"The changes presently taking place in human and earthly affairs are beyond any parallel with historical change or cultural modification as these have occurred in the past…there are only two other moments in the history of this planet that offer us some sense of what is happening. These two moments are the end of the Paleozoic era, 220 million years ago, when some 90 percent of all species living at the time were extinguished, and 65 million years ago at the terminal phase of the Mesozoic era, when there was also a very extensive extinction.”
From Thomas Berry. “The Ecozoic Era”.
Lecture before the E.F. Shumacher Society,
Great Barrington, MA, October 19, 1991.
Although the long history of cataclysmic events begins long before humans first occupied the Earth, the easiest beginnings of our present effects can be traced to the Industrial Revolution. At this time, the world seemed savage and full of infinite resources, and it was a romantic idea to think that humans could tame nature. This was an extension of the ideals of the enlightenment – the triumph of individual force – applied to industry. Just as individuals were no longer at the helm of their lord, children no longer having to follow in the stewardship of their parents, humanity was no longer at the mercy of nature.
We are children of this revolution, finding it difficult to fall far from our tree. We value the leisures which industry has afforded us, such as institutionalised educational systems and a high-production capacity, though we can no longer ignore the false assumption industry has made concerning the infinity of resources.
The post-war era brought industrial revolution resource consumption patterns into the basic construction of the North American family unit. At this time, Modernist architecture and planning was applied to the traditional urban landscape centred around pedestrians and streetcars, replacing it with an auto-oriented design which enabled citizens to be located geographically further from their workplaces without increasing the time it took to get to work. This was the beginning of the car/sprawl/freeway/oil complex (Register, 2002) which has characterised North American industry and culture ever since.
As North Americans were recovering from the war and the Great Depression, two important realities emerged which changed the North American social, cultural, geographical and economic landscape. The Great Depression illustrated the importance of balancing production and demand, and women had begun to see a new place for themselves in post-war society after their demonstrated importance in the work force during the Second War. There was also the immediate need for returning troops to occupy the jobs which women had proven capable of in the absence of young men.
Both of these fears were answered by the consumptive lifestyle of the North American suburbs. The construction of highways and flight to the suburbs meant jobs in construction and manufacturing, demand for oil resources and their spin-off industries, and the isolation of women and children into compartmentalised lifestyles where passive consumption was aimed at distracting them from a more aggressive role in the new economy. Ironically, consumption has become such a dominant player in North American culture that it has resulted in a social need for families where both parents are working in order to sustain its current material state, actually forcing women into the workforce as opposed to its original intentions.
North Americans prospered from their new economy to such an extent that it began biting back. As our lifestyles demanded higher wages in order to be sustained, industries began “moving south” where labour was cheaper. Many models have emerged since, including the “Nike Model” of manufacturing, where a large multi-national label contracts manufacturing to smaller companies. These companies make bids to manufacture their products, and when granted a contract, they seek a cheaper manufacturer and pocket the difference. This can occur at multiple levels, resulting in a great deal of money being deferred from the people actually doing labour.
Less prosperous countries desperate for anything which could stir the economy adopt political measures to encourage cheap labour, adding to the unnecessary “race-to-the-bottom” labour tactics which are actually illegal in the countries where the manufactured goods are largely sold. North A mericans strongly oppose child labour and support maximum 40 hour work weeks, and yet our consumption behaviours accept these practices from our own industries.
This “economic bottom-line” has been a priority for most businesses, and government has done little to intervene. While many organisations have tried to step up to the plate in order to make up for the social and environmental responsibility vacuum, one of our greatest difficulties as citizens and as consumers is still a lack of information. Recent actions which are asking governments to force industry to disclose information about their conduct, enabling consumers to make more informed decisions in what they’re purchasing include the Ethical Trading Action Group’s proposal to Industry Minister Allan Rock in 2003. Along with their proposal the coalition delivered thousands of labels sent from across the country as a symbol of the lack of adequate information Canadians have about what they are purchasing. The group is still awaiting a response from the minister.
As long as labour is considered to be cheaper than transportation the economic bottom-line priority will continue to dictate the behaviour of the majority of industry, but consumers can offer another economic incentive for them to adopt more responsible practices. While we’re waiting for our elected representatives to represent our plea for information so that we can develop a more sustainable basis for our economy, there are options for us in the meantime.
As a response to the responsibility deficit, many businesses and organisations are offering green and humane alternatives, and consumers are supporting the initiative. As testimony to its effectiveness right here in Toronto, the City proclaimed two weeks in May of 2004 as “Fair Trade Weeks”. Many of these businesses support what they refer to as the “Triple Bottom-line” which recognises not only economic needs, but social and environmental responsibility as well.
These alternatives which have gained a great deal of popular attention recently are part of a greater trend which recognises the need for more sustainable practices. Sustainability has both environmental and social connotations, valuing practices which do not impede future generation’s abilities to fulfill needs – practices which can be sustained.
Sustainability has been recognised by the United Nations as an international priority, and local governments in Canada have adopted sustainability principles into the city and regional plans of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. It has far -reaching effects, from the way business is conducted, how goods are transported, how cities are designed, to local differences, such as how your house it built and how your food is produced.
Unfortunately, in our present situation many people might have to choose between union-made and fairly traded options being delivered from across the continent and more environmentally transported local goods which are produced in less-environmental ways with no guarantee of being ethically manufactured. This is a difficult, problematic decision to make. As more people support sustainable and ethical industries though, more local option should become available.
Boycotts are often accused of hurting most the people who they are trying to stand-up for. If industries were to pull-out of the countries who are soliciting cheap labour, how are they ever to recover from poverty? If we only buy local products, how can we support workers in other parts of the world?
These are difficult ethical debates which plague activist communities, stemming from greater debates of ends justifying the means which have occupied humanity throughout the ages. Organisations such as Amnesty International have taken the position of not supporting any boycotts, while others consider boycotts an important step in the pursuit of total corporate responsibility.
As people, all we can do is inform ourselves as much as possible, and eventually take a leap of faith that what we’re doing is the best we can. This is a leap we take everyday in the various roles of our lives, as parents, children, workers, consumers, citizens and as humans. As informed consumers we are better equipped to know what we’re supporting and what our alternatives are, and although the alternatives may not supply a full-scale solution, are they better than maintaining the disproportionate status quo?
