W 16 -p.62
- Why aren't the multiply-higher yields of monocultural agriculture worth the cost in terms of dependence on fetilizer, pesticides etc.? 32
- If GMOs "pose no unique hazards to human health," and the chief objection to them is the companies that exclusively control them, why can't we move against those companies with antitrust action to break their monopolitic hold? 36
- What do you see as the main problem with Roundup and Roundup Ready plants? 37
- "Our farm fields are now more drenched in pesticides than at any point in history." What do you imagine the long-term consequence"s of that might be?
- If Roundup is a "probable human carcinogen," why doesn't our government just prohibit its use? 38
- Do you buy organic? If it's no more nutritious than its conventional counterparts -- did you know that? -- why? 39
- If organic agriculture is better for "ecological harmony," shouldn't taxpayers be subsidizing it to hold consumer costs down? 39
- Does it repulse you, if you are a carnivore or omnivore, to think of yourself as "a tomb for other animals"? 42 Why or why not?
- "About one million animals are slaughtered for food every hour in the US" p.43
- COMMENT: "Slaughter... is at least sad if not downright ignoble..." 44
- Is Temple Grandin a humanitarian hero, or a carni-cide enabler?
- Do you like SPAM?
- Is the 3:1 ratio of feces to meat worth it? 49
- Could you, would you cut your meat and poultry intake by half, knowing that it could increase the world's food grain supply by 15%? 50
- Do you have any consistently-meatless days? Are you vegan, or vegetarian? Why or why not?
- How do we fix the problem of "failure to share"?
- "Every year we waste 90% of the grain we feed to animals..."
- "We are choosing ourselves over our own grandchildren..." How many of us are likely to alter our behavior, in light of this observation?
M 14 - The Story of More: How We Got to Climate Change and Where to go from Here
Here's Hope Jahren last month with novelist (and environmentalist) Barbara Kingsolver at Harvard Bookstore. I highly recommend this.
Scientists have been warning of the growing threat of climate change, and now those projections are a reality
Like millions of people in the western United States this week, I woke up to deep red, sunless skies, layers of ash coating the streets, gardens, and cars, and the smell of burning forests, lives, homes, and dreams. Not to be too hyperbolic, but on top of the political chaos, the economic collapse, and the worst pandemic in modern times, it seemed more than a little apocalyptic.
Too much of the western United States is on fire, and many areas not suffering directly from fire are enveloped in choking, acrid smoke.
While fires in the west are not unusual or unexpected, these fires are different: they’re earlier, bigger, and hotter than usual. They are expanding explosively, overwhelming towns and firefighting resources. And there’s no getting away from them. As of Thursday evening, five of the ten largest wildfires in California’s history are burning. Seven of the 10 largest fires have occurred in the last four years. This isn’t normal.
What’s different now? Human-caused climate change... (continues)
- Scientists who can communicate to a broad public in accessible language, let alone gorgeously and humorously, are pretty rare. Do you think academic programs devoted to addressing this can make a difference in the public understanding of science? And can that make a difference, if not in this specific historical moment then in the long run?
- At about the 40-minute mark, Hope expresses her belief that waiting for large-scale policy changes to fix a broken world is hopeless. Barbara adds that much of the climate discourse lately is driven by fear, and that the antidote to fear is to do something direct and personal about the problem. Specifically, they agree, examining and reforming our own individual practices with regard to the inefficient consumption of resources can lead the way to large-scale policy changes. We've talked about this. Do you agree that personal choices matter, and at the very least can lessen our sense of fear and despair over the future of the environment and life on Earth?
- Had you ever heard of the exchange between Edison, Ford, and Firestone? (3) Surprised? Any other reaction?
- How do you imagine our world would be different today, if people (and Shell) had listened to M.King Hubbert in 1959? 4
- Which of the pivotal events of 1969 do you most wish you could go back and change, to bring about the greatest positive environmental impact? Preventing the incorporation of Wal-mart, maybe?
- Have Carl Sagan and Al Gore and others made a more constructive and consequential contribution to environmental awareness than Jahren seems to think? 6
- Any thoughts on Aristotle (10) or Mill (11)?
- Did you see last week's NYTimes Magazine special issue on food insecurity in America? Any reactions?
- Would eliminating or significantly reducing gender inequality curb global population growth? 13
- Was Henry George more right than Malthus? 13
- Do we take infant health too much for granted? 16
- What do you have planned for your sixties? 17
- Are you shocked at the annual suicide rate? 18 How can this best be addressed in environmental terms?
- On balance, is it a good thing for the environment and for people generally that we've become more urban? Especially in light of the fact that "more people in more cities requires more more..."? 23
==
The future has arrived. These explosive fires are our climate change wakeup callScientists have been warning of the growing threat of climate change, and now those projections are a reality
Like millions of people in the western United States this week, I woke up to deep red, sunless skies, layers of ash coating the streets, gardens, and cars, and the smell of burning forests, lives, homes, and dreams. Not to be too hyperbolic, but on top of the political chaos, the economic collapse, and the worst pandemic in modern times, it seemed more than a little apocalyptic.
Too much of the western United States is on fire, and many areas not suffering directly from fire are enveloped in choking, acrid smoke.
While fires in the west are not unusual or unexpected, these fires are different: they’re earlier, bigger, and hotter than usual. They are expanding explosively, overwhelming towns and firefighting resources. And there’s no getting away from them. As of Thursday evening, five of the ten largest wildfires in California’s history are burning. Seven of the 10 largest fires have occurred in the last four years. This isn’t normal.
What’s different now? Human-caused climate change... (continues)
Comment on DQ: Do you agree that personal choices matter, and at the very least can lessen our sense of fear and despair over the future of the environment and life on Earth?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read books like The Story of More, I get a sense of despair. Looking at our history, I find it difficult to think that we will come out of this well. I tend toward cynicism and skepticism. But that kind of negative thinking is what leads to despair, which is not good for me or others. In the grand scheme of things, my personal choices don’t make much difference. My choice of an Outback over a Prius means I will consume approximately 140 more gallons of gasoline a year. Not something that matters much.
But I need to recognize that what we contribute to the world follows from what we think. My actions follow my thoughts. If my thinking is that fossil fuels must be eliminated and that internal combustion engines should not be produced, I will tend to support policies and politicians that support that conclusion. And my thinking (and speaking, like Hope Jahren) may influence others thinking, and on and on. There is an increasing awakening in the world to the crisis we face. The more thinking about solutions, the more woke we become, the more likely the doing of solutions.
Spoken like a meliorist, which these days may actually be heroic. Doing what we can, whether we think it can possibly conjoin with enough other well-intentioned acts of potential futility to make an ultimate difference or not, is what we can do.
DeleteWish I could believe "thoughts and prayers" would also help. Guess they can't hurt, if that's what you've got.
DeleteI always like to think of this as a chain reaction or just a hope that some minds just think alike. The thought that my own actions are too small to matter and that there will be no change in the world if I am the only one doing something is just too frustrating. I guess this kind of goes with the discussion we had in the Zoom today about what our life looks like in our sixties. Kind of something that is unpredictable and maybe even a little hopeless at times.
DeleteI do agree that personal choices matter, because they might seem useless to you, but you can be the one inspiring someone else to maybe recycle or bring reusable bags to the store. I also think it helps your conscious and it gives you the feeling that you did something. In my opinion that definitely lessens my sense of fear and despair, because you do not feel as helpless.
Also I wrote my essay +3
I commented on Ed and Heather +2
So my grand total for the past 4 weeks should be 20 points, I believe.
How do you imagine our world would be different today, if people (and Shell) had listened to M.King Hubbert in 1959?
ReplyDeleteTo quote the author, Hubbert was "both right and wrong".
An alternative to a nonrenewable and undeniably environmentally detrimental resource such as fossil fuels is necessary for the longterm survival of the human race. In this regard, he is correct, and his having this foresight in the 50's is to be commended. If we were to have begun this transition half a century ago, we would definitely not be in as dire straits as we find ourselves today.
However, his suggestion of nuclear energy is, I believe, an ill advised one. Disasters such as Fukushima and Chernobyl reflect the potential effects of negligence and arrogance of man trying to control such precarious energy production, and their long term effects are still unknown. Chernobyl is still uninhabitable 34 years later, and although Fukushima has thus far had no major fall out after the disaster, it must be continuously monitored to ensure such an incident does not occur again.
The most interesting part of this question, though, is considering what life would be like if Shell had considered the moral dilemma of conducting business at the expense of the world. What if businesses were to function under ethical standards? Is it possible? Companies selling "sustainable" and "green" products would like you to believe so. Or will they inherently pursue profit over all other motives? I believe the latter to be true. I am not saying that there is no good to be achieved by consuming these products and services, but endlessly pursuing the "lesser evil" and/or "harm reduction" route only inevitably leaves us with our hands tied.
[**rant inspired by this NPR article: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled
TL;DR: big oil corporations (i.e. Shell) manipulated everyone into believing plastic (a product produced from oil) is easily and efficiently recycled, when in fact it is not, and is much cheaper to produce than recycle. This lie created a "feel good" effect whereby people felt less guilt about consuming single use plastic. Big oil knew there was no reliable way to consistently recycle, but chose to pursue profits.)
I realize that I missed the core of this question in my eagerness to make my various points:
DeleteIf we listened to Hubert, it is entirely likely that we would live in a world free from the oppressive levels of CO2 that we currently reside in. Meaning: less smog, less coral bleaching, less artic shelf melting, less natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, wildfires), leading to better quality of life, more varied and resilient ecosystems, etc.etc. However, I'm still wary of nuclear based on previous disasters. As I type this, I am reconsidering: is it more dangerous than fossil fuels? Could it be safe given proper disposal of nuclear wastes with capacity to leach out radioactivity for 10,000 years? It may be worth looking into. However, I hold out hope that other forms of alternative energy (solar, hydro, wind, geothermal) are given the proper infrastructure to possibly provide a similar C02 reduction with less potentially horrific side effects.
What a dilemma, fossil fuels vs. nukes. Fortunately, as you say, there are still alternatives... though the window of opportunity continues rapidly to shrink.
DeleteThe only way we get the Shells of the world to seize the opportunity to break our addiction to fossil fuels, it appears, is to make the transition lucrative for them. That seems within reach, but requires governmental support. We won't get that, with the present administration.
Regarding the DQ about how to improve communication of science in a palatable method to inform the public...
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a distinct lack of digestible content that makes science accessible. However, the Information age is slowly decreasing that barrier. From Bill Nye the Science Guy and Popular Science magazines, I would say that science is slowly making its way to the masses.
The main problem with scientific communication is the underlying political issue. There is robust (and growing) body of literature that links public perception of the environment to political identification. A study (linked below) found that 3/10 Republicans were concerned about the environment compared to 7/10 Democrats (1). The environmental issue is not just limited by ignorance, but by party-based rhetoric. If we want to mobilize the public, we have to find a way to build a platform that overcomes two MASSIVE hurdles: 1) the tragedy of the commons, and 2) the political polarization that pollutes discourse.
(1) http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/943/environmental-problems-and-american-politics-why-is-protecting-the-environment-so-difficult
I agree wholeheartedly with both of your statements. Information has never been more unrestricted to the layman, so why is there a disconnect?
DeleteYes, I agree that scientific merit has been politicized by the right (often to the point of anti-intellectualism), and I'd go on to say that this issue is only exacerbated by the echo chamber of disinformation and positive feedback loops that is social media. Add in a lack of education and there is a true recipe for disaster. That is precisely the phenomenon that has resulted in the proliferation of anti-maskers (COVID super spreaders) and anti-vaxxers (bringing measles to an elementary school near you) alike.. simply by preaching to their algorithm selected choir on Facebook. Welcome to our "post-truth" society.
I posit that our only way out of this situation is by 1. raising the baseline level of education for /all/ demographics (this would require a hard look at public schools), 2. making Media Literacy courses mandatory in the age of mass information, and 3. yes, producing more public facing scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye to spread the good word of science wherever possible.
In the present hyper-politicized environment, unfortunately, too many of our peers will hear only what they want to. So Kathryn's right, both formal and popular education must push back against closed minds. We need more Great Communicators to represent science. (Did you see Trump's statement just this afternoon, when challenged about the disconnect between his own statements and science? "I don't think science knows, actually." He doesn't know WHAT science knows, nor does he care. Sadly, he has legions of unblinking supporters in lockstep with him.)
DeleteWhat do you have planned for your sixties?
ReplyDeleteI honestly do not want to make plans for my sixties right now. Our generation, like none before, has a very uncertain future ahead of them. Especially when we do not work anymore, we need someone to provide for us. After this year, I am not even sure if we will all be here to live through it.
My plan was to be retired somewhere in my home country and live off my retirement money which was supposed to be coming from the time I worked. Since we already have a declining birth rate, I am not sure if there will be enough young people working to provide for all of us. We can already see that it is becoming hard for the state to give every retired person the money they were supposed to. I do not know exactly how retirement is handled in the US, but even if I have saved up a large amount of money for after I am done working, I do not think know if I can live comfortable with it. We are living through it right now, when the economy is crashing and the job market with it. If this year shows us anything, then that there is no consistency anymore, we cannot really plan on anything anymore, because everything is changing.
I wish I could be certain, that I could retire in my sixties, I wish could know that when I am older, I am all taken care of and safe. But the truth is, that the year to retire keeps rising and that we need the people in the workforce, because there are no enough people coming in.
I think it is somehow predictable how the demographic change will impact us, but I also believe that there is a lot of other things that can change some factors.
It is not meant to seem all dark and negative and I believe that I will be able to play in the backyard with my grandchildren, but a real plan needs a lot more certainty than we have right now.
Well, speaking as a 60+ person, I still think you should plan for it. Or at least dream of it. It's profoundly unfortunate that your generation (which is also my daughters') is faced with such uncertainty and insecurity, but I still think we're all more likely to reap what we've sewn. I still believe we'll come through these troubles, largely because I believe in your generation's resourcefulness and perseverance. You were raised on Dr. Seuss, after all. (Weren't you?)
DeleteYes, you are definitely right. Like I said, the picture I draw here is pretty dark but obviously we never know what the future holds. I do believe and hope that there will be a bright future ahead of all of us.
DeleteAlso, I had to look up Dr. Seuss, I think his name just did not gain as much popularity in Germany, but his books do seem familiar!
Could you, would you cut your meat and poultry intake by half, knowing that it could increase the world's food grain supply would be 15%?
ReplyDeleteI probably only eat meat a few times a week and even then it's not an absurd amount (usually little bits mixed in a salad or pasta). So yes, I probably could cut my meat intake by half without too much grief. But, no I wouldn't actually do that because I don't think that would be the healthiest decision for me considering I don't eat tons of meat already.
I honestly think that people would do a lot more for the environment if they had actual goals and would see that their efforts pay off. For most, me included, I sometimes think that the meat in the supermarket is already processed so either I buy it and eat it or they will throw it away at the end. I know that obviously the demand makes the mass, and if less people buy products they would stop order as much.
DeleteA lot of people just do not care and do not think about where their food and especially meat is coming from. If we knew exactly what kind of impact we could have by not eating a certain product, we would be more inclined to help the cause. I do not think that I will ever completely quit eating meat, but I can definitely do a better job of reducing it and making sure I know where it is coming from, even if that means paying a few more dollars
Does it repulse you, if you are a carnivore or omnivore, to think of yourself as "a tomb for other animals"? 42 Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really repulse me, no. It is perfectly natural for humans to eat other animals, just as it is for many animals to eat other animals. I don't particularly like this characterization of meat eating, because it is a bit on the morbid side. But it doesn't make me think much differently about the act of meat eating in general.
Why aren't the multiply-higher yields of monocultural agriculture worth the cost in terms of dependence on fetilizer, pesticides etc.? 32
ReplyDeleteI actually think that the cost of pesticides on our planet is worth it for higher yields of food because, if you think about from a farmer's perspective the harm the pesticides bring about are totally worth it, because everyone of their crops that is ruined by weeds or insects is a certain amount of money that has wasted in multiple ways. Also, as a society we need this due to our ever growing population if we didn't have these practices it is likely that a lot more people in our society would have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for healthier foods making our society worse off then it already is.
I think the question of where I imagine my life at 60 is interesting for many reasons. First and foremost, I almost don't see myself living that old. Not in a particularly morbid manner, either. But between climate change, poverty, state inflicted violence, and all other issues the people of this world face, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these things take me out before I am prepared. It's also interesting to consider this generation specifically. I don't know many people whose dreams lie with white suburbia. And even if they do, most of us will never be in a financial place to achieve these things. I don't tend to think about what my future holds for me, as it would make me much more pessimistic than I like to stay.
ReplyDeleteWhere I see myself in my sixties and where I hope to be in my sixties are two wildly different things. I imagine that most people my age will inevitably be working for many more years than we would hope to, out of necessity. I've recently given up on the old saying that if you find a job you love, you never work a day in your life because it seems like a bit of a capitalist mantra that everyone should have a dream career, when a dream can be as simple as wanting to be happy, as non-simple as than can be at times. It would be a dream to never work at all, period, and do exclusively leisure activities, but that is, of course, not possible. So the dream I'll settle for is managing to find a decent amount of land to be self- sufficient and spend my working hours personally tending to all of the fruits and veggies and chickens I will have.
ReplyDeleteWe are choosing ourselves over our own grandchildren..." How many of us are likely to alter our behavior, in light of this observation?
ReplyDeleteI think quite few of us are likely to change our behavior in favor of later generations that we have not yet met face to face, especially in the US that is more centered around self than society (maybe made more clear by the backlash at something as simple as wearing a mask). It is quite a common event for parents to make certain self-sacrificial decisions in the name of better future for their kids, but I can't imagine it is easy for most young people now to make sacrifices for the future of their potential, currently non-existent grandchildren, and even harder for some older people to make sacrifices for plans they won't be able to see to fruition. I believe changing behaviors begins with education, so that is a good starting point to lead people to the path of choosing future generations over themselves. Then hopefully those of us who are willing enough to actually change our behaviors can make large enough waves for those who won't change.
How do we fix the problem of “failure to share”
ReplyDeleteI feel like one way to fix the problem of “failure to share”, is to create an international body made up of the largest food producing countries, to work together to help feed countries with dire food circumstances. Governments could mandate that food producing corporations in their respective countries donate a percentage of their yearly product to this International body for distribution to countries in need, and in exchange the corporations could get favorable tax cuts.
A second way to fix the problem could be to appeal directly to the people. It could work similar to the organ donor box on your driver’s license but could be on your tax form. There could be a provision for donating to this effort, in exchange for a tax credit. The money collected could be then used by the government to purchase and transport food to countries that need it. I feel like NGOs do not have the money or infrastructure in place to handle the size of this problem by themselves. Governments are also in a position to hold other governments more accountable and ensure that food actually gets to the people. In many countries humanitarian crises tends to go hand in hand with corruption, whether at the governmental level, or from third parties like gangs and warlords. We would be walking a thin line though, as this exact type of situation was what led to our military involvement in Somalia in 1994.
Weekly Total: 5
9/17 Commented on Levi’s “GMOs and Conceptions of Social Justice”
9/17 Commented on Tyler’s “how much garbage we grow”
9/17 This post.
Overall Total: 15 I believe
Q: Do you have any consistently-meatless days? Are you vegan, or vegetarian? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteA: I actually do have consistent meatless days. Majority of what I consume on a daily basis does not contain any meat, dairy, etc. and although I don’t consider myself a devote vegan, there are still a lot of things I don’t consume or buy that are of the vegan lifestyle. I’m currently trying to transition over into being a vegan completely just for the simple fact that after trying it for a couple of weeks I noticed such a major change (positive) in my physical and mental health. I started to notice that curtain meats and products were making me sick and after doing some research I decided to try it out. Which lead me to doing the test/ trial. I didn't quite have an environment motivation when first deciding to slowly transition but It’s definitely an additional benefit to know that I’m not contributing someway to the kiling and use of animals.