Like I've said before I tend towards the natural, crunchy end of the spectrum. I just took this test and scored in the second highest category. It always surprises me what behaviors end up on these tests though.
For example: The test I've linked before seems to score you as crunchier if you homeschool than if you don't. Now as I would define it, crunchiness is about sustainable living, eco-friendly choices, taking your impact on the earth into account when you make lifestyle choices. By that definition, the "most crunchy" personwould be one who makes significant personal sacrifices in order to have less impact on the planet - for example selling your car and using public transport. Unless a family chooses homeschooling so that they won't have to drive kids to school, I honestly don't see the impact on the planet. I know a few friends who read this are very pro-homeschooling, so maybe you'd enlighten me in the comments?
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose homeschooling in the least. It's not a choice that we've made for our family for a variety of reasons, but I could see a different life for us where it would be a natural choice, and I support my homeschooling friends (and sister) 100%. I just don't see how it fits into the definition of crunchy. It's certainly in line with the parenting paradigm that I subscribe to, but just like my choice not to hit my kids has nothing to do with eco-friendly living, I don't see how schooling choices are better or worse for the planet.
Same goes for co-sleeping, selectively/delaying vaccinating and extended breastfeeding, all of which I do myself. It just seems to me like these crunchy lists end up being a list of alternative lifestyles that often go together, but doesn't necessarily mean they're all for the same purpose.
Other things on the crunchy list are decidedly eco-friendly (cloth diapering, re-usable menstrual products, breastfeeding) but my choice to do it has less to do with the planet and more to do with common sense. Sustainable living is very important to me - for example for our home renovation I'm planning to use products manufactured in South Africa as far as possible, because the carbon footprint of imported tiles from Italy and an imported stove from Germany can be pretty big. But I don't cloth diaper in the first place because it's more eco-friendly. It was part of the choice, but the much bigger factor is that it's cheaper - and cuter.
The one factor that these tests often ignore (the one I linked to has one question on it) is the food you choose to eat. It's been proved many times that a vegetarian or vegan diet has a lower carbon footprint - just under half a square kilometer of land can produce enough beef to feed 20 people but enough wheat to feed 400. It takes between 3 and 15 times more water to produce animal protein than plant protein. And of course simply taking a stance against factory farming of meat can play a major role in deciding to decrease your meat intake.
I'm reading a lot about vegetarianism at the moment. Some of it has immense appeal to me - so I may be in for an interesting time ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment