After our discussion on Tuesday, I was thinking about that one sentence in the Fox reading: “the material standard of living should be drastically reduced and the quality of life, in the sense of basic satisfaction in the depths of one’s heart or soul, should be maintained or increased” (Fox 1984). I still can’t say that I have a definitive understanding of Fox’s interpretation of the “material standard;” based on the context, however, such standard reflects this idea that a select group of people are intruding and damaging nature through excess consumption. And because everything is interconnected in Fox’s perspective, what someone does in one part of the world affects how an animal/a person lives in another. “The world simply is not divided up into independently existing subjects and objects, nor is there any bifurcation in reality between the human and non-human realms” (Fox 1984). With all this in mind, I was wondering why Fox never directly addressed this notion about how our adherence to the material standard and consumption principles affects those in other parts of the world, which live by a sustainable standard. I think it would make for a good contrast, at least strategically for his argument.
As a side note, in this article about global warming, Living Beyond Our means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being, there’s a quote that mimics what I’m suggesting: “negative impacts of climate change fall disproportionately on poorest parts of the world…but the buildup of greenhouse gasses has come overwhelmingly from richer populations.”