MWR : Keeping it simple

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

May 24, 2010 issue

Tags: Letters Environment and agriculture

Keeping it simple

By Dave Hockman-Wert Corvallis, Ore.

Great editorial on the value of a simple lifestyle! As someone who still has my 20-year-old “Live simply, that others may simply live” T-shirt, I was distressed to see that we “non-plain” Mennonites find so little value in simple living. I wonder what people think “following Jesus in daily life” means, considering that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi with few possessions.

I must point out one factual error in the editorial, however. Meat, dairy and eggs do not require grain to be fed to animals. It is actually unnatural for ruminant animals like cows and sheep to eat anything other than grass. Grain feeding is a common practice in industrial agriculture, unfortunately, but there are plenty of alternatives. Visit www.eatwild.com for information about grass/pasture-fed livestock and a listing of more than 1,100 pasture-based farms.

Eating less meat is a good choice for many North Americans, but if you do eat meat, eggs or dairy there are better and worse options for your health, the animal’s health and the environment. Go grass-fed!

Comments

I am grateful to Dave Hockman-Wert for pointing out this important clarification to what I wrote in my editorial on living simply.

In talking about meat, dairy and eggs as part of an average North American diet, I was referring to products from animals raised in factory-farm environments, as they account for the vast majority of meat, dairy and eggs consumed in North America.

I agree that eating carefully sourced meat, dairy and eggs can be part of a simple lifestyle. The additional challenge, though, is balancing the the higher cost of such products (which is appropriate to compensate farmers and farm workers) as part of a budget that involves sharing with others in need.

- Celeste Kennel-Shank (may 19 at 5:34 p.m.)
Hi Celeste,

Yes, the cost issue is an important one, but for those of us for whom it's not an issue of affordability, I long ago realized that "cheaper isn't always better".

In fact, paying more for something -- food, clothing, household goods -- is sometimes better, if it means you are paying for higher quality, better environmental protection, more support for your local economy, etc. Organic food is the classic example these days. While it's not technically "simple living" in a strict "cheaper = simplicity" sense, I contend that it's more "faithful" living, "values-based" living.

We vote with our dollars every time we spend money. We might be spending less money ("living simply"?) by shopping at Wal-Mart rather than a local food co-op, but we need to ask ourselves, which values do we want to be supporting? To slightly alter a noted Mennonite/peace tax slogan, are we working for peace, but paying for sweatshop labor, pesticides, and factory farms?

Some of us can both spend our money wisely and well, while also sharing a generous proportion. I don't begrudge those with less options, but I daresay many MWR readers are not in that position. If we buy cheap food (clothing, etc.) and spend the "saved" money on luxuries (video games, plasma TVs, boats, vacations, etc.), what good is that? (I know you're not suggesting this, but this is what I see happening.)

Thanks for the discussion.

- Dave Hockman-Wert (may 26 at 7:45 p.m.)

Comment on the article Keeping it simple

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.