changing-your-habits-much mantra seem to have become implanted into mainstream consciousness.
Green is definitely in (the new black, some call it – as if it were a fashion, rather than a necessity), but it’s an easy, convenient, fun, non-threatening green. There are books and blogs like The Lazy Environmentalist; e-news like Ideal Bite; buttons to click to save the species – or help the cause -- of your choice; games like Free Rice in which knowing your vocabulary words gives rice to the hungry. On the one hand, any step toward a more sustainable, compassionate world is a positive step, but I wonder if such fanfare for such small steps is encouraging people to feel completely content with hanging out on the surface – as if “earning” grains of rice is really going to solve problems of hunger.
Of course, the message can’t be all about doom and gloom. “Wear only sackcloth, eat only fruit fallen from the tree and walk everywhere, uphill, both ways” isn’t an image that inspires much emulation. Life should be meaningful and joyful. But does that mean we screw in our compact fluorescents, buy our local, organic produce and stop there?
I think the breadth and fluidity of the “green” continuum makes an excellent discussion topic for those exploring humane issues. Are baby steps enough? If we focus on small steps, are we hurting ourselves – and others – in the longer term? Are the easy, convenient choices the only and/or best way to draw people into making deeper, more compassionate, sustainable choices? With global warming, peak oil, water shortages, etc., do we have time to start with the easy choices? Is there a third side (or fourth, or fifth)?
~ Marsha, Web Content/Community Manager
You have read this article environmental preservation / green choices / humane education / saving the world / sustainability with the title November 2007. You can bookmark this page URL http://actuosa-participatio.blogspot.com/2007/11/can-baby-steps-really-save-world.html. Thanks!