MemeMachineGo!

The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a rousing environmental sermon.

Too often in recent decades, the two big “e” words — ecology and economy — have been used as though they represented opposing concerns. Yes, we should be glad to do more about the environment, if only this didn’t interfere with economic development and the liberty of people and nations to create wealth in whatever ways they can.

Or, we should be glad to address environmental issues if we could be sure that we had first resolved the challenge of economic injustice within and between societies. So from both left and right there has often been a persistent sense that it isn’t proper or possible to tackle both together, let alone to give a different sort of priority to ecological matters.

But this separation or opposition has come to look like a massive mistake. It has been said that ‘the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment’. The earth itself is what ultimately controls economic activity because it is the source of the materials upon which economic activity works.

I got this via one of Bruce Sterling’s Viridian Design Notes, where he annotates the sermon and notes “I can’t possibly occupy any very edgy social position when I find myself in agreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”