Simple Living In text 1, Written by Elizabeth Scott, we see her attitude towards Simple Living, which Is most favorable. The idea was to pare down and get rid of all the 3-4, page 1). She states that, by removing all that we think we need but don’t, we can focus on more important “stuff’, like stronger relationships, exercising and “utilize our natural gifts”, but also, by cutting down on the budget, save money In the process. Furthermore the simple lifestyle will help us find out “who we really are”. In the Interview with Journalist Judith Levine (text 2), the attitude Is generally the same –
Simple living Is good. She thinks that people In the US Is to dependent on consumerism, In fact so much, that It Is turning Into a national Identity. The massive consumption results In environmental degradation and substantial social divergence. Although being positive, there Is a downside. ‘The assumption Is that once you stop buying stuff, you re going to start looking 33, page 2). By not buying unnecessary items, the abstinence from the mentioned will become a “personal enterprise” like consumerism itself, therefore making it partly selfish.
She says that only trough collective force and compulsory participation, national and international operation, and big policy solutions, the environmental and social problems can be solved. In the last text, text 3, the attitude changes course. Derrick Jensen says, that although taking private action towards global pollution is a good thing, the results are far from sufficient. He says, that personal change doses ‘t equal social and political change, and that each individual are not responsible for our planet running out of resources.
He doses ‘t say that we should not live simple, but if we want to stop the pollution, we need to be a part of a political discussion towards reducing the many reparations CO-emission, because they are the sinners. Does a written interview only consist off dull written language? The written interview reflects the spoken interview rather well. Like the spoken interview, the written one is arranged with written questions made bold to indicate each section, followed by the answer.
The Journalist asks some questions for Judith Levine to answer, in which she uses a very personal language, using words like “Me”, “MET and which is typical for spoken interviews: “l began thinking about it at Characteristic In 2003, when I Just felt tired and fed up with the whole Christmas shopping project. I ever considered myself a great big shopper, and I’m a Jew, so 2-4, Page 1). The colloquial language is preserved, and Is seen: “Well my partner and 16, Page 1), and is a clear sign that It Is something spoken that Is written down.
When doing so, It Is impossible to keep the tone or mood that was present at the actual Interview, for example, a laugh Is hard to write down, but have been done Like this: People start looking inward and there ‘s nothing there. [Laughs]”(Ellen 34, Page 2), and: “… Somehow magically we’re goanna fix the ozone layer 41, page 2). They Indicate when Judith Is making fun, making the Interview much more excellent ND attractive to read. On the other hand we can see the Journalist have rewritten and,’or removed some of the spoken interview.
Some brackets have been placed cannot “talk” in brackets, the brackets indicate written language. When Rachel Fudge (the writer of the interview) leaves something out, she has the ability to angle the subject, as she so desires, but overall they are pretty much identical. Simple Living – An alternative to western lifestyle. The western lifestyle is defined by high consumption, and a healthy economy. So would a simplified lifestyle be enough to make a change? According to Derrick Jensen n text 3, it’s far from the necessary.
He writes: “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U. S. Carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Must be reduced my at least percent 75 percent worldwide”(Line 14-16, Page 1). He thinks that it is a viable lifestyle (living fairly simple himself), but if we want to make the change, we need to take action on a political level. Maybe if all mankind were to reduce their individual consumption and live a simple life, the effect could be enough to make a change. However, by cutting down on consumption, the factories would sell less, resulting in fever Jobs.
But either way, it would be impossible to stop people consuming, because that ‘s Just how we are. I think that if Simple Living becomes a thing, our society would not be able to function as well as it does today, because you have to work to even pay your bills, and despite trying, we will always be a part of the consuming society, as most of workplaces and public institutions like hospitals and schools have a high consumption. But on the other hand, recycling and buying environment friendly groceries doses ‘t hurt anybody. Karate: 12(A) 1 3. G SEAL DU v?re muddling active go badinage till f?lees l?ring!!