How does one begin to live better with less? To simplify one's lifestyle? Review the following questions and be especially careful to take them on any shopping trips. It will allow you to become an alert consumer. These questions will help you to become aware of the real value of a purchase:

Since the consuming of goods and money go hand in hand, check out the following websites for more information:

Check out The Wastemakers by Vance Packard  - an interesting book focusing on planned obsolescence of products

The Iroquois Indians of North American used to say that any decision concerning the community should be made only after taking into account its impact on the seventh generation of our descendants. Our horizon is usually the coming elections. With the result that we now have radioactive waste that will be hanging around the planet for more than...10,000 generations (Joseph Steller- Michigan State University).

"In the organic world view of the Renaissance, in which the cosmos was alive and the earth was considered a nurturing mother, contained ethical constraints against the exploitation of the earth. During the rise of mercantile capitalism and the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, the world was reconceptualized as a machine made of dead atoms, God was an engineer, and society a sum of self-interested individuals" (Merchant, Earthcare, p.xvii). Was there really a true time when ethical restraints held cultures back from exploitation? Sure there are examples of individual tribes or conditions within history that views toward the environment changed.

There is a new trend, perhaps, far more than mere trend, that is transforming small businesses, huge corporations, individual thinking and cultural initiatives toward environmental change. Not the kind of change that goes unnoticed nor disrupts the natural world for the worse, but the kind of change that genuinely seeks to improve the plant Earth for all living things - toward a "higher" meaning for business, rather than just the increase in profit.

For thousands of years of human civilization, businesses existed to provide more services, more materials goods to an ever-increasing number of people. It seemed the more people had the more and more was wanted. These goods were produced faster and cheaper without regard to the environment or even without regard to human danger. After a while, these dangers have caught up to the world, catching many unaware. Early on, "average human beings throughout pre-twentieth century history had each seen only about one-millionth of the surface of their spherical Earth. This limited experience gave humans a locally focused, specialized viewpoint. Not surprisingly, humanity thought the world was flat, and not surprisingly humans thought its horizontally-extended plane went circularly outward to infinity" (Buckminister Fuller, Space Ship Earth, p.21). With such a viewpoint, early human civilizations and those not that far in the past, had a skewed perspective that lead to severe problems with economics, health and environment.

Civilizations have come and gone, some quickly, others slowly, yet all that have "failed" have in common some environmental disaster that threatened and destroyed their ability to survive. The concept of culture that defines value systems, the need for material goods and types of businesses that existed were all influenced by the natural resources of the environment (Redman, Human Impact on Ancient Environments, p.7). Forgetting the Earth is a closed system, many cultures relied on technology that could produce a desired good often with polluting waste, without realizing that this waste would accumulate and result in another "problem". "Problems can arise though when artificial wastes are disposed of in ecosystems…which cannot be recycled at all by natural systems or not in the concentrations in which they are found as a result of human activity and they remain as pollutants somewhere in the system" (Ponting, A Green History of the World, p.16). Failing Civilizations had to deal with wastes the poor health of their people and the environment and the still continuing drive for technology and products. Eventually, somewhere, someone had to wise up to the damaging needs of their culture. Businesses within these cultures that went for "Profit Now!, Fulfillment Now!" were learning that sustainability, actually survival, really needed to come first.

There may have been some early businesses that knew from the start that saving resources was the only way to ensure their business would provide survival for the next generation, whether it be family or the next CEO or manager who would sustain the ultimate dream of a company in business for a long, long time. But what has lead the development of new thinking for these early companies? Why has some, although a growing number now, share a dream of sustainability, reducing waste and providing healthily alternatives to just sheer greed or the ability to greatly increase profit? Business have changed their way of thinking because it is a reflection of our cultures, too – we really have no choice, in order to "survive" we must become sustainable. Much of this may be fear driven. Some is driven by the hope that we don’t have to lose what we have gain as a global economy; we can come up with better methods that save money and produce services and goods that we can be proud of.

Now exists a growing sense of awareness as the consequences of our actions throughout history revel themselves and as the world corporations see repetition in the failures and successes of previous companies. The response of consumers, who are now becoming more aware of the production methods, material accumulation, and consequences of extraction have refocused many viewpoints of corporations. More and more average people are questioning the lead of our current economic system. More people are becoming educated about the subsequent chain reactions of product and service providers.

As the economy changes, corporations are gaining a new competitive edge producing new services or products that lead to a sustainable life, reflect cultural values and lead to a better life after all. "And so it is best that we remember that: Past civilizations are buried in the graveyards of their own mistakes, but as each died or its greed, its carelessness or its affectedness another took its place...because such civilizations took their character from a locality or region. Today, ours is a global civilization…It is a community so interdependent that our mistakes are exaggerated on a world scale" (Day, Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis, p.50).

As corporations, small businesses and individuals strive toward a more sustainable future; all want something more out of their "sweat equity". To have a job to provide food for your family, pay your bills, and maybe even go on vacation is no longer enough. Individuals, business owners and large corporations want a greater focus. To "make a difference", leave behind a legacy and strive toward something more than fulfillment of the Self is a new focus in our evolution of economy.

A Corporation with an environmentally sustainable mission has a purpose way beyond the typical "bottom line" and profit driven "ideal". In the Natural Step for Business, a study was conducted that found "the sense that what a person does as an individual, and what the organization does collectively, truly make a difference; the lack of emphasis on money – people do not cite incentives or high pay as key ingredients of the meaningful workplace, even though they do distinguish between "fair pay" and "high pay" and meaningfulness – there is almost a desperate eagerness to talk about meaning in the workplace" (Altomare & Nattrass, p.194). All of the businesses used as examples in the Natural Step for Business were found to have an impressive level of morale that resulted in pride, low turnover, satisfaction and even an enthusiasm for their work (Altomare & Nattrass, p.195). It is more than likely those businesses that focus their mission on making money alone are missing out on a valuable, future sustaining resource – their employees.

Never underestimate the power of satisfied employees. This in turn effects the public image of the company and can therefore reduce costs. By having a positive public image, a mission driven environmental value system and providing a reason for employees to take pride in their work, a corporation or small business is reaching toward longevity and their place in the textbooks citing those "making a difference".

An employee, not matter what their role in a company, can be satisfied on many levels of needs. Obviously, if one looks at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, we see that a happy employee has filled the basic needs and moves up the pyramid to seeking something with more "meaning". Companies that have a mission beyond making profit are more likely to produce employees as individuals that seek to contribute to "making a difference" in the world. This may be reflected in their contribution to the work force or permeated into their daily lives, by volunteer work, teaching and community involvement. Or even simpler yet, a change in their personal habits toward the environment.

The economy is changing rapidly. As people strive to find meaning in their life and a good stable job, corporations fight each other to offer the lowest cost in labor and in environmental costs. The lowering of taxes, wages and less environmental restrictions cause many companies to move to other countries (Breecher and Costello, Global Village or Global Pillage, p.3). As people cry out "unfair", many are caught in the trap of going "with the flow" because of knowing no other options.

Globalization has many downsides for individuals. Corporations that have no environmental mission nor value system beyond profiteering, see globalization has having many benefits. People endure "rising unemployment, falling real incomes, mass layoffs, cutbacks in public services, deteriorating working conditions, elimination of small farms and businesses, accelerating destruction of the environment, and loss of democratic control over their governments and societies" (Breecher and Costello, Global Village or Global Pillage, p.4). There certainly is a negative side to our "culture of consumption" and yet as we shall read about later on, also an uplifting, positive side, that lends hope to the future of all living things.

The greatest challenging (and responsibility) the world has yet to face is the ability to sustain and improve the quality of life for future generations of all creatures, humans included; and the often-fragile ecosystems that support all life. The objectives of this new world conservation strategy should include; genetic diversity, the maintenance of "essential ecological processes and life support systems" and ensure the utilization of living resources in their proper ecosystems is sustainable (Thibodeau, Sustaining Tomorrow, p.4). But in order to do this, humans must face the contradictions that their economic system, many religious beliefs and the material life-styles are against; the benefit of environmental survival. For "a half-million years of cultural evolution cannot alter the fact that humans, like all other living organisms, are inextricable bound up in the web of interdependency and interrelationships that characterize life on this planet" (Nadakavukaren, Our Global Environment; A Health Perspective, p.20). And even though, humans often separate themselves from the environment, seeming as if they are meant to "dominate" nature; human health and survival depend on the integrity and health of the world as a whole (Nadakavukarn, p. 2). But because "it is difficult for any viable culture to avoid seeing itself as the center of light shading into darkness", surrounding problems in neighboring communities are oftentimes ignored, even though these issues are often compounded into very serious ramifications for all involved (Tuan & Day, Environmental Crisis, p. 36).

One excuse for ignoring the harmful structure of many societies, is the inability of the governments to face the initial problems at the sources. Analysis of a society’s relationship to the environment (or lack of) can only result in a better understanding of why the society tries to manipulate their surroundings. Another excuse for environmental exploitation is often on that twists the definition of an ecosystems capacity to undergo ecological succession, which is "the process of dramatic change over an exponential period of time" and the change of one type of habitat into another (Nadakavukaren, p.35). This succession result in climax communities, such as a temperate, old growth forest. This community, as an example, has high species diversity and balances many food webs of many species, that may only be found in that specific climate and region. The succession and climax of an ecosystem is a natural process and should not be humanly induced. When human interference occurs, by the direct destruction of ecosystems, pollution accumulation, gradual abuse of resources or simply put "acts of ignorance", it destroys the balance and foundation of earth to adequately support all life forms. The abuse frequently begins because current economic systems, so interconnected with politics, depend not on the theory of "reduce, reuse, recycle", but on the philosophy of "spend more, use more and it’s O.K. to waste more". But why the abuse in the first place?

The reason for the support of the current economic system is not just the matter of following the leader, but a matter of whom is the leader. Much of the problem lies with huge corporations that control so many others, as to be considered a monopoly on multiple products. These large corporations have domination over powerful advertisements that control and tease consumers into spending money on products that profit no one but the company. Although, we shall see many corporations are changing to follow The Natural Step for Business. Other corporations have tunnel vision, in other words, they cannot see into the future, that by advocating products that contribute to personhoods’ well-being, environmentally sound habits, healthy species bio-diversity and non-polluting wholesome life-styles, that they increase the life expectancy of the corporation itself and its earnings.

The abusive behaviors continue because it is easy to do (usually without punishment), sometimes cheaper (corporations find the fines easier to deal with than spending money on new equipment/techniques that are environmentally sound), follows the "out of sigh, out of mind" ideology that many consumers practice with out restraint; or may be achieved by sheer ignorance and not lack of caring (but unfortunately, sometimes the latter). Only heavy penalties, jail sentences, elimination of rights or removal of property may be strong enough measure to stop the abuse. Nothing perpetuates the vituperous economic system better than a society that is deeply imbedded with the beliefs that "growth is good" and "progress makes no mark". Indeed, it is this type of culture that causes the most harm, because it is so all encompassing and woven in to the world. It is the culture of compulsive, continuous consumption.

This "culture of consumption" can define most first world countries today. It is plagued by economics that support over-consumption. Yet, "in the ideological system of the culture of consumption, predictably, the primary focus seems to be an increase in consumption, although this is defined as ‘progress’ or ‘economic growth" and in this definition, economics is not termed as a function of support (Bodley, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems, p.68). Economics, in the manner of profit and energy use is what fuels countries to provide services for citizens. However, "only up to a certain point do increases in energy use correspond with rises in commonly accepted measures of quality of life in industrial cultures, such as health care, education, and cultural activities" (Bodley, p.69). Certain energy increases, such as in oil, gasoline, coal and methane contribute more to air, water and ground pollution than they do to the quality of life. And because of these increased fuel uses, the economy grows more dependent on foreign nations to supply it cheaply. Industrial cultures, which expand very rapidly, can be very vulnerable to collapse and because of their immenseness, they do not respond immediately to "adverse impacts on resource bases" (Bodley, p.71). The industrial society is so complex and specialized that it takes time for warnings to spread. Also, the economics of most countries "advance systematically from one resource to another, supported by theoretical assumptions that deny that real scarcity or limits to further growth can exist (Bodley, p.76). Aside from denying the problem of dwindling resources, developing countries "believe that increasing national expenditures for environmental protection and improvement are inducing inflation, unemployment and economic stagnation" (Field, Sustaining Tomorrow, p.165). Not true, but because such groups as the "Wise Use Movement" see the future of modern economics as having precedence over environmental concerns; it results in a lot of confusion and contradiction within the culture of consumption’s search for help.

A good example of the "culture of consumption" is the United States. "America is the archetype of what happens when democracy, technology, urbanization, capitalistic mission, and antagonism (or apathy) toward natural environment are blended together" (Moncrief, Lappe, Marc, Economics of the Environment, p.11). The author goes on to explain the reasons for this apathy begin with "absence of personal moral direction" in connection with nature, an "inability for social institutions" to deal with stress, and "an abiding faith in technology" (Moncreif, Lappe, Marc, p.11). The reasons for the absence of moral direction can have many sources; it begins with influences surrounding a person’s upbringing, but it is effected by religion, cultural background (s), education and individual experiences.

The inability for social institutions to deal with stressess often refer to the pressures of deviance from the "norm" in concepts of environmentally friendly economics. The switch over from hand-core, profit-making economics usually calls for tougher laws and more regulations. Many politicians shy away from supporting drastic changes and are content with everyday bureaucracy that not only keeps jobs secure, but keeps the economic "ball game on a roll". Yet, "those who are above such vulgar pursuits pin their hopes on a moral regeneration or social revolution, apparently in the belief that saints and socialists have no garbage to dispose of" (Dortman, Economics of the Environment, p.3). But these major revolutions or regenerations do not appear; it is not the panacea for the future; to hope someone else will do the dirty work. The solution to the many environmental problems begins with the reconciling of divergent interests and often begins with grass-root organizations, made up of common people who share intermutual interests for the benefit of "now and later" generations of all species (Dorfman, p.xix). For there is no sovereign immunity and the government that still believes this will find themselves hit the hardest in an eco-disaster (Day, Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis, p.163). All aspects of a nation need to start compromising on solutions of this eminent world catastrophe before it is too late.

And as to a steadfast conviction in technology; not all technology is bad; some has been quite helpful to the environmentalism effort such as: use and development of natural pesticides, cleaner fuels, new recycling techniques (that allow for waste to be recycled that was previously sent to landfills) and methods of detoxifying chemicals (formerly deadly, before releasing them into the environment). Technology, however, has also exceedingly contributed to the degradation of the Earth. With the addition of synthetic chemicals, massive resource eating machines, factitious population growth and expansion and corporations that can produce mass amounts of materials goods (often resembling expensive hand-made products) at very competitive prices; has greatly added to the amount of solid/chemical waste, habitat destruction, pollution and deleterious economic growth.

Of course, the consumers desire for substantial wealth and affluence is perpetuated by the advertisements of technology. As stated above, advertisements, whether on TV, newspaper or billboard, are powerful pulls to spend money on products that are supposed to save time, reduce effort , and make tasks easier and less complicated. More often than not, those who have wealth and material goods are repeatedly the worst abusers of the environment. And many times, it the people with next to nothing that usually have to live wit the "garbage" because they do not have the power or the resources to fight back with. This is hardly fair, but this uneven distribution of resources has been going on all of history, because there are always financially and politically disadvantaged peoples or non-resilient ecosystems. One myth concerning this is; that biomes or cultures can bounce back in self-healing techniques, but synthetic conditions often destroy the essence within needed to begin the recuperation process.

So, instead of using the world as a massive junkyard for all the scientific experiments that have not been research adequately enough, more extensive testing and thinking should be done before products are released upon consumers. But scientists are at fault, too for "acting out of ignorance and pretending that it is knowledge" for "science at best is not wisdom; it is knowledge, while wisdom is knowledge tempered with judgment" (Richie-Calder, Environmental Crisis, p. 51). This judgement is what is repeatedly lacking in decisions that affect the health of all the future. Most beneficial is the knowledge of combining common sense, well-researched facts and a true environmental grasp of the eventualities that could arise.

The extreme interlocking, of not only national borders, ideas, religious beliefs, political systems, economic principles, of cultural traditions and of environmental problems, should fuse all peoples together, even tighter, to reach solutions to resolve our many serious issues concerning the entire world’s survival. Sorting our fact from fiction and base reality from only ideals, is the reconciliation between us and the debt owed nature; and the lone path to follow for world preservation and hopefully, its overall salvation.

Although, consumerism may appear to be only negative, we must consume in order to survive. But it is "how" we consume what we must, that "makes a difference". More and more books are being published that focus on eating right (particularly vegetarian), buying cruelty free, organic methods of gardening or pest control, information on how products are made and living simply (reducing the need for material goods). When given a choice, let’s say of items that are priced the same, consumers will buy the more environmentally friendly product. However, at this time, most of these recycled products or safe chemical items cost more. The consumers who purchase the better choice item usually is better educated and may have more income to spend on products for a sustainable earth. As businesses work harder to "The Natural Step", we will see more services and products being offered to consumers of all income levels, so that sustainability becomes not just a better choice but one that people can "afford" to make.

Consumers really do care. How many times have we heard someone lament over the loss of wetlands, the lack of wooded lots, the toxic chemicals used on the lawns, the loss of wildlife and the growing subdivisions named "Weeping Pines" or "Lost Lake". Yes, the lake is gone and the pines would be weeping if they were still there. People are noticing that things are just not right. But it is difficult for consumers to become educated when the material to find better products is hidden.

"In the dark underbelly of America’s big-rig, double-bacon-cheeseburger society, success is often judged by how much one consumes. While mass consumption may be great for businesses producing Chevy Surburbans, Chicken McNuggets and shopping bags, the environment often pays a toll for the commercial version of the American Dream" (www.bizjournals.com). The toll is a heavy price to be paid by the generations of today and more so by tomorrows.

A short list of companies that now are focusing their interests on being more environmentally conscious and reducing animal testing, pollution and increasing recycling of products: The Body Shop, American Safety Razor, Aubrey Organics, Bo-Chem Co., Carlson Laboratories, Kenic Pet Products, Liz Claiborn Cosmetics, Norelco, Ecover, Rachel Perry, Seventh Generation, Wysong, Tom’s of Maine, Staedtler, Ltd, and many more. A good resource is the website www.greenseal.org, which has links to sustainability issues and environmentally responsible products and statistics. More and more companies are "jumping on the bandwagon" and showing how ‘green’ they are. However, what consumers need to watch out for is beyond the environmentally friendly packaging. Brian Back , who wrote an article on www.bizjournals.com stated that "Green-washing is masking business as usual with a sprinkle of face-saving environmental public relations". The philosophy of the business really matters, too.

Are businesses and the individuals behind them that are focusing on environmental sustainability in today’s global economy, really making a difference for a positive future? For most people comfort is anti-change. And yet, with our over consumption we are causing agents of change anyway. This change may not be for the common good, though. "Production oriented toward profit-maximization, sanctioned by the egocentric ethic, undercuts the conditions of its own perpetuation by destroying the environment from which it extracts "free" resources. Production threatens biological reproduction by driving people onto marginal lands and into urban areas where they produce children as a labor asset to survive, while also threatening social reproduction by creating homelessness, poverty, crime and political instability" (Merchant, Earthcare, p.223). Yes, our current economic situation, our over consumption shall give us much future "food for thought".

Although, "Possession is becoming progressively burdensome and wasteful and therefore obsolete" (Buckminster Fuller, Space Ship Earth, P. 130) is only true for a few handfuls of people. Typically, those people already have had their basic needs meet and now seek a simpler life toward more spiritual and altruistic motives. But for many people who are driven by basic desires, it is also easy to incorporate the desire for material wealth. "Wealth is our organized ability to cope effectively with the environment in sustaining our healthy regeneration and decreasing both the physical and metaphysical restrictions of the forward days of our lives" (Buckminister Fuller, Space Ship Earth, P. 85). Yet, many take the term "wealth" to mean possession of consumable goods and this obviously, leads to an ethical dilemma.

Comparing Homo economicus (a non-flesh creature of self-interest) with a living breathing human we see many similarities when discussing the attainment of wealth, a force to keep the economy going and provide personal gain. Perhaps, Herrmann Heinrich Gossen, a German economist, who wrote a book entitled The Laws of Human Relations in 1854, summed up the scary quest of self-interest focused individuals and groups that with a religious type fever pursue. Gossen’s theory to follow self-interest went as follows: "Organize your actions for your own benefit" (Daly & Cobb, For The Common Good, p.89), obviously a great battlecry for those in pursuit of justification for greed. "God implanted self-interest in the human breast as the motive force of progress. By following self-interest we follow God’s will. Going against self-interest only inhibits God’s plan. Indignantly, Gossen asked ‘How can a creature be so arrogant as to want to frustrate totally or partially the purpose of his Creator?’. But God’s purposes will not be thwarted by arrogant moralists because the divinely implanted force of egoism is too strong to be overcome" (Daly & Cobb, p.89). In conclusion, "real" or "pure" economics can be too abstract, too difficult to understand for the average person. Many people would take the "dangerous" concept of self-interest and apply it to an anti-environmental thought process.

Economics is believed by many to not be environmentally ethical at all! Isn’t economics about making profit only regardless of the damage that it does? Most people feel that economics cannot be environmental because of the cost factor. For example, an environmental ethical dilemma would be whether littering is really harmful. The dilemma could be an individual that contemplates throwing a cigarette out the window of a car or could be a company that thinks that dumping tons of toxic waste into a pristine river won’t really be noticed or cause great harm. If a moral code is followed then, what is worse? It is the thoughts behind the action that can even be more destructive. An ethical dilemma has the capacity for good – it can be a pause to allow for change – afterall, it is a dilemma – whether the actions will really cause harm or make a difference.

An example of an ethical comfort is a staunch belief in recycling. Obviously, this has many economical implications. We may use less, waste less and allow for materials to be reused thus giving way for many business opportunities or by our resourcefulness, taking some business away. The comfort part is that we "know" instinctively that our action is the right answer to the present moment problem. People that believe this to be a moral responsibility have brought about legal and governmental change, for example, so that recycling is now supported by municipalities and in some areas people are charged or fined that do not recycle basic items like glass, aluminum, yard waste, cardboard and plastic.

Since strong ethical or moral beliefs can and do change the shape of our economy, so does the economy change ethical requirements of individuals and corporations. "Whereas the market, GNP, and Homo economicus are abstractions that powerfully shape thinking about the economy" (Daly & Cobb, For The Common Good, p.97), the individuals and corporations that use these abstractions are now limited or in effect, controlled by the prevailing notions and can be hampered by new laws and regulations that are influenced by grass-root environmental ethical beliefs. Really, the more and more individuals and companies that follow an environmental ethic are less and less likely to want to support another corporation that does not have the same interests. Thus, effecting the profits and public relations that a "non green" company has.

Though environmental disasters happen that are natural, their effects can still be devastating. Forest fires, flooding, volcanic eruptions and tropical storms are just a few natural occurrences that can level ecosystems and their human counter parts. Some habitats need these commonplace occurrences to renew lifecycles and gain nutrients for growth. Yet, humans see the devastation as a loss of control over their surroundings and a loss of whatever cultural or monetary value they may have placed in it. Despite the fact that the natural incidents can wipe our huge areas, humans are more destructive and more unforgiving about losing possession of the land. It is because specific cultures "teach" overuse and believe falsely that resources, endangered animals and certain life-style habits or "fads" will never totally disappear and will never cause any true harm.

For overconsumption and its consequences "is not an innate human trait; it is culturally determined. It is also clear that high rates of consumption or lack of cultural controls on consumption, relate to social stratification within a culture" (Bodley, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems, p.84). Furthermore, many stratified societies have set limits to specific types of consumption. Yet, the despoliation of the environment continues because social dysfunctions still leaves scars and still "expose our intellectual failure to make the connection" between the "ideals of nature" and social practices (Tuan; Day, Economics of the Environment, p.45).

Larry Burkett, author of What Ever Happened to the American Dream states "There is no doubt that our country is preoccupied with material well-being, but lest we think that the problems is solely economic, we must look deeper. The problems we face are not related exclusively to the debt and deficit. The debt, is merely a symptom of a much greater issue – the deteriorating value system of our nation".

Carolyn Merchant, in her Book Earthcare states: "If the goals of economic production were reoriented toward the reproduction of human and non-human life (rather than the reverse, as is presently the case), many of the problems that promote exponential population growth, unlimited economic expansion and environmental degradation would wither away" (p.224). A very interesting concept and not one that has been popular in shifting world views. Merchant also tackles the thought that a "framework based on the dialectical, historical, structural and systemic relations among the conceptual levels of ecology, production, reproduction, and consciousness" can lead to strategies to form a "revolutionary transformation" (Earthcare, p.224). "Such strategies would analyze past and present power relations, identify weak points in the system and draw on the energy and vision of new social/ecology movements and NGO’s to bring about a sustainable world" (Merchant, Earthcare, p.224). Now, many movements are in place developing new strategies and incorporating old beliefs.

Some of these old beliefs go back toward religious beliefs of a culture. Religion is a very important factor in determining a peoples’ relationship with the environment. Often, "religion promotes certain attitudes toward nature that are in turn reflected in ecological processes" (Bodley, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems, p.42). For example, "Christianity introduces a more radical self-transcendence. The intensification of freedom and individuality that is involved separates man from the subhuman environment" (Cobb & Daly, For the Common Good, p.27). And it can be argued that certain elements of Christianity state that nature was created for man’s well being and other interpretations, argue for the benefit of exploitation of the environment and its fellow creatures (such as passages in Genesis). Again, Manifest Destiny, with its Judeo-Christian roots, finds itself prevalent among Eurocentric habitudes. Of course, Christianity is but only one of many religious with controversial interpretations regarding environmental issues; and people’s place within or "above" the rest of the world.

Such groups as tribal or indigenous peoples frequently need to incorporate themselves within the intricate networks of the environment, and by doing so are better adapted to survive in that particular geographical area.  For many indigenous peoples lived in a time when "products of human activity were completely recyclable both in the natural world and in the body" (Lappe, p.254). And before making any changes, they considered how seriously it would effect the environment. Tribal animism, nevertheless, does not guarantee the lack of environmental problems, but most which occurred before contact with industrial societies, were nature induced.

I

Bodley, John H. Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems. 2^nd Edition, Mayfield Publishing. 1985.

Breecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello. Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction From the Bottom Up. South End Press, Boston, MA. 1994.

Buckminster Fuller, R. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. E.P. Dutton, N.Y. Copyright 1963, 1971.

Burkett, Larry. What Ever Happened to the American Dream. Moody Press, Chicago. Copyright 1993.

Churchill, Ward. Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine. Copyright 1993.

Cooper, Ann with Lisa M. Holmes. Bitter Harvest – A Chef’s Perspective on the Hidden Dangers in the Foods We Eat and What You Can Do About It. Routledge, N.Y. 2000.

Daily, Gretchen C. and Katherine Ellison. The New Economy of Nature; The Quest to Make conservation Profitable. Island Press, Washington. 2002.

Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good; Redirecting the Economy Toward community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. 1989.

Day, John and Frederic Fost and Peter Rose. Editors of Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis. John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Essays by Yi-Fu Tuan, Lord Richie-Calder, Day, Fost & Rose, Nancy and Robert Dorfman.

Lansing, J. Stephen. Priests and Programmers – Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. 1991.

Lappe, Marc. Chemical Deception: Exposing Ten Myths That Endanger Us All. Sierra Books, San Francisco, CA. 1991.

Merchant, Carolyn. Earthcare: Women and the Environment. Routledge, N.Y. 1996.

Moncrief, Lewis. Economics of the Environment. (Essay) W.W. Norton & Co. N.Y. 1972.

Nadakavukaren, Anne. Our Global Environment: A Health perspective. 4^th Edition. Waveland Press, Inc. 1995.

Nash, Roderick Frazier. The Rights of Nature; A History of environmental Ethics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison Wisconsin. 1989.

Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World – The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. Penguin Books, N.Y. Copyright 1991.

Redman. Charles L. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, Az. 1999.

Thibodeau, Francis and Herman Field, editors. Sustaining Tomorrow. Tufts University, London. 1984.

www.naturalstep.org

www.greenseal.org

www.aavs.org

www.enviroliteracy.org

www.bizjournals.com

An Essay on Eric Wolf author of "Europe and the People without History" and issues of early consumption and science

The Spanish and Portuguese were very interested in silver, gold and trading for profit. The trade was "confined to narrow channels, intended to be carried on exclusively by monopolistic agencies using Spanish ships and Castilian agents" this trade was "constrained trade" in other words, "it was not created by the free working principles of demand and supply" (Wolf;141). Because the Spanish were directly concerned with controlling the populations directly, it often lead to rebellion and the collapse of support for the Spanish. The Iberians also ran into difficulties with pirates and maroons, who often confiscated important goods on their way to trading ports or simply destroyed cargos (Wolf;155). As the Iberians fought for control of the New Worlds, their military and economy became weakened and the "monopolistic structure of the Spanish empire" became drained of strength to the "benefit of the external international economy" (Wolf;156). This lead the way for other European nations to gain control in the New World and across other continents.

Send mail to biocentriceducation@lycos.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 07/29/03