The modern Green Movement represents a profound departure from man’s ancient obligation to practice Thrift. In fact, one might almost say that the two ideas are diametrically opposed. This may seem odd given that Thrift with its impetus towards moderation in using the resources gifted to man in creation as well as by its focus on stewardship and guardianship of these same resources shares many common goals or objectives with the Green Movement.
The root of the distinction between Thrift and the Green Movement lies just there, at the root and source of these ideals. That is, the distinction flows from beliefs about the nature of things (and people). Thrift finds its roots in its understanding of man, who man is, what his relationship is with nature and, therefore, what his responsibilities are toward nature. The Green Movement, on the other hand, finds its roots in a denial of man, a denial of man’s relationship with nature and a denial of man’s role as guardian. One might almost say that the Green Movement is the Anti-Thrift.
Are my ideas too strongly stated? Let’s look at a couple examples.
How about the way we should treat animals? Thrift (and its associated virtues) would tell us we should treat animals well because they are gifts to us from a Creator who expects us to care for them. Thrift would also tell us that animals have use to us as human beings (whether it be as companions, beasts of burden or sources of food and clothing) and that by being good guardians of these creatures we will, in addition to doing the right thing, be enhancing their usefulness to us and ensuring they will continue to live and prosper and continue to fulfill our needs (physical, aesthetic, spiritual) and those of our children. The Green Movement, on the other hand, would tell us that our obligation toward animals derives from the animals’ equal status with us as co-inhabitants of nature. Therefore we have no rights where they are concerned and our obligations to them are limited to a sort of non-interference. This view of our relationship with animals is not only illogical but it results in a very impoverished understanding of our relationship to nature, an impoverished understanding of our obligations to nature. Rather than the robust and positive view proposed by Thrift, the Green Movement proposes a neutral or even negative view of our obligation. Rather than cultivating, beautifying and enriching, our role is simply to do as little damage as possible.
Let’s look at the related example of the care of our forests, and the animals in them. Thrift would tell us to enjoy our forests, use the abundant resources to be found in them, live in them, ensure the endurance and prosperity of at least large sections of them and maintain (or increase) their beauty and health. Thrift would tell us to care for the streams and rivers within our forests both because of their beauty and goodness and for their value as a source of water and fish. What of the Green Movement? Well, the predecessors of the Green Movement (those who practiced conservation) have stopped all logging in our forests and have spent years doing their best to put out all forest fires within their eaves. And now these same folks and their big government allies are moving to limit all human access to the forests. Rather than following the path of Thrift that would have led to a rational planned use of our forests, including thinning the forests and using the lumber gained from the thinning for legitimate human needs, we now have overly dense forests (many times more dense than they were 100 years ago) that are subject to devastating fires that simply destroy the timber. Additionally, of course, they kill countless animals and wreak havoc on the forest streams. This is what happens when we practice conservation rather than Thrift.
I will not go on. I will simply conclude by saying that in A Sensible Life we will propose ideas aimed at living Thrift – sensibly, rationally and with an eye toward goodness and beauty.
And because we cannot end without a word from Chesterton, here is one from What’s Wrong with the World, “If a man could undertake to make use of all things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare.” I’m sure he meant no disrespect to Shakespeare…
