In class Wednesday, we discussed how broad and inclusive ecology is, but I'd like to explain something I think has nothing to do with ecology. We spoke extensively about how societies shift from being undeveloped to being developed. It was acknowledged that in general, an undeveloped society (considered by the western world to be undeveloped based on economics) has figured out how to live within its boundaries indefinitely without depleting its resources.
|
Something like this, right? |
If a primitive society did not have this ability, it would perish. As a society becomes developed, it depletes its resources for economic gains, and this harms the ecosystems around it.
|
Check out all that unobtanium! |
The last step we described was the society, upon becoming rich, then has time to think about science, ecology, and protecting resources, and can pump money into studying and fixing the problems development created. In 21st century America, we are going through this third step. Fixing our environmental problems is not as easy as simply ceasing to use fossil fuels or buying less stuff though. Instead, in order for our economy to survive, we need to be
sold products that will make us "eco-friendly".
While ecology is broad and contains many disciplines, consumerism is never ecology, regardless of the prefix "eco" being used to market something. Instead of convincing ourselves that we can choose products that are "green" and will save the world, we need to take a look at the structure of our economy and realize that while an "undeveloped" society could go on forever, we are just another
Easter Island.