I had a prompt to write about environmentalism (how the future will look like if we put in the effort to save the environment), but I'm having such a difficult time to stay positive.
Have you got any ideas how not to dwell into the abyss?
Imagine a dystopia in which environmentalism goes too far. Taxing every toilet flush. Arresting those who compost improperly, etc. etc. Think Draconian liberalism.
EDIT: My example isn't "positive," however. The positive would be a cleaner planet.
I think VC has the right idea, "positive" environmentalism tends to come off as banal or didactic. To me, it always looks like this...
Honestly there is so little reason not to be postive. The idea that we're going to so badly hurt the environment is ridiculous. Oh sure, there are conservationist causes worth mentioning, but the entire idea of global warming is such horseshit it's laughable. People were saying the planet was going to be overpopulated at one billion people... are we at seven yet? Remember that gulf oil spill? Oh yeah, everyone forgot because in the end it did basically nothing, nature gobbled it up like a cookie dipped in milk.
Go watch George Carlin on netflix talking about the same thing maybe.
Or just realize that the alarmists be damned, even those dirty red states take pretty good care of the place, not that we could really screw things up anyway. Unless we detonated ALL our nukes at once. I don't think we're going to do that.
Well, solved problems provide a conflict to base a story on, so fixed problems won't be the focus of the story. If you want to show how environmentalism is positive you need to reference it as history. X is trying to do Y, so Z brings up how A was a problem until environmentalism fixed it.
Even if all environmental issues were taken care of, there would be plenty of other issues. I'm sure the patriarchy would still reign; capitalism would still have a stranglehold on the world; nations would still war; teens would still get bullied; romances would be had and lost; children would be born and die; we would lose parents to diseases; friends would commit suicide; artists would starve; religions would founded and plague nations; the poor would still be poor; and most importantly, we would still keep trying to live good lives that we can be proud of.
So, either way, environmental utopia or dystopia, we would still have plenty of conflict that would need to be worked out.
Without getting into details I don't think anyone is saying that human ills would go away.
Well, dystopian seems a bit overdone to be honest. Maybe set it in a golden age? Someone isn't afraid to do a little strip mining that will make people sick because it isn't that big deal to treat cancer? So what they'll suffer for a few months he'll be rich! Just a thought.
To add to the thought, maybe the people who suffer through cancer for a few months are considered oh-so-lucky because the rich guy pays them off handsomely? The victims now get to share in the fortune.
Oh, did you hear? Billy got lung cancer from the smoke stacks by his house.
He did? Luckyyyyyy....
Yeah, but that kind of kills the conflict right?
"Yeah, this summer is going to suck and then I'm set for life." That is hard to drag out into a book or short story.
Depends on who's point of view it's from.
Maybe the cancer boy doesn't feel so lucky about it at the time.
That is the opposite of what you just posted man.
No no, society's general view is that the victims are lucky. And maybe most of the time the victims agree. Then one day one victim goes against the norm.
Everything else aside, that does feel a bit overdone. If I read one more 'evil rich X' oppressed 'small good Y', but 'small good Y' still finds a way to victory propaganda I will vomit.
I agree with you on that one. Probably why it came to mind so fast.
But then, I'd also apply it to the whole "we're ruining the planet for our children!" thing.
...
Am I digressing, or getting back to the original point?
Then how are there English Bulldogs?
I'm not quite following, what do you mean by making racial breeding illegal?
I think he means that it is illegal to deliberately create subspecies of animals, or continue with artificial ones that already exist like dog breeds? If so, have a working breed that the breeders legitly need be what they are working with to minimize enviormental impact? "We can have near zero impact if you let me guard these goats with a few great pyr you bastards!"
Your statements are true, but it is a bit of a overstatement. Working breed dogs tend to be much healthier, because duh, sick dogs don't work much. There are of course exceptions, but it could be important to your plot line.