclusive( such as the enjoyment derived from poetry). This may seem very obvious; but it is very pertinent to many aspects of environmentalism.For example, by using so many non-renewable resources now, we are depriving future generations of benefits.

[Rhett (Greentime)]

I'd actually like to read the entire email, as I'm an amateur student of philosophy myself. Is there any way I could get my hands on it?

[critic-naysayer]

Colin,

I see your panhandling efforts have been erased from today's posting, but you haven't responded to the questions about them. I have noticed that issues of wealth and class have come up numerous times on this blog and you respond like a, well, spoiled brat. First you requested an unpaid intern, now you just want cold hard cash.

This blog has helped me trim my energy usage a bit, and I appreciate the green office supply link. But I think it is very important that you remember who you are, financially, in the context of the rest of the world. You and your wife are clearly well-educated, travel, have a house cleaner, daycare, couple's therapist, and enjoy fine dining and designer clothes. And you are asking for money??? I thought part of your plan was to be GIVING money to charities...

You are truly priveledged to be able to live in NYC and eat locally out of the Union Sq. farmer's market. Most people cannot afford organic vegetables and artisinal butter. Not to mention get paid for eating it. And (again) you are asking for money? And taunting true homesteaders that participate on your blog? Wow.

It is great that you have 'reformed' your carbon footprint, but it is so sad that it took a bookdeal to do it. Most of us have been doing these things for YEARS because we care and are motivated by our beliefs. Your project more closely resembles "The Simple Life" than "An Inconvenient Truth". It will take a long time to balance out your years of $15 breakfasts, take out dinners, spending $25 (in a day?!) at Starbucks and the drycleaning bills. And (again) you are asking for MONEY???

I highly suggest that you get your unpaid intern to do some economic research. Take a look at some black and white facts of what the average family lives on, and the work it takes to maintain that level of life. Figure out what income percentile you and Michelle are ranked in. I guarentee you it will be at least the top 5%. And (again) you are asking for....

[Cat]

Wow, what a pile on. Poor Colin.

He has not violated any of his self-imposed guidelines for "no impact" living by asking for donations.

When did he say that he was limiting his income opportunities in solidarity with impoverished people of the world who have no choice about their "low impact" lifestyle? When, in fact, did he say that he was opposed to maximizing his income from this project?

His experiment incites strong feelings in those who hear about it--either positive or negative. Those who are passionately excited about what he's doing may have placed Colin atop a pedestal of their own projected, idealized vision of the experiment.

Most people with the traffic of his blog sign up for ads that divert income to the blogger. He decided not to do that (perhaps because the ads would promote consumerism), but has opened the floor for donations.

At best, Colin can be viewed as trying to do right by his family in attempting to maximizing his income--seizing the moment--during what may be a very temporary period of popular interest in his work; at worst, he can be viewed as acting in poor taste by overtly asking for support.

If you do not want to donate to No Impact Man, then don't. That's all.

[Brian M]

Rhett, yes I will forward you a copy of the email if you e-mail me first. I don't put my email addy places like this because of bots, but go to indstate.edu look for the philosophy department and my e-mail.

Critic-naysayer - I think your worry is a very serious one. A lot of the best work in helping people live more sustainable lifestyles seems aimed at guilty-feeling liberals who make a lot of money. My family makes right at the US median household income, and a lot of the systems currently in place just aren't very helpful to us. But they're trying. Other bits are helpful to us despite not being so well-off. Come up with helpful advice for how to put your lifestyle where your values are that apply to folk less well off than Colin. Read Amy Dacyczyn. Naysaying criticism is a good step one, step two is helping come up with a better approach.

[Michelle Verges]

Thanks for the follow-up post to this philosophical inquiry.

I was particularly struck by Aquinas' double-effect phenomenon. It reminded me of something I recently learned about at a psychology conference. Researchers at the University of Arizona asked the question of how people would respond if their advocate (i.e., NIM) admitted to breaking the group's moral code (i.e., buying putty given the rule not to buy new products).

Turns out, this produces what psychologist call "cognitive dissonance," which means that the group members experienced some kind of negative tension in discovering their leader was not leading the way.

What was most interesting to me was that the researchers found that these group members INCREASED their beliefs about the issue. It was as though they were compensating for the fact their leader had broken the group's moral code.

I also thought it was very cool to know that "cognitive dissonance" may be elicited from other people's actions. So the implications are broader; cognitive dissonance is not just about experiencing an internal conflict in the absence of a social context.

(Ok, I'm a geek and a psychologist. Go figure!)

:0)
Michelle

[Crunchy Chicken]

Along the lines of Plug It Out! (sort of):

I just posted a new challenge that will begin next month. It's called the Local Food Month challenge. The goal is to eat more local, organic foods and limit your dependence on packaged, imported food.

If you liked Low Impact Week and are interested, come check it out!

Thanks, Colin!

[Sharon Astyk]

Personally, I wasn't offended by Colin asking for money - I was offended by the claim that we country folk should donate charitably to poor hardoworking him, since we've got all this land and leisure to farm with, and all he's got is an apartment on 5th avenue, the stable of now out of season prada shoes and his free solar panels.

I also kind of object to the notion that my growing an extra crop, preparing the soil, planting, weeding, harvesting and selling it is just like putting your hand out for donations.

The donation thing just seemed cheesy.

Sharon

[critic-naysayer]

Yes Cat, it is in very very poor taste for Colin to solicit financial support. And no, he's not breaking any of his 'rules'. His actions are, quite simply, hypocritical and graceless. I too have asked strangers for money-- when I was homeless. Sharon's blog, Casaubon's Book, has a critique that may be more to your liking. Hey, I get ticked off when people judge my friends too.

I do think that Colin should take a personal look at where he rates financially before asking others for money. I would feel pretty silly asking someone who made half of what I make to contribute to my artistic endeavors, wouldn't you? Especially if I had chosen, until recently, to squander every penny (they had no savings) on pricey meals and clothes. Please, let us all remember the pre NIM shopping spree that included not one, but two pairs of Chloe boots. And he wants me to give him money? Wow.

Brian M., thanks for not flipping out on my contrarian point of view. I read an Amy Dacyczyn article and will be passing her name and newsletter on--she is great! As for what goes on in my household and life, we do most of the things mentioned on this blog. And have been, for a very long time. We also cultivate and donate large amounts of organic vegetables to the two local food pantries. For me, outreach and charity are where its at.

Perhaps Colin can redeem himself by including charitable links to non-profits like the Heifer Fund, an amazing organization. My local favorite is www.seedsofsolidarity.com. Check it out. And Cat, I won't be giving money to Colin, but I hope there is some way I can persuade you (and Colin) to give to one of these targeted effectual groups that are changing people's lives who have little to nothing.

[dura mater]

Guys,
Go easy on Colin! What is wrong with asking for money? He is not coercing you. If you think he shouldn't be given money, don't give him any. But there is no reason to be hateful about it.

Also, believe it or not, many websites have a button you can click on to donate. They don't rake it in, but someone must donate, or they wouldn't be there. I was horrified when my 13-year-old son added a "donations" button to his anime translation website, and he showed me a bunch of others (about Star Trek, Star Wars, Yugioh, Naruto & various other 13-year-old boy-type subjects) with similar buttons. To my (I think) relief, no one has donated to his site. . .

Buuutttt, both my son & Colin do a heck of a lot of work for their sites/blogs. Sure, this is part of what will ultimately be Colin's book, for which he will get paid, but the blog is something additional, that he chose to do. If we were reading his writings anywhere else, a book, magazine, newspaper or anything, we would have to pay for it. So, give the guy a break.

Also, with regard to the "greener than thou" intimations I am picking up in some comments, remember, you may have been doing for your whole life the no-impact things Colin has only been doing for a few months, but he has brought attention to them. That is of great value, in spreading the word. Keep in mind that our goal is not to be better than each other, but to make the world better. (This reminds me of the parable of the workers, a bunch day-laborers who were hired to work in the fields. One group worked all day, one for about half of the day, and one for only an hour or so. They all got paid the same. Naturally, the longer-working ones were mad. The master explained that it doesn't matter how long they worked, and that they agreed to work for a certain wage when they were hired, and the fact that others got the same wage for shorter work is irrelevant. Though Jesus was talking about salvation, I think this holds true for other work as well. Our wage will be an intact Earth.)

So lets try to behave toward Colin in a Kantian manner, in ways that we would will he behave toward us!

[Patricia]

Educated by Dominicans, I was pleased to see St Thomas Acquinas mentioned. His ideas have been used to justify a "Just War" ( I always had problems with this, feeling that no war was just) and also the Catholic teaching on no contraception (also had problems with that!).

A more simple test is to ask yourself the question "Where is Love in this?"

[Margarita]

Didn't there used to be a link to Casaubon's Book (Sharon Astyk) on the NIM website? I could have sworn I had seen one over on the left-hand side under the blogroll.

[Justin Simoni]

Weird - no one has yet thought of Thoreau? If anything, he was the first white New England NIM :)

Some of his writings on, "Stuff" are pretty interesting.

[Cat]

Okay, tell me again why Colin shouldn't accept donations?

After all, he's not proclaiming like some television evangelist:

"I need your money or else my low impact ministry, and possibly my family, will suffer horribly and possibly die,"

and he is not saying,

"If you do not donate to me, you are against the low impact experiment,"

or even,

"In order to view my posts, you must first register and pay a low, one-time membership fee of $9.95."

He has not ever stated that he *needs* money, or urged those of you with fewer financial resources than he to supplement his lifestyle.

He is a writer by trade. He states at the end of a post,

"By the way, if you like this post and would like to support my work, you can do so financially by clicking here or in non-financial ways by clicking here. And thank you!"

Will you donate money? That's your choice and you can base it on the criteria of your choosing.

But if you're saying he shouldn't even accept underwriting because he's not poor enough for your liking, then that's just sour, holier-than-thou, grapes.

[Heather G]

Hmm, I've only read through the comments on this post, but the negative ones (re: donations) have said Colin was being tasteless for asking, for the most part -- hardly "hateful". That seems a bit strong, even in defense of someone you like. It is hardly as if they've said they don't like him and won't read his blog anymore.

As for the blog being extra, that simply isn't so. It's part of getting the word out about the project, and it's part of how he is engaging people and getting help with learning about options in living a lower impact life. It is one of his tools for making sure the project is successful.

And there is nothing wrong with that -- makes perfect sense to tap into the vast pool of experience that is out there. But it isn't "extra". It's part of the project, and has been at the least since the interviews earlier this year.

If people want to donate, that's certainly up to them. Just know that a lot of other people put a lot of time into research and such for the essays and information they post on their web sites as well, so he isn't unique in this effort -- just one of the highest profile ones.

Nothing wrong with that either -- this is the sort of effort that needs all the attention it can get! The more opportunities for people to come across ideas on having a lower impact on the environment, the more likely that they'll adopt at least some of them, and that's a good thing.

[Susan Och]

A poker player once told me: "I don't play for the money. I play to be the winner. Money is just a way of keeping score."

Colin, you really don't need more money, but you seem to want it, or at least the validation that comes with having people give money to you. I wonder where that came from? Is your project not satisfying enough on its own? Is Michelle's 401k growing faster than yours? Did someone else get a better book deal?

You don't seem to realize that many of your readers have given up much in the way of cashflow, professional recognition, and financial security in order to lessen our impact for the rest of our lives, not just a year. Your project, and the publicity around it, is sometimes interesting and sometimes insulting to lifetime environmentalists. That's OK. Reading of your exploits makes me realize just how well-off I am, even if my bank balance is tiny.

[Victor]

My view of it is this. If someone writes a book about how everything should be free, then they should be able to expect to get paid for it, or at least to ask for donations. I can write about Stalinism without endorsing it, for example. But if that same someone writes a book about how everything should be free and also holds themselves up as an example of said philosophy, and then asks for donations, then that is hypocritical. That is what I object to here.

Colin isn't just expounding a philosophy, he's holding himself up as an example of it; he's trying to embody it. The blog isn't called "No Impact Philosophy", it's called "No Impact Man."

If he needs donations in order to maintain his lifestyle, then that lifestyle is unsustainable, and he ought to acknowledge the fact. If he doesn't need donations in order to sustain his lifestyle, then why is he asking for them? It is my understanding of his philosophy that accumulating more wealth for its own sake is frowned upon. If this accumulation is for a specific reason, then the question of how sustainable this lifestyle is arises again. If he is not using the donations for personal gain, and instead using them to further his efforts of restoring damage to the environment, then why does the money have to go through him first? Wouldn't it be just as environmentally helpful, if not more, for him to encourage readers to donate directly to a charity with such goals instead?

As for support of the blog, it should be pointed out that he has a book and movie deal out of this already (although I do not know the specific terms of each.) Moreover, how much does it cost to run the blog? If he came out and said "It costs x dollars a day to keep the blog up, and I will keep it up as long as I can based on donations" that would be a different matter entirely.

Simply put, I have no problem with Colin asking for donations. I have a problem with Colin presenting himself (and profiting; see book and movie deal) as an exemplar of a philosophy, of a way of life, and then acting contrary to that in his search for donations predicated on his adherence to that way of life. I'm not saying that he shouldn't accept donations, I'm saying that by doing so he is hypocritically undermining the philosophy he advocates and attempts to embody.

[Gwyn]

I bet you are wishing, Colin, that you never allowed comments on your blog!

[Liz]

The folks at Path to Freedom began accepting donations recently. But they very clearly lay out why, and are tracking how far they are from their goal. Because otherwise, why would anyone be compelled to donate money to folks who are living (and espousing) a self-sufficient lifestyle?

Colin, I personally don't care that you're asking for donations, that was not what Sharon and I asked. We asked "WHY?". I think if you are participating in a lifestyle that is "no impact" (and indirectly encouraging others to reduce their impacts), and one day you hold your hand out for money, your readers deserve to know why you need those extra funds. If the website is too expensive to maintain, ask for help with that. But a blanket request, coming from a guy living on 5th Avenue, is in poor taste.

Also, it's a shame you took down Sharon's link. She is one of the few spokeswomen for the Peak Oil movement, and not only is her work serious and important, but she also lives in accordance with her values (and when she doesn't she lays it out there... red popsicles for her son come to mind). It's not easy being green (as you may be discovering) and it's important to hold each other up to a form of "peer review": checking our inconsistencies so that we may better our messages.

Perhaps your lashing out at Sharon and myself (you still haven't responded to our comments, btw) comes from a deep-seeded resentment of what you call "country bumpkins". We can't all be city slickers, Colin. Someone needs to grow the food you buy at the farmers market. And while I may not be that someone yet, I am building my farm so that someday I can be.

A "putterer" can't do that.

[critic-naysayer]

Thanks for the Path to Freedom link! I return to this website for bits of information like that. I too am sad to see Casaubon's Book, which I first found here, mysteriously deleted. Wouldn't it be great if someone created a blog clearinghouse that included all of these people and nonprofits in an unedited way that wasn't driven by self-promotion?

Personally, although I don't feel a connection or commonality with Colin, I do with many people who respond. That is why I return to this blog, which is basically one long infomercial for Colin's book and film. I like the blog connections that Colin has posted and unfortunately deleted. Remember the Gawker links he deleted? They were so funny! Anyway, of all the amazing people's blogs (linked on this one), I haven't seen one panhandling. I'm just saying....

[Cat]

Okay, I promise that this will be the last of my comments on the topic of Colin's underwriting.

I am just having a hard time with this argument that increasing one's wealth goes against the values of the No Impact project.

Making more money by way of *squandering resources* goes against the values of the No Impact project, but this is not the case here.

The fact is that people are making a lot of assumptions about Colin. I also think people are envious: "Hey! How come he gets money and attention for doing something I've been doing for so long?!"

Some people hit upon ways to spark intense popular interest, and some don't. I think his responsibility is in staying true to the goals of his project. He's reading and living and learning about a no impact lifestyle, and telling people about what he learns. It's a one-year, full-on radical change in his life that will no doubt leave a lasting impact on him, but remember that it's a one year project, and it's a book. He's a writer who makes money researching topics and writing books about them.

Colin has delved into his current topic idea head-on. It is fascinating to me in the way that the series I've watched on PBS, such as "Frontier House" and "Colonial House" are fascinating to me. If you are not familiar with these programs (and there are more than these two), just google them and read about modern day families attempting to live radically different lives for several months at a time. The No Impact movie--which I believe is a documentary--might do well packaged as another PBS series along these lines, aka "No Impact House". I would watch with my entire family, and my children could experience it versus me reading a book and telling them about what I read, or trying to find the documentary somewhere.

But I digress. Again, how does increasing his wealth in a "no impact" way go against the values of the no impact project?
I think it's in poor taste to scold him for having too much money--which has nothing to do with the project.

p.s. I'm eagerly awaiting a review of the Chillow from Colin's dad. He can contact me via the comments in my blog (click on my name).

[Deb G]

I think there are two separate issues here. One is the request for donations, the other is how it was done and the comments that were first made by Colin. What I'm struck by is that sometimes the written word is harder to interpret than a face to face conversation. Maybe I'm not good at reading between the lines, but I looked and looked at Colin's responses and wondered, "Does he mean to be that sarcastic or is he trying to be funny?" I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt for now.

There are always going to be questions about the motivation for NIM and really I don't care what the motivation was. As long as more people are moving towards being sustainable and as long as the movement gets out in to the mainstream and becomes a part of our culture, rather than a fad. What I do want to know is whether this project is sustainable without donations? What I do care about is respect.

[Robyn M.]

I have been a moderator for BBSes/Chat rooms/mailing-lists/forums/blogs etc. for 20 years now in various ways and I will tell you over and over again, these venues attract people with chips on their shoulder you want to start a fight, but they also attract earnest people trying to discuss things honestly. The lack of facial expressions and tone of voice cues makes it very difficult to gauge emotional tone. Light-hearted looks condescending sometimes, defensive looks angry, hurt looks envious, interested looks greedy, etc. Face to face or over the phone we could tell which is really going on easily; over the typed word it's much harder. It is so easy for these to spiral out of hand and wreck things. I have seen so many productive discussions derailed and wrecked by this stuff over the years. The computerized media are such powerful tools for networking and discussion, linking farmers, journalists, housewives and professors from all over the country in interactive dialogue, but it is so easy for emotional tone issues to wreck it.
-Brian M, (on his wife's account)

[Victor]

"Again, how does increasing his wealth in a "no impact" way go against the values of the no impact project?"
-Cat

If the money he accepts in donations was obtained via activities with a negative impact on the environment, then he is negatively impacting the environment in just the same manner as if he had kept the new, unread books that he got rid of at the start of the project, or accepted the donation of items like rainforest-raised beer. The point is that unless all of the donations come from people leading "No Impact" or "Positive Impact" lifestyles, he is going counter to his previously stated philosophy.