Last Wednesday night I hurriedly crossed the courtyard of the National Geographic building, dwarfed by larger-than-life statues of insects and seedpods. I was running late, and was worried that I would miss the beginning of the lecture I was there to hear, or would have to stand in the back. When I took a seat and caught my breath, I was surprised to find the medium-sized lecture hall half empty, but I settled in with eager anticipation all the same.
I was there to hear Saleem H. Ali speak about his new book, Treasures of the Earth. The premise of the talk was the same as the central question in his book: would the world be a better place if societies curbed their desires for material goods? The answer, it seems, is complicated.
Ali began his presentation with a familiar quote:
“The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
-M. K. Gandhi
Ali then asked us to challenge the words of a man who is known throughout the world for his intelligence and wisdom. He asked us to consider that need and greed are not isolated concepts, but rather represent opposite ends of a spectrum between biological sustenance and social sustenance.
Human happiness, Ali offered, depends upon pluralism of choice. Pure biological subsistence does not allow for freedom of choice, and we should not confuse coping with contentment. Therefore, Ali believes that if one person’s greed—or their desire for that which is not essential—can help to satisfy another’s need, then we mustn’t be so quick to condemn their excess. Though he encourages us to factor in the negative environmental impacts of our actions, Ali also asks that we consider potential for positive economic impact and redistribution of wealth.
To demonstrate his point, Ali used an example that really resonated with me. In his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan examines our food structure, and analyzes our detachment from food and where it comes from. Pollan records his preparation of an elaborate meal, made entirely of food that was wild or local, and sustainably grown. Well, almost entirely. In order to round out his meal, Pollan decides that he needs chocolate for his dessert. Since nowhere in the
The question that Saleem Ali asks is not, “why splurge,” but rather, “why Belgian?” If you have decided that buying chocolate is worth its environmental impact, why not buy chocolate from somewhere in the developing world to support their economy? When fighting for environmental causes, we must not be blind to economic injustice.
Ali argues that creating a mineral mine in a non-pristine area can justify minimal environmental damage in order to provide jobs and wealth in a part of the world where it is desperately needed. Pouring time and resources into an expensive and environmentally risky offshore drilling process in an already well-off country, however, is neither environmentally nor economically justifiable.
Ali urges us to think about the environment in a global context, and to practice “responsible consumption.” We must find a way to “manage our desire for resources while safeguarding the environment and alleviating poverty.”
What do you think of "responsible consumption?" Let us know in the comments section below!
