House Fellow and Associate Professor of history Aaron Sachs introduced a number of viewpoints on environmentalism, humor, and the major disconnect between the two. He used popular internet video clips to illustrate the public’s perception of environmentalism, and the divide became very clear. The reason why hardcore environmentalists are often the butt of jokes stems from their seriousness about the subject and inability to take jokes, let alone make them. The solution that Prof. Sachs proposed was centered around the possibility that humor could be an essential medium for reaching a broader audience, and environmentalism has yet to successfully tap into it. He showed an example of a trailer for a documentary about a family attempting to live for a year with zero environmental impact. It seemed to pull off some humorous and relatable moments while ultimately delivering a positive message about the possibilities of living with zero impact. Overall, Prof. Sachs made a compelling argument that humor could be the key to successfully increasing awareness and active participation.

However, Prof. Sachs conveyed the problematic disconnect through examples from the history of environmentalism, seemingly criticizing the way that it developed over the years without humor. I think that this is somewhat of an unfair critique due to the nature of environmentalism itself. First of all, Prof. Sachs continually referred to “Jewish humor” as a similar example to potential environmental humor and called it a sort of “doom humor”. In the face of imminent death or disparity, this humor arose. While I agree that this would apply to Jewish humor among other types, I think that environmental humor is unique in that the “doom” it refers to is not relatively imminent. It afflicts children or grandchildren, but not the self. I think that this intangible nature of environmental doom greatly dulls the potential humor behind it. Secondly, it follows that a natural comedic incompatibility with the subject would cause environmentalists to rely on seriousness alone, which results in the dynamic we see and learned about from Prof. Sachs. So it seems to me that any consideration of an alternative route of developing environmentalism is like wrestling with the inevitable. Nevertheless, I believe that humor has a place in the future of environmentalism, and it was very insightful to have Prof. Sachs give us a preview of what that may look like.