An ideology of consumption
Email
Print
Letter to Editor
Share
Updated: November 04, 2009 12:22 AM
Editor Tracy Hughes’ nod to ‘fatalism’ and her thoughtful ‘gut-feeling’ for an approval of the SmartCentres’ lakeshore development is entirely understandable, and perhaps prescient.
Despite widespread passionate and scientifically-supported community opposition to this development, the final outcome now seems in doubt. Curious, isn’t it? If last time around, the community’s position was so unmistakable and overwhelming, how could this expressed will of the people possibly not be acknowledged?
Well, it’s not surprising at all, since the issue has always been one of ideology and not just the location of yet another despoliation of a sensitive natural ecosystem. And since an ideology is the comprehensive vision, or the set of ideas and values that direct our goals, it is our current flawed “vision” of unending, unsustainable development that must be questioned and vigorously opposed – not just where the next, but certainly not last – damage will occur.
Alas, opposition only to the ‘effects’ of a prevailing ideology – SmartCentres’ location for example – and not opposition to the root cause of the flawed vision itself, in this case, the presumed-benefits of community and nature degrading development - could mean that no resolution or meaningful change can occur, now or in the future. If our dominant ideology of rampant consumerism is not challenged, the patterns of thought that characterize it will remain intact and simply keep repeating themselves, over and over again, anytime, any place.
Consequently, the question really is: what ‘causes’ a SmartCentre, or development at the mouth of the Adams River, or collapse of salmon-stocks, or clear-cutting, or climate-change, or dead areas in the world’s oceans ? You name it. Since all these environmental and cultural horrors share in common the ideology of taken-for-granted, unlimited consumption, then this is the basic question to raise and address – not just maintaining an endless, exhausting focus on the ever-repeating damage effects of ideological dysfunction.
Such questions are not rhetorical. They can be posed and answered.
Tom Crowley
v2
