No Impact Man
My brother made a very valid point about No Impact
Man and other films and books promoting
environmental-consciousness.
For instance, No Impact Man is a documentary that follows the life of the Beavan family, during their year-long experiment to have zero-impact on the environment. This meant giving up everything from electricity, to carbon-based transportation, to several products including detergents and toilet paper.
It was a commendable journey that inspired a lot of praise and criticism.
My brother wondered whether by producing the documentary and writing the book to share his experiences, he caused more environmental damage that year than otherwise. Beavan's book sold millions of copies, and the documentary millions of DVDs. That's a lot of damage!
If one were able to quantify his positive influence on people, while also keeping in mind the environmental damage he caused by sharing his experience, I wonder which one would win! I am leaning towards his influence winning! Beavan was rated MSN's Ten Most Influential Men of 2007, named an Eco-Illuminator in Elle Magazine's 2008 Green Awards and his blog NoImpactMan.com was named one of the world’s top 15 environmental websites by Time Magazine.
However, could he have avoided the DVDs and books and shared his experiences in an online/digital format (e-books and e-movies) to make a greater statement about environmental damage. Would that decision have made an impact on lesser number of people... or more?
What kind of No Impact Man do you think Colin Beaven is? The kind that made no impact on you or the kind that made no impact on the environment?
For instance, No Impact Man is a documentary that follows the life of the Beavan family, during their year-long experiment to have zero-impact on the environment. This meant giving up everything from electricity, to carbon-based transportation, to several products including detergents and toilet paper.
It was a commendable journey that inspired a lot of praise and criticism.
My brother wondered whether by producing the documentary and writing the book to share his experiences, he caused more environmental damage that year than otherwise. Beavan's book sold millions of copies, and the documentary millions of DVDs. That's a lot of damage!
If one were able to quantify his positive influence on people, while also keeping in mind the environmental damage he caused by sharing his experience, I wonder which one would win! I am leaning towards his influence winning! Beavan was rated MSN's Ten Most Influential Men of 2007, named an Eco-Illuminator in Elle Magazine's 2008 Green Awards and his blog NoImpactMan.com was named one of the world’s top 15 environmental websites by Time Magazine.
However, could he have avoided the DVDs and books and shared his experiences in an online/digital format (e-books and e-movies) to make a greater statement about environmental damage. Would that decision have made an impact on lesser number of people... or more?
What kind of No Impact Man do you think Colin Beaven is? The kind that made no impact on you or the kind that made no impact on the environment?
