Comment

Comment by Mackenzie on 3rd mo. 26, 2012 at 12:58pm

I tend to think of the "stewardship" that took it from SPICE to SPICES as just more of simplicity. I agree that not everybody is looking at radical change in this area, but I'd say that's true of the other testimonies as well. Some people are in a position where they're ready for change in one testimony or other, but maybe not in all of them at once. 

I'm thinking of Maggie & Jon's admonishment to "get naked" now.

Comment by Cotswold Quaker on 3rd mo. 25, 2012 at 4:58pm

Betsy, in your reply, you provided the perfect example of the very point I was trying to express, you did this much more effectively and clearly than I did. I was trying to say that to do these things is "just a sensible and responsible way to live", not a uniquely Quaker thing to do. All sorts of people are doing it from their own good reasons and long before it became a big issue. The best recyclers are those who have no choice but to recycle! I am wondering what Quaker practices  are inspiring Quakers to address these issues now? Our testimony to simplicity has a spiritual as well as a practical expression and can provide great insight, yet many of those who espouse commitment to these practices are not themselves living simply or attempting to give up anything that will require or bring about change in their lives. 

Comment by Betsy Packard on 3rd mo. 24, 2012 at 10:18pm

Hey, I'm poor as a church mouse, overwhelmed with medical bills, and I ride the city buses with my Disability Service Dog and have been a recycling fanatic for YEARS.  I raised my kids on "The Three Rs."  They're both recycling fiends now that they are adults.  I think it's just a sensible and responsible way to live.  (You should see the clothing I make out of cool printed sheets I find at thrift stores!  ;-)   )

Comment by Cotswold Quaker on 3rd mo. 24, 2012 at 9:27pm

There is nothing uniquely Quaker about cutting carbon footprints, "eco" living, whatever that is, or recycling cardboard. I wonder sometimes what all these expressions of concern are really about and I keep coming back to power and privilege. The more choices we have, the more privileged we are. My neighbours do not choose to be low energy users, they have no choice because they have no income to pay for it or a car to drive to add to the carbon pollution. So are Quakers responding to this issue out of Class guilt and over consumption or from a spiritually driven imperative? Sadly, I  suspect the former rather than the later.

Comment by Madeleine Cadbury Brown on 9th mo. 22, 2010 at 10:53am

Agreed. Thanks.

Comment by Madeleine Cadbury Brown on 12th mo. 29, 2009 at 5:55pm

I'm thinking of having a retail hangover. I had a fairly gentle holiday season, but still spent more than I think I wanted to, and I'm well aware of the WASTE. So... what if I tried retail abstinence? Nice idea. Only buy groceries, fuel, and the consumibles (cat litter, medicines, etc) in January. That would mean, perhaps, deferring retail needs a bit. It would certainly mean prohibiting impulse purchases. I wonder what impact this would have on our family's garbage output? Energy output?

Comment by QuakerQuaker on 12th mo. 21, 2009 at 5:26pm

Quakers at Copenhagen: The Morning After. 'We agreed it was important to have a stronger Quaker presence in the overall climate change process. We also agreed that one's first COP [Conference of the Parties] was very much a learning experience - trial by fire. Much needs to be done to make this better/more effective for future Quakers at COPs.' Posted by Johan Maurer