Who is the Greenest Person on the Planet?

[nlaurel]

3rdWhale launched the 'Greenest Person on the Planet' contest on Earth Day this year. Over 600 applicants from 25 countries applied, with contestants from Malaysia, Canada, the United States, China and Venezuela making up the Top 5.

The contest is intended to raise awareness about the steps ordinary people can take to make their lifestyles more environmentally sustainable. Of course, the real greenest people on the planet life off-grid and likely wouldn't participate in an online contest, but for the rest of us, the top 5 contestants can provide some real inspiration. Check out 3rdWhale's youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/3rdwhale to learn more about two of the top contestants through their personal videos, and visit http://www.3rdwhale.com to vote. The winner will receive a pod of beluga whales adopted on their behalf from the Defenders of Wildlife.


Find out more about the competition:
http://www.3rdwhale.com
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... ntest.html
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... 39b3c9f861

[yoder]

Since the opening post already said it, I will just repeat...

Of course, the real greenest people on the planet life off-grid and likely wouldn't participate in an online contest.

Although as a publicity stunt, I'm sure it will help get more people interested in living a more sustainable life.

I'm not saying a contest like this is bad, just a bit misleading. With many tens of millions of people in Africa and Asia living "greener" lives than any of these five competitors for the title, it is what it is.

[hillsidedigger]

One definition of green-ness is the having of little or no physical impact on other people and the world.

Very green people are inconspicuous.

[pthalo]

no offense but this is silly and ridiculous. why must this be a contest. 'i am greener than you' -- 'no, i am the greener one'. who f*&^%ng cares who is greener than the next. this isn't a contest and it isn't a race.

this mentality will only serve to cause problems. people's decisions about sustainable living need to be well thought out and planed for true projection into the future. how will your lifestyle be passed to your neighbors, your family, your descendants for generations to come. this whole thing of making it into a competition leads to hasty decision making and contest oriented behaviors.

it also skews the reasons that people would want to live sustainable life. while it may not be many, there will be some who say, 'if i can't win one of these competitions (because there will be more) then i don't want to put any effort into it.

[OrganicCat]

Actually, the contest is morbidly easy to win. The greenest person on the earth is a dead one, they use nothing and contribute organic matter :p

[pthalo]

Actually, the contest is morbidly easy to win. The greenest person on the earth is a dead one, they use nothing and contribute organic matter :p

not necessarily. if that 'dead' person lived a life of waste and oppulence, they would be less beneficial to the planet as a whole. if they are burried in a hermetically sealed coffin, sequestering their rotting goodness, then that isn't beneficial either.

it would be more accurate to say that the greenest person is the one who doesn't exist. now this is all semantic games. a dead person, who when alive had a genetic adaptation that would have been beneficial to the species, yet did not reproduce, would actually have harmed the sustainability of the species by dying before reproduction.

this just shouldn't be a contest for anyone.

[greenteadrinker]

Homeless are pretty green until they shower at a
shelter.

[acvicari]

no offense but this is silly and ridiculous. why must this be a contest. 'i am greener than you' -- 'no, i am the greener one'. who f*&^%ng cares who is greener than the next. this isn't a contest and it isn't a race.

It is a race, pthalo, just not against each other. Cast it how you will, this is a race against nature. Will we get our act together in time to avert complete disaster?

I certainly hope so.

[teeituptom]

I vote for Ed Begley Jr.

[helpfulgardener]

I vote for those Amazon tribesmen who were shooting arrows at the helicopter a month or two back...

HG

[CarolinaJim]

I vote for the beggar lady from Calcutta. But I could also vote for the Amazon Indians.

[pthalo]

Cast it how you will, this is a race against nature.

i am assuming that you meant something other than what these words actually mean when compiled in this sentence. this competition with the environment/nature is what has caused the problem in the first place.

only by finding that lost harmony with nature will we find sustainability in our species. this isn't a race, this isn't a competition. that rhetoric is used as a motivational technique but ultimately has no place in the overall concept of a sustainable species.

we can compete for food, for land, for mating, but all of these seem to have some impact on how sustainable our societies are. there will always be some level of competition in almost any species, but to find a sustainable future should not be a competition but a collaboration and a cooperative effort.

[acvicari]

Cast it how you will, this is a race against nature.

i am assuming that you meant something other than what these words actually mean when compiled in this sentence. this competition with the environment/nature is what has caused the problem in the first place.

only by finding that lost harmony with nature will we find sustainability in our species. this isn't a race, this isn't a competition. that rhetoric is used as a motivational technique but ultimately has no place in the overall concept of a sustainable species.

we can compete for food, for land, for mating, but all of these seem to have some impact on how sustainable our societies are. there will always be some level of competition in almost any species, but to find a sustainable future should not be a competition but a collaboration and a cooperative effort.

I meant it in the same sense that we speak of "a race against time." Working together cooperatively is absolutely necessary, and probably the optimal strategy, but friendly competitions can be a powerful motivating force if used properly. We must do better than most people seem to think we can do at achieving sustainability. If we don't, and we instead cause too much damage to nature, then we will not be sustained.

I don't think there was ever really a time in the past when mankind lived in harmony with nature. The moment modern humans appeared, and were able to move beyond the stone hand tools of our predecessors and build weapons that could be thrown or otherwise launched, we were so "successful" at providing for ourselves that we began wiping out various species of large animals. Various cultures learned to respect the world around them, to revere it, and to begin to manipulate it. Those that lived above their long-term means died out, like the Easter Island civilization. Did the others live sustainably? Maybe some did. The others just weren't populous enough to cause serious damage, or increased their technology (or their dominion) faster than they depleted their resources. That is what we're doing now. And the way I see it, that qualifies as a race.

To become sustainable, we need to consciously choose to break out of that cycle, to constrain our growth until our resource base, infrastructure, knowledge, habits, and technology can keep up with our needs. That is going to take a lot of cooperation, a lot of trust, and a lot of regulation, because in a game-theoretic sense sustainability may be an unstable position. If everyone cooperates and limits himself to one share of the world's resources, then the first person who "cheats" and consumes more "wins" at everyone's expense.

What technology can do, if properly applied, is increase the effective sustainable resource base. It can provide sustainable energy in (in principle) very large quantities, which can be used to reprocess and recycle the matter we use into the forms we need, converting waste into raw materials. It can allow us to use resources, including land and water, more efficiently. Doing these things takes lots of planning and knowledge. The impetus for sustainability has to come from our culture, politics, habits, and collective understanding and recognition of the problem.

I basically agree with you. This difference is mostly a semantic one, I think.