Nature as a Commodity

Van Mensvoort
May 14th 2010

Nature conservation organizations – like the WWF and Greenpeace – typically present nature as a commodity that has become increasingly scarce and will be used up altogether if we don’t act quickly.

Although this depiction intuitively makes sense, it seems to conflict with the idea of nature as pristine & untouched, which is promoted by the same organizations: How is it possible to perceive nature as untouched and consumed at the same time?

Presumably, the ‘do not consume nature’ campaigns should be interpreted as a critique on individuals and corporations who use up environmental value as a commodity. From that perspective things makes sense again, however, there is more to say about the tension between nature as untouched versus nature as a commodity.

Possibly this tension lies at the very root of our current environmental crisis. Exactly the romantic desire to perceive our natural environment as pristine, untouched and undefined, makes it trouble-free (read: cheap) to consume: No ownership, no responsibility.

Should we, in order to save the environment, begin to define it as in terms of value, ownership, e.g. as a commodity?

Share your thoughts and join the technology debate!

 

Comments are members only. Login to your account and join the technology debate.

LOGIN
Not a member? Join us

Should men be able to give birth to children?


Koert van Mensvoort: Is the artificial womb frankenstein-like symbol of (male) engineers trying to steal the magical womb from women? Or… is it a feminist project and needed to reach through equality between the sexes? I personally lean towards the latter. To me it feels like progress if a girl can tell a guy to carry the womb for a change.

Join us!
Already a member? Login.