The Public and its Problems
John Dewey
About The Public and Its Problems
John Dewey was one of the most influential American philosophers of the 20th century, and The Public and Its Problems is his powerful reflection on what makes a democratic society actually work. Dewey wasn’t interested in politics as just voting or elections—he saw democracy as something much deeper. For him, democracy is about how we live together, how we solve shared problems, and how we create conditions for everyone to live a good life.
In this text, Dewey explores the challenges modern societies face when it comes to communication, participation, and public responsibility. He argues that in order for democracy to thrive, we need a strong, informed, and engaged public—people who not only care about their own lives, but also about their neighbors, communities, and the larger systems we all depend on.
What’s at stake for Dewey isn’t just politics—it’s the possibility of a just, meaningful society. He thinks we can’t separate the good life from the good society: individuals can’t truly flourish unless the communities they live in are healthy, inclusive, and capable of collective action. So, this isn’t just a book about government—it’s a book about ethics, education, dialogue, and shared responsibility.
For Dewey, a good society isn’t something we inherit—it’s something we build together.
Before you Rea
When you hear the word “democracy,” what do you think of? Elections? Laws? Protests? Dewey wants us to think bigger. He believes democracy isn’t just a system—it’s a way of life.
In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey challenges us to see ourselves not just as private individuals chasing personal happiness, but as members of a public—a community that rises and falls based on how well we take care of each other. And in an age of disconnection, distraction, and distrust, he asks: How can we come together again?
Before diving into this reading, think about your own role in society. Do you feel like part of a larger “we”? What does it take for people to care about public life—and what might make them stop caring? Dewey wants to spark that conversation and push us to imagine a society where everyone’s voice matters
Guiding Questions
- What does Dewey mean by “the public,” and how is it different from the government?
- Why does Dewey believe democracy is more than just voting?
- How does Dewey connect personal well-being with public life?
- What responsibilities do individuals have in helping create and sustain a good society
Surviving Sustainability: Degrowth, Environmental Justice, and Support for the Chronically Ill
ABSTRACT: The quest for ecological sustainability—specifically via prioritizing degrowth—creates significant, often overlooked challenges for the chronically ill. I focus on type-1 diabetes, treatment for which depends on nonrenew- ables and materials implicated in the global proliferation of toxins that harm biospheric functions. Some commentators suggest obliquely that seeking to develop ecologically sustainable treatments for type-1 shouldn’t be prioritized. Other medical concerns take precedence in a post-carbon world marked by climate change and widespread ecological devastation. I challenge this view on three grounds. Its proponents (i) fail to treat type-1 as the public health issue it is, particularly within the context of what Sunaura Taylor calls disabled ecolo-gies. They (ii) deny persons with type 1 an equal opportunity to pursue survival. And they (iii) presume without warrant that treating type-1 is an all-or-nothing affair. Indeed, research by biohackers points to suboptimal but potentially workable ways to make type-1 survivable in a post-carbon future—so long, I stress, as their findings are cripped in a manner that foregrounds the demands of environmental justice.
KEYWORDS: Chronic Illness, Degrowth, Disability, Environmental Justice,Sustainability, Type-1 Diabete
1. Introduction
During a graduate course on theories of sustainability I taught a couple years ago, I asked my students to read a section of Derrick Jensen and Aric McBay’s What We Leave Behind. In this section, the authors document the devastating ecological effects of medical waste. It’s ironic, they remark, that while ongoing im-provements in healthcare have increased life expectancy and enhanced quality of life for people throughout much of the industrialized world, the medical system that delivers this care “has employed methods that create even longer lasting hazards” (Jensen and McBay 2009, 137). The list of these hazards is long. It includes infec-tious and radioactive materials, unused medications, myriad disposables that con-tain toxic forms of plastic and heavy metals, and (lest we forget) reams upon reams
of paper dumped into landfills. What’s to be done about this the authors don’t say. Maybe this is because they reject the proposition that an industrialized medical sys-
tem can be made sustainable—or even that it can survive the changes to fossil-fuel driven energy and technology infrastructures that are all but certain to occur over
coming decades. For what it’s worth, I largely agree with Jensen and McBay’s considerations. I’m embarrassed to admit, though, that this led me to neglect the concerns I raise in this essay. The extent of my negligence came home to me in full force as I read a term paper for the course by a student with type-1 diabetes and associated comor- bid conditions. “I’ve taken four to seven injections of insulin every day for the past twenty-two years,” she writes. This adds up to “about 40,000 disposable needles I’ve used in my life,” which is no small matter, since single-use disposable syringes alone place a significant burden on the global waste stream (my student cites Krisiunas 2011). For that matter, so do glucose monitors, insulin pens and pumps, and syn- thetic insulin. Surely there are ways to lessen the hazards associated with medical waste, including that which is associated with type-1. But if it’s indeed the case that our medical system can’t survive impending transitions to our current energy and tech- nology infrastructures, what happens to those who depend on this system for their very lives? Are treatments for chronic illnesses like type-1 invariably unsustainable?1 “Are people like me alive when we shouldn’t be?” my student fatefully asks. Unfortunately, Jensen and McBay don’t broach these questions. They remark in the preface that What We Leave Behind was originally constructed as two separate single-authored books. It’s clear from the context that McBay authored the section on medical waste. Being a paramedic, he’s well positioned to speak in gritty detail on the subject. What’s not clear, though, is why he fails even to acknowledge that concerns like those raised by my student require attention. After all, he also wrote a book on preparing for life after “gridcrash” (McBay 2006). Maybe he doesn’t com-ment on chronic illness (or disability) there either because he doesn’t see any way for people like my student to survive. Or maybe, like me, he’s guilty of negligence. Enough, though. Can those living with type-1 survive ecological sustainability? If so, what’s required to ensure the just provision of sustainable treatments for type-1? These are my core questions. We’ll see that the hurdles required justly to treat type-1
