I actually do have a theory that some of what drives the green mania is an attempt to establish some sort of transcendent horizon of meaning in what is still ultimately immanent terms. We might not be given any reason to save the earth beyond our own enlightened self-interest (ie. if we don’t we and our descendents all die) but given the global nature of the challenge, the fact that we’re dealing with an unresponsive nature rather than other messy human beings, and the potential of human technology to solve with the problems seems to provide some sense of larger horizon of meaning that we crave without the messiness of transcendence. But wait, enlightened self interest…where have I heard that before? And so we end up with catalogs from Ford detailing their new lines of hybrid SUVs and a new line of Coke t-shirts at Wal-Mart…or, more disturbingly, rapidly increasing food prices as we use what was a staple crop of the world’s poor to drive our (environmentally friendly mind you) bio-fueled vehicles.

So, what these examples seems to illustrate to me is the necessity of recognizing that we as a society need to get beyond a myopic focus on “going green” and perhaps confront some of the deeper issues of which our abuse and misuse of the earth is a symptom. I guess what I’m trying to say is that what could be more natural than a line of eco-friendly Barbie accessories when our foundational motivation of enlightened self interest remains unquestioned?

Kristin–Yeah, I was also surprised that New York Mag was only now doing their “green” issue, as it seems it’s been done so often. What I found particularly hilarious, was their statement about why it couldn’t be on recycled paper.

On the other hand, the idea for a “Green Issue” is rather unoriginal. Vanity Fair does the very same thing every year… their Green Issue is actually on news stands right now.