What is the difference between sustainable living and doomsday preparedness? A person with the sustainable living philosophy chooses to limit their impact on the environment, live within their means, and tries to grow food for themselves to not only save money, but to eat healthy. On the other side of the fence is another group, doomsday preppers, people who feel as if society is on the verge of collapse, they sense that some major event is about to happen and are buying emergency rations, and weapons, and stockpiling supplies; some may look to living sustainable living to prolong their existence after some disaster, but many are motivated by an impending sense of doom or apocalypse.
The first is motivated by love or a sense of need to connect back with the Earth instead of bracing our ever increasing artificial world. The second is motivated by fear and the need to survive while the rest of society crumbles. If society as a whole would embrace sustainable living as a whole, the need for the second would not exist. However, it seems that stories in the media seem to blend the two together, which distorts the purpose for sustainable living.
Sustainable living is trying to lesson the impact we as a people have on the environment. Making clean energy from the sun and living off the grid is a great feeling of accomplishment. My wife and I do not feel the need for electricity plants to be built that rely on natural gas, coal, dams, or nuclear reactors.
We do not support Iran’s nuclear power plants because with the alternative technology offered today, nuclear power, and its toxic waste is obsolete compared to fields of solar panels and wind generators that can generate the same power for cheaper than establishing the protective measures to prevent a potential reactor failure or to store radioactive waste material. The only need for nuclear energy is for the excuse to create radioactive weapons of mass destruction that impact the environment for years and decades after their use. Perhaps, the U.S. should make the deal with Iran to shut down their nuclear facilities and provide Iran with environmentally friendly ways of power generation. If this deal is refused, then the U.S. would have its definite answer to Iran’s desire for a nuclear arsenal versus nuclear energy.
Being in the sustainable living camp can become very frustrating when faced with the decisions other countries make by choosing energy sources that generate toxic waste for our environment to deal with. In years past, I have never considered myself an environmentalist, but living sustainably has changed my perspective on how we treat our environment as a culture. China could have skipped the obsolete oil and coal burning plants and jumped right into the green energy market. After all, they are producing solar panels and other green energy for much of the world now. Yet, they were shanghaied by the oil and coal cartels to start their massive industrialization at early 20th century technology; what a shame.
Speaking of shameful acts, the United States has created such instability in the Economy with over spending that the national debt has doubled in the last two presidencies. With the dollar on such shaky ground and the eventual fiscal cliff approaching, it is no wonder doomsday preppers are taking media attention away from the sustainable living movement. However, with each congressional extension of the debt ceiling, doomsday preppers look foolish as each deadline for national economic default is narrowly avoided. One day, unfortunately, they may be correct in their assumptions.
Society should let go of the quickly growing artificial culture that has created GMO’s, the overuse of poisonous pesticides and herbicides, and constant EMF transmissions; all these things are harming us and the planet. Our culture needs to embrace the natural systems of our world, such as gardening, solar power generation, cooking with clean energy, knowing where our food comes from, choosing to eat the healthy organic choice, and living a buy local philosophy. If people chose to live more sustainably, fear of an economic collapse would be minimized despite what our government decides to do with our currency because we, sustainable individuals, wouldn’t rely heavily upon it for our livelihood.