This week we were split into two sides with our readings. Me being an Interior Design major, I was assigned to read the NO side, which seemed to focus on the correlation between the poor population’s lack of opportunities with the state of the environment. While it brought up the poor being at fault quite a bit, I feel that the government is more at fault for this due to them not giving them proper opportunities. I agree with the article when it comes to how the poor are simply unmotivated to take care of their environment due to their overall conditions. When low-income households have so much else to worry about, mindfulness slips past you, causing poor decisions to be made.
However, these bad habits are not exclusive to those of low-income households. As mentioned in Leyla’s TED Talk, people all over the world, of all backgrounds, are just as responsible. However, poor people are likely blamed for these issues because of their surroundings and how underfunded they are. The text in the NO article even mentioned quite a few times that if the government had helped to improve the standards of the poor’s living situation, then the environment would be in better condition, introducing the concept of a “win-win” situation.
If our country were to ever move towards a post-disposable future, I don’t see why I wouldn’t partake in it. If it helps improve the condition of our environment, it would be worth every minor inconvenience. I think I’d actually be excited to have a future where I could worry less about the state of our planet, provided the project was global and reversed some of the effects of global warming.