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.
I couldn't agree more with you. I have long had a theory that if there was a magic button that could turn every human being into monkeys, than the world would be better off. And we wouldn't care, we'd be monkeys! Unfortunately, I think that my theory is as about as likely as society somehow "undeveloping" itself. Remember Pandora's Box? I think technology isn't all that different. We've gotten to the point where there are so many of us, that returning to a more "primitive", sustainable way of life is pretty much impossible. I like to think of myself as a "realist" in the sense that I always try to keep in mind what is practical. Without continued use of technology, I think sustaining a population this large (and only getting larger) would be impossible. Personally, I think that we're either going to run out of resources and have some kind of crazy war over whats left, or there's going to be some kind of catastrophic event that will take a large portion of the populace out. If that happens, we might be able to go back to primitive living. In short... go go zombie apocalypse?
ReplyDeleteI love how you incorporated these movies into you blog. After all the debating and discussion of the semester, I strongly believe that nature has a way of repairing, falling back into place, and fighting back. Humans, both primitive or not, we use the land and its resources for so many day to day things. Just how much of it we use, varies. But not matter how much technology is created and nature is destroyed, when large natural phenomenons occur, it destroys things man created- maybe Earth's way to shake off the creations/harm man has done? Maybe to reclaim what was not ours? SHOW US WHO IS BOSS?
ReplyDelete