Dawn Lee
Energy Law
Aesthetics, Human Behavior, and Energy Sufficiency
Abstract
This paper argues that in order to achieve goals of energy sufficiency,
environmentalism needs to begin to incorporate more mainstream aesthetic values.
Because reducing consumption through abstention and self-sacrifice is unrealistic, the
most effective way to increase energy sufficiency is through skilled consumption.
Therefore, while human beings still engage in consumption, their consumption patterns
are less wasteful. Inducing such skilled consumption, however, requires certain
motivating factors that can affect human behavior. Appeals to altruism that implicate
sacrifice fail to motivate human behavior in the absence of immediate harm. Human
beings are primarily motivated by the desire to live a better quality of life. Inherent in
this quality of life are aesthetic values. The aesthetic imperative is universally innate in
human beings. Human beings will generally be drawn to a more aesthetically pleasing
form when given a modicum of function. Yet, form and function, rather than operating
as two separate concepts, should in actuality be merged. Rather than forcing people to
choose between either form or function, they should be presented with options that
achieve both ideals without sacrificing the other.
I. Introduction
Aesthetics is an inherent component of human life. Rather than a mere superficial
concept, aesthetics encompasses an entire array of human emotion that is integrally
linked with beauty. As a philosophy, aesthetics oftentimes fails to garner the respect of
other philosophical or scientific fields. A common idea is that although art1 is admittedly
important to humanity, it has little to do with crucial branches of philosophy. Yet,
aesthetics is part of value theory,2 and as value is philosophically significant, aesthetics is
thus philosophically important as well. Aesthetics simply cannot be discounted because
of the enormous degree to which humanity values it. (Mary Devereaux, “The
Philosophical Status of Aesthetics,” http://www.aestheticsonline.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=6).
1
Art as used in this paper refers to an abstract and generalized conception of beauty.
Similarly, beauty is a relative term that encompasses a myriad of physical characteristics
to which human beings assign a range of value. Neither art nor beauty is specific to a
certain aesthetic and should be perceived as objective terms.
2
Value Theory designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical
questions about value and goodness of all varieties. (“Value Theory,” Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/).
1
Though skeptics question such value, it is an inevitable fact that art is an essential
component of human societies. It is prevalent in all cultures and its existence dates back
to the earliest human civilizations. (Lance Hosey, “The Shape of Green: Aesthetic
Imperatives,” http://places.designobserver.com/feature/the-shape-of-green-sustainabilityand-aesthetics/34518/). There is an innate need within humans for more than mere
survival. It is this need that manifests itself as an appreciation and desire for beauty.
Further, such aesthetic value is not wholly separate from other human values. Aesthetic
and moral philosophers have rejected such separation and pursued questions such as the
moral limits of aesthetic appreciation. (Devereaux).
Perhaps because of the reluctance to accept aesthetics as a genuine and significant
field, the idea that aesthetics is a separate, fringe concept persists. While moral
philosophy is respected and revered as essential in nearly any study of human life,
aesthetics is oftentimes an afterthought. Therefore, in the study and execution of energy
sufficiency,3 while ethical considerations almost always play some sort of role, aesthetic
considerations are rarely present. Yet, the relationship between aesthetics and human
consumption has a significant impact on energy sufficiency. It is impossible to separate
such consumption from what human beings value. Thus, it is becoming increasingly
evident that the current approach to energy sufficiency is flawed.
Aesthetic appreciation has somehow become a disreputable concept in the world
of green energy. There is a sort of sliding scale in which some amount of aesthetic
consideration is acceptable, but too much of a focus on aesthetics will detract from
energy sufficiency goals. It has become trendy to reject former aesthetic ideals, and
focus on sustainability over beauty. However, it is this very trend that has stymied mass
appeal and growth. Additionally, such an ideal fails to comprehend the philosophy of
aesthetics. There is a reason why human nature persists in pursuing art. Rejecting
aesthetic value is essentially rejecting an innate and universal human need for beauty. It
is only when such a need is recognized and integrated into environmentalism that
sustainability will succeed.
II. The Aesthetic Imperative
While it is evident that aesthetics is important to humanity, the degree of such
value is difficult to measure and comprehend. Like questions of morality, aesthetic value
is not easily definable. There is debate as to whether or not it is a necessary component
of human survival. Hypothetically, human societies could subsist indefinitely, provided
their physical needs were fulfilled. Yet, there is no evidence of any human society that
has subsisted on such a meager fare. Even in the barest sort of life, there is some form of
art present. Human beings thus far have refused to exist in a state of mere survival.
3
For the purposes of this paper, energy sufficiency, environmentalism, and green energy
all generally refer to the movement to change human behavior in such a way as to
preserve nonrenewable resources, utilize more energy efficient methods, and promote
energy conservation. The terms are used interchangeably throughout, but are intended to
be synonymous.
2
This leads to the problematic issue of defining essential needs. Is an essential
need only the physical need for survival, or does it also encompass emotional and mental
needs? Human beings are social creatures. Societies exist because human survival
depends on the combined power of many. To say that only physical needs are essential
ignores human nature. Human beings require the mental and emotional stimulation of
human society. In these needs, the desire for aesthetics is present. Aesthetics is, at its
core, a tangible expression of human nature. Its perpetual existence in human society is
evidence that human beings cannot exist in the absolute absence of art.
There are several theories regarding the prevalence of aesthetic appreciation in
different societies. While its presence is universal, some argue that only when society
exists in a state which is not purely survival, can aesthetic appreciation thrive. J.S. Mill
argues that such aesthetic appreciation, called the art of living, is much more likely when
human minds have “ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on.” (J. S. Mill,
Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (7th
Ed.)). Further, a stationary condition of capital and population does not imply that there
is a stationary state of human improvement. Improving mental culture, and moral and
social progress are in fact, more likely when society has reached such a stationary
condition. Improving the art of living is a perpetual human need that is heightened
primarily when human society moves past basic survival.
Other theorists offer an alternative, though perhaps not entirely opposing, view
to Mill’s art of living. Virginia Postrel emphasizes that aesthetics, as an inherent part of
human culture, is ever present in all stages of development. She argues that “[h]uman
beings do not wait for aesthetics until they have full stomachs and a roof that doesn’t
leak… They do not pursue aesthetic needs ‘only when basic needs have been satisfied’
… Aesthetics is not a luxury, but a universal human desire. (Virginia Postrel, The
Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce). Postrel
recognizes the need for aesthetics in human nature. It is ever present in all stages of
human society. Human beings universally seek to fulfill this innate desire, regardless of
their stage of development. However, such a theory is not necessarily contradictory of
Mill’s art of living. Mill does not argue that aesthetics are only a luxury, but rather, that
the aesthetic imperative increases as society’s focus on mere survival decreases.
Thus, as modern society moves rapidly beyond this state of mere survival, the
aesthetic imperative is growing exponentially. While this desire is always present in
human societies, the aesthetic value of individual objects is increasingly important in
modern, developed societies. When functionality has been mastered, human beings seek
to distinguish objects in ways that can only be described as aesthetic. As Postrel points
out, “[w]e want our vacuum cleaners and mobile phones to sparkle, our bathroom faucets
and desk accessories to express our personalities.” (Virginia Postrel, “The Aesthetic
Imperative”). However, there is a seeming disconnect between form and function.
Beautiful form and idealistic function are seen as mutually exclusive. At best, most seem
to think, either form or function will sacrifice just enough to achieve an acceptable
balance.
3
However, this is an inherently flawed approach. As the aesthetic imperative
grows in human societies, so does the value of aesthetics in everyday life. In the absence
of mere survival, human beings increasingly value beauty in previously mundane objects.
Assuming that such objects generally perform adequately, it is inevitable that other
considerations will be the driving force behind human choice. Of these other
considerations, aesthetic value is one of the most important. In a society where there
exists a modicum of functionality, human beings will generally emphasize aesthetic
value. It is no longer an issue of whether or not an object will adequately accomplish its
task, but rather, which object of the many that can accomplish this task do individual
human beings like best.
Emphasizing the either/or dynamic of form and function only reinforces the idea
that people must choose between the two. There is a myth that persists that an object is
either breathtakingly beautiful or a functional marvel. The idea is that while it is possible
to adequately balance the two, it is impossible to achieve the ideal form or function
without sacrificing the other in some way. Because of what is seen as a difficult
balancing act, there is little overlap between pure art and fervent green energy advocates.
Yet, despite paradoxical implications, it is only when the two ideals are merged that there
can be any success in the green energy movement.
Rather than choosing between form and function, objects should ideally merge the
two in such a way as to achieve the best of both. Thus, technological innovations should
simultaneously consider artistic values and vice versa. This is certainly a foreign
concept. Yet, appealing to the innate aesthetic imperative is necessary in order to achieve
mass appeal. This is in part why the green energy movement has failed to achieve this
sort of large-scale success. Continuous appeals to altruism and even emphasizing future
repercussions fail because such considerations generally have less impact on individual
human beings than aesthetic desire. It is not that human beings consciously choose
aesthetics over these other considerations, but rather, that this universal aesthetic desire is
very strong in humans. To deny this desire would be to deny essential human nature.
The goal of energy sufficiency is ultimately to preserve energy on a massive
scale. The sometimes snide attitude with which green energy advocates perceive
aesthetic desire undermines such a goal. This sort of attitude is similar to the skepticism
with which most people approach aesthetic philosophy in general. It is not simply about
what is pretty, but recognizing the value of aesthetics in human society. Aesthetic
consideration is not just important in achieving energy efficient goals, but a necessity in
achieving those goals. It is imperative that society begins to regard energy sufficiency
not as a sacrifice but as an appealing choice.
Green energy goals are achieved primarily through behavioral changes in human
beings. The existence of better energy efficient methods is inconsequential without
implementation into society. Such implementation needs to occur on a massive scale in
order to have a real impact on these goals. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on
changing the behavior of the general population as a whole. Appeals to adopt austere
4
lifestyles on environmental or moral grounds are much less likely to change behavior
than the alternative of a higher quality of life. (Juliet B. Schor, “Prices and quantities:
Unsustainable consumption and the Global Economy,” http://www.julietschor.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/prices-and-quantities-copy.pdf). Entwined in a higher quality of
life is the satisfaction of aesthetic desire. Aesthetically pleasing alternatives are more
than just pretty- they are positive reinforcers in human choice. This positive incentive
can be manipulated in such a way as to influence human behavior to achieve green
energy goals.
III. Skilled Consumption
Human consumption is inevitable and ongoing. Despite efforts to decrease this
consumption, as the human population grows, so does consumption. Thus, the goal
should not be how to halt consumption, but rather, how to consume in the best manner.
The problem of material overconsumption is not the consumption itself, but the lack of
skilled consumption. Without the acquisition of consumption skills, human beings fall
into a pattern of engaging in resource-intensive work to consume resource intensive
material goods. (T. Scitovsky, The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human
Satisfaction). At the heart of skilled consumption is the idea that potential solutions do
not have to be based on abstention and self-denial. (Lyle K. Grant, “Sustainability: From
Excess to Aesthetics,” http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/bsi/article/viewFile/2789/
2576). Further, focusing on when harmful predictions of environmental damage may
occur detracts from the more important issue of how to improve sustainability in a way
that will succeed whether such damage is imminent or in the distant future.
A consequence of improved living is the habituation of certain purchased goods
or income. As such things become more prevalent in society, designations of necessities
and luxuries expand. These patterns are evident in surveys in which people rated whether
certain goods were luxuries, necessities, or as part of “the good life.” In 1973, a second
car was a “necessity” for only 20% of Americans, but by 1996, this value had nearly
doubled. Similarly, the number of people who rated a vacation home, pool, and
international travel as part of “the good life” increased significantly over the decades.
(Schor). These designations have fluctuated due to the economic shifts, but the overall
trend suggests that what constitutes a necessity and the good life is rapidly expanding.
It would be wrong, though, to criticize human beings for this expansive view of
necessity. The pattern of human development is, after all, a perpetual desire to improve
the quality of life. Demanding that society shun its expanding desire for improvement
will have little impact on overall behavioral trends. In the absence of an impending and
immediate threat to survival, it is in human nature to seek the best sort of life available.
This is both inevitable and desirable in human societies. It is in this constant push for
improved life that innovations flourish.
Many green energy advocates fail to recognize that it is not a choice between
saving the environment and indulging in the good life. Abstention of the good life is not
the solution for energy sufficiency. Further, the stereotype of modern America as a
5
soulless, luxury driven society must be banished. Modern America is no different than
any other human civilization in that it continually seeks to improve life. The aesthetic
imperative is so strong in modern American society because in this developed
civilization, mere survival has been eclipsed by the art of living. The dynamic of good
environmentalists versus bad American consumers only recognizes the good intent of the
environmentalists, without embracing the universal human desire for a better life.
Additionally, this ideal alienates the vast majority of human beings who are made to feel
guilty about their inevitable desire for the best life available.
Skilled consumption is vital for energy sufficiency because it recognizes that
denial is not a realistic solution. In the inevitable process of human consumption, skilled
consumption emphasizes that certain consumption choices can help achieve energy
sufficiency. The primary concern for environmentalists should be how to make these
choices appealing. More specifically, what sorts of motivating operations are most likely
to succeed in that endeavor? (Scitovsky). Ultimately, at the core of human motivation is
the individual desire for a better life. In such a desire is the aesthetic imperative. Thus,
the most successful motivating operations will be those that integrate this desire as a
positive reinforcer. Human beings will choose energy efficient methods because such
methods offer the most superior merger of form and function. Only when energy
efficient methods are no longer viewed as a sacrifice can environmental goals be
achieved.
IV. Form and Function
In the disconnect between form and function, there are two distinct and separate
parties. There are those who champion form over function and vice versa. Particularly
when this is narrowed to an environmental aspect does this disconnect between evident.
The chasm between environmentalists and designers continues to grow. Both sides take
great pride in emphasizing the follies of the other. Further, this disdain and scorn has
become a sort of badge of honor. Thus, it is only when a person so wholly rejects the
other side that he can manage to earn the respect of his own side. The world that is
fostered by such a dynamic is one in which people must choose either ideal form or
function.
While green energy values have increased recently, such beliefs have failed to be
widely accepted. Further, many green energy advocates take pride in this separation.
They flaunt the uniqueness of their values and more importantly, emphasize the
superiority of their choices. In their environmentalism there is an undercurrent of moral
superiority. They reason that they are making their choices based on altruism and not
personal desire. Such an attitude only serves, however, to alienate the general population
and punish those people who genuinely have little knowledge regarding the choices
available.
Even in their attempts to introduce style to sustainability, environmentalists
persist in emphasizing their uniqueness. This has, unfortunately, developed into an
aesthetic cliché, suggesting that what is earth friendly must also look earthy. (Hosey).
6
Sustainable style is therefore a reflection of its function, rather than any real fulfillment
of aesthetic desire. That is not to say that beauty is absent in these earthy looks, but that
such beauty is only an afterthought. The most damaging consequence, though, is that
sustainable style continues to be inextricably linked with sacrifice in the minds of the
general populace. As Forbes magazine put so eloquently, “[e]co-fashion conjures up
images of burlap sacks.” (Ruchika Tulshyan, “Is Susan Woo Right About Eco-Fashion?”
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/green-fashion-clothes-forbes-woman-style-susanwoo.html). While such burlap sacks may be appealing to those self selected martyrs of
environmentalism, they tend to lack mass appeal.
What environmentalists fail to recognize is the importance of mass appeal.
Individual innovations and sacrifices can only make relatively small impacts on green
energy goals. Paradoxically, the separation that is the source of such pride to many
environmentalists is the very reason why environmentalism has failed as a large-scale
movement. Instead of focusing on the individuality of an environmentalist,
environmentalists need to focus on the mass desire of the population. Environmentalism
has become laden with emotions and judgments. Yet, behavioral change is, albeit a
rather imprecise, science. Despite whatever judgments may be exist regarding the mass
populace, environmentalists need to appeal to that populace in order to effect real change.
Partially because of the image that has ben fostered by the green energy
movement, mainstream designers4 have generally failed to incorporate energy sufficiency
into their designs. Not only has integration failed, many mainstream designers have
come to regard energy efficient designs with scorn. Overtly conspicuous green buildings,
such as ostentatious solar panels and grass roofs, have become what some architects dub
“green bling.” (Hosey). Much of this disdain is based on the seeming sacrifice of form
to function. Rather than becoming a design element, green designs are vaunted symbols
of environmentalism. Beneath this scorn though is the very real fear that appreciation for
the form itself will become lost. For many designers, the entire purpose of their work is
to create a physical interpretation of their perception of beauty. To sacrifice this purpose
is to undermine the very meaning of their work.
Despite the belief of many environmentalists, human beings innately value the
aesthetic purpose of a designer. Further, to take away that which has already become so
ingrained in modern society only reiterates the idea of sacrifice. Undoubtedly, there
exists a multitude of aesthetic tastes, and even the earthy style of environmentalists has
aesthetic value. However, changing overall behavioral patterns must be based on overall
motivating factors. Thus, the issue is not which styles should be popular, but what styles
are popular. Form and function should not be sacrificed for the other, and
environmentalists should seek to embody mainstream aesthetic value into energy efficient
methods. This is not a suggestion that all eco-friendly designs should just mirror
4
Designers in this context refer more broadly to any person who makes decisions
regarding the form of an object. Such designation can include architects, interior
decorators, fashion designers, etc. This designation is not limited to the subset of
professions whose sole purpose is to design form, however.
7
preexisting popular styles, but rather, that eco-friendly designs should appeal to the mass
populace. Eco-friendly products should incorporate aesthetically pleasing design
elements that are more than just primarily symbols for environmentalism. As Lance
Hosey put it, “[s]ustainability should have style, but not become a style.” (Hosey).
A few eco-friendly designs have managed to bridge the gap and find mainstream
appeal. An example is the 2004 Toyota Prius, which has become the iconic model for
hybrid cars. The 2004 Prius was unique in that it did not merely mimic preexisting
automobile bodies, but pioneered an entirely new design. While its unconventional
appearance led some critics to call it a “clumsy looking toad of a car,” this identifiably
eco-friendly shape gained a large following. (Hosey). The 2004 Prius is an ideal
example because its design sought to offer distinct aesthetic appeal. Such aesthetic value,
while inherently eco-friendly, was not simply an embodiment of its environmentalism.
To a relatively large number of consumers, its design was superior to other non ecofriendly designs, because its aesthetic was fresh and unique. The 2004 Prius was not just
a status symbol for environmentalism- it was simultaneously a nifty looking car.
Eco-friendly fashion designer Susan Woo recognized that the driving motivation
behind consumerism is personal taste. While incorporating organic fabrics manufactured
in energy efficient factories into her label, she emphasized that “[t]he fact that [the
clothes are] made of sustainable materials is like icing on the cake” for women.
(Tulshyan). Woo found that her customers cared much more about the fit and the feel,
and relatively little about its eco-friendly nature. Rather than accepting the earthy
aesthetic cliché, Woo sought to bring energy sufficiency to high fashion. Having worked
at Derek Lam, Louis Vuitton, and Chanel, Woo’s line is a reflection of idealistic
aesthetics. Her label is unique not because of its eco-friendly nature, but because of its
design.
V. Conclusion
It is a myth that energy sufficiency is failing because of the lack of innovation.
There is a plethora of energy efficient methods that currently exist. It is the underconsumption of such methods that contributes most greatly to this failure. There is no
great method waiting to be pioneered that will radically change energy sufficiency in the
mass populace. Instead, it will be human behavioral patterns that will determine the
energy sufficiency of society. Only when the mass populace learns proper consumption
skills will environmentalism succeed as a movement. Thus, the real issue is discovering
the best motivating operations for those consumption skills.
The need for aesthetics in everyday life is an innate human desire. Aesthetics at
its core will never be merely superficial or an afterthought because it is so deeply valued
by human beings. Even those human beings who reject traditional aesthetic values still
surround themselves with their individual visions of beauty. Appeals to altruism
ultimately accomplish little if such appeals include primarily sacrifice. It is both
unrealistic and undesirable to deny the human need to improve our lives. Given a
modicum of functionality, therefore, it is inevitable that human beings make their choices
8
based on which forms will offer the best sort of life. The quality of life is inextricably
linked to aesthetic value. Human beings have repeatedly refused to live lives that were
barren of aesthetic qualities.
Thus, rather than forcing sustainability upon American society, the focus should
be on how to make American society choose sustainability. The goal, however, should
not be making sustainability merely as good as non eco-friendly options, but superior.
While it is advisable to make eco-friendly choices at least on par with other options, in
order to effect real change, sustainability needs to be a popular choice. This is the reason
why aesthetic concerns are in actuality one of the most important aspects of success.
Current eco-friendly aesthetic clichés have been rejected by mainstream society because
such clichés fail as designs independent of their function. Human beings universally
recognize and appreciate the aesthetic value of an object. Environmentalism needs to
seize upon such inevitable aesthetic desire in order to achieve its goal of energy
sufficiency.
9