Quote from The Development Dictionary

I won’t ramble on about this today, but I wanted to post a couple quotes from a brilliant book called The Development Dictionary. It is a collection of essays on development, environment, economy, poverty, technology, and more. This quote comes from the essay titled “Environment” by Wolfgang Sachs. The essay itself is a discerning look at the history of concepts relating to development and environment, an exploration of the meanings attached to words like nature, environment, and ecology, and a prophetic blessing as well as critique to those engaged in development or who are concerned about the environment..

When I read the quote today it reminded me of my ponderings yesterday related to earlier perceptions of the environmentally concerned as the eccentric ones. The context of the quote is an argument that the ecological movement has been successful in its use of modernist means to critique the modern paradigms but cautions that the back door is left open to re-usher in an attempt to heal the problems created with the very things that created them.

“…without recourse to science, the ecology movement would probably have remained a bunch of nature freaks and never acquired the power of a historical force… the ecology movement seems to be the first anti-modernist movement attempting to justify its claims with the enemy’s own means. It resorts not only to the arts (like the romantics), to organicism (like the conservatives), to the glory of nature (like preservationists), or to a transcendental creed (like fundamentalist), although all these themes are present, but it bases its challenge on ecosystems theory which integrates physics, chemistry, and biology… and it is this concept of ecosystem that gave to the ecology movement a quasi-spiritual dimension and scientific credibility at the same time.” – p.30

Is Sustainable Living a Luxury?

When did living organically become a luxury? The decision to live healthfully, in a way that considers the environment as something to be cherished and supports local producers along the way is a costly decision these days. For years it seemed that only the “eccentric” chose a way of consuming that eschewed the corporation and the rape of the environment and body for something more conscious. Increasingly though this has become something for those who can afford it.

I find myself constantly torn between wanting to live in a way that cares for body and environment as if they truly are holy creations of the Divine and the reality that my pocketbook can’t support it. So begins the weighing of factors – where should I choose organic, chemical free, and fair trade and where should I pick the cheapest product? Where do I choose the extra cost in lieu of doing something I wanted to as a way to express good stewardship? And realistically, it is a costly choice. However, I truly believe that it is a worthwhile wrestling.

On the one hand I want to say that something is dreadfully wrong when to make the environmentally and healthfully sound choice is the more costly option. When corporations have genetically engineered, chemically treated, and exploited human beings to bring me a “better and cheaper” product. And then upon realizing that there is a market for a more sustainable living, these same companies or new ones market living well as a luxury item and pass the cost on to me! (Don’t get me wrong; I do expect that it costs more to produce organic, environmentally sound products.) On the other hand, since when has living “better” ever been the less costly choice?

So I return to the question with which I began and wonder how to choose a more environmentally sound life without succumbing to a luxury mentality and without spending all the money that I don’t have.