For the seminar Visual Utopias: Dreams and Delusions, I had to write a response to several fairly open-ended questions concerning two chapters in the book Deep Economy. Since the book has sort of started a moral wildfire within me, the simple response turned into an accellerated heap of words, reaching several pages in length, and resulting in the analysis of my Internet life since fifth grade.
Deep Economy: A Close Reading and Critical Analysis
on Chapter One
I am a middle class, Caucasian American. Although I do not always consider myself a normal or average American, a piece or statistic of the economic masses, Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy has placed me in a pot of observance, where I wait simmering, attempting to digest, with expected depression, his points and volleys. What becomes important is not only the economy of the country—and further, the world—I live in, but the state of life on Earth as well.
In the first chapter McKibben reveals his thesis: there are three super-economic challenges that the world must first be aware of, and then face. These are: the state of economic inequality, the current use and depletion of energy throughout the world, and the lack of happiness that results from growth (11). While McKibben’s thesis is not fully explained through this introduction, it is the doorway to the provocative points, case studies, and findings that will accelerate to his conclusion, drawing relevance, interest, and involvement from the reader along the way. As the reader I find myself relating much of what McKibben states to my own life in some facet, and thus it is difficult to choose particulars that outweigh the others in terms of importance. But that is not to say choosing points that affect me the most is impossible. McKibben’s various statements on economics are not entirely of consequence to me. While the economic statistics—regarding both America as well as the globe—do have importance in terms of my family and future, I am drawn to alternative, less theoretical, less economically-abstract arguments.
One of these is focusing on the environment. Shortly after revealing his thesis, or plan for his novel, McKibben states, “Even before we run out of oil, we’re running out of planet” (18), and I, the reader, the white American, am concerned. Perhaps this is because my family has always advocated environmental safety, or perhaps my friends have always been those that live environmentally-conscious lifestyles. Whatever the case, McKibben uses many examples throughout Deep Economy to discuss Global Warming, oil depletion, and water depletion, on an “every man” level, bringing environmental destruction and abuse to doorsteps of relevance and small communities, including my own communities—Gorham, Maine, and Bristol, Rhode Island. McKibben’s detailed analysis presents two forms of environmental destruction: the incorrect use of materials in the environment, which is simply the “result from something going wrong,” and the subtle over-use of correct habits and processes throughout the environment (22). Attuned to philosophy and abstract insight when directly derived from surface-level, visual problems, I believe these two forms of destruction extremely important pieces of the global problem, pieces worth knowing about and understanding.
But McKibben makes an interesting point, one which arguably excites me more: people throughout the world do not consider the above destructions as a new problem; as humans who have had a long history of toil and struggle, we have not taken into the account that this problem should be treated differently from problems of the past (24). McKibben observes “utility maximization” (30), a theory arguing that humans make rational decisions in their lives. But he finds this suspicious, and after inspecting how, relevantly, behavioral economics work (31), utility maximization might not be based on rationalization at all (32), for there is always a force of control that is the production, the influence, of the above rational behavior.
Going back to the top, what are the implications of accepting environmental destruction? First, it will take a long time to accept the problem, because human beings will have to admit to themselves that they are at fault, or have made mistakes (potentially many). But once the state of the world’s environment is affected enough that humans are forced to address and accept the issues, the problems, and the mistakes, positive roads can be travelled upon. Books like McKibben’s are tools that can be used to help approach the issues gradually before the world reaches a state of irreparable quality. Additionally, accepting the second issue of environmental destruction, that which is much more subtle, it is implied that human beings can begin to look at alternative lifestyles and solutions, and if McKibben is correct, that is what we have needed since the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the rapid economic growth system was first initiated (8).
This theme of alternative movements can be traced to utility maximization and behavioral economics as well. How the average human lives is based on one ideology. What underlying forces, primarily economic, exist are based on one ideology. How average humans are controlled is based on one ideology. What? McKibben says that what worked in the past will continue to work in the future, and humans rely upon this philosophy: “Growth is always the final answer, the untrumpable hand” (13), but like the issues with the environment, if creative thinking is able to approach the previously-installed systems, what first must come is the admission to these systems, and everything negative lying beneath. Humans will have to gradually develop alternatives, many examples of which McKibben describes throughout the book, and at the same time will have to deal with moral and social repercussions: changes will have to be made.
What if changes are not made? What if problems are not addressed? If we reject the problems of the environment, including the depletion of fossil fuels, will force us: “the nature of our lives may fundamentally change as the scarcity wreaks havoc on our economies” (17). I have always believed that this planet is self-regulating. The planet will continue to exist after life ceases to exist here; it will be a different planet and undergo many changes (see Mars for example), but if we do not aid our planet in the course of aiding ourselves, we will be erased because of our own actions. The implications of rejecting the problems at hand not only reveal our weakness, it also accentuates what human beings, or the select few that do most of the political-economic controlling throughout the world, truly value. These values are not necessarily definable, and might not be measurable, although throughout the book McKibben incorporates various studies that attempt to define values, such as the scientific progress inspected by McKibben in regards to happiness (33), but with each movement in inequality, and each consistent step towards calling Global Warming a farce, or calling economic inequality a farce, just to name to examples, will reduce us to our moral core, and by then I believe we will be shriveled, completely unhappy beings. Through all my thoughts that McKibben has begun to cultivate, my mentality remains based on free-will. As much as the planet will regulate itself, the world in which human beings live is not a deterministic one. We have the ability to become aware and accept certain issues, and we also have the ability to throw issues in the trash—but the freedom, regardless of the inequality and environmental damage that is affecting us, is still there, and will exist until the world gets to a point where it is too late. Too late means we waited too long.
on Chapter Three
By approaching the current state of communities in America, McKibben creates and defines the term “hyper-individuality”: “We surrendered a fixed identity—a community, an extended family, deep and comforting roots—for, quite literally, the chance to ‘make something for ourselves.’ Now we create our own identities. We build from scratch the things our ancestors once took for granted . . . it is exciting, and it is lonely . . . Our affluence isolates us ever more” (96). What does one do with this backbone? McKibben believes that the nature of hyper-individualism we have designed for ourselves allows us, Americans, is a propelled force gathering momentum. Hyper-individualism allows Americans to hide life characteristics of the past and focus on life characteristics of the now that allows such problems as economic inequality to appear invisible: “Our commitment to this hyper-individualism allows us to tolerate, and even celebrate, inequality so gross that it’s almost as much farce as tragedy. The gap between the rich and everyone else is not a cause for concern, but for celebration; its beneficiaries are often hailed as our exemplars (106).
When thinking about hyper-individualism in my own life, I instantly trace my personal activities to the computer. The computer, and Internet in particular, becomes a pseudo-institution that is perhaps one of the prime mediums for the backbone of hyper-individuality—and I hardly mean that Internet users as conscious of their behavior and lifestyles as being negative. Take, however, my own life, as an example: in the fifth grade I began to use computers, and soon after began to use the Internet. It never seemed like a problem, and my mother constantly advocated it, as many other parents (who were able to afford computers) did to my friends. Before high school, the Internet allowed me a position as a “gamer” in American society (and beyond). Online gaming is of course ironic, as it brings together a “community” that kills one another. But most of my friends, regardless, were found on the gaming servers. Additionally, and perhaps more authentically, gaming forums existed online and were a way for peers of the gaming community to talk with one another, and not only about games. Everything from television to music to teen problems could be talked about. But everything seemed exaggerated, unreal—I knew I felt the imaginary quality every time I went outside to ride bikes with neighborhood friends. The difference could be felt—the emotions with the kids from the neighborhood were much more genuine, yet I still went back to the Internet because I had more freedom there—I did not depend on a limited number of neighborhood friends to be able to have fun, to have a community. There were always people on the servers. It should be noted that I still participate in online gaming today, although I have, through so many years of Internet use, gotten to a state of numbness where it is extremely difficult to find any sense of joy or happiness, or fun, on a gaming server. That could, however, be due to the correlation between youthful experience and online gaming.
In any case, after gaming, the next big period of Internet use in my life was in High School. As I began to “fall out” with the school community (I did not participate in clubs, did not have many friends), it was much easier to turn to the Internet for a supportive group of people. How was this possible? Well, gaming and the forums helped, but the medium of Internet journals, all inter-connected and easy to communicate between, popped up. Websites like Blurty and Livejournal were the two I used. The freedom to write what I wanted on these journal sites, and know that I could have “friends” read them (from all over the place—i.e. like-minded individuals), was not available elsewhere; however, something changed at the end of school, my senior year. I had been reclusive, depressed, yet somehow content (like having an everlasting wound but with an everlasting band aid) for three or more years, and then I reached a peak. I had numerous episodes with wanting to kill myself, crying uncontrollably, and the easiest way to get rid of these thoughts was by engaging in games where I could kill other people, over and over again, or by writing poetry or personal thoughts on my journal and getting a response from them. But two factors probably propelled me away from the seclusion, safety, freedom, and unhappiness of the Internet life.
The first was sexual desire. Throughout school I always had several close friends but was never extroverted and never wanted to do more than go to a metal concert or movie. Eventually girls became involved in my life, mostly from nearby towns, and the notion of sexual pleasure got its stamp on me. Additionally, and perhaps derivatively, the adolescent substance experimentation began at this time too. Smoking pot, consuming alcohol, and drinking Robitussin cough medicine to get high were only a few of the mediums through which I could connect with my close peers, and the psychological and emotional pleasures and escapes were much greater than gaming and journals could ever offer me (this is all objectively approached, and I am not trying to say my decisions were right or not). Strangely enough I became much more outgoing with all of the kaleidoscopic release. I began to make more friends at school, and these were people I never associated with previously. I felt better about myself, and let my barriers down a little. I still maintained a sense of the Internet and gaming, but it was in the background. My grades got better, my interests grew intense (probably thanks to the intellectual strive many of my favorite drug-taking writers shared), and although life was not particularly physically healthy, and it was all a rush of one day to the next, it was hardly the reclusiveness I knew in the past.
Once at Roger Williams University, my experimentation increased, and I stopped using the online journals at all. Gaming was subtle but still present. Websites like Myspace and Facebook began to grow heavily used, and depended on—more so than the previous websites. Why? They were “efficient,” a word that McKibben uses quite often in terms of hyper-individualism. Perhaps these “friend sites” were the first real sense of hyper-individualism where I actually was able to feel like something was wrong. They were not like gaming, where it took time to join a server and get in a game. They were not like online journals or forums, where you had to do a lot of writing and reading—relatively a lot of effort—in order to gain satisfaction. Myspace and Facebook allowed you to type in a name, or simply browse a list of pictures and names, to find friends and, almost robotically spend your time. “You have 1 New Friend Request” was one of many “notifications” that would pop up on these sites, and it turned everyday into a mini-birthday, or mini-Christmas. It means someone has acknowledged your existence. It means that you are connected. People write on your profile page and it’s like someone recognizing you in the hall at school, an occurrence that happened rarely for me throughout high school.
But in college, these websites were what created my first base of friendships, and many of the first friends I made on these pages I am friends with today. At a new environment, this instant-friendship is extremely important. I made friends other ways, but I did not even have to really know the person that lived right down the hall in order to “friend him” on Facebook. And the behavior was like an addiction, satisfied with a small thirty seconds of your day, or your hour, or your minute.
I will summarize this sprawling history with several words about hyper-individualism. I believe it exists, but I believe it exists always, as a constant, at least in terms of the online world as I have put into example (but also there are comparisons with my jobs, my education, passing common conversations like “What’s up?” and the response “Not much,” and just about every other facet of my life and the lives of the people that live around me). Hyper-individualism exists with a subtle hint of conflict. This is perhaps my most interesting insight because McKibben, throughout Deep Economy’s third chapter, insists that it exists and is a problem, but does not mention very often, if it is consciously opposed by those who live it. Looking at the Internet examples, users strive for the freedom that the Internet provides, yet what does the Internet do? In its nature it allows you to “connect” with other people. You cannot play a game by yourself for so long. You cannot write on forums without other people, otherwise they would be monologue spaces, or something of the sort. This continues on and on, even to AIM, AOL Instant Messenger: a program that is only used for real-time electronic messaging, which I have not discussed. Internet users are conflicted because they attempt to be part of a community but cannot reach past the boundaries of their hyper-individualism.
Let me be fair. Not everyone is an Internet junky lost in a time warp. I have begun to use the Internet less and less, as I stated above, because of the numbness, the unsatisfaction, the unhappiness, that I receive. It is like a relationship turned sour. If it is my lover, things are simply not working anymore. And this has been a slow conclusion to get to since I am dependent on the Internet now more than ever (look at how many jobs require you to apply online, as just one example). I do play games online from time to time, but they are not nearly as fun as they once were. I find my pleasures in hanging around with friends, and even the substance abuse is fading out. Now I enjoy sitting around campfires, or visiting farms my friends live on, to spend time and help work, or, on a more local note, going to local concerts where local musicians perform (and then getting the benefit of praising a local artist to college friends), or going to local poetry readings and being one of the performers myself.
I believe that McKibben’s points and solutions (many of which were not described here, and many of which occur in Chapter 2) are already being approached. Americans might not be entirely aware that they are stepping in better directions, and it is far from the majority of Americans that are going in the right direction, but there are a select number that have started to grow more associated with community involvement, and less associated with disassociation. My friend Katherine goes to the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, and studies sustainable farming. The college itself is a sustainable community. My friend Neil used to be a gamer more than I was, in the height, and now does not play games at all. Myspace is fading out, as it is more and more dominated by the media and advertising, and offers less freedom and pleasure. Facebook is still around, but I do not spend nearly as much time on it now as I used to. I think that hyper-individualism is a problem, and that McKibben’s claims are correct, but to a point. There are many specific, micro-focuses that can be addressed to show in some areas hyper-individualism is already being overtaken. Economically it will take much longer, but if free will allows human beings to take charge in the community through non-economic processes, the economic processes will be overtaken and undergo reformation as well.
Works Cited
McKibben, Bill. Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. New York: Times Books, 2007.
