Orthobiosis

Orthobiosis (n)- correct or moral living

After reading about the foundations of Transcendentalism and John Muir's environmental activism, I've been thinking about the idea of "living simply" as many of our intellectual and philosophical pioneers have advocated as a solution to both societal ills and the increasing impact of society on the environment. I understand- one who is consumed by thoughts of industrialization, of efficiency, of social propriety is not affected by the natural environment, cannot be made to move by the swirling wind and the sursurrus of tall grasses.

Still, I think equating a "simple life" with environmental engagement is problematic. People in Zambia (rural Zambia, anyways) may be said to live simply: we fetch our water and therefore are aware of its seasonal flux and the imperative of exercising parsimony. We cook food over fires, knowing full well the source of the fuel and again, the need to conserve it, for the sake of labor if not deforestation and financial security. We (how quickly I switch to "we" when I've only been here a few weeks) grow our food from nearby land and understand the amount of work required to feed a family. By nature of the requirements of life here, there is certainly a more established connection with the natural environment. If we had heating and air conditioning, running water, oil/gas/electricity, tractors, paved roads, motor vehicles, grocery stores, or internet connection, I cannot say the same knowledge of the land that sustains us would exist. The pioneers of environmentalism throughout time, from Humboldt to Muir to Leopold, say it is this essential connection to the land that develops and appreciation and in turn, a desire to conserve that which sustains us. That is not necessarily the case here. Twice this week I have attended meetings where community leaders have asked about building dams, not particularly caring about downstream circumstances. The annual burning of the bush has begun, to clear away grasses and potential habitat for mice and snakes. Mice escaping the fire are caught and eaten, while any snake is killed on sight. People see and understand the effect of their agriculture on the soils in the area, but move to newly cleared fields every few years rather than engaging soil conservation methods. Firewood is harvested as needed from the surrounding forest and I have seen no evidence of a sustainable management plan for firewood. People remark on the changing climate, observing shifting patterns of rainfall and higher incidence of drought but still associate diesel vehicles with wealth, and therefore status.

Perhaps knowledge and deep appreciation of land, creation of a personal land ethic, only comes in contrast to the lifestyle fraught with distractions of modernity. What is a simple life, then? I find myself thinking it is problematic, both environmentally and socially. Saying a rural life is simplistic is inherently condescending, as it compares to a modern, complex, "advanced" life, if we resort to Cartesian dichotomies. Even with the best intentions, expressing a desire for a simple life implies rural life is free from the problems of a complex world, which it is certainly not. The global connectivity of a single biosphere shifting climate is proof enough of that.

It is easy, somewhat, to focus on the here and now, the immediate surroundings and the immediate future in this lifestyle. Without internet connectivity, it's hard to know and subsequently be concerned about foreign politics, for example. People's concerns tend towards putting food on the table this evening and having money to pay for the upcoming term's school fees. There is certainly an easier path to mindfulness here. One can focus on the fire in front of your feet, cooking your food that you have grown, and seeing the trees and stars overhead. Just because mindfulness is facilitated, it is not a single state. There are young men and women here whom when asked, say they want to become doctors, teachers, or scientists after their education. To say that life here is simple seems to rob the youth of those who live rurally of the potential for technologically advanced, interconnected futures.

Sometimes I wonder if it is a desire of those with technologically burdened lives to shirk responsibilities that prompts statements like "I wish life were just simple," while picturing life in a rural setting. We don't want to deal with broken machines, troubleshooting software issues, traffic, demands of the workplace, plus the basics of survival. For we envision a simple life as one that focuses on survival necessities without the problems we perceive as societally-engendered complications. Our philosophical leaders say these complications only distract us from the truly important matters; freedom from them enables us to yearn towards an enlightened, clear life.

My Lunda is not nearly good enough to ask about philosophical inclinations of Zambians in my village, so this has to remain a one-sided perspective.