I’ve enjoyed the thoughtful comments from the class (Soc 333 on Sociology of Environment) concerning the simple living movement. However, I noted some inconsistencies due either to misunderstanding or circular reasoning. I wish to clarify two of them.
First, simple living is not the reduction of Man-made items. From beginning of time, man has made his shelter and clothing and containers for food and weapons to secure food. It might be better stated that Man should continue to progress by making new items in harmony with the environment. This would mean using recycled materials to make recyclable products. It would mean making eco-friendly clothing from hemp and the like. It would mean making conscious choices in favor of reducing our carbon footprint by walking, using a bicycle, or public transportation to get to work or school. Thanks to decades of influence in education and the media, some manufacturers today are looking for more ways to produce such an environmental means to an end.
Second, getting back to nature does not have to do with razing civilization and returning to caves. As Dr. Minkler pointed out in the email this week, we are “in” and “of” nature all the time. Raising our consciousness to realize this, is the challenge before us. Some modern conveniences have become eco-friendly choices and we should move in that direction. This is to be conscious of “nature” when making purchases, job decisions, raising families, etc.
Finally, reducing human impact is not the answer. Human population is increasing and impact increases proportionately. What we need is to move the sliding scale from “negative” toward “positive” impact. By having University level courses teaching each generation about these problems and possibilities, we will continue to move in the right direction and just as our lungs can be renewed after we quit smoking, our environment can be rejuvenated little by little.
We have time! We just don’t have time to waste.
Dallas
