Discuss: From the Editors (Jan/Feb 2008)

How about “Economical”? We are working toward realigning ourselves with the Great Economy of nature, which is the only real economy.

I don’t see the need for fancy-sounding buzzwords to repolarize people. Just explain it in plain English (or whatever language you use), like the common sense it is. “Love” is good, too. Why confuse people with more terms they won’t know the definitions of, and will only assign to “those hippies”? This movement will have to be made attractive to mainstream, ordinary people.

Love?  We’ve experienced the consequences of unbridled corporate and metropolitan love—concupiscence for Mammon and narcissistic materialism.  Thus Eros and Amor: they leave me agape.

That’s not Love, dear. That’s Greed. :)

I agree w/ Mandy.  When a system or behavior is sound ecologically it is always efficient economically!!  Thus I would also suggest that we begin to frame our discussions in economic terms, one that I believe would be most potent is PROPERTY RIGHTS.  I believe much of the degradation of our eco-system is due to an erosion of personal property rights by the government. 

Often our criticisms are channeled at huge corporations, (and rightly so), but more often than not the damage done by the government is much broader, deeper, and often serves as the means by which corporations practice their maleficence and the avoid the consequences of it.

Here is a blog I wrote for Blog Action Day that expands on these ideas.

http://robdubinski.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/save-the-earth-shut-down-the-epa/

We definitely need to bring love and compassion into the equation. And an awareness of spirit, but this needs to be done carefully so as not to turn too many folks off. Introducing a new word (ecolacy) seems to me counterproductive. Another buzzword to educate people about that will ultimately end up being no different than the words we use now. Economical is too fraught with baggage to be transformed to Gaian/Earthy useage, though it’s true that the Great Economy of Nature is the real “bottom line” as Mandy said.  I agree with Rob. D. about the damage done by government allowing/encouraging corporations to degradate ecosystems, and I do support property rights—to a point. There’s always the attitude of “I’ll do whatever I want on my land because it’s mine!” Corporations buy up property so they can do whatever they want with it as well. And community and reciprocity need to be brought into the discussion somehow.

What about “nonviolence”?  It certainly encompasses the peace movement, but it is also a useful lens for all of these issues. What would nonviolent farming look like? It probably wouldn’t use pesticides—some of which, after all, began life as weapons of war.  Nonviolent global economy? People-centered and local, with fewer exploitative multinationals.  Nonviolent health care? Universal.

Also, nonviolence has got a history that draws from every margin of society. Just think of the heroes: Gandhi, MLK Jr, Cesar Chavez. No hybrid-drivers or Whole Paycheck shoppers there. If Van Jones is right (and I think he is) about the “unbearable whiteness of green,” then we can look to nonviolence for real inclusion.  Thoughts?

Very nice Caitlin.  I like non-violence as well!

Returning to the idea of property rights for a minute.  Here is how Ron Paul describes the negative effect that the government plays in the property rights & pollution equation.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/

Worth noting, the term “locavore”—which refers to eaters who are committed to supporting local, responsible food producers—earned recognition as Word of the Year of 2007 for the New Oxford American dictionary.