Green social networks are popping all over the place. This morning, I got word from Meryn, of yet another one, and another one. Frankly, I have stopped keeping track. They want us to become engaged, and to change our behaviors, fast. They claim to have all kind of tools to help us accomplish the impossible. How come then, I am not more enthused? I, out of all people, who spend so much time on the topic, should be an easy sell.
Here is what I think is missing from all these sites. A lack of understanding of basic psychology, and of the way real people change their behaviors. I do not decide ‘I want to be green’, and ask for someone to whip me into shape. Actually, I may, but the truth is, that kind of intention is not sustainable. I do not need to add yet another thing on my already long to-do list. I want solutions to my everyday problems, as in more convenient, cheaper, smarter.
Social networks I really dig:
- Urban gardening communities
- Home energy efficiency networks
- Faith based initiatives
- City-wide biking programs
- Facebook, YouTube
- Carpooling
- CSA’s and farmers’ markets
- Obama’s movement
How about you? What is your favorite social network? What are your primary motivations for joining? How do you feel about virtual versus ‘real’ networks?
I joined Facebook. That is the only social network I have an active part in. I joined only to keep in touch with good friends, both old and news.
I think that in this case, virtual can help real networks…. even if they can also endanger them as we spend too much time in front on the computer
I am also on Linkedin ( you too
) but it is strictly professional. Concerning the environment, I don’t partake in anything.
Keep up the good work Marguerite !
I think there’s an over focus on technology. Social networks are not called “social” without reason, it’s about people. The most important technological innovations the facilitation the forming of online social networks (not bound by distance, less bound in time) have already taken place: Everyone can create an online profile, everyone can create an online group, everyone can send messages to anyone, and anyone can create a blog or share other content online. Technology can’t really offer us more in this regard.
The web has been an online social network from day one, only very cumbersome, and not as easily recognizable as what we expect since the rise of online community sites like slashdot, and later on myspace and facebook.
I think we should not be looking at the tools, but at how people use the tools. Sites don’t engage people, people do. The technology behind your blog is completely generic, yet the way you use it has visibly engaged me and others.
How this works is something worth pondering about.
As for your question:
I’m currently really digging FriendFeed because of it’s very smooth and direct interaction. For people who are well aligned (common interests, common values) it’s a great place to be social with each other. Much better than Twitter I think.
I’m http://friendfeed.com/meryn
Edouard, you and I share the same preferences!
I think there is a reason why you and I don’t partake in any online green social networks, at least so far. Meryn said it, social networks are first and foremost about social connections and true networks.
The problem with current online green social networks is that they are usually just a technology, glued together with some stated intent from a few people. That, as stated by Meryn does not make a social network. In order for a social network to ‘take’, a community needs to form that gives to each of its members something they want and need. In turn each member then feel moved to give back to other members and to the community as a whole.
I think that there are many small green social networks is forming right now on the web. One of them is forming right here. The key is sustained interaction. There’s no real connection until people have shared thoughts and feelings with each other, preferably more than once.
But this place is quite unique among the networks, because this is the only place I know of where there’s talk about strategy, and lots of self-reflection. Most other sites are only about concrete issues.
This could mean that you have set up something really special in motion, Marguerite.
I think it’s likely that there will be lots of small groups growing for a while, and we may see interconnections between these groups arising. For example, is there anyone acquainted here with a regular at No Impact Man?
Same thing for http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/
I agree with Meryn, interaction takes place here. We are a dozen to comment here on a regular basis (not as much as I would like, on my part), this is a small community gathered via one person…
Many thanks Marguerite and Meryn for all your data and so on.
best wishes for the week that begins tomorrow !
As usual, great topic Marguerite.
My two cents . . .
We humans are very visual, three-dimensional, signal-oriented, social, sensual beings. (By “sensual”, I mean heavily influenced by all senses.)
When I say very, I mean VERY. In other words, we are these things much more than we typically realize it, because people think thoughts and are often less aware of all the other things that influence them, usually under the radar screen.
So, virtual social networking, as valuable as it can be for some purposes, can only go so far, on average, in motivating large groups of people. Put another way, it can help facilitate such change, but it (alone) probably can’t bring such change about. Something more is needed.
La Marguerite is my favorite green site, for reasons that others have already mentioned. There is a human element here, brought about by you, the topics you present, your sincerity, and the audience and participants that have joined in. My only “organized” online social network consists of the four folks that originally came together from Dot Earth. I don’t belong to other networking sites. Actually, I belong to one other green site (other than Dot Earth), and I need to get more active there, as soon as I find my password again.
My sense is that all of the online green sites (some much better than others) can only go so far. For change to occur on a broad and strong scale, people will need to interact, in neighborhoods, events, rallies, and so forth. Online efforts can facilitate these things and motivate them. But, online efforts can’t replace them. People learn best from what they actually DO and experience and see (visually) others do.
Although the online things are very helpful in their own ways, I think that one of the reasons that there seems to be an odd feeling out there in the world (What next? Why doesn’t somebody do something?) is that so many of the passionate young people are online that they aren’t visible “in the streets.” Many of the online activities are, I guess, occupying people online much more than they are facilitating visible action in the 3-D world. I think that young agents-of-change should use the internet to facilitate positive “activism” and set good green examples for people, all of which to take place in the physical 3-D world. Put another way, some (not necessarily all) of the online efforts should push (or encourage) people into the streets, into their communities, into their local pubs, into taking green action, into neighborhood activism, and so forth.
That said, there remains the question of how to engage the human qualities that I mentioned (above) in on-line environments to create stronger social networks and facilitate more of what I just mentioned. On that question, here are a couple thoughts:
I think VISUALS help, and matter, a lot. As mentioned, people are visual social beings. We want to SEE. Your use of video clips, to talk to us, has been great. More of that might help. Also, it might help to allow posts to be visual, i.e., people could make some of their comments via video clips, visually. Participants could do little demonstrations. (I’d like to do a ten-second clip to demonstrate the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere using a basketball.) If people could post visually, e.g., video clips including comments, and so forth, that might help.
Also, it helps to facilitate or encourage participation in events. The next time there’s an Earth Day or something like that, the online community should practically insist that people participate. Otherwise, we end up with millions of people posting comments online, from their bedrooms or studies, and only two dozen people showing up at an event at Stanford, for example. Trust me: ExxonMobil won’t change if they see only dozens of people at periodic rallies and if people keep buying their gasoline. Millions of people could be chatting online, but if they keep buying ExxonMobil gasoline, and if they don’t participate in events, what would we expect to happen? Not much.
I don’t know how large your audience is (and there’s no need for you to say), but I think you might have much more “positive power” than you realize. For example, if you challenge us to not drive one weekend, then if it’s possible for me to do so, I’ll try not to drive that weekend. People do respond to challenges, suggestions, and good examples. People do like to share success stories, I think.
Anyhow, those are just some thoughts. I think La Marguerite is great. Very helpful. Please keep up the great work.
Cheers.
Hi Marguerite,
As usual, you are insightful – recognizing a CSA as a social network (thanks for the link!) – and bashful – perhaps not recognizing what you have created. I know I have changed enormously since I started participating in your blog. Sometimes though, it’s a drag – I can’t even enjoy watching motorboat racing without feeling anxious about the carbon footprint! It’s true…I see everything in a new light, and for that, thank you.
I checked out the two green social network links – the first looks lame. I suppose I’m lucky I’ve never heard of “irritable male syndrome.” But the second looks promising. I’m glad to know there’s a forum for youth. Perhaps there’s some hope after all!
Thanks all for the positive feedback. It means a lot to me.
Meryn, I think you gave me the nudge to try out Friendfeed, finally! Twitter better watch out . . .
Jeff, I have been thinking a lot about your point regarding the connection between virtual and real networks. It seems to me that the two are meant to work together.
For instance, my network on Facebook started from a core of real friends with whom I connected first in real life. That core group is the heart of my network. Then another circle keeps getting added of friends of these friends, who end up becoming virtual friends. Some of these virtual friends have become real friends.
Conversely, on La Marguerite, the community started as 100% virtual with one member only. Over time, through the exchange of informations in comments, and the purposeful cultivation of links with and between readers, a sense of group has emerged. Sharing similar values and a common purpose have certainly helped. This virtual group has now expanded beyond the boundaries of the La Marguerite blog, leading in some cases to emails, phone conversations, and even face to face exchanges. There are also two peripheral groups that got formed as a result of the blog, one of them quite active and a great source of support for its members.
Last, I would like to address the issue of size and engagement. La Marguerite is an example of a small but very active virtual network. Other groups are huge, but the involvement between members is minimal. I am thinking for instance of some of the professional groups I have joined on Linkedin. Back to recent research on social clusters http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/greening-strategies-most-likely-to-succeed-in-groups/ I just wonder if there is not an optimal size, past which a group ceases to be influential. Not that there cannot be groups with millions of members, but I would dare to venture that the real social connectivity takes place in smaller cluster cells, with the larger group acting as glue between the various cells.
I find the online networks to be useful for information and inspiration. The riot for austerity is a good one. I prefer the practical to the abstract, as you all know by now
I think we have to distinguish between a “social network” and a community. A social network can provide advice and encourage, but only a community is likely to achieve genuine change.
Online isn’t a genuine community, though. In a genuine community, you learn to work with people. Some hippie types who’ve never had one imagine that a “community” is where everyone is happy and loving and gets along famously all the time. Whereas a genuine community is where people don’t necessarily even like each-other, but make the effort to work things out and get along just to get things done. Like a big family gathering
Online we don’t have that, if we get annoyed we can just walk away. It’s a gathering of the like-minded rather than a community.
Where many social networks fail is that they think they’re communities. This is because our Western society is rather atomised, people are individuals and are used to doing things on their own rather than having to work with others whom they may not even like. They don’t have experience of a community, and so confuse it for a gathering of the like-minded.
The lack of achievement of online social communities is what gets people creating so many of them. “Well maybe this one will work…”
That’s not to say that online social networks aren’t useful and good things, of course they are. But they’re not communities, and we can’t expect them to achieve much in concrete terms – information and inspiration only. You need people in your life with you to really get things done.
Riot4Austery looks really good!
“social network can provide advice and encourage, but only a community is likely to achieve genuine change. ”
I don’t know if your distinction between social network and community is technically correct, but I love the meanings you give to them, so I’ll go with you on this.
“Online isn’t a genuine community, though. In a genuine community, you learn to work with people.”
Do you have any knowledge about the open source software development process? I think there you can clearly see that it’s possible to build community online, people learning to collaborate with each other.
There’s another notion in business circles that leading business are morphing into communities. There’s also the notion of “communities of practice”.
My point is that the neighboorhood you live in is not the only community you can be part of. Your workplace might provide another community, as do your activities online. Those activities can go much further then merely exchanging information. You can actually build things together.
There’s obviously a need for better local communities, but I think online communties can also really help. I think we’ve already have a quite a good “team” on La Marguerite. The problem is that right now we’re not specifically building something, we’re only talking. But we certainly could be. Then the social network would elevate to being a community.
“Do you have any knowledge about the open source software development process? I think there you can clearly see that it’s possible to build community online, people learning to collaborate with each other.”
I don’t know much about them, but nonetheless it’s a fair point. However, my understanding of those communities is that they’re not true communities – they’re actually groups of five or six, up to twenty people who get along very well, with hundreds of others who drop in for a short time, do one or two things, lose interest and walk away.
There’s also a difference in that the open source software community first defines a specific purpose, and then finds people who want to achieve that; whereas the in-person community has the people first, and finds the purpose second – obviously making it harder to achieve any specific purpose.
The online/in-person thing still has that important distinction: online you can walk away at any time, in-person you’re stuck with them. That’s a very important difference for social interactions. People online are very prone to telling you how important you are to them, how you’ll be in their life forever, etc. Virtual friends are as bad as drunk girls on a one-night stand. “I love you FOREVER!” Yeah, okay, we’ll see what happens…
“I want solutions to my everyday problems, as in more convenient, cheaper, smarter.”
See http://www.biggreenpurse.com
Diane addresses all of the above concerns.
That site’s just green consumerism.
We’re not going to shop our way out of our problems.
“We’re not going to shop our way out of our problems.”
Well for a part, we could. If we *all* spend our money on totally green products and services (made and transported with 100% renewable energy, and 100% recyclable) noone would be buying (or burning) oil or coal anymore.
Or look at in another way: If you spend some of your money on very labor-intensive (not energy-intensive) products, you can’t spend that same money on energy-intensive products.
So the way consumers spend their money is very important. In fact, a total turnaround in consumer buying behavior would in fact solve ALL our problems.
There’s one caveat to this btw:
We can’t totally consume ourselves out of this problem, because to get more green energy, we have to invest. I think at this time, the best green behavior would be investing in green funds, not buying green products (even if they’re 100% green).
Investing in clean energy generation at home would also be a good thing. Investment doesn’t have to go through big institutions, and the money doesn’t need to go big centralized projects.
To build on Kyle’s comment, green consumerism is a very small part of the solution. Conservation, and radical changes in the ways we live are going to be needed to meet the necessary goals in carbon emissions reduction.
I would like to find an other word for green consumerism. As written before in this blog, the notion of green consumer is an oxymoron. There is this hidden assumption in much of the green consumerism discourse, that ‘people are going to shop – for material goods -; you are not going to change that’. That assumption needs to be brought out into the open some more.
Addiction to oil
Addiction to shopping
Addiction to waste
Addiction to . . .
“green consumer is an oxymoron”
Do you have a link to that post? I might want to address that on my own blog because I think it’s not.
You just need to realize that for a product to be truly green it needs to be a whole lot more expensive, because not wasting resources is labor-intensive.
Here is the link, Meryn:
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/green-consumer/
I think you and I are saying the same thing. I am not criticizing green products and alternatives. Rather the notion of green consumerism.
Conservation… heck yeah ! Using less stuff for the same comfort. It can be done in a myriad of ways… I couldn’t agree more with you Marguerite.
And for the radical changes part too…
Keep up the good work and enjoy !
Thanks Marguerite. Do you perhaps know where to find that one video on youtube which is a parody on green consumerism? I like to use that one to get people thinking.
We’re not going to shop our way out of this problem because virtually the “green” products aren’t, really, and because the solution to a system where production is wasteful of energy and materials can never be to produce more stuff.
I also reject it because it’s tied up with the notion that nobody has to actually do anything. “All we have to do is buy different stuff! I can drive my electric SUV and eat my organic burgers and buy fifty organic cotton shirts a year, and I don’t need to change a thing in my life, great!”
“Green consumerism” is also something which, even if it were a solution, is available only to high income people. Organic free range biodynamic biodegradable fair trade etc products are almost always more expensive than the standard products.
Whereas the solution “consume less” is available to people of all incomes, excepting only for the most basic of necessities. A vegetarian who owns no car, is frugal with electricity and natural gas and cycles everywhere but who is utterly indifferent to any “green” labels is going to have much less impact on the enviromment than someone who eats organic beef, drives a Prius and pays for carbon offsets. A person who is by Western standards poor can be like the first person, but not the second.
I don’t think we need a new label for “green consumerism” because it describes well what it is. Companies have “greenwashing”, and we individuals have “green consumerism”. In both cases, it’s an attempt to just keep on truckin’, and not change in any way at all.
While I agree that we aren’t going to shop our way out, we are faced with a very long haul and it is necessary to engage the general population. I would much rather move people towards actions they can sustain for a lifetime rather than hitting them with black and white choices that they “must” accept. I feel the green movement has largely failed in that it is off-putting to so many people.
People are going to consume no matter what and it is good providing them with some choices – even if most of the choices don’t go far enough.
But back to the online social networks. I’ve looked at several and all that I’ve seen are lame and do not seem to promote sustainable change. The social networks that have been better for me are generally face to face or extensions of face to face than are focused on solving real issues important to me and that rely on my efforts to some extent.
With you on all points, Steve. Regarding the green consumer angle, I agree it is important to meet people where they are. At the same time, I feel one should not shy away from suggesting optimal scenarios, as in consuming less and conserving more. As you point out, it is not an either or thing.
Meryn, here is the link to the Consumerism Musical video:
[...] question of how to apply these findings to existing and future social networks. To date so called green social networks have failed to generate substantial and enduring followings. Maybe this will shape a new wave of networks, more [...]
Hi Marguerite, responding to your question on what’s a perfect group size for social networks. You said:
‘I just wonder if there is not an optimal size, past which a group ceases to be influential. Not that there cannot be groups with millions of members, but I would dare to venture that the real social connectivity takes place in smaller cluster cells, with the larger group acting as glue between the various cells.’
I think that you are right that there is a perfect size. I have been researching this topic and I see many sites that promote big groups (like thepoint.com) or don’t limit the size of the group. My experience with this is that 5-7 individuals is a powerful number. Then, as you said, the smaller clusters can get together as well.
http://cleanroots.blogspot.com/
As someone who is neither terribly pro or anti “green living,” I have to agree. I would not join such a site for it’s community, since it isn’t very wide in scope. I also would not be convinced to change my way of life simply because I not only have a new list of things to do, but a new circle of friends haranging at me about how I am killing their planet. (You don’t need to be called a jerk too often before you just stay away.)
If you want what I feel is a very good social network, look at Brightkite.com – they are essentially Twitter, but with location updating. This doesn’t sound like much, except that there is a sort of ritual to letting your friends know exactly where you are, and scouting out new people in your immediate area. That you can scan with your phone for people who have checked into that same location you’re at, ask out loud, “Laine572, are you in here?” creates a new sense of community you don’t see with any other site.
Short version: A social network isn’t there to help you push an agenda. A social network is there to help you create a community.
I think that green social networks are great way of communicating. I came across your blog and also found this site called http://mycarbontracker.com Sites like this are great outlets for conversation and shows that the masses are interested in helping the environment.
I appreciate your honesty, can you check out my site that supports a non-profit and let me know your thoughts please?
http://www.greenlinkup.com
John P. Owens
Good Post, I think you are right.
When I developed SuperGreenMe.com I was conscious not to try and create or invent a virtual online service. What I wanted to do was enhance or replace real world task/behavior, or it make them more efficient. It does not create a ‘virtual world’ that only exists online, it is asisting to make the ‘real world’ a better place.
For example, I have developed the website to assist environmental organisations with the following:
Networking
Promoting Campaigns
Doing research, learning
Sending Event invites
Supporting Organisations
Growing Orgnaisation Memberships – Acquisition
Provides practical tips for those who are searching for it
Thanks for your insights,
Dave.
[...] are already seeing a huge amount of green social network sites that are flooding the market place. I think that we are already maxxed-out on these sites. Most of [...]
We have created a Green Social Network that is a bit like a Green version of Facebook. Please pop over and let us know what you think. There is a fun green score calculator and more!
Environment Issues are just not the main priority to enough people yet..Soon enough this will come.
Yes, there are many new ones without a true plan. I am looking at http://www.2bg.org right now and they are new and might have a plan to get us (the viewer) involved.