"Organic" and "natural" do not equal "better"
Let me start this out by saying that I firmly believe that humans have a responsibility to live in harmony with our planet. We have a responsibility as caretakers of this planet we call home, and we've done a poor job so far of living up to that responsibility.
That said, I am getting tired of the ideas that "organic" and "natural" are automatically somehow "better". I'm happy that people in the US are starting to think "green"; I get frustrated, however, by some of the ways in which that happens.
There's a lot more involved in living in harmony with the planet than buying organic products. There's consideration of the entire environmental, economic, and political-social ecosystems, for starters. Everything is interconnected - we need to consider the overall impact of our decisions, not merely reach for the "organic" product on the shelf and then pat ourselves on the back and think we're saving the planet. And, frankly, the "organic" or "natural" product may not actually work.
Living in harmony with the planet doesn't mean turning our backs on technology, either. Every product that we use started out as one or more natural products - everything we use comes from nature originally. The issue is far more one where we must weigh the various costs (taking into consideration a collection of eco-systems, not only one type of cost) against the various benefits of the processing required to transform our natural resources into the various things we use for living. We can use this process to make better choices that are more in harmony with being good caretakers of our planet - but that doesn't make the process of transforming natural resources into something other than their original state automatically bad.
Chemicals start out life as natural resources. So do medicines. As do technological components. Most of these things are not inherently "bad" because they no longer resemble the original source components. The processing that turns penicillin into a medicine also makes the natural product far more reliable and controllable. It doesn't look like a mold any more - but it's saved countless lives.
Poison ivy contains a very natural substance called urushiol. It's about as natural as can be. And it's a substance that, for me, requires a petroleum-based chemical treatment to remove or I face a strong possibility of hospitalization. Should I refuse to buy that product and rely on "natural" products that don't work simply because I'm trying to avoid things not labeled as "natural"? Nope. That wouldn't make any sense. Yet, while this is an extreme example, it's an example of the type of logic I see all the time.
Technology isn't bad. The way we choose to use our technology - those choices have positive and negative impacts. They often have both at the same time, and affect a wide variety of interdependent systems all at once. We have a responsibility to look at the overall impact of the things we create and consume, not just the economic or environmental. That means looking beyond the "organic" or "natural" label. Just because someone slapped that label on a product doesn't make it better, no matter how many times the marketing folks want to say that it is.
(Then again, I'm also the person who immediately asks "better than *what*?" when I hear that type of claim made.)
That said, I am getting tired of the ideas that "organic" and "natural" are automatically somehow "better". I'm happy that people in the US are starting to think "green"; I get frustrated, however, by some of the ways in which that happens.
There's a lot more involved in living in harmony with the planet than buying organic products. There's consideration of the entire environmental, economic, and political-social ecosystems, for starters. Everything is interconnected - we need to consider the overall impact of our decisions, not merely reach for the "organic" product on the shelf and then pat ourselves on the back and think we're saving the planet. And, frankly, the "organic" or "natural" product may not actually work.
Living in harmony with the planet doesn't mean turning our backs on technology, either. Every product that we use started out as one or more natural products - everything we use comes from nature originally. The issue is far more one where we must weigh the various costs (taking into consideration a collection of eco-systems, not only one type of cost) against the various benefits of the processing required to transform our natural resources into the various things we use for living. We can use this process to make better choices that are more in harmony with being good caretakers of our planet - but that doesn't make the process of transforming natural resources into something other than their original state automatically bad.
Chemicals start out life as natural resources. So do medicines. As do technological components. Most of these things are not inherently "bad" because they no longer resemble the original source components. The processing that turns penicillin into a medicine also makes the natural product far more reliable and controllable. It doesn't look like a mold any more - but it's saved countless lives.
Poison ivy contains a very natural substance called urushiol. It's about as natural as can be. And it's a substance that, for me, requires a petroleum-based chemical treatment to remove or I face a strong possibility of hospitalization. Should I refuse to buy that product and rely on "natural" products that don't work simply because I'm trying to avoid things not labeled as "natural"? Nope. That wouldn't make any sense. Yet, while this is an extreme example, it's an example of the type of logic I see all the time.
Technology isn't bad. The way we choose to use our technology - those choices have positive and negative impacts. They often have both at the same time, and affect a wide variety of interdependent systems all at once. We have a responsibility to look at the overall impact of the things we create and consume, not just the economic or environmental. That means looking beyond the "organic" or "natural" label. Just because someone slapped that label on a product doesn't make it better, no matter how many times the marketing folks want to say that it is.
(Then again, I'm also the person who immediately asks "better than *what*?" when I hear that type of claim made.)