Is “laptop activism” a step
forward, or a step backward?
I recently got an email from Rolf Skar,
the epically-named Green Peace forest initiative guy, announcing
that, because of support for online campaigns, two major victories
have been won this year already. First Asia Pulp and Paper – the
largest deforester in the world, I think – has agreed to stop
cutting Indonesian rainforest and to switch to sustainable forestry.
If they follow through (and they might not) this would be a huge
victory. Second, Yum! (the company that owns lots of fast food brands
like KFC and Taco Bell) has officially released new company policies
that (again, if followed) would prevent any of its sub-companies from
using pulp or paper products from rainforests. Again, a huge victory.
The
victories came after a couple of years of concerted public action and
pressure from Green Peace, and initiatives that I and millions of
other Americans (mostly young people, too) signed onto. And almost
all of it was done online. Sure, I contribute about $15 a month to
Green Peace in support of initiatives like this one, but even that
transaction takes place automatically, online.
Pete
has also been engaged in online activism, through the Move On
program, to save the forest behind his house in San Franciso from
destruction. I don't know if he has been successful, but I sure
signed it – electronically, of course.
My
question is this: all of this activism seems and sounds great. But is
it? I mean, I feel that my generation (people born at the tail end
(the last two decades or so) of the last century), is more socially
aware and active than any other in human history. Yet at the same
time we are, hands down, the laziest
generation to walk the Earth. We spend almost all of our time on our
laptops, browsing the net, writing emails, updating Facebook
statuses, etc. We rarely get out and do anything in the real world.
So
which is better? Can increased online activism replace real-world
activism? And by that I mean marches, strikes, protests, civic
engagement, volunteering in the community, participating in local
politics, voting, etc. Sure, more of one doesn't necessarily mean
less of the other, but it seems that things are headed that way. I
mean, if young people could vote online, you'd see turnout among the
young go to 100%. But ask people my age to go to the local polling
station (even finding out where it is located is often too much) and
stand in line for an hour and turnout plummets to what it is (roughly
50% - a pathetic figure).
Does
the increase in online activism more than cancel out our lack of
willingness to get off our computers and engage with people and
problems face-to-face? What do you guys think?
