The NIMBY (Not in my backyard) attitude makes us downright stupid about social and environmental decisions. Even as we try to divide up the world into good parts where we live and bad parts where we don’t, earthly cycles and global dynamics are busy mixing it all up. We ingest bits of the plastic that we thought to throw away. The same goes for pharmaceuticals, fire retardants and pesticides. Everything we create winds up in our most intimate backyard—our own bodies.
It is no different in the social sphere. Walls like the one Bush wants to build at the southern US border or the one the Israeli government is erecting between themselves and the Palestinians don’t protect anyone. They only make them ignorant about what is on the other side. No matter how high the wall on our southern border it will not change the fact that corporate strawberry farms have ousted subsistence farmers from their land. I once interviewed a man who joined the crowds that panned gold in northern California during the Depression in hopes of getting enough for a loaf of bread. Viewing those masses of hungry people told him in his bones that this country would have gone up in flames without the WPA to provide employment. He was viscerally aware that those good gentle people would not simply stand by and watch their children starve. Neither will any of those on the other side of the walls we erect.
NIMBY licenses not only much environmental and social injustice, but many lapses in common sense. After all, who would build a chemical factory or nuclear power plant if it were placed directly in their own backyard? And if the wounded soldiers in Iraq were Bush or his children, would he have so ruthlessly cut their health benefits?
In spite of its dangerous falsehoods, NIMBY has good press in our modern economic system, which tells us to “externalize costs”— pass them on to someone else—and “internalize benefits”— keep them for themselves. But we can no longer afford such blatantly self-defeating behavior. If we understand the NIMBY lie, we won’t buy clothes made by workers who live under conditions we would not accept for ourselves because we understand our compassion is pragmatic. It is only NIMBY ignorance that says the enemies we make far away will never wreak violence on our own soil.
Instead of hiding behind fences with our NIMBY attitude, we need an “in my backyard” attitude. That attitude will warn us away from dumping toxins we don’t want in someone else’s backyard–just as it will warn us away from benefiting on the pain of others. We should not make or buy anything we are not willing to eat (or send back to the land to fertilize what we eat), since we ultimately DO wind up ingesting it.
How might we change our decisions if we realized our backyards cannot ultimately be separated from anyone else’s? It is worth contemplating, since it all comes back to us (or to our children and grandchildren) in the end. We all share a single planet.
You are welcome to link to this post; note, however, it is copyright 2008, Madronna Holden. Feel free to email me if you wish to use it.
Filed under: Contrasting worldviews, Environmental ethics, Environmental psychology, Ethics, Justice, Our Earth and Ourselves | Tagged: Environmental psychology, Ethics, Not in my Backyard
Dr. Holden-This essay is very interesting. I have been worrying over the NIMBY phenomena for a while now. It seems like tons of people have no problem doing really stupid stuff as long as they don’t have to directly view the results. I especially appreciated the part about building walls. I don’t understand how people can ignore the fact that people are not crossing the border looking for a good time. They are coming here to find a way to feed their families, supported by big-agriculture. If we were not paying them to pick our fruit and vegetables, slaughter our cows and plant our trees would they be pouring over the border? I think not.
Thanks for your compassionate and thoughtful reply, Katie!
Dr. Madronna Holden,
I too agree that the Nimby theory is a very interesting concept. People can be very ignorant if they do not have to see the results of their ignorance affecting other people. It is easy to go along with the theory of “out of sight, out of mind” however, that can be a very dangerous and destructive attitude towards our planet and others. I think that you really hit home when you said that eventually everything destructive we do will come back to us and/or our children/grandchildren in the end because we ultimately all share the same backyard! How true is that. Many people do not consider that what they do today may directly affect the lives of their children and grandchildren tomorrow. If people could develop a new way of thinking that brought that into perspective, like you said, just think of how different the decision making process would be for caring individuals who often times obliviously ignore or put off important decisions that could impact the future.
Thank you,
AMBER STEINHOFF
Philosophy 443
Amber, I think you have a central insight in your sense that we need to see beyond our backyards — and our particular “now” in order to understand the consequences of our actions–and to make ethical decisions concerning them.
When Sargon attacks Mesopotamia and defeated Uruk, he tore down its wall and when wone the battle in Ur, he conquered the town and tore down its wall. Also, when Esarhaddon attacks Egypt, he boasts of laying seige to Memphis and tearing down its wall.
Now I know where did Reason get his words from when he challenged Gorbachev to, “tear down this[Berlin]wall.”
Whether it’s the US/Mexico border wall, the one in Palestine, or the one between North and South Korea, they separate families and communities and poor from rich.
Wrongfully the usurpers and haughty governments think the walls last forever and will never be overrun.
The Maqueladoras just across the border is a good example: ‘Let them worry about toxic runoffs, working conditions, and environmental issues. After all, it’s not on our side,” the wealthy thinks.
What about the chemicals that eventually make their way to the Pacific and slowly flow northward until half the beaches in San Diego are declared off limits to swimming, fishing, and surfing?
One last thing comes to mind is the 30 million Euro razer fence that attempts to keep away illegal immigrants from reaching Europe. On the one hand, the wealthy robs poor countries of their resources and deny them technology, and on the other they want to keep them away.
“Those who hoard up treasures of gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah; give them the news of a painful punishment, on the Day when that (wealth) will be heated in the Fire of Hell and with it will be branded their forehead, their sides, and their backs, (and it will be said to them:) ‘This is the treasure which you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard.’” [Al-Quran 9:34-35]
I understand your deep feelings, backed by the Quran quote, about the greed of those who hoard for themselves what others need for survival. That hoarding creates one kind of unjust (not to mention, ultimately ignorance-producing) wall between rich and poor.
But I don’t entirely understand how your historical examples of conquests that tore down walls applies to the fact that we are all interdependent, no matter what kinds of fences we wish to build between our backyard and the rest of the world. Are you indicating that walls never last, and are invitations for “outsiders” to do battle on them?
If my memory serves me, Ibn Khaldun, the early Muslim philosopher, analyzed the consequences of this in his travels on the Mediterranean. He observed that wars and raids were often the result of an inclusive stance that attempted to keep others– especially the hungry– out . Ironically, the conquests he wrote about created stratified societies, in which the conquerors re-created exclusionary status by becoming upper class– he was observing the negative consequences of social stratification as well as its origin.
It is interesting to me that he wrote about problems of class oppression a thousand years before Marx brought up the subject in the modern day.
History tells us we must be very careful we don’t recreate the oppression we wish to destroy if we think to destroy that oppression through conquest.
Interestingly, you bring also up Ur–which brings to mind for me the story of Gilgamesh, which certainly has an environmental moral in that tearing down the sacred forest also leads to the loss of true comradeship between the men in question. And then there is the story of Inanna (which I have written about in a Parabola article a few years back), which indicates how those on top (Inanna in this case) must face the “underworld” of the outcast in order to go on living herself.
The lessons of these early myths certainly reflect the historical experience of the people who told them.
Well, Dr Holden, by those historical examples I meant that back then, walls existed for a different purpose: protection from outsiders. As you know, between one civilization and another, there were wide expanses. They rarely were positioned next to each other.
In our times, walls are built to divide families from families, often times from the same group. The Germans were divided from Germans, Palestinians from Palestinians, and Koreans from Koreans, by force.
To word it differently, people are walled in or walled out for political or economic reasons, as opposed to military ones.
Where the interdependence comes into play is when the Koreans, Mexicans, Palestinians and less so the Germans, continued to rely on one another via continually challenging these walls, either to visit relatives, send money, bring their families, exchange goods, find work, or to attend friday prayers. So, the human connection can never be cut off forever.
The invisible cord that bonds us all–love–is something beyond walls and weapons.
Correction: I meant protection from military invasions.
Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate your well-considered comments here! They are very thought provoking.
Thank you Madronna for the very relevant essay,
I also am very aware of, and interested in the NIMBY phenomenon. As Americans, we seem culturally disposed to this kind of double standard in many different forms.
It also seems to me that there exists a similar, but opposite condition where we harshly judge the actions and policies of other countries and cultures in areas that we have far greater guilt. We vilify small “rouge” nations for developing nuclear technology, when we have more nuclear waste than we can adequately deal with, and more weapons than are appropriate for a dozen world powers. Our advocacy groups rally for ecological responsibility in developing countries, while we rape the land and deplete soils in our own backyard.
I am not sure what the term for this type of hypocrisy is, but I am certain someone prior to me has coined one.
With respect to not buying goods from people working in conditions that we would not accept for ourselves, we need to understand the relative conditions and alternatives before we rush to judgment. We should not be proud of a company that supports a sweatshop far below our standards in a developing country, but neither should we force them to remove it outright. When these sweatshops are closed, the labor force reverts to conditions far worse than the sweatshop. (I have traveled to some of these regions, and I have heard this from the locals directly) Instead, we need to work with the companies who bring economic growth to these regions to include incremental improvement plans in their supply agreements. In this way, the sweatshop can evolve to an acceptable standard, and serve as a model for subsequent business ventures.
We must keep in mind that our working conditions in the US did not magically appear overnight, but rather evolved over generations with legislation a maturing economy, and a more enlightened culture. We must allow, and help our neighbors in the third world follow the same path to prosperity. We could actually incite civil unrest by building a US worthy facility and paying US parity wages overnight in some of these world regions.
Our standard is appropriate for us; we need to help other nations move the bar incrementally forward without asserting our arrogance or moral values on another culture without their consent.
A very interesting post, John. I’m not sure what the official term for such a double standard as you cite is, but there should be one if there is not.
I have heard the argument before about not being able to pay comparable wages in comparably enforced justice and economic standards in third world countries.
Whereas I like your idea of helping these folks to advance to justice based on pressured the corporations that are abusing them, in fact, some businesses have made a point of paying equal wages to their workers anywhere in the world. And they have not incited riots– but instead helped the workers they employed to gain dignity very quickly in partnership with their business endeavors. The Body Shop founded by Anita Roddick (who is unfortunately, recently deceased). Others are those groups that implement “fair trade” agreements with workers in third world countries. It is true that these workers do not always ask for money compensation comparable to that in the US: many want a healthy environment, cultural protections and leadership roles in making decisions in the businesses in question.
It is also true that many third world nations are suffering extreme poverty as a result of globalization and colonialism begun as much as four centuries ago, in which their traditional leadership structures and subsistence means were devastated. But though you do not do so, I think it is also important to be careful not to intimate that these peoples are somehow not able to handle our standard of life (by this I mean well being, rather than our standard of consumption, which the earth could not bear). You might like to look at a book called The Subsistence Perspective, which gives a number of examples of workers in third world countries exerting the kind of economic leadership models we might do well to follow.
All in all, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this response,
It seems to me that a dominant Western worldview is primarily responsible for the NIMBY attitude. This attitude fails to take into consideration the importance of interdependence and cooperation between various societies, assuming that the harm one society causes to another will not come back to harm the perpetrating society. The clearest example of this in the post is the notion that Bush does not acknowledge, or imagine that his children could easily be in the position of the soldiers in Iraq who are unnecessarily losing their lives. This attitude is completely frightening because it is an attitude which causes great evil to come about simply because one does not recognize the unity inherent in the world.
If people did in fact recognize that we are all on the same planet, such as the last line in the post states, there might be a chance that the NIMBY attitude would diminish, or at least the prevalence of this attitude would decrease. In this, we should turn to the examples of worldviews encompassing unity and coherence, provided by the majority of the indigenous population.
A great example of increasing unity arises from the gathering of people to perform rituals which bond people of a society together. The Navajo, for instance, perceive and remember the connectedness apparent in the world through performing a major ceremony entitled The Blessingway. The Blessingway consists of much prayer, singing, and other such practices. Prayer serves to help the Navajo connect their bodies to the ancestral Holy People to realize that there is a certain component within all persons which bonds people together (Suzuki, p.205). The Navajo realize that all people are one.
If societies holding the NIMBY attitude came to this same realization of oneness then they might realize that causing harm to a different portion of the world is simultaneously causing harm to the entire world, and the environment that one inhabits. Therefore, everyone loses. There are no winners.
Perceptive response, Denise. You are exactly prefiguring my most recent post, NIMBY Lie, part II. This attitude is both destructive and self-destructive.
Thank you for presenting an important alternative vision.
Professor Holden,
I do wonder if by allowing these things to happen in our own backyards if it would open people’s eyes to what is happening elsewhere behind the “walls” that have already been built. It’s very easy to say “out-of-sight, out-of-mind”. We are aware of things that are happening and yet we are not hesitant to speak up for only a moment to show our disapproval but once the raging river of life comes to sweep us away behind the corporate walls we become once again blind to the destruction that is awry. I have to say that I am embarrassed to admit that I have a sister who is serving in Iraq. I was angry to know that she was being sent. Angry at Bush for not knowing what a kind, loving person he was sending out to do is destruction and yet now that she is gone, sure I worry for her, but with the safety of the ocean between myself and those bullets I am blind to what occurs behind that “safe” wall. It is easy to ignore it or have the ability to turn our heads away from its devastating effects. But I know for the families who have had that wall torn down for them and the body of their loved one placed in their own backyard, it’s not truly “real” until then.
I appreciate your article and it has reminded me to make my voice a little louder and open my eyes a little bigger. Just because I don’t see it right in front of me, does not mean that it is not happening and is not possibly harming other humans on earth. It’s a strong message, not only assocaiaed to the war, but to all aspects of our life. We forget to take into consideration the implications that could come from placing these walls. The retalliation we could endure by ignoring their effects. It could proved to be more harmful.
This just proved to be a tough issue to have to create a true stance upon because for myself who is so limited to the resources I have within my own backyard, it is hard for me to investigate every particle of my everyday being, where it’s come from, or how it’s made. It’s a hard stance to take without the time to research and limit the resources I choose to support. I am not sure if that makes sense. But easy to make a person seem so small with so much occuring all around in the world as a whole.
Thanks for letting me comment.
Debbie Hampton PHL 443
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for your personal comment. You certainly do not have to feel embarrassed to say that your sister is serving in Iraq. I am sure that she and the vast majority of the other soldiers on the ground there have a serious commitment to the well being of our nation. This is something to be proud of, though I know it must be difficult given the current unpopularity of this war among the US public. I do think that your anger at Bush is well founded, since he pushed us into this war under what even he has admitted are false pretenses–and there is far too much money being made by Cheney’s business affiliates for NOT servicing our soldiers with proper food and armor. (And charging the US populace unbelievable prices for these shoddy goods, since the government had no competitive bidding on these contracts, allowing the contractors to charge whatever they wish for whatever they provide).
For those caught in the terrible tragedy of this situation, I recommend this article from YES magazine, written by a soldier from Viet Nam who works with healing PTSD syndrome in soldiers from all US wars:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=2662
(”Heal the Warrior, Heal the Country”).
You make a good point about the “reality” of this situation to most of us here in the US. Perhaps you know that the major tv stations have made bargains with their advertisers promising not to show body bags– it seems that sells less products.
During the first Gulf War, I taught a class in a small community in Oregon where many of my students were the parents of soldiers there: they were furious about the way in which the media hid the reality of the war that they had to experience in having their sons and daughters serving there.
Thank you for your thoughtful and open-hearted response about bringing things into our own backyard for viewing.
I think you certainly have a point. And my best wishes to you and your family.
I believe that the NIMBY concept was born out of ignorance as the world was once “a very big place.” A place where it took long periods of time to not only travel, but to communicate with others as well. As we have advanced technologically, our world has become smaller and we are slowly becoming more aware of how our actions not only affect others in foreign lands, but how they ultimately affect us as well. As we gradally move toward a more “global” society, we must begin to acknowledge that our backyard has expanded to include the whole planet. As such, we bear responsibility in how we conduct ourselves. In the past two years, since “An Inconvenient Truth” came to the “mainstream” community, I have seen a significant shift in bringing about the employing of more renewable sources of energy and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. It has even become a hot topic in this Presidential campaign. It is refreshing to me to see we are beginning to address these problems. It is my hope that the NIMBY concept will soon fade into distant memory and we truly become “good neighbors” to all.
A hopeful vision indeed, Kathleen. As to the world once being a very big place, interesting idea. it is interesting to note that traditional indigenous societies had a characteristically holistic vision of the world. It is Western culture, especially with the beginning of Western science in the late Middle Ages, that began to divide the world into parts in order to study it analytically.
It is also important to note that having a close sense of belonging to a particular place and people does not necessarily imply rejection, ignorance or hostility to others.
Why some societies develop an “enemy” perception of those outside their borders is an important topic for all of us to consider.
I feel the NIMBY attitude is slowly being replaced with the more realistic attitude of what’s not in my backyard now is going to affect what’s in my backyard later. The world’s population continues to explode; human space has become increasingly limited meaning that the results of our behavior are felt far more rapidly than they were in the past. There is no where left to go if we devastate our planet, too many areas have already been exploited, if we don’t acknowledge that our responsibility to our planet is greater than the responsibility to our individual backyards, we won’t have any backyards to go to.
Well said, Kristian. I’m glad to see you have hope in a change coming here: I think you are right–and you are part of the change.
I think that NIMBY is an excuss for people not to own up to anything. I really found this so interesting. This is the first time i have taken a class like this, and i am learning so much. I think it was really well put. I feel if these things were happening it everyone’s backyard more and more people would have somthing to say about it, but in stead the use the NIMBY attitude to just put it away so they dont have to see or think about it. This atticle really made me think . Thank you:)
Hi Meagan, thanks for your comment–and thoughtfulness in response. The ultimate self-destructiveness in an interconnected world is apparent as well in a follow up post on NIMBY on this site.
The Nimby attitude is something will come into play more and more and globalization and 24 hour news cycle pervades our society. It seems like anything that is somewhat controversial is all that appearson the news anymore. This will only serve to exacerbate the Nimby attitude as TV news networks search for the most tittilating subjects to garner ever higher ratings and advertising dollars. God forbid that we put out some real news, instead lets report on court cases and things that in the big picture just make no difference. (<–read with sarcasm).
To me the ultimate Nimby story is Yucca mountain. Yucca mountain is the proposed national nuclear waste dump located in the desert areas of Nevada. No states wanted the nuclear waste dump when this legislation was coming about. NIMBY was all over the news with people protesting nd argueing. They finally settled on the state of Nevada after much controversy.
As a nation we must try and come together about more things and really about the goals of our nation, whatever they may be and work towards them as a community.
Hi Joe, thanks for your comment. Your last sentence sums up an imperative in an interdependent and increasingly imperiled world. I think we need to come together (in moral terms) with those who follow us as well: and assume responsibility for our actions on future generations.
The section that you wrote about how we treat our service members hit home for me. I was active duty Army for four years, and I know the struggles that soldiers face. We expect them to go and fight an unjust war in Iraq, and then we don’t want to take care of them when they get home. This is reflected not only in healthcare, but in education as well. I am thankful for my GI Bill, which helps to pay for my classes, but it doesnt go far enough. It won’t cover the full cost of my classes, books, and fees … not to mention that it wont cover room and board. Thank God I am blessed with a well paying job.
This NIMBY notion is a horrible one, as if something isn’t happening to you it doesn’t matter. When will people realize the consequences of their actions? You mentioned the border fence in your essay as well, such a horrible idea. That is tantamount to boarding up a broken window, the window is still broken but now it looks horrible too. The real solution to our border issue is education and fair trade practices in all countries.
Hi Andrew, thanks for sharing something of your personal situation here. The GI Bill did much better for returning servicemen after World War II. Paying for education is problematic for everyone these days. I hope Obama’s election helps us pass some legislation (Ted Kennedy has been working on this for years) that allows everyone who has the motivation to get a higher education degree. I don’t think we can have a true democracy (which is based on the knowledge of its citizens) if we only educate the rich– not to mention the unfairness in terms of future job possibilities, etc. Thanks for your contribution to our country.
And I like your analogy of the broken window.
Great article. This really riled me up because I have very strong opinions about the Iraq war and the proposed wall on the US southern border. The people who subscribe to the NIMBY philosophy were (and still are) a source of frustration for me because of their ignorance about other cultures and lack of understanding of exactly who they are in the world and what their purpose is. They live in an insulated world where circumstances outside their realm do not concern them. When the war began, I remember telling someone that invading Iraq is like blowing up the house of a neighbor whom you dislike because another neighbor whom you happen to do business with (the Saudis) blew up YOUR house(9/11). This same person didn’t seem fazed when I told him that the civilian Iraqi dead count was around 100,000 as a result of the war. He didn’t care because of his NIMBY attitude and the belief that he was somehow detached and, in fact, superior to those he didn’t understand and had no contact with (which is essential to viewing them as human).
I also have asked the same question you ask in regards to what Bush would do if placed in the predicaments that he has placed others. It is clear that his ruthless behavior results in part to a lack of empathy. Hurricane Katrina is a great example. His slow response cost lives and property. Would his apparent indifference be similar if a hurricane had hit Martha’s Vineyard or West Palm Beach?
The only way to save ourselves is to eliminate the borders that exist not only physically, but also in people’s minds. Ignorance and bigotry are results of a lack of education and backward rearing. The only way to put an end to the NIMBY outlook is to somehow teach people that we are all bilogically the same despite our cultural differences and outward appearance.
Thanks for a powerful personal response, Michael. I am hopeful that we will get over this attitude when we start realizing just how self-destructive the NIMBY attitude is– since in an interdependent world all that we do to others (in terms of releasing toxics into the environment, for instance) comes back to us. That is the theme of the essay NIMBY, part II here.
I like the idea that we are all in this together because we are all human; indigenous peoples extended this idea even further– applying the ethic of kinship to all life.
And even if it weren’t for the self-destructive consequences of the NIMBY attitude, I think we lose out on much by closing ourselves off from so much of the rest of the world- think how small we have to become to do this. And how large we might become if we truly reached out to others and learned from them
Thanks for both a thoughtful and heartfelt post.
I’ve met a lot of NIMBY people lately, and I’ve seen lot’s of ignorance about the same world we share.
Around me people don’t recycle because they don’t live near a dump, they commute 3 hours a day because they don’t live near a refinery. My county sprays for moths without ever notifying me.
The farmers spray pesticides two feet from where my dog is. When I approach this topic with people, the answer that I often get is “It’s been proven safe”. My response is usually something like… “Yeah, like DDT, Arsenic, and Vioxx?” How do you respond to people that think if it’s on the market – it must be safe? I actually think the people who aren’t sure if it’s safe – so let’s put it in a 3rd world country just in case – should be prosecuted under human rights laws. At least the previous group of people are just ignorant.
This same attitude follows the path of people thinking they are the only ones using a resource. If somehow the law says it’s theirs… then they can do whatever they want with it. Last year my town had a severe water shortage, so severe that the town actually ran out of water. I live out in the country on a well, but we were under restrictions as well. My neighbor insisted on having a sprinkling system running. When I talked to him about it – he told me that it was his well, it was dug deep enough, and it was his water. I shook my head at him and tried to explain to him that we are all pulling from the same aquifer, and he was using all of our water, and that we didn’t know how much was left.
How do you change people’s thinking if they are convinced that natural resources belong to them?
Hi Angie, I am sorry you are having these problems even speaking with your neighbors. I don’t know where you live, but the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides might give you some cues/information as to how to approach this conversation (and protect yourself). Check out the links on the right hand column of this site and see if you can find anything that is helpful.
This values “wall” you are running (folks believing something in the “commons” necessary to the survive of all belongs to them) is one reason why the guardiansofthefuture.org, an offspring of the Science and Environmental Health Network, support changing our worldview AND instituting the “precautionary principle” to take up our responsibility for caring for our earth in support of future generations of all species.
”Everything we create winds up in our most intimate backyard-our own bodies”. This very powerful statement is what “jumped” off the page for me. The NIMBY attitude has migrated to the forefront of many issues as wide open spaces have decreased. It is becoming increasingly difficult for political and corporate entities to “slip” legislation and projects by an ever growing population. I would add that the NIMBY philosophy only works for those who have money and/or power. Unfortunately many sectors of populations have suffered the emotional and physical consequences when people who live far from them make decisions which affect their lives. In this age of technological advances and instant access to the media perhaps this is an area that may begin to wane. Especially as you so aptly pointed out that many of the affects will ultimately end up within the human body. I think scientists have finally managed to convince most people that our natural resources have a limit. It will now be their job to help facilitate solutions. It is my belief that the solutions need a community approach. So many of the decisions that ellicit a NIMBY response seem to stem from a more individualistic point of view that addresses the needs and/or concerns of a few as opposed to the entire world population. It is definitely a tall order but as it is proven that what happens in one part of the world affects another, as in acid rain, maybe people can look past cultural and political differences to set a new standard. We must protect the environment if we wish it to continue to sustain us.
Hi Colleen, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I especially like your insight/vision at the end, that we might spread good will and change and health for the environment instead of things like toxicity and poverty in our ultimately interdependent world. Perhaps that is an essential lesson nature will teach us– if we will only pay attention.
To relate, one of the drawbacks to the national park system in the US and the Japanese tree conservation policy is although it puts incredible value on the environment (trees, animals, plants, etc.) within the country’s own borders, it does not stop the country’s destruction of others’ land. To explain, Japan imports much of its lumber from Canada although it places much of its forested land as untouchable by the lumber industry. This hypocrisy illustrates Japan’s own NIMBY value to place the destruction on others rather than themselves and further enforcing the NIMBY hypocrisy.
To really get out of this lie, it seems, we may need to enforce an isolationist view of our own natural resources to see that our own development is the problem and not industry itself.
Hi Tony, you bring out a good point: how we cost things in this society. Suppose that we priced things according to the environmental impact that we might have to pay for in the future (houses coming down the hill from clear cuts, transportation systems interrupted by flooded roads as in Washington state, the health costs of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in our environment)?
Whether it is by changing what we value most in this culture (money?), we need to help create a system in which we reward those who actions result in what we as a society really want. Wouldn’t that be something to be proud of as a way to use your creativity in engineering. I know there are currently green chemistry standards, but I don’t know about engineering. You are getting your degree in a time of very interesting change.
I’m not sure an “isolationist” view is the same as a self-critical one– since in order to understand the results of our actions we need to see its effects on others. But the central idea is a very important one!
I loved it when you said “walls… don’t protect anyone. They only make them ignorant about what is on the other side” beautifully said! NIMBY very closely relates to the, “what I don’t know cant hurt me”, phenomenon. Blissfully ignorant. However, I would hope that this is changing. I feel as if this is changing. I feel that we are getting more aware of the fact the dumping waste in China, for instance, does not make it go away.
I would love to think that because we are the most powerful country in the world we are making conscious decisions, that we are constantly improving. We are not so dumb to believe NIMBY is an answer, we have to know it is an excuse.
Hi Kate, thanks for your comment. We certainly have a responsibility for global leadership in this way. We can all hope that we express it in the future as we have sometimes done in the past (in spearheading the UN Declaration of Human Rights after World War II, for instance).
This article was a literal shock to the system. I have thought before of the NIMBY attitude in our culture, but not quite in the way that you have laid out here. I know that I don’t always consider the consequences of my actions on the environment even though I have very strong feelings about our disregard for what we do not see everyday, and how that will affect all of us. To visualize ingesting the chemical and nuclear waste of plants that are NIMBY, just amplifies my responsibility to do the little things each day not to contribute to the damage already being done in the distance.
I also am motivated to become more educated on the ways in which our world is putting up blinders to justify ignorance, and support with our money, work conditions that constitute slave labor so that we can enjoy more for less. Thank you for your insight.
You are certainly welcome, Aaron. Thank you for your comment. My hope is that our realization that we live in an interdependent world will wake all of us up to both the consequences of our actions and our human potential.
This essay produces so much anger in me. There are so many things that our society promotes and does. It still astonishes me. I have personally fallen victim to things produced from people who will never know how they have altered and affected my life and I believe that this is simply unacceptable. This dilemma is one that I feel very strongly about. I have considered trying to write a book that simply teaches people of the dangers of putting young children on drugs like adderall and ritalin simply because I don’t think it is talked about enough. The ignorance that shields our world from the decisions made by those who are greedy and those in power sometimes feels like a bad dream to me. I think to myself “this cant be actually happening can it?” Then I wake up and realize that it can be happening and it is happening everyday.
Hi Megan, I think anger is an appropriate response to some of this– and healing through finding a community of mutual support where you can express the care and share information like that you want to put in your book. You can find material on misuse of ritalin and support for changing this here:http://www.mindfreedom.org/
Good luck and take care.
I did not know much, if anything, about NIMBY before this article, and while I have not ever taken a look at all that it entails and the facts about it, I now have a general idea of it, and this reply is in response to that. Having done mission work in Mexico, and having spent time in different parts of the country, it is shocking to me, that our government, which is a democratic one, which we Americans make decisions about (generally speaking), could do anything but want to HELP our neighbors in Mexico. I know it is very idealistic and unrealistic to want to help people and not hurt people, and we have MANY reasons and complicated systems to stop this from occurring, but why do we have to make it worse, but blocking off our “problems” south of us? What are we going to accomplish from this? I wish that we could respect humanity, and spend more time taking care of one another instead of being naive to other’s peoples problems, which, really, are OUR own problems. NIMBY separates and divides people, which is the opposite of what we need to do to create progress.
Hi Erin, thanks for your compassionate response. I especially like your statement that other’s problems ARE ours–and what we need to do to create progress. It would be great if we all took some time to critically redefine this term, rather than linking it a new invention or a rise in gross national product.
First of all I wanted to say that the eye opener for me was the plastic that we ingest. I can readily grasp it but did not even think about that before reading this article. I had thought of other things like tires piling up somewhere in a sanitary landfill, but now I realize how many things like plastic do not necessarily just break down/biodegradable like.
That also brings up another thought in my mind regarding NIMBY and globalization. Yes, I see the idea of we are a global community, and can consider ourselves neighbors with people all over the world, but the concept of NIMBY shows that we have been separating ourselves from other people and other places, putting up the walls. So it behooves us to realize everything we do affects everybody. We need to understand the imperative in taking responsibility and taking down the walls. Thanks for a great eye opening article and concept.
Jim Jarrad
Thanks for your comment, Jim. I very much concur with your idea about assuming responsibility for taking down the walls- including the walls of denial in our own consciousness.
The whole NIMBY concept is one that I find so incredibly. It is very hard for me to understand how people are still carrying around this attitude. We are a community. Everyone, even though we may all be at different levels, needs to work together. No one is exempt from this environmental crisis and so no one should be taking on an unfair amount of the negativity involved with it.
People are still holding on to the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality here. That point of view, however, is just hurting us all in the long run. Not noticing the problems that are present just allow them to pile up until they are too great to handle. We are putting the most vulnerable populations at risk while the stronger and wealthier just aren’t dealing with it. This is not okay. We all did this. We all need to help each other find a way out.
A very important point that not noticing the problems here (or perhaps taking responsibility for them if you happen to be making money from them) only make them escalate, Allie. I like you point that we all need to work together to deal with them.
I think for so long our society and its demand for new things was growing so rapidly, we did not know how to properly handle this expansion. I believe the NIMBY idea stemmed from this rapid growth. We became so obsessed with material possessions that manufacturers could barely keep up with demand, let alone spend time and energy researching where their products would end up in the future. I think the important thing is that we are now realizing our mistakes. Consumers are finally taking note and starting a trend that will hopefully spread to the general population. This trend of responsible (”green”) manufacturing will hopefully be well received by all US based producers within the next 10 years. If we set a good example, other countries are sure to follow to meet the expectations of US consumers.
Thanks for your comment, Jason. The economic expansion you point out here is certainly linked to the NIMBY attitude– but I think it goes further back than that. It is also linked to colonialism, which sees someone else’s land as the fodder for such expansion.
As your point out, our choices as consumers also create models for the rest of the world. It is time to be conscious about those choices, lest we pay for all kinds of things (e.g. pollution, child slave labor) none of us want.
I have always been aware of this NIMBY attitude, but I never knew there was a name on it. I have always been suspicious to the idea that Americans believe themselves to be superior over the rest of the world, and that everyone else deserves what they get from us. As long as our country looks good it doesn’t matter what’s going on over there. It brings to mind the whole walmart situation. There arechildren and such are making the products for hardly any pay, but we deem them as an all american family store because of the bargains.
Thanks for your response here, Kelli. As you indicate, the ethical standards by which we judge our actions should include the ways those actions effect others– whether those others happen to be our own family members or someone an ocean away.
This is a very touchy subject it seems by some of the responses ive seen. I personally have never herd of this NIMBY lie, so this was all new for me two read about. As i do believe that all the cultures around the world have to deal with the same problems we should not be making barriers to helping eachother. Yet just because there are walls between us and mexico or walls between any country to another doesnt mean we are not all in this problem for ourselves. I think more so in the case of building a wall from us and mexcio was to keep illegal immigrants out. Because it is illegal to live in the US and not be a citizen. This is the same for all countries, its not because we hate eachother but because it is law. Why in other words would we have to have passports when we travel to different countries.
I do believe we should be taking care of things ourselves in our country, and then helping others, cause we have problems to fix already. Reading this essay did remind me of something i learned off recently, is that we send our trash to different countries to take care off such as china, i am sure this has been going on for a long period but it was new to me. This almost made me feel embaraced, it like throwing your trash over the fence to your neighbors rather than taking care of it yourself.
Hello Christian, thanks for your comment. I like your last point especially. You have obviously grasped the ethical point that our ethical standards should be based on the consequences of our actions– whether or not the others those actions effect are one miles or two thousand miles away.
Your earlier point is thoughtful–and I would want to ask the following questions. 1. How do laws get made? Are they always as they should be– or are there times when they do not produce the results we really want. There is much debate on the issue of immigration. 2. Does putting up a wall really help us get what we want out of this situation? My point here was that the wall may cut off options and make us ignorant of one another–and foster the idea that if we put up a wall, we don’t have to think of what is on the other side–which consists of a complex economic situation in which US interests and corporations have played a part in creating. More information gives us more options.
You might also like to take a look at this essay on the NIMBY lie, Part II and its self-destructive consequences, in analyzing whether this attitude really serves our interests:http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/the-nimby-lie-part-ii-self-destructive-consequences/.
This is a very interesting discussion. There are many examples of the not in my backyard mentality. I think of the way that people want as many criminals enprisoned in jail, but then when the prisons filled up and we need to build another, no community wants to volunteer to have the prison built in their backyard. Offshore drilling for oil is a contentious topic in my community as in 2008 when fuel prices were very high, Republicans solution was to loosen the restrictions on drilling offshore and other areas that were previously protected from drilling rights. Ironically if you looked at the national statistics for people that supported offshore drilling at the time, the majority of Americans supported it but if you looked at states like Florida, California, and Oregon with large shorelines, the populations of those states overwhelmingly opposed offshore drilling. Hopefully somewhere down the line people can build a coalition to oppose the use of pesticides, petroleum products, toxic chemicals that linger in the soil, water and air long after they are invisible to the naked eye.
Very interesting examples that further illustrate the NIMBY attitude. I think your idea of a coalition to oppose those things no one wants in their own backyard is an important one. I do hope that environmental concerns may also bring cultures together as well.
The NIMBY attitude discussed in this essay reminds me of a saying I always seem to hear “out of sight, out of mind”. It worries me so many have this mind set, because as many families that may have some child or friend in the military, there are just as many people who dont. What happens to our soldiers and their promises that are broken by the goverment hardly reach every Americans ears. In the case of the soldiers losing benifits , most people are wrapped up in their own personnel everyday issues. These issues we hear about on the news and in the papers dont hit us in the face everyday like our own issues of paying rent and putting food on the table. This bring back the mind set “out of sight and out of mind”. I dont believe that we choose as a culture to express the NIMBY attitude but more are too wrapped up in out own little worlds to care for neighbors. Something could be said for “Love thy self and love thy neighbor”. I think the NIMBY attitude is a world wide issue in that sense. I found this article very interesting to read and full of some great info!
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I find it distressing that there was a media ban on showing the devastation of t he Gulf War as well as the war in Iraq– in fact, it was “managed” for the sake of advertisers who protested that real shots of war dampened buying urges. This is vastly unfair to those who fight there.
If we don’t have a family member there, as you indicate, we might at least see what is really going on. It was this kind of full media coverage that eventually ended the Viet Nam War– another reason the Bush admin was against covering the war. I think a great remedy for NIMBY in making decisions about war would be to put those who declare war on the front lines (just a whim).
Belief in NIMBY is a sepratist philosophy wherein lies a simple misinterpretation. We have been taught to define boundaries; the seperation of atoms, molecules, cells, multicellular organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, and the ecosphere represent a divided continuum . Like photons which behave as both waves and particles, so we too are in unified synchronicity and yet function as somewhat closed systems, respectively.
Adopting an attitude like NIMBY is self-destructive addictive behavior perpetuated by the social norm. We have been brainwashed to believe that we can get something for nothing, and have devoted our lives to the pursuit of more bang for our buck. It is not simply literal, usury is now a symbol of status and is exemplified by our domination and subjection of what we deem inferior.
The ecofeminist assertion of the pervasive duality and disregard for the discreditied female form has led to a general lack of reverence for the life sustaining properties of this world. Mothers give life; they are not to be abused. However, the patriarchal dominance of women is analogous to our dominion over nature and our belief that the earth will rebound.
I truly believe the earth, for it’s own sake, will persevere. However, the bread the Little Red Hen makes may not be very good for us to eat; we contaminated the ingredients.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Jenna. You bring up a very important point about the results of dualism/separation and the ecofeminist perspective. It is self-destructive certainly to demean the sources of our own lives, as you point out. I agree with you that the earth will persevere– perhaps much changed (from species loss, for instance, as a result of our actions), but we are endangering our own survival upon it. This should give the arrogance with which many carry out the dominant and dominating paradigm pause.
I think one of the most consequential outcomes of the NIMBY lie was the nuclear arms buildup that resulted from US-Soviet tension across the Berlin wall. It turned out that the “Wall” kept us from understanding our “enemy,” and as a result both sides ended up with massive stockpiles of weapons that now pose a serious environmental hazard to the planet. Perhaps if both sides had adopted different attitudes about one another’s intentions we could have avoided the perilous situation we now find ourselves in?
Very thoughtful additional example with respect to the consequences of the NIMBY attitude, Allison. We can’t change the past, but we can learn from it. I am heartened by Obama’s recent statement that our goal should be a nuclear free world.
There is a great example of NIMBY going on in Jefferson county right now. My father was a a meeting proposing some developments on this one property, and the case that was before his was supposed to take an hour to hear. Instead, it took four. The case was concerning some young gentlemen who wanted to put a composting plant in a certain location. Practically the whole community showed up to protest the plant and after every testimony the judges or whoever were in charge would ask, “do you have a problem with these boys or any reason to distrust them?” to which they would answer no, the boys had grown up in the community and everyone knew they were great kids. The second question was “are you against composting?” again, the answer of all but one man was no. So finally the question was “then what is the problem with this proposed facility?” The answer always boiled down to… “I don’t want it in my backyard.” I’m sure there are many ways that the plant could reduce it’s negative consequences while providing a great deal of benefit to the community and it’s surroundings, but no one wants a composting plant in their immediate backyard. Instead, they’d rather be slowly broken down by insidious, but distant, pollution and the spoils of their own ignorance. The sad thing is though, in all honesty if I were living on the property that bordered the proposed compost plant, I’d probably be up in arms protesting it as well.
A great example, Mark. Thanks for your honest remark at the end. For myself, I would want to know more about this plant, but I would certainly prefer it as a neighbor to some of the industries in the “caner alley” that others have referred to in comments on this forum. Sometimes I think we just need to get used to particular new ideas. In many communities manicured lawns used to be the aesthetic ideal: now these same communities are urging natural landscaping instead, which the community now accepts as environmentally friendly. But formerly our cultural views had such landscaping as unsightly (since it was not under human control, I think).
Physicists will tell you that no matter what you do you cannot erect a totally impermeable wall. No matter how thick that wall is or what it is made out of particles of all sorts of shape and size will pass though. Therefore I agree that in the case you mentioned about building walls between you and your neighbor brings no resolution to a major problem. The only effect that this may have is that there is now a wall between you and your neighbor. In the real world there are no barriers. Delimitations are a man made creation. Even something as clear as the line where the ocean meets land is in fact not clear separation. If you zoom out to space you see a whole planet and the seashore is just one part of it.
Nice tie into what we know from physics, Matt. Thanks.
Hello Professor Holden,
The NIMBY perspective or rather un-perspective is an interesting one. And, I agree with your thoughts where this meets ecology and conservation.
In our discussions the physical meets and equals ethics and spirituality. So, I’m finding it hard to sort ecology from spiritual value and safety. Let me explain. While I was reading your article, part of the time, I completely disagreed. Here’s the crux: I’ve been taught to have boundaries. Boundaries are good. Boundaries keep me safe. Drawing a line against oppression and pilage is a life saving characteristic both within a home and a nation. Allowing others to do what they may under the name of “everything goes”; lets all get along is a fallacy. To my way of thinking when we adhere to boundaries, we embrace balance. Boundaries can also be applied to important ecological stances.
I don’t think a wall is an effective tool; never has been. And ecologically speaking NIMBY is a way of thinking which will come to punish us and our children. But, I am certainly not opposed to boundaries.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Tina. Walls (and fences) are problems; knowing who you are and standing your ground is a matter of self-respect– and something very different. I do agree that we each need to start from where we are and stand that ground and interact on that level: from this perspective what we do not wish in our backyard is a basis for honoring that there are some things that should not be in anyone’s backyard.
Yes, good point.
First, this is the first I have heard of NIMBY. I did not realize half of what I read in this article but of course, why would I? The media only tells the public what they want and keeps us in the dark on many issues. The “Not in my back yard” attitude is also what keeps us in the dark since if it doesn’t concern me than what is the problem? The problem is the walls are not just being built up along the borders but also in our own back yards. Learning that we are indigesting plastics along with other chemicals is more than disheartening, it tells me that we are getting back what we are giving out. So when we continue to allow others to work under slave wages through our buying practices, then I feel that it comes right back at us.
Thanks for your comment, Tina. If the disheartening part of this is that we get back what we give out when we give out things like plastics and pesticides, the heartening part is that if we change what we give out for the better, we will get that back instead. Good note about the links between the walls in our backyards and the ones on our borders.
This is an interesting article that clearly explains our role as human beings. We are to protect and care for our environment even if it does not “get noticed” or directly affects our daily life. If everyone cared a bit more, chipped in, and watched out for our environment we may not be in quite as big of a dilemma. It seems like we humans are willing to do a lot more if we aren’t necessarily going to get caught… such as polluting, throwing garbage out the window, and judging immigrants who come to America to find a better life. The NIMBY phenomena is new to me but the “not in my backyard” seems to be a long standing frame of mind. If it does not directly affect me or someone I love then “who cares”. I think it is time for all humans to pay attention to what is going on and take a stand against the injustices.
Hi Kaaren, thanks for your comment. It certainly does seem that it is time to pay attention to the fact that the whole earth is in some way our backyard.