Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

October 1997 Editorial: Full Pockets, Empty Souls By Martin Rowe

We hear a lot of talk these days about sustainable development. It's become a kind of politically correct mantra spouted by economists of all stripes. But what exactly is sustainable development? Is it that everybody has enough to get by, but that the developed world gets to keep what it has already? Is it that everybody has to have the same standard of living, which means that the "developed" North has to give up lots of stuff so the "developing" South can survive? Is it that market forces will find a way to create more efficient, less resource-hungry products that will trickle down to the poorest and thus save the planet? Or is it an oxymoron which nobody really wants to address -- the big unanswerable question of how we can continue to "develop" (shorthand for more people having more stuff) but do so in a way that doesn't use up more natural resources?

That the word "development" refers solely to the material rather than the spiritual seems to be ignored by most mainstream economists. You can't measure things like happiness or a sense of purpose in dollars. Yet the question is, given that most of us in the North are so much more "developed" than people in the South, why do we feel so spiritually and emotionally undeveloped? Has the result of filling our pockets been that we've emptied our souls? It's one of capitalism's little ironies that we are persuaded to seek comfort by spending money to quell the gnawing dissatisfaction we feel. Yet, that dissatisfaction is fostered by a capitalist economy in order to sell products. Simply put: if we felt we had enough, we wouldn't buy more. So to buy more, we must be made to feel we don't have enough -- which leaves us permanently dissatisfied. It's another little irony that the rich think the poor are blessed, while the poor, who unsurprisingly don't necessarily agree their situation is beatific, want to have the luxury of being unhappy with their wealth.

If you, like me, are somewhere in the middle, unsatisfactorily trying to balance a reasonable standard of living (whatever that is) with treading lightly on the land, you cannot but be caught in this quandary. You can, of course, buy from those companies that support a less damaging life and shun those that aren't. You can recycle more and throw away less, or better yet buy nothing and use little. You can grow your own food, have no children, make your own clothes, generate your own heating and light, live in abandoned buildings or use fully recycled materials to build your own house, and compost all your organic waste -- including that from your body. You can die.

I'll be honest with you: I'm not willing to throw everything down and do all of this tomorrow, although I'm doing some of it now and may do more of it someday. Perhaps it's liberal, yuppie self-delusion, but I like to think that a mixed market economy -- which isn't going away anytime soon -- can be environmentally sustainable. I am cheered that, according to a report produced by the Hartman Group of Bellevue, Washington, in February of this year, a majority of Americans is in the market for earth-sustainable products. Admittedly, the majority is only a slim one -- 52 percent -- but you take your good news where you can. This group, generally affluent and well-educated, is constituted of "true naturals" (a hard-core seven percent), "young recyclers" (10 percent), "affluent healers" interested in nutrition (12 percent), and "new green mainstream" (23 percent -- and of varied interests). The other 48 percent are either too "unconcerned" or "overwhelmed" to buy environmentally-friendly products. Of these two constituencies, it's the "overwhelmed" I feel particularly drawn to. These are consumers who are consumed by the economy to such an extent that anything that seems vaguely difficult, out of the ordinary, unsettling or upsetting is blocked out. In one way or another we're all these "overwhelmed" consumers. We just choose to express it in different ways: just one styrofoam cup won't hurt; just one burger won't matter; a small air conditioner won't be a problem.

So, what is sustainable development? I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows. Like everyone, I find my attempts to answer the question hidebound by rhetoric and generalities. But I like to believe that it involves taking responsibility. It means transforming feelings of dissatisfaction and being overwhelmed into daily actions which help something or someone. In doing so, we can release the power we all have to develop spiritually. It has something to do with making more of less, although I wish I knew just how much more I need to have less, and how much I need to get rid of so I have more. As many of the articles in this issue make clear, it is about framing a community that works towards common goals, ones shaped by a respect for nature and the larger community of the other-than-human world. And it commands our constant re-examination, so that we reach a state whereby we sustain ourselves by developing ourselves in order to develop a sustainable world.

Back

Next