Ecos

Environmentalist and economists (or more accurately business) always seem to be at loggerheads. Businessmen want to drill for oil in the Gulf, along the Atlantic seaboard, and the north shore of Alaska. Environmental groups say no. Big corporations want to open national forests up to clear cut logging and oil explorations. Mining companies want to flatten some of the Appalachians to get at the coal and strip mine the Midwest. Utilities want to continue to generate power from coal. Do we want the economy to prosper or not? Do we want people to have good jobs to support families or not? Environmentalist green types fear we will degrade the planet if we accept these options.

Perhaps it is good that these two mindsets oppose each other and perhaps the debate allows us to achieve the proper balance between ecology and economics. Still, it does seem strange that two words with such similar Greek root word derivations should be in such desperate contention. Economics means management of the oikos (home or habitat) while ecology means study of the oikos. From a derivation point of view these two concepts should be synonyms not opposites.

I guess I would call myself a conservationalist; that term has been around decades longer than environmentalism. Basically, don’t use more than you need. I don’t subscribe to the idea that I need to buy more in order to keep business going and my neighbor employed. If we all conserved and used less (that includes my neighbor) then we could get by on less income and have low unemployment based on a shorter workweek. Maybe the 40-hour work week could become reality. I also don’t accept that I need to buy more in order to be happy. I am smart enough to know what I need without being brainwashed by corporate commercials. If a true need exists then there would be no need for coaxing commercials to get me to buy.

Economics and ecology need to become more aligned and work in tandem to match the similarity of their root derivation.