It's quite a conversation in there

As a vegan who tries (effort reduces considerably depending upon levels of chocolate craving and hunger levels) to eat locally grown and organic foods I spend considerable time thinking about the environmental impact of what I eat. Were organic methods really used? Was it grown on a small farm or one of those seemingly endless farms in the Midwest? Was irrigation used? Does the farmer use responsible crop rotation? How much petroleum or other fossil fuels were used to produce it and bring it from the farm to my fork? And why on earth is it wrapped in fifty yards of plastic? Why do I have to choose between 'conventionally' grown local foods and organic foods grown by a corporation in California? Should I really be buying fruit in the middle of winter? What would happen to my health if I did not? Wouldn't it be better to grow it in a greenhouse than ship it in from Chile or New Zealand, or would heating the greenhouse all winter use more fossil fuels than having it shipped?

As I have been sick recently, I have been subsisting mostly on crackers, watered down juice boxes, and the occasional cup of tea. Which is worse? Is it the crackers, produced by the dreaded "Kraft Foods Global, inc," with no hint as to where they were made, and of course with an extra dash of high fructose corn syrup? Is it the organic green tea, grown on Chinese "tea estates?" Or is the juice, produced by Apple & Eve LLC, and masquerading as 100% juice, when it has added citric acid and natural flavor? And the final question, and the most important of all, I would think, is the following. Does what I consume make any difference if the current global system of food productions remains unchanged?

Talking about technology is a little like playing with fire.

Technology is to environmentalists as religion and politics are to family gatherings. If you do not want to get burned you just keep it to yourself. Everyone inevitably has very strong opinions on the topic. This was easily seen in just that one reading that we had for the class presentations. Davis thought that all post-Pleistocene technologies were inherently violent and exploitative. Nash thought that it was not the technology but the human values behind such technology that made it into a negative force. Why is technology such a hot button issue? It is because as westerners we could not get through our day without it. And it is not just obvious technologies like ovens or vacuum cleaners or cars. New technologies also become indispensable to functioning in society after a few years of introduction. Suddenly individuals who were born before the widespread use of television are required by their jobs to have a computer so that they can read company emails at home.

I feel that this pattern is insidious and cannot be allowed to continue. Does this mean that I am against the technologies we have now? I am against some of them certainly. Are cell phones with internet access (and whatever other jazzy new extras they have these days) really necessary? Hint, the answer is no. I would even go so far as to say we could probably do without televisions as well, but my television is shooting me a nasty look and hissing, so I won’t go there). This causes me think that technology as we are currently using it will not ‘save’ us, because we are using it for entirely frivolous reasons. And as long as we are wasting resources for these technological reasons it would not at all be sustainable to increase our technological uses in another area. What I am trying to say is that in order for technology to ‘save’ us not only must we switch to new technologies, but we must also reduce our overall usage.

In environmental terms, I would guess that ‘saving’ would mean stopping the worsening of global change, as well as stopping the worsening of widespread ecosystem collapse. ‘Saving’ would also entail a mitigation of human harms. The human population has been artificially swelled by the ‘abundance’ of food and medicine available because of unsustainable resource and farming usage. Far more people exist in bubbles of population than the area ecosystems could support if not for modern technology. Cities, for example, require a constant supply of outside resources in order for their inhabitants to survive, much the less live comfortably. If we must stop using fossil fuels because of global climate change, a newer, sustainable system would have to be put in place in order for us to not have a massive, unpleasant population die-off.

Lazy environmentalism, the best America can do?

Are Americans grown-ups? Maniates proposes a bold concept. I have always left unquestioned the stereotype of the lazy and willfully ignorant American, numbed dumb by a life of forty plus work weeks, bleary-eyed commutes, television, shopping, and barcaloungers. Perhaps I was too arrogant with my judgment, perhaps Americans could rally to the cause, if there was one to rally to. But under this regime of corrupt politicians and multinational corporations there is no cause except the cause of consumption.* One example of this, of probable hundreds, was when Bush said, “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter” at the most recent G8 Summit. Not only will the American government and its proxies ruin the planet, but we will spit in your face as we do it. It is not the most rousing cry to national sacrifice ever given, except as an example of how not to be. Under the circumstances it will have to do, whether we are ready or not. It must.

*or at least the maintenance and growth of the GDP.