How do you think the creation of standardized time zones affected the way people saw the world?
Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Brandon Davis
-
Brandon Davis
What do you think? Is large-scale organic a betrayal of the organics movement, or is it a natural (so to speak) next step towards revitalizing our food supply?
-
natashap
From my perspective, I don’t see how a larger organic farm is any different from a small one – as long as they are farming using the same practices, no pesticides, etc. But I can definitely see how someone who was part of the “Organic Movement” would think they are different, the whole point of the movement seems to be to return to small scale local produce and a larger more industrialized farm would go against those values – even if it met all the other “organic” criteria.
I do think that large organic farms could definitely hurt smaller ones though – I’m always somewhat skeptical of just buying food that has an organic label as the cost of getting certified is quite high and the requirements are very stringent – so smaller farms may be following all the steps, but can’t afford to get certified or might not be able to afford to do one of the requirements.
-
Olga F
Lately, organic produce has been made into a new money making phenomena. It used to be all good about, small and sustainable scale, good for health good for environment. what is it now? Large scale production, that requires massive amounts of plastic wrapping etc, in order to keep it fresh, because they bring it from around the world? so what good left about it? It also pollutes, it also uses harmful for the environment and possible health – plastic. Also, organic does not mean that there are no chemicals in the production. it just mean that up (i think) 90% is natural, no chemicals. yet, farmers are still allowed to use a bit of chemicals. in addition, they just charge much money money for it, which not everyone can afford. Have to be making a lot more than an average person to be able to eat only organic. so how fair is that? Organic used to be for people, No it is just another way for businesses to make money!
-
jenniefrench
In my opinion large-scale organic is still better than large scale non-organic farming, but not by much. Especially after reading Pollan’s article, I feel that while not using chemicals is fundamental to organic food, I also believe that sustainability is also key to what constitutes organic. We do, of course, need to find ways to feed the world’s population, and to do that organically would be amazing not only for our health, but also for the health of our planet. But we are being too short sighted – we are basing our systems on the ones we already have, ie CAFos, as opposed to looking at the big picture and honestly asking what is best for human health and welfare (as well as animal and environmental health and welfare) as opposed to allowing the economy and our greed determine how we feed our world.
-
msmith92
In my opinion, I think that large scale organic farming is not a betrayal of the organic movement as long as organic practices (ie. no pesticides) are kept up. However, I think that, as soon as there are so-called organic products that are really processed foods made with organic ingredients, that is a betrayal. We cannot expect that our agricultural systems will change quickly, so hopefully this is just a step along the way to having farms and agricultural practices that are truly in sync with the organic movement. I definitely agree with what jennie said above that the focus should be to sustainably produce food for the planet. Our agricultural systems will likely need to concentrate less on profits and more on what is best for the planet
-
kimzzzy
I do think large scare farming is a betrayal to the organic movement which is all about reaching sustainability. How do we become sustainable when we are incorporating machineries and once again relying on fuels to grow our crops? Large scale farming is heading towards the road of mass producing and money making. It is furthering out goal towards producing good quality food by respecting the environment it grows in. One of the main problem with large scale farming is that it farms on land that has been transformed into the generic industrialized farm land rather than to grow the crop in the natural state of the land.
-
bgibson
I see large scale organic as the logical next step in the revitalization of food supply, although it is easy to see how the different value systems employed by international corporations and those who have been with the organic movement from the ground up would result in a perceived betrayal. However, I think we have to view this as positive progress that can be built upon. The challenge with large scale production and the money that accompanies it will be to ensure that organic foods remain true to those practices. With big money comes political pressure and I can see a slippery slope where regulations are relaxed and altered to benefit the big producers. Furthermore, I find it difficult to embrace the idea of organic oreos (Michael Pollans article) as having any part of the organic movement. The organic movement keys on ideas of sustainability and improved health, I don’t know that oreos embodies either of those ideas.
-
brandond
Sounds like a nice marketing idea – market unhealthy snack food as organic to appeal to eco-conscious eaters. Seems like one of many ways to make a profit off the organic label. If you had a choice, would you rather have an non organic over an organic oreo?
-
-
emilym
I think that large scale organic farming is slightly preferable to non-organic large scale farming, but certainly represents a betrayal of the original organic movement. Large scale farming, even if it is organic, means that food is shipped further, which uses more energy and harms the environment, and also generally entails changing the land significantly more than small scale localized operations. The shift toward inclusion of processed food labeled as organic also betrays the movement’s original intent. However, large scale organic farming is unfortunately a logical step taken in our international capitalist system in which profit trumps morality. It makes sense that corporations such as Wal-Mart would twist the concept of the organic movement in order to turn more profits, but it is a shame that that change has occurred.
-
katehaxt
Yes, large scale organic farming and especially highly processed “organic” foods are definately a betrayal of the principles of the organic movement. Here in England there is this infuriating situation that many organic vegetables and fruit are sold in twice the packaging as non-organic versions. Then there is the overpackaged organic blueberries flown in from Argentina. This is just what happens with capitalism though. Now people who still value the original principales of the organic movement have to be savvy consumers, using farmers markets, sometimes foregoing the “organic” label for something local or in season etc. etc. You have to take the organic label with a grain of salt now, but I take a bit of comfort in the fact that the large scale organic farms, which are exploiting their workers and cutting corners to make profit just like the other industrial farm, are at least not exposing their workers or the nearby soil to toxic chemicals.
-
roypat
If the large-scale farming is going to happen either way to feed a large population, it’s inevitably better if it is done with less chemicals, pesticides, and is done “organically.” It’s something like turning on all the lights in your room but you’re using an energy saving compact bulb instead of an incandescent. Still using power which is “bad” in the sense of being an energy saving and sustainable individual, but it’s still better.
-
nytsuen
In my opinion, large scale organic is not exactly a betrayal of the organics movement. The organics movement does criticize large scale farming; however, in order to feed the global population, we can’t always rely on small scale production. There’s a reason why there is large scale farming nowadays and that’s because we need to produce enough for the world . In the end, i don’t think that the main point is the process of farming and whether it’s a large or small scale production. I think what matters the most is the outcome of the production. Organic will always be better, maybe not significantly better, but better. However, a possible way to make it even better is to reduce the amount of packaging to make it more environmentally beneficial but then there’s the matter of transporting the produce from one country to the other. There definitely are environmental costs in the process of producing and shipping organic foods so is it worth it? Obviously the answer is ‘yes’ to the capitalist world because they have a new product/idea/morality that they can profit from.
-
brandond
Maybe the real question is if large-scale, industrialized agriculture is, in any way, able to produce food without there being some type of severe environmental consequences. It sounds like many of you would probably say no to this question. That being said, I wonder if any you think large-scale organic food could be an example of free-market, corporate economies finally getting something right (in ecological terms at least) for a change?
-
jaydee
I would say that it is a way of corporate economies getting it right, to a degree. I think in this day and age, reverting to small-farms on a large scale would have devastating effects on the economy and our personal way of living, but would provide us with a sustainable, more health-friendly food source. In contrast, industrialized farming provides a streamlined, fast way to supply food to the large population of people who need it, but is not beneficial for the health of us, the plants, or the land. Thus, it would seem that organic food produced in large scale is a compromise: a step in the direction to sustainable and healthy life-styles.
-
jonl
I definitely think it is a step in a better direction than chemicals and artificial fertilizers. I’d like to know more about the large scale organic farms. Sometimes, the reason it’s organic is because it didn’t use any of the chemicals that are listed in the “will make your harvest inorganic” list. The way society is set up right now (high demand, high population density), large-scale organic food does seem like the logical next step for those farmers.
-
hannahepperson
What is curious to me, is that ‘corporate economies’ seem heavily dependent on the developments of small, vigorous communities that are generating culture and trying to give meaning to life… Let me explain. Take for example the trend of gentrification – a really cheap, derelict neighbourhood or city gets occupied and reimagined by a community of poor artists (think of brooklyn in new york, or berlin!) … they develop a unique, novel community, which attracts interest, intrigue, and soon – investment from business-minded people who see a good economic opportunity! Soon, the neighbourhood or city gets bought up, refurbished and sold to people who want to be part of a vibrant community. But when the place is developed, cleaned up and resold, the original community has been pushed to the periphery … where they start building a new community, a new culture … etc etc. I don’t think the parallel between gentrification and ‘organification’ is too much of a stretch. In both cases, the fierce culture of a small movement is essentially commodified and sold as a product that is deprived of its malignant properties.
Anyway, I don’t think you can’t simply buy your ideals, you also have to participate in them. Large-scale organic food production just seems like another quick-fix to ease the consciences of the concerned masses back into a state of righteous complacency.-
brandond
I appreciate the sentiment in your last sentence Hannah. Like Jon, though, I would like to learn more about large-scale organic agriculture. I’d guess there has to be some idealistic large-scale organic operations going on, but it also seem like a lot of organic food is increasingly coming from big brand names. Maybe I will have to dig up a reading on large-scale organics for next time I teach this course.
-
hannahepperson
I just think there are so many more creative, innovative alternatives to consider and discovery. There are so many cool hybrid ‘urbagrarian’ movements popping up … it’s kind of unbelievable how much unproductive land there is in cities that can be ‘occupied,’ if you will … rooftops, vertical gardening, consensual community use of private property, laneway infilling, etc… I admittedly have a radical streak, which makes it difficult for me to optimistically consider ‘moderate’ aspirations akin to the industrialization of the organic movement…
-
-
-
-
erikaw
I wouldn’t say it’s a betrayal of the Organic Movement but I would say that it doesn’t follow the principles or belief systems behind organic food. Many people (including myself until recently) don’t realize how much depth is involved in Organic Food. It’s not just about not using pesticides – it’s about the health and nutrition of the food, the quality of soil, the health of the environment. Is processed Organic Food better for you than conventional organic food? Probably VERY minimally. It’s still processed. It still goes against nature – but at least for people that are not going to stop eating processed foods (yet!) there are better options, that may not be hurting the planet as much as others.
In regards to your latest post Brandon I do believe that Large-Scale Organic food can set an example. The world we live in will not be resorting to small scale anything very quickly, so at least you can support corporations that do have ethical backgrounds. And at least these large scale corporations have the power, money and ability to create and exhibit change that smaller low budget companies may not have.
-
sharonshi
I think that a large-scale organic movement is not a betrayal but a progression. Organic food was said to create a healthier society, therefore, a large-scale movement is just speeding up that process. In short, yes, i do believe it is the next step towards revitalizing our food supply. However, one thing to beware of is the ability to “purchase” the right to be considered organic or healthy. As a result of potential market sales, organizations could try to bypass the system by buying into the organic movement while at the same time not offering 100% organic food. This would counter the objective of the organic movement and in end make the revolution a scheme to which large organizations use to manipulate consumers.
-
youngblutt
I see the move to large-scale as a betrayal of the ideology of the organic movement but I do not mean to suggest that it is a backwards move in terms of long-term environmental sustainability. The popularization of the “movement” is a necessary step in the public awareness of other environmental issues.
At it’s inception, the “organic movement” shared the values of many other “movements” with an eye towards environmental sustainability and social equality. Due to the profit-seeking nature of unfettered market capitalism, the organic movement was gobbled up and endorsed to a larger scale which benefits certain aspects of sustainability, such as less processed chemical inputs in soil, while setting back other aspects, such as the carbon emissions from tilling, industry practices etc.
While it is encouraging to see the expanded public awareness and concern for the organic movement, I’d wager that most proponents of organic consumption are more interested in eating healthy than in promoting the social economic benefits that small scale farming would have on impoverished soils and communities. For me, the fact remains that profit-making means value loss for those that labour for production. It is simply not a sustainable means of production and it continues to cause inequalities. It will not last much longer.
-
paige
I do think modern organics have lost their way. I don’t think it has to do with the size of the operations though. As organic became more mainstream, it moved away from the local farm (yes increasing in size, but this was just a side reaction). As bigger companies get involved to keep up with the mainstream market, the wholesomeness is lost. Organics have turned corporate. I also think there needs to be a separation between organic vegetables/fruits/grains and organic animals. The welfare of organic animals may be compromised because they are not allowed to be given antibiotics when sick. The suffering of animals is certainly not sometime someone associates with the idea of “organic”
-
brenden
I do not believe that large scale organic is a betrayal of the organics movement. So long as operations continue to cultivate items which are grown without pesticides, harmful fertilizers and do not use genetically enhanced crops, I do not see the harm. Even though some others are arguing that organics have turned corporate, I feel that it’s besides the point. The focus is on organic foods, not local. Individuals concerned with the “wholesomeness” or “local spirit” of organic produce can obtain foods by visiting local farms and trying things like the 100 mile diet. For others however that are simply trying to obtain organic foods at reasonable prices, I feel that large scale production and corporatizing is a necessary evil and it is simply the next step in revitalizing our food supply.
-
lcoulthard
I understand that the large-scale farms are still using natural methods of production, but to me a major part of being called “organic” has to do with carbon footprint. If these large-scale organic farms are processing their own products, or even selling them to a processor to be shipped, they are participating in a likely international system that has implications for the environment. I do think that our food supply should come from organic sources, if we only used chemical fertilizers we would deplete the soil and contaminate groundwater frequently. With this all in mind, I think that the sustainable way to produce our food would have to be many local organic small farmers, and industrialized countries would have to wean away their acquired taste for exotic agricultural goods.
-
alyumam
I like your view regarding the carbon footprint organic products need to have as also your position about eliminating the taste for ´exotic´ goods (now days not very exotic).
At the same time I agree with, I believe he writes it, Berry´s article regarding the definition of organic food, which nowadays seems to be an Orwellian and forced definition : if the government says is organic, is organic. This relates to your position of the need to have a sustainable way of producing food.
-
-
midara
Considering if factory farming is organic or not depends on how people define what “organic” is. Personally I consider the method of farming to decide if a product/production process organic or not. This is to say that I am good with that as far as the large-scale organic farming is “organic” (i.e. soil nutrition, organic/natural fertilizer etc.). I do not think that as a betrayal of organics movement if the farming process has nothing in particular to harm the nature/soil environment.
However it is always true that larger-scale production will affect small-scale farming economically, and it is easy to predict farmers turning to larger scale production. Considering this the larger-scale production is said to be driving people away from interaction with the nature (which is not organic again); but I guess this is quite unavoidable, so I think as far as the ingredients are produced organically consumer like me have to agree that the processed food and large-scale organic still “organic” -
tsung
I don’t believe large- scale organic is a betrayal of the organics movement. Although I would understand why we might think it betrays the organic movement since the definition of organic has changed, however, we need to realize that as time passes, things will also change accordingly. There has been a constructed culture, principle, value and definition of what organic is – eg. Small scale farming and fresh. However, as organic produce becomes more popular and people realize that health must come first, demand will increase for the organic goods. In addition, we need to keep in mind that we live in an economic focused society, it is no surprise marketing organic has occurred. In a sense, the organic integrity still exists – using no pesticides and chemicals, however, as aforementioned, times change and in order to adapt accordingly, the organic structure will also change.
-
jlin
Well, large scale anything in terms of exchange of goods usually translates to cheaper prices, so from consumer perspective, I would say large scale organic is a revitalization in that it makes organic goods not only a more environmentally friendly alternative but also economically feasible products to purchase. To me, organic isn’t about necessarily, small scale farming. More importantly, it’s about stopping the use of harmful chemicals in farming. Economy and agriculture are strongly interlinked in our society today…you can’t say reject organic food just because it aims to maximize the ways it could be marketed. Likewise, it would be wrong to completely reject something like economies of scale just to maximize the principles of the organics movement. There needs to be a balance, and I think large-scale organic is one of those things this balance is trying to seek.
-
sampethick
It’s hard to criticize organic farmers who are expanding their farms in order to grow economically. I kind of feel like they are trying to do the right thing by growing organic foods but they still (like everyone else) want to establish as comfortable a lifestyle as possible. As a growing population larger-scale farms are probably what is necessary to feed everyone, and I don’t think that the farmers of bigger organic farms are betraying the organics movement as long as they stay within the lines of what organic is; ie: no chemicals, pesticides and processing.
On the other hand though, as Michael Pollan points out huge companies such as Wal Mart are going to put a lot of pressure on bigger farms for low prices on organic food and this will have a very negative effect on the way that these farmers grow their food and farm their animals and the need to survive will dominate their actions; “pressures to cut corners will become irresistible.” -
alyumam
I find the large-scale organic production despite not being completely sustainable,I do believe it may be a step towards the revitalization of food supply.At the same time it seems to be part of the process of creating conscience in the population.
Despite of that, regarding if this is a betrayal or not to the organic movement, I guess this relates to where do we observe this process. First of all we have to acknowledge the concern for its health the average individual in urban areas has,as well as perhaps the environment. I believe this is a positive step into creating the cultural change we have been talking about.
However, if we look to the marketing on organic products big organizations, corporations as well government groups have done, I believe this is part of the same uncontrolled business driven economy we are trying to rid and therefore signifies a total betrayal to the organics movement as well to ourselves. -
Keaton Briscoe
I don’t really see how a large-scale organic farm is different that a small-scale organic farm other than the fact that more is produced in the same amount of time. The large-scale farm is still producing its food organically and not using pesticides or fertilizers etc. It may not be popular among the people of the “organic movement” as it does get away from the small, beautiful production of healthy food, though. I think that it is a step towards revitalizing our food supply, but I think this approach needs to be built upon in regards to packaging, shipping, etc.
-
yitailiu
Large-scale organic is different from what the organics movement was seeking. The large-scale organic farms many still be organic if no pesticides or chemical fertilizers were used. Considering our present economical system, which aims for high productivity and high profit; with an increasing consumer demand for organic food, this enlargement of organic farms is expected. Even though the large-scale organic farms are not as ideal as the small ones, it is a step in changing our food supply options.
-
hoskinso
It would be impossible for all farming to be of the small-scale organic type. Human population is too concentrated in urban areas, and we have come to rely on the complex web of producers, suppliers, marketers and consumers to fairly distribute goods. Small-scale farming is expensive and inefficient compared to large-scale. In rich countries there will always be a segment of consumers willing to pay extra for fresh free-run small-scale produce, but this is not suitable to feed the hungry billions who don’t have sufficient disposable income to spend on such luxuries. Industrial organic farming represents the best of both worlds, combining modern production techniques with the health and sustainability benefits of organic farming.
-
phoebe
While large-scale organic may be a betrayal of the ideology of the organics movement, I find it to be a natural progression to revitalizing our food supply. As long as harmful pesticides and fertilizers aren’t used, this is a step in the right direction for agriculture. The problem that should be fixed however, is in making organics more accessible to a larger group of people. Currently, organics are known are being more expensive and harder to find than non-organically produced food. Perhaps with government support, more organic food could be spread to improve people’s health and nutrition. The small-scale ideology of the organic movement is unrealistic, particularly in places of highly concentrated urban centres. In places such as Tokyo or Vancouver, the price of land makes it unrealistic for everyone to have their own piece of land to farm. Thus, a certain amount of travel must be expected for the transportation of goods whether they are organic or not.
-
eddietastic
I feel like it would be impossible for us to farm organically in a large scale because of the sheer costs that go in to farming organic. If we were to farm organically it does not only mean that we cannot use pesticides and fertilizers which are not organic which may lead to worse soil or even pest problems. In addition the problem with organic farming is that there is a higher risk of farmers losing an entire crop due to problems with disease or germs .
-
congo96
I don’t think that large-scale organic production is necessarily a betrayal of the organic movement given that the food is actually organic.. Like the question raised at the end of the page if organic ingredients are used to make processed food then maybe yes it is a betrayal but if organic foods can stay organic even in mass production than it is the proper step to revitalizing our food supply
-
-
Brandon Davis
What do you think of Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture? Would you consider him reactionary (opposing the new/modern) or progressive (seeking something that improves on the status quo)?
-
natashap
I think it’s a bit of both – reactionary and progressive. His ideas are progressive, the idea of returning to non-monoculture agriculture and smaller scale farmer is reasonable. But his way of approaching it, that there would need to be a new way or organizing people/political system seems reactionary.
-
jonl
I agreethat it is a bit of both. The idea of “going back” can somehow be progressive may be hard to understand but he does make a point on how to have a better future.It is quite reactionary at the same time which is what can happen when one’s eyes are suddenly opened by their research. I don’t really know how anyone can take on his ideas though. It sounds all well and good but the question is sort of “who will cast the first stone?” and “Will everyone follow?”
-
-
jenniefrench
I agree with Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture – or agriculture of his time. He was forward thinking, in that he saw how industrialization would pan out to be more detrimental that helpful for society and the environment we rely on. However, at the time he would have been considered backward or even feudal- reminiscing of a time without machines, but also in some people’s opinions, with out the technology that was a marker of a democratic and modern society. To me, I believe he was very progressive, not reactionary. While he embraced a more traditional style of farming and agriculture, he was looking forward to a sustainable future. He was seeking to not only improve the status quo but ensure a healthy standard of living.
-
kimzzzy
I enjoy reading Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture. We are producing so much food, we see mounds of food being thrown out by supermarkets, restaurants and households in developed countries.
We have gotten to this situation because we were so used to believing that the world is becoming more food secure from the amount of food we are producing. So many countries are afraid to decrease production thinking that it will make them more vulnerable in the global market. As a result, we see countries spending large some of money into subsidizing these farms to keep up with production. -
msmith92
I definitely agree with Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture. I also think it is pretty remarkable that, even during the 1930’s, he was able to foresee how agriculture that is based on mass production would become problematic in the long run. I think that his critique is both reactionary and progressive. His ideas are progressive in that, during a time when most people were focused on expansion in agriculture, he was looking beyond that and seeing the consequences of these practices and wanting to return to smaller farms. However, i think his ideas are reactionary. Particularly in the way that he sought a rearrangement of society. As he argued, “Healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a (morally and physically) healthy society”.
-
bgibson
I view Wrench’s critique as progressive since by the time of his publications the use of artificial fertilizers would have become the status quo as had the industrialization of agriculture in the first world. Furthermore, his argument against a “finance-based civilization” can also be see as progressive as international capitalism was certainly status quo in the western world. I think Wrench’s critique was exceptionally accurate in predicting the course of industrialization and the quest for further growth and productivity. I would hazard to guess that the use of gene modification in this quest would raise further alarm bells for Wrench.
-
erikaw
His ideas at the time were reactionary – as all of these changes to agriculture were new and forthcoming (although i suppose some nations never lived as well as others…. ex. Hunza vs. Europeans.) Looking back at Wrench’s critique, his ideas have become progressive – It seems that the Organic Empire is new and forthcoming – a growing market and a growing interest, although still expensive. It’s funny because really we are just reverting back to the way food used to be grown (hopefully it continues to move in this direction…) but it still seems so trendy and modern to be eating Organic/Sustainable/Fair Trade – like these are new ideas!
-
emilym
I absolutely agree with Wrench’s critique of industrial and chemically based agriculture. I think he was both progressive and reactionary in his views. He was progressive in the sense that he was thinking ahead and trying to improve on the status quo of agricultural production by viewing the end results and the effects that chemically produced agriculture had on human health. However, he was also reactionary in his opposition of new agricultural techniques and support of the more traditional and small-scale approaches to farming. I think Wrench would be appalled at the state of our agricultural industry now, though the organic movement is slowly becoming more popular.
-
katehaxt
Definately progressive. I think he would like the Polygot animal farm that Pollan talks about. Returning to small scale diverse farming and acknowledging the complex benifits that rich natural soil produces vs chemical fertilizers is what the todays local farmers market revolution is all about.
-
hannahepperson
Certainly Wrench was a progressive thinker, with his capacity for correlative innovation! The fact that, with a presumable scientific medical background, Wrench incorporated the spiritual principles of the mandala into his more or less ‘scientific’ discourse is impressive enough. I wish his kind of integrated thinking WAS the status quo! I also think his criticism of “finance-based civilization” – which he claimed was destroying the earth and its peoples – is the kind of criticism that has been picked up by TODAY’s progressives who are trying to raise awareness about the (never ending list of) problems associated with our present capitalism.
-
roypat
I think Wrench’s critiques of industrial and chemically based agriculture are valid. Given the time period in which it was written, I do, however, have sort of a “chicken vs. the egg” conflict in my head. At first I think “well, if we didn’t have such industrialized production, then we wouldn’t be able to feed the huge population that we have on the planet today and there would be widespread famine! But then, I also think that if we didn’t have this industrialized way of producing food, the population may not have gotten so large in the first place and the ones on the planet might be healthier.
-
jaydee
While I think it may be a legitimate argument, based on the fact that all plant species have evolved to live and thrive under the “natural” conditions absent from monoculture, it is difficult to say whether there is any truth to the idea. Our understanding of nutrition, ecology, and plant physiology is considerably higher than it was all those years ago, as is our ability to perform and analyze experiments. That being said, I am not claiming that the scientific discoveries of the time are obsolete and untrustworthy, just that experimental results from these times have been proven to not be acceptable by our times standards before, and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think that based on the interpretation at the time, Wrench’s ideas would be considered progressive.
-
sharonshi
I can see where Wrench is coming from with his point, I do believe that the pursuit of economic growth has lead to the rapid development of chemical fertilizers. I see him as progressive because we can not undo what was done through the Green Revolution and the Industrial revolution, if we did, how would we feed the now more than 6 billion population? His point is progressive in that he wants to alleviate the largely industrialized way of farming and replace it with healthy organic farming. In his own words, “healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a healthy society”. I personally believe that Wrench is trying to progress society and in that improve the “status quo”
-
youngblutt
Wrench’s critique is progressive. He expanded the ideas of McCarrison to a consideration of all human societies, at a time when the poisonous fruits of industrial capitalism were just beginning to bloom. It is unfortunate to think that soil degradation has become exponentially worse than in 1938, when Wrench first noticed it, and we have yet to economically and politically endorse sustainable agriculture on a global scale.
-
nytsuen
I believe that Wrench’s critique could be both reactionary and progressive. Wrench believes that to remedy this situation we must activate the ‘restoration of peasantries’ and bring back small scale agriculture. Only with this will we be able to build a healthy society which is the most important and is the basic foundation of any civilization. However, his suggestion to restoring this is to find a way to reorganize the society and the political system which is a progressive movement because he is seeking for a way to improve the status quo. Therefore, I’d conclude that he’s more progressive because even though ideas are very traditional and reactionary-like, he’s trying to implement small scale agriculture that would work for the future. EX) “Healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a healthy society.”
-
sampethick
I think that Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture makes some really convincing points. We know that right now a huge problem is the want for more and more growth and as Wrench points out one of the outcomes of this is an unhealthy environment (for the environment itself and for the people occupying it) due to industrialized agriculture, leading to people being less well off than before. It’s hard to argue with what he is saying here. I’m going to agree with those of you who are saying that Wrench’s argument is both reactionary as well as progressive. Obviously he is in opposition to the modern society’s industrialized economy because he says that it is “destroying the earth and its peoples;” both morally and physically. He is progressive a well in the way that he suggests ways to improve this situation. He suggests that people bring back small scale agriculture and healthy organic farming in order to ensure a healthy society.
-
alyumam
I agree with your perspective as I also find Wrench´s critique convincing since considers future into account.
His arguments take into account the damage that land and human beings experience through the increase of production industrial agriculture brings.At the same time I consider Wrench´s opinion an important and complementary to other perspectives , since Wrench point of view is the one from a physician and for this reason, in my opinion, brings new ways of seeing agriculture with other lenses.
-
-
paige
I would say that his was of thinking is progressive. He is thinking of the future and how to make it better. The method he is proposing is reactionary, wanting to return to the old ways instead of considering newer/better alternatives.
-
lcoulthard
I would consider Wrench’s position as progressive. He sees that the popularization of chemical fertilizers is connected to its ability to immediately increase yields in agriculture, which compliments the finance-based capitalist system. However, I also think that part of what drives this system, for one example, is the demand for exotic fruits in industrialized countries. Companies see the potential for profit in their own country and begin to look for cheap ways to fulfill that demand.
-
brenden
I believe that wrench’s position is both reactionary and progressive. He opposes the the modern system of farming that has developed due to our monetary capitalist economy. In a world where the dollar is king, individuals and corporations have industrialized agriculture and have invested a lot into developing new fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modifying crops to increase their yield, shelf life ect. Wrench identifies the link between this process and the way our economy is structured. His position is also progressive as he attempts to create a new system which modifies both the economy and agriculture. By returning to a more artisan system with small yield local crops, Wrench feels that the shift in agriculture would repair society as a whole and return us to system where health and equality were more important then corporate profits and greed. I feel that his views are a little too optimistic however as this shift would be nearly impossible with our rapid population growth and the existing system and institutions in place.
-
midara
I also agree that Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture is both of reactionary and progressive. I totally agree with what he consider is “right” to return to healthy organic farming, which in turns bring a healthier society; however, I think the restoration that he suggests is quite reactionary that his idea is not practical and does not consider with the condition of what the country/world is facing. In my opinion, small scale agriculture may bring healthier lives and society; yet this is only true if the food produced is enough to feed the population. This is the reason why I consider Wrench’s idea not practical and is quite reactionary than pure progressive.
-
tsung
I would consider Wrench’s critique to be both reactionary and progressive. Reactionary in that he is calling for the “restoration of the peasantries” in instilling small scale agriculture, and progressive in that drew upon Mandala and tries to improve on the status quo of agriculture by acknowledging the chemical used to produce our food – leading to our own self-destruction. However, today’s society is largely economic and much of what we do and policies that the government comes up with are largely in consideration alongside of the economy. With an increasing global population and demand for food (due to climate change, certain areas are unable to produce anymore), we will see a higher demand therefore the necessity for growth and productivity is undeniable.
-
jlin
I don’t think Wrench’s critique is reactionary. If we’re considering reactionary as taking opposition against the new/modern, then Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture would be truly reactionary only if he had suggested to go back to old ways. I don’t think that by coming up with solutions that could improve modern agriculture necessarily translates to a way of the past. Restoration of the peasantries in bringing back small scale agriculture, does not have to mean doing things in the old way. Certainly I don’t think Wrench would say the commons, for example, was the ideal method of agriculture. He is only suggesting that we go back to small scale agriculture….and not international capitalism. Why does international capitalism have to be the definition of what is new/modern? In this sense, I think Wrench is progressive. He is merely critiquing the current system and pointing out its flaw (international capitalism) in hope of improvements.
-
alyumam
I just simply perceive Wrench as a thoughtful guy. I think his critique in one with an adequate depth of though. Whether he can be considered reactionary or progressive, I think we should try to understand what does this terms should have signified for other scholars at that time. Perhaps as some other have stated, yes a bit of both. But overall, thoughtful.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I thought Wrench’s critique was very accurate. I think his approach is both reactionary and progressive. He notes the problems that have arose and his proposed ideas of going back to small scaled farming are progressive and his view of chemical fertilizers and it leading us to our own self-destruction is reactionary
-
yitailiu
Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture makes an interesting link between agriculture and society, that the reduced amount of labour force required in farming has lead to urbanization and industrialization.
I would consider him more of a progressive. It is hard to say if Wrench is exactly opposing the modern system, but it does appear that Wrench wants to find ways to make changes in the modern agricultural system. -
hoskinso
In my opinion Wrench’s view is reactionary. It is probably true that the classic system of small-scale, organic agriculture is more in tune with the natural human scale and would result in a happier, healthier populace. However, when a means has been discovered to grow the food supply through mechanization, chemicals and genetic manipulation, it’s very difficult to revert to previous methods of agriculture (with their commensurate decreases in productivity). Modern capital-intensive agriculture is a key element of human society’s incredible blossoming of complexity and potential in the last 100 years. While industrial farming may result in some negative consequences, giving up the benefits of the green revolution would be almost unthinkable within the current global system. I believe it is possible to mitigate the negative consequences of the current system while enjoying its benefits.
-
phoebe
Wrench’s critique is reactionary. He opposes the industralized urbanization of farming and seeks a return to small-scale organic agriculture. His critique sounds very modern to me and I’m surprised he wrote in the 30/40’s. His view fits very well with the current organic, vegan, self-sufficien,t small-scale farming trend currrent today. However, I’m unsure how practical this viewpoint is. As a society, many of us have become removed from farming, agriculture, and the outdoors in general. The media loves to point out that many of us even choose to spend our time indoors with our computers, tvs, and technology over sports and recreational activities outdoors. If it is difficult enough to convince people to go outdoors to play sports and get exercise, how much harder would it be to convince them to go outdoors to perform agricultural labour?
-
eddietastic
I feel like Wrench’s critique is a mix of both reactionary and progressive because it seeks to improve the ways we farm today. I am unsure how practical this viewpoint is because our society works on the ideals that those who are good at something should do it . If we opened up farming into small scales we would see many problems such as quality control and people farming when they really shouldnt. If we let a smaller amount of farmers make a larger amount of crops then we are more easily able to monitor the quality of crops which leave
-
congo96
I think Wrench makes a proper assessment of the state of modern day agriculture and politics when he refers to it as finance based. I consider him to be opposing the modern way of doing things because he thinks that we should go back to the old way of doing things because it is healthier for individuals and communities. According to Wrench today’s agricultural and political system does more damage than it does good
-
-
Brandon Davis
Were your initial reactions to the picture above positive or negative? Is there something aesthetically pleasing about the ordering of the fields? If so, why? If not, why not? How does the bird’s eye view shape our interpretation of what we see here? Does Shiva’s quote change the way you look at the photo?
-
jenniefrench
My initial reaction was skeptical. Personally I am not into geometry and symmetry and neatly laid out fields. But I was not sure what ‘bad’ – perhaps environmental damaging is better – agriculture looks like. That’s a scary thought because I grew up on the Prairies, surrounded by fields upon fields of neatly organized and regulated crops. What was I missing all that time? The quote by Shiva is helpful, in that it asks us to remember to look beyond the surface, beyond what may be for some, the aesthetically pleasing. A bird’s eye view is a fantastic way to view this planet – it brings to life the scale of our Earth, ans also of the human changes. But we need to remember that there is more than the bird’s eye view, there is more beneath the surface.
-
katehaxt
If there is anything aesthetic about the picture it is the eleents which disrupt the symmetry, the swashs of purple and yellow, the small patch of woodland (?). I live amongst a patchwork of green, sometimes yellow and brown, squares. While visitors find it charming, i find it deeply boring. Give me a forest anyday. The best part of the lanscape here in Cornwall, besides the sea, is the hedgerows which are allowed to run amock with weeds, wildflowers, native shrubs, etc. Biodiversity is not just healthier, its prettier, and more interesting.
-
sharonshi
My initial reaction to the picture was that it was very “neat”; everything very geometrical. However, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the ordering of the fields because it does not seem natural to me. A bird’s eye view shape our interpretation because we can see everything all at once, compared to what we can see when standing on the actual ground. Shiva’s quote changed the way I looked at the photo in that it reminded me to look beyond what is just there. What “seems” to be, may not always be what “actually” is.
-
roypat
My first reaction to the photo was that it reminded me of Holland. I lived in Rotterdam on exchange for a semester and when taking the train to Amsterdam in late April, I would pass by a number of rows of tulips or other types of flowers. The colours were separated from one another so that it was an entire field of purple, or yellow, or pink, or green. I look at this photo and I think of mass production.
-
natashap
I’ve always thought that fields and farms look very neat and pretty from above – like patchwork quilts. And I don’t think the orderliness or “strict” geometry of them is necessarily a bad thing – it’s obviously going to be easier and more efficient for a farmer to work on a nice organized farm plot than one that is all wobbly and disorganized.
The quote doesn’t change how I view the picture – I still think it looks good. I do however agree with her point that monoculture is bad – at least from what I’ve read so far in this module. I don’t think that diversified agriculture and order are mutually exclusive though.
-
erikaw
My first reaction: “This is beautiful!” Then I realized what I was looking at…. monoculture crops. When I pressed next, Shiva’s words put everything into perspective. Although monoculture crops are destructive in numerous ways it somehow doesn’t take away from the beauty of the photo – man made items are beautiful too! (Just not for the environment or human kind!)
-
jaydee
I also felt that the photo was aesthetically pleasing. I think that is more a reflection of the way we are raised in our current societal system. We are raised in a society that idolizes order and specialization. This is proving to have its downfalls. I think that this picture in combination with Shiva’s quote expresses how nature is not sustained on organization.
-
jonl
It looked very much like art work though being a picture of a field, I definitely felt something unnatural about how it is and what is being grown there. It is true that perhaps the patchwork leads to greater yield but I would prefer a sense of natural agriculture any day.
-
youngblutt
it is initially aesthetically pleasing to the eye because it has order and symmetry. I have been socialized to appreciate order and symmetry, and I have sought to operate efficiently within it. It is relative to what the early European colonizers felt when they first looked upon the Indigenous agriculture system as chaotic, inefficient and therefore, ineffective. Fortunately, we have the great efforts of Dadaists, Surrealists and Anarchists to combat such monoculture mental categorization and expression…. a legume here, a hedgerow there….
-
paige
I think to the naked eye it looks ordered and pleasing. But knowing that it is a field of crops my first thought was that it looked so unnatural. There is no way that anything would grow like that in the wild or even stay like that for a couple months without being tightly monitored. Systematically this may provide ease for the farmers but thinking of sustainability this is greatly reducing the soils productivity time.
-
brandond
I have to admit, I was conflicted about this photo, both before and after the quote. Part of me identifies fields such as these with nature and the outdoors, or the antithesis of the rather conventional, concrete-laden cities in which I lived. I also appreciated the symmetries and colors of of the fields (as a few others of you have noted), as well as their productivity. At the same time, I have long been concerned about pesticides and have increasingly come to understand the connection between pesticides and the highly organized, regimented fields evoked by the photo. Maybe the biggest impression the photo/quote made on me was that I am conflicted; not just me, but also the food culture, aesthetic culture, and political culture that have shaped me…
-
bgibson
I definitely had a positive initial reaction to the photo, the well ordered lines and colour blocks make a nicely segregated image. It’s kind of like looking at photos of architecture or textures, a photo that is well composed and draws the eye along lines is more pleasing that one that is haphazard. The quote that accompanied the photo really emphasizes how much effort is required to shape the land like this. It’s not uncommon to see patchwork farmland like this, but the quote definitely made me think of how the land might have looked before human efforts.
-
emilym
My intitial reaction to this photo was that it was pretty, organized, and nicely laid out, but also that it is extremely unnatural. Like a few people have said, I tend to appreciate the chaotic look of untamed nature. These fields have been so arificially maintained that it ruins the beauty of it for me. Shiva’s quote definitely helps to put that into perspective as well. However, I have to admit that it is really impressive just how much farmers/corporations such as Monsanto have been able to change our natural landspace to increase productivity to such an extremely high level.
-
sampethick
It doesn’t even look real. It’s pretty, because like many of you have already mentioned the plots are very symmetrical, and the colors are aesthetically pleasing; we all enjoy lush green fields because it makes you think, “warm summer day.” That being said I didn’t really feel a significant change in reaction when I read Shiva’s quote, I think that’s because the photo does look so unnatural, that there are negative feelings towards at first sight, even though it looks so nice. Shiva’s quote just solidifies and put’s an explanation to those negative feelings.
-
-
lcoulthard
As much as the nicely laid out colours and rows are, knowing the effects of monocultures makes it impossible for me to find this photo aesthetically pleasing, especially after reading Shiva’s quote. The birds-eye-view makes this type of farming seem like something it’s not. A closer look at the crops might reveal that they aren’t even very healthy, and testing the soil could reveal an abundance of chemical fertilizers that are leaching into the ground. I also assume that there would have been more forest, which is truly aesthetically pleasing, in that photo before farming cleared it out!!
-
brenden
I don’t find this image to be particularly pleasing because of the lack of symmetry. It just goes to show how we have indeed exhausted our viable supply of farmland and how humans are willing to cultivate every bit of land they have ownership rights over to generate wealth for themselves. I found another picture from a higher altitude which demonstrates how we are indeed exhausting all viable land for cultivation to support our ever growing population.
http://azfoo.net/places/sky/17May2004/14_DesertFarmlands.jpg
-
Danni
My initial feeling of this picture is confused. The confusion originates from the aesthetically pleasing about the ordering of the fields. The bird’s eye view lead us to a different angle of observing the ordering of the field. These remind us how much we got from land, although it always remain silent. The quote definitely help us rebuild our view of field, in regard to how human efforts change our land, including “extracting nutrient” from it.
-
midara
My initial reactions to the picture was positive because I think it is systematic and well managed. The ordering of fields is aesthetically pleasing to me because the crops seem to be very arranged and planted. My another thought about the photo is that planting crops in such a way will save much time from separating crops (i.e. if the farmers are planting corns and beans together, they may have to harvest the crops differently or harvest them at the same time and spend more time to separate corns from beans). The bird’s eye view shape our interpretation of what we see in the photo because the representation of orderness and systematical harvests implies good harvest, hygiene, high production, and hence we will enerally have a positive initial reaction.
Shiva’s quote definitely affects the way how I look at the photo because she points up that the more orderly the crops is arranged, the worse is they bringing to the environment. I still like how the photo looks, but I start to think if the beautiful view is actually doing good to the environment or not. -
tsung
My initial reaction was “wow” however, it brought up memories of when I looked out the plane window and saw the neatly organized plots. Just as we say we cannot judge a book by its cover, we cannot judge a field by its looks. Although it may be easy on the eyes, there is nothing pleasing about the ordering the fields. It may look neat and vibrant from above, however, if we zoom in and look at the soil and what’s below the crops, we might find horrific things. Shiva’s quote reflected the bureaucratic nature of today’s society and by doing so, it is interesting to note that even agriculture cannot escape the authoritarian structures of our society. We still treat land as commodities and further alienate ourselves from nature.
-
kimzzzy
I definetely see a lot of order in this photo. It amazes me how straight the lines in the fields are. Initially, I find it very interesting because it looks like some abstract art work. However, after drawing the connection between this photo and Shiva’s ideas I realize how wrong this photo is because of how unnatural the landscape is. The bird’s eye view helps us see this situation from a further perspective because it may be more difficult to spot the problem from ground level.
-
jlin
My initial reaction to the picture was amazement. I mean, I can’t deny that the human capability to create, modify and experiment simply stirs a sense of wonder and respect in me. That being said, right when you click on “next” the caption reveals how silent nature can be. This is probably because we try to mask nature and nature’s dynamics…who can see that all the environmentally degrading forces are at work beyond the neatly controlled field? We often try to have a birds eye view on nature, standing back and trying to interpret the scene, identify some kind of problem, formulate solutions and then through trial and error find the best solution. However, this approach may be wrong. Instead, perhaps we should try to get into the complexity of nature. Appreciate its dynamics and fluxes. It may be messy, it may not be aesthetically pleasing (like this picture is to me) and thus it may not give us a sense that we are in control and we have power. But then again, isn’t that the reality we should remind ourselves of?
-
nytsuen
I thought to myself, “Wow, this is a piece of art.” It almost looks like a painting but in reality, it is not. Therefore, it is really impressive and fascinating that such beautiful agriculture exists. When we look at things from the bird’s eye view we are looking at something in the bigger picture. Often, we miss all the nitty gritty things, and all the back scene things that go on when looking at a “big picture.” This can be applied to our agriculture. When you look at this photo, the fields are beautiful and looks healthy but who knows what’s happening under those plants. The soil is probably degrading from extensive planting and pesticides. In the end, even our nature is being controlled and modified to benefit humans.
-
yitailiu
This image appears to me first as a piece of abstract art, there is something creative in an orderly sense, and I do appreciate this aesthetic image. When I read Shiva’s quote and looked again at the bird’s eye view picture, I realize how much “control” was placed in this field for it to be orderly, both ecologically and politically. This sense of order now turns into a feeling of forced constraint, and I noticed how far this constraint extends to.
-
phoebe
My initial reaction to this picture was that it was beautiful. The purple and the yellow really stood out from the green and the neat orderly lines and symmetry felt tidy and organized. After reading Shiva’s quote, I realized that this was the monoculture she was referring to and how difficult it can be to get people to change their mindset. While it is true that ecologically it would be better to plant more diverse seeds, it would probably be much easier and efficient to plant in tidy rows and all alike seeds together. Thus any weak plants or weeds would be more easily sorted out and dealt with.
-
congo96
I had a positive reaction the different shades of green and colour and the orderliness of it was pleasing. Probably because we live in a culture that values order and cleanliness. Organization is synonymous with effectiveness in our society so representing nature as orderly is appealing to us you. Shiva’s quote does change my perspective however. It reminds me that that orderliness reflects human’s need to command and control and the sometimes devastating consequences that has had in history and on people and the environment.
-
eddietastic
my first reaction to the picture was one of efficiency that they were trying to maximize the space that they had. The vibrant colours were very beautiful however after reading shiva’s quote because it really expressed the need for humans to go out in the world and make sure everything is the way they want it no matter what the cost. I believe that this is not a very environmentally friendly way of doing things .
-
-
Brandon Davis
What do you think of Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution? Do you share his concerns, or do you think there are alternatives to widespread starvation once fossil fuel stocks decline?
-
msmith92
I think Manning’s view on the Green Revolution is very interesting. In essence, he is saying that we took one global issue and solved it, but in the process, have created a whole new issue. I think it is particularly interesting that before 1960, farmers were using 1 calorie of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of food but now, 10 calories of fossil fuels are need to create 1 calorie of food. It is pretty clear that our food industry relies on fossil fuels, and, as Manning says, it is now ingrained in the process. So, yes, I think that his concerns are justified. Unless we are able to, once again, find a way to circumvent or solve this problem, we will have widespread starvation, especially with global populations so high.
-
msmith92
Oops sorry, I also meant to add one more thing. One major problem with the situation is that the agriculture industry is directly reliant on fossil fuels. As Manning mentioned, fertilizer comes from natural gas. So not only do we need the energy that fossil fuels provide to support the agriculture industry, but a vital part of it relies on the fossil fuels themselves.
-
-
katehaxt
I found Manning’s critique very convincing. I know there are other, better, ways to produce food than industrial farming but I’m not sure about matching the output. I expect though that we can come up with some ways to at least soften the blow. I expect global vegetarianism would help alot. I also wonder if mechanized, industrial mono-culture farming really is so successful everywhere. I suspect its not very productive in many places but farmers are trapped because this is the system that has been set up. This current system of farming produces alot of money for a select and powerful few, I bet if this wasn’t the case there would be the energy and resources to come up with a better system.
-
jenniefrench
I enjoyed this video because it gave a succinct overview of the Green Revolution and also looked into some of the ideas that were at the root of it – ie not being able to feed half the world’s population.
I do share his concerns. As a society we have come to rely so heavily on oil and fossil fuels for everything – and we have also become quite blind to where these fossil fuels are being used. It is obvious when we fill up our cars that we are consuming fossil fuels but not so obvious when you buy a slice of bread, get your shopping in a plastic bag, or need a new pair of jeans. We rely so heavily on fossil fuels for the production and transportation of so many goods. This video is good because it clearly brings in to focus that fossil fuels are very much a part of what we eat. “It takes 10calories of fossil fuels now to produce 1 calorie of food.” That is frightening. katehaxt I like what you said about being trapped in a system – I agree, farmers and even consumers are to some extent trapped by the system and by their own financial means. I would say some vegetarianism – if brought about in the right way – is a good idea (Pollan’s article had some ideas on this). I would also say the organic movement should receive more funding. We need more initiatives to help us figure out how we can support our population while not jeopardizing the planet so much or even future generations. All that being said I know that we can not continue to grow the way we have this last century. We need to slow down our population growth. We need to be conscious – of what we eat, what we buy, where we drive, and what life choices we are making. And as a developed country we need to model and subsidize these methods for the developing countries so we can all live in a sustainable world. -
natashap
I very much agree with his critique of the “Green Revolution”. It seems like this was anything except for green – the use of pesticides and fertilizers definitely aren’t the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “green”. I do think widespread starvation is preventable, but it would require a widespread change in agriculture. Currently most agriculture is monoculture, in order for food to be grown without pesticides and fertilizers and also not exhaust the ground, it would be necessary for farmers to grow multiple different crops.
I also think there needs to be a shift in people being more conscious about where there food comes from. Food that is grown in South America or in other places may be cheaper because of the cost of labour, etc, but the effort and fossil fuels that are required to bring it to North America are very high. And it’s rather silly especially when we live in a place like British Columbia which has the ability to produce a lot of it’s own food. So I think food distribution also needs to shift to being distributed nearby where the food is grown and not sent all around the world.
-
sharonshi
It was very surprising to me the underlying effect of the Green Revolution. When in thought, the Green Revolution always seemed more positive than it is negative. However, as Manning said, if the fossil fuels run out, we will be in a much more detrimental situation than we were in before. As interesting as Manning’s point is, I have an alternative view. In my opinion, society is growing and advancing at such an alarming rate, that by the time we are faced with a situation like that, humans will have developed new technology or innovations in order to sustain themselves. When situations threaten our survival, we will adapt so that we can live. I believe that will happen if we do face a future situation as Manning as suggested.
-
brandond
Like Sharon, a number of you seem to be tentatively optimistic that we will be able to adapt our agricultural methods when fossil fuels run out. I wonder if anyone has any ideas about how we will be able to specifically do this (beyond going vegetarian)? Will advances in bioengineering help or will we find new kind of energy inputs? I remember from the first week that a lot of students in this course have backgrounds in chemistry and biology. Are some of you going to be leading this transition?
-
bgibson
I think it is very hard to predict precisely what new technology, or technologies, will lead the charge with regards to creating new energy inputs or new crop varieties. One of the issues touched on from the notes, and by Manning, was the use of fossil fuel derived fertilizers. This is referencing the Haber process which is a catalytic reaction that converts nitrogen gas into ammonia which is used in nitrogen fertilizers. Part of the mechanism requires hydrogen gas and currently the most cost effective and least energy intensive method uses hydrogen from fossil fuel sources (natural gas or coal). There are other processes through which ammonia can be produced, and also other sources of hydrogen that could be exploited. Electrolysis of water was originally used as a source of H2 before fossil fuel methods were proposed.
Efficient and cost effective methods of hydrogen production are being explored for a number of uses, including fuel cell technology. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet ready for large scale implementation due to a number of issues, including production efficiency and transporting and storing hydrogen (and associated safety concerns).
Regardless, this is one area where I could see new developments helping to wean us off our dependence from fossil fuel derived fertilizers.-
brandond
Thanks for the run down on hydrogen power. I am familiar with its use in fuel cells but have not read much on its use as a source of fertilizer. The Crosby reading has a good chapter on hydrogen power. Some of his research, though, may already be a bit dated.
-
-
-
-
roypat
I was really happy to have seen this clip because during An Inconvenient Truth, when Gore said that the population went from 2.5 billion to (now 7 billion) within one generation, from 1950 – present, I was flabbergasted. I didn’t realize that it was largely due to the ‘Green Revolution.’ I find Manning’s argument relatively convincing, but it’s also possible, as before, that we as humans will be able to ‘innovate our way’ out of a problem, although this time the solution may not be as simple.
-
erikaw
My first thoughts after the readings on The Green Revolution and HVY was exactly what Manning reinstated: Covering up the problem with another problem. Unsustainable agriculture on a large scale. It seems that this massive increase in food production lead to increase in population at an even faster rate then it was already going, and what worries me is that the majority are still starving. Where is all the productivity going from HYV crops? Probably back into Megacorporations pockets. And the leftover grain is being used as Aid supply to developing nations in times of famine which leads to more reliance on wealthier nations and decline of economy in countries with inadequate food supply! Now the food supply is even more unequal with obesity and starvation on the rise!
-
jonl
From the readings so far and the video, I really felt that the green revolution wasn’t necessary. For example, if HYV crops weren’t developed, yes starvation may have persisted, but wouldn’t that simply mean population wouldn’t have grown and the cycle wouldn’t have started? Now because of HYV, we have more population, more demand, means more genetically modified crops to meet that demand. I definitely share Manning’s conclusion that when society may be at a loss once fossil fuel runs out or becomes too expensive. I’m not sure we can go back to the way things were which means that we would have to use technology/brain power which got us into this predicament in the first place to solve the problem.
-
jaydee
I definitely agree with Manning’s critique. Due to our high population growth resulting from the green revolution, we have become reliant on a system that will inevitably fail us if we continue to use it. At this point I feel that our only option is to turn to alternative sources of fuel and food to sustain ourselves. Firstly, a movement to “greener” sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, will help. Secondly, as mentioned by katehaxt, a shift to a vegetarian diet will allow us to get more food per unit land and per dollar. Also, moving to food source alternatives, such as more marine based sources, will also help. However, all these will only slow the inevitable.
-
youngblutt
The Green Revolution did not necessarily reduce famine across the world. It reduced famine in the developed world. Moreover, it induced gluttony perpetuation in the developed world, which was probably the underlying intention anyways. I have serious doubts about the “altruistic Rockefellers”, humbly funding a project for the greater good of humankind. The Green Revolution turned enormous profits for its original investors and continues to do so today as it was and is forever linked with the growth of the fossil fuel industry. It was vertical investing and it was just “good business sense”.
The greatest effect of the Green Revolution is that it increased global populations to borderline, unsustainable levels. It also led to the oft-forgotten consequence that the green revolution allowed North America to run wild with livestock (and thus, manure), which accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even worse is the fact that livestock eat plants that intake CO2 but they output it as methane which has 30-50x greater warming effect than CO2. Soil and water contamination by livestock manure, loss of biodiversity from manure acidity and overgrazing are all overlooked consequences of the Green Revolution.
-
bgibson
I have to disagree with your assessment that the Green Revolution did not reduce famine in developing nations. Developed nations, by and large, did not suffer from famine (part of being developed), however the green revolution allowed developing nations to accelerate their agricultural capacity to a level where they could become “developed.” At the time India, Pakistan and China most certainly would not be considered developed. In fact these nations are still commonly seen as developing. The notes estimate that the green revolution fed a billion people who were in danger of starvation. I imagine that these billion people probably lived in developing nations, and not in developed ones. There is no doubt that the abundance of food that resulted from the Green Revolution has contributed to an increased intake of food across te world, including to increase gluttony in the developed world. However I find it hard to condemn the development of easily accessible food because some people are unable to exercise discipline.
I also find it difficult to agree with the idea that the Rockefellers funded Borlaug’s research with the end goal of turning a profit. The Rockefeller family made a fortune (I think John Sr. would have been the richest man ever if adjusted for inflation) from Standard Oil and are about as far from needing more money as it is possible to be. The family has a long standing tradition of philanthropy and have donated to a wide variety of universities (the establishment of the University of Chicago was largely due to the Rockefellers), healthcare and conservation (part of the Humboldt Redwood State Park bears their name). No doubt any industry that relies on fossil fuels will increase business for the family, they did build their wealth on oil originally, but suggesting the Rockefellers conspired to increase world food production purely for business reasons seems a stretch for me.
-
hannahepperson
… it seems like if we zoom out from the specifics of this debate, we’re looking at an issue of systemic quick-fix mentalities. When things are altered rapidly, survival depends on adapting rapidly, which means finding quick n easy solutions to a problem. In a present day that’s tangled up in incredibly complex global interconnectivities and dependencies, fixing a problem here is undoubtedly exacerbating the problem somewhere else. It’s like dealing with a decaying pipe in your house … you can patch a hole here and there, but eventually the whole thing is just going to fall apart. That’s what is so frustrating about conversations about environmental degradation or conservation … everything you do or don’t do, it seems, is going to have unforeseeable effects somewhere else on the globe.
-
-
-
paige
I think Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution was very direct and succinct full of very helpful and useful information. The critique is very accurate in terms of pointing out cause and effect. We figured out how to produce beyond natural processes and the human population shot up beyond a natural carrying capacity.
I think one thing that he failed to mention is that, as previously demonstrated, the human race in innovative even if we aren’t so eco-friendly. Science is in the process of developing alternatives to fossil fuels so soon we could be dependent on a new source to sustain our massive population.
-
bgibson
I agree completely here, Manning provides a succint overview of where we are and how we got here. I am of like mind in that I believe humanity will find a way to innovate and find new energy sources. The real “revolution” may only occur once accessible oil reserves become prohibitively expensive but the preliminary groundwork is being done.
-
-
sampethick
Well I agree with the consensus that Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution is definitely convincing (and a little startling!). The fact that our population is now twice what it was a generation ago and that we are going to run into the same starvation problem that we did is of course a huge concern; probably even more so than back then because of the population increase. The suggestion that came to my mind when I read this question was, along with all of the other great ideas put forward here (vegetarianism is a great one!), it might help if societies went back to growing locally rather than growing for market. In doing this communities could decrease production, and therefore decrease fossil fuel use. Communities might consider following the footsteps of the aboriginals we read about in the first half of this module and producing what we need, not that maximum that we have the ability to produce. Also this could lead to going back to simpler technologies that use less fossil fuel. I realize that my suggestion doesn’t fix any problems for areas that’s don’t have the land required to grow corn and other things, so we’d have to find a way to accommodate these areas as well. I think that the negative effects of the Green Revolution bring us back to the idea of “reinventing what it is to be civilized.” Whereas right now civilization is concerned with mass production and growth, maybe we need to change that.
-
emilym
I also agree that Manning provides a compelling critique of the Green Revolution. However, I also feel that the benefits that were achieved through the Revolution were important and valuable at the time. I absolutely think that we need to find a way to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuel or we will face a very serious crisis in the near future. It is ridiculous that in order to produce one calorie of food, we use ten calories of fossil fuel energy, and I think we need to seriously rethink the way in which we grow our food. It is time that the Green Revolution be replaced by an environmental (green) revolution or I think we could face widespread starvation.
-
kimzzzy
I agree with Manning and I think in the video he only focused on a small scope of the problems brought about by Green Revolution. I think one of the most important point we have to focus on is that we have made ourselves vulnerable because of the the lack of diversity we have for the crops we grow and the fuel we use. i think it is diminishing the advantage we obtain from green revolution. Instead, we should now start to focus on learning how to sustain our environment through decreasing fuel consumption and changing the inputs we use. I am sure that technology is able to bring us to a more “greener” world but we just have to let people see the long term benefits in doing so.
-
lcoulthard
Although I do think the immediate effects of the Green Revolution were beneficial, because they helped to prevent famine, I agree with most of Richard Manning’s points. Large-scale industrial agriculture is a global system that requires the use of fossil fuels. If we run out of the means to produce our food, we run out of food, simple as that. We would have to revert to subsistence agriculture, which, given our world’s population, would not be socially or economically sustainable. There would be land disputes on all sorts of scales in order to maintain food supply for varying populations – between individuals and between nations. Seeing as how our land ownership and resulting crop growing techniques have become reliant on fossil fuels, I don’t think there is a viable alternative if resources became depleted without a huge cultural shift beforehand.
-
brenden
I find Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution to be very interesting. Humans have through the use of technology and fossil fuels, managed to successfully double our population despite reaching the peak amount of cultivated land many years ago. It is indeed alarming however that according to Manning we have simply delayed the inevitable exhaustion of resources by simply substituting our finite amount of cultivatable land for dependence on fossil which are both finite in supply and harmful to ourselves and the environment. I do believe that there are alternatives to widespread famine when we do exhaust our supply of fossil fuels. As others have mentioned. We would indeed need to return to a sustenance level of consumption and eliminate the frivolous production and consumption of many foods that we enjoy in the first world that are non essential and even detrimental to our diets. I do not believe this would actually occur however due to the monetary capitalist system that is currently in place. I believe that so long as we maintain this structure of society, the wealthy first world populations will continue to consume in excess and enjoy frivolous products while the poor less developed countries will continue to experience widespread starvation. As Thucydides said in the Melian Dialogues; “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I thought Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution was very interesting. His view that we solved one global issue but created a load of other significantly serious issues in the long run. It was surprising to me about the 1960 farmer using 1 calorie of fossil fuel to make 1 calorie of food that has now changed to 10 and 1. I think that is very shocking and it just shows how dependant we are on our fossil fuels and how much we take them for granted. I agree with him that we need to find a way to consume and limit our use of fossil fuels or we will encounter serious global problems. I would think that some scientist would be able to come up with a way to limit our use of fossil fuel to create food with the technology that surrounds us in todays world.
-
Danni
The Manning’s critique apparently provided a direct view of the relationship between the fossil fuel consumption and the food we produced, clearly demonstrating people’s reliability of the fossil fuel. I do share concerns about that, because fossil fuel is unsustainable resource, which could be renewed or reproduced shortly after consumption. I agree that we should find some alternatives, like Hydrogen, to rationally replace part of the consumption of fossil fuel as energy resource. As the increase of greenhouse gases production, the solely reliability on fossil fuel consumption becomes more debatable in terms of the energy source. These all elicits our thought in regard to the consumption of fossil fuel as our major energy source, and promote our thoughts to apply other alternatives to it.
-
midara
I cannot agree more on Manning’s point of view. I think it is scary to know how 10 times more energy (which in this case, calories from fossil fuel) is now used to produce the same amount of food than in the past, and how we are becoming more fossil fuel dependent in the already energy hungry environment now. Before I watched the movie, I thought fossil fuel deficit may only affect our lifestyle, yet in fact our daily diet will also be greatly impact. The Green Revolution may reduce the famine a generation ago, but I do agree with Manning that it will do little help to the upcoming famine that deals with doubling amount of population. I think what is more scary to me is that I have the feeling that there is no alternatives so far I can think of to deal with the widespread starvation. It is apparently not easy to switch back to farming/agriculture style that do not need much energy.
-
alyumam
I see Manning’s critique is assertive regarding the message he wants to deliver; I definitely share his concerns regarding a possible widespread starvation.
Nonetheless, trying to be positive, I believe there are alternatives we can and should put in practice.
In my opinion I think is important, first of all, to start changing the present agricultural practices we depend from, make them more sustainable and not based on the present model. Simultaneously, the use of clean technologies used for transportation and related agricultural practices, substituting fossil fuels should be one of the steps we have to take. -
tsung
Manning’s critique is absolutely correct and really allows us to embrace reality. He poses a question that I believe many of us don’t think about. We tend to believe that problems about food shortage would not affect us and only the next generation, however, we need to think again cause it will potentially affect us. In terms of alternatives to widespread starvation, yes we there are alternatives, however, we need to move to initiate this alternatives. For instance, we can grow locally. Climate change can impact the world negatively, however, there are positive incentives as well. New climates that regions experience may potentially yield new crops. By growing more locally, we can prevent the mass transport of crops and goods through the use of fossil fuel. Food distribution as well as local agricultural growth can be one alternative to potential starvation. We have replied on technology to solve our problems, however, I believe we need to think outside of the technological box although greener technology can be another potential option.
-
jlin
I think it’s pretty hard to argue otherwise against Manning’s explanations of the consequences of the Green Revolution, the exponential trend of population growth as well as our reliance on fossil fuels. I share his concerns particularly with the case of fossil fuel reliance because to me, it’s really interesting how we are producing more than enough food to make everyone on the planet obese, and yet there are still so many in the world who starve to death. Obesity is a pandemic and leads to many non communicable diseases that kill many people in developed countries… caloric intakes are not necessarily to blame but rather the use of fossil fuels in our daily lives that reduce physical activity. It’s ridiculously ironic how far we’ve gone in some aspects, and how we haven’t really improved much at all! Peak oil isn’t even something that is coming, we are already past peak oil. The effects of this will be seen within our lifetime and this obviously will have implications on the availability of food… I think if we change the ways in which agriculture is practiced right now and bring a focus back on growing local…eating local, a lot of unfortunate events such as widespread starvation could be avoided (again, the effects on the poorer populations will most likely be higher…)
-
yitailiu
It was interesting that Manning commented on the connection between agriculture and population. The new method of agriculture saved many people from starvation in the 1900’s, but this also resulted in a significant population growth.
Yet the Green Revolution creates a new set of problems, one of which is associated with the use of fossil fuel. I share his concerns over the declining nonrenewable supply of fossil fuel. Since that there is not an alternative resource for replacement, once the fossil fuel runs out, it would mean the failure of the present agricultural system. People will face a serious global issue of food shortage with a population that is much larger compared to the 1900’s. -
phoebe
I absolutely agree with Manning’s critique of the Green Revolution. His video was very direct and simple explaining terms such as high harvest index and the effects and hidden facts about the Green Revolution. I found his statement that the Green Revolution led to the doubling of the human population to be surprising. From the messages I’ve got from the media, it always seemed to be that families in the North America/U.K. seemed to be getting smaller as families are choosing to have only one or two kids because of the expense as opposed to the much larger families in the past. China also had the One Child Law for quite some time so it was surprising to me that the population growth accelerated so much during this relatively short period of time. I suppose this has to do with the longer life span of people nowadays, along with advances in medicine creating smaller mortality rates for young children. While Manning’s concerns are certainly an issue, I believe that population growth should eventually stop and level off after a while if not decline. With the low birth rates in many developed countries, we should be able to prevent overpopulation in the future.
-
congo96
I share Manning’s concerns about our dependence on fossil fuels but I do think that they are alternatives to widespread starvation. Just as technology provided a solution in the 60’s with the green revolution I think that technology once again will need to come to answer the call and provide a solution. However I think that new social economic and environmental ideologies are also going to be necessary to address our problems unless we want to make matters worse for ourselves in the long run. I don’t blame the technological advances of the Green revolution for the environmental problems of today but I rather the ideology that that values economical factors above all else.
-
eddietastic
With the rapidly falling amount of people who want to be farmers, i feel like Mannings concerns are very real since there are a smaller amount of people in the world who need to produce a larger amount of food. As a result, technology needs to increase in order to meet the demand which results in a larger amount of pollution. Furthermore, the growth of produce and animals is not simply to grow them the healthiest they can be but with a smaller amount of farmers efficiency becomes key no matter what the cost .
-
-
Brandon Davis
What were the environmental implications of the commodification of land? Are commodification of land and environmental stewardship mutually exclusive? Was aboriginal land use more sustainable than European land tenure in North America? Why or why not?
-
msmith92
I do think that aboriginal land use was probably more sustainable than European land use. A large part of this is the fact that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle kept population in check. Because aboriginals didn’t produce a surplus, the population could not grow as rapidly. Additionally, they were not sedentary. Instead of using the same plot of land continuously, they moved to exploit abundant resources. This ensure that fields were not overused to the point of exhaustion or soil break down.
The main impact of the commodification of land is that it leads to the division of land for specific purposes. This can lead to overuse of one area because if you own the land, you are likely to stay where you are to continue to make use of it. However, despite this, I do not think that environmental stewardship and the commodification of land are mutually exclusive. Especially in the present day, not that we recognize the impact that we as humans have on the land, ownership of land can lead to greater care of it. Someone who is solely responsible for an area is likely to take proper care of it, if only for their own personal purposes.
-
katehaxt
Aboriginal land use clearly was more sustainable than European land tenure. Aboriginal land use took its cues from the land itself, leaving areas to replenish when they were low on resources. European land tenure was an imported system that based on cultural beliefs about ownership. Commodification of the land meant that land no longer had diverse uses or as much time to recover. This was more likely to physically change the environment permenantly, as settled communities put consistent pressure on the land. Commodification of land can and does interfere with environmental stewardship but it doesn’t have to. Charities such as Cool Earth are using commodification of the land as a means of environmental stewardship, by raising money to buy tracts of rainforest for indigenous communities to then protect.
-
bgibson
Not only do some charities protect land through buying property, government protects the environment through the creation of parklands.
-
-
jonl
I think that one of the biggest implications of commodification of land was the fact that land ceased being thought of as “land” or part of the earth, the environment. It became money, wealth, someone one owns much like they own a house, animals, or their furniture. That sort of led to forgetting about taking care of the land. Although I don’t believe commodification is mutually exclusive to environmental stewardship. The early settlers simply didn’t know better. With some of things we know now, particularly about agriculture, the land could probably have been better taken cared of.
Aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable. I think the fact that their population and social groups didn’t grow to large number like the Europeans meant that pressure on the land was smaller. By moving around and living in small groups also allowed the land to recover.
-
jenniefrench
I think that the environmental implications of the commodification of land were deep and many, such as draining the nutrients from the soil and disturbing the ecosystems. To this day these implications are felt, as we have to rely so heavily on pesticides and fertilizer. I do not believe that stewardship and commodification of land are exclusive – I believe that land can still be owned, but that it can be managed, shared, and cultivated in a more respectful and inclusive manner. I believe that the aboriginal use of the land was more sustainable than the European method. The Aboriginals had found a system that worked for their environment – they still used the land, still cultivated, still domesticated, but they were more concerned with the continuity of food supply, than in the commodification of crops and food. This meant that not only did the environment not suffer as much, as it was given time to recover, but also that the communities of humans that lived off the land were able to share the bounty they worked so hard to collectively perpetuate.
-
natashap
I think that the commodification of land meant that the land lost a lot of its original value. The Aboriginal people would use a piece of land for multiple different things depending on the time of year and other factors; the European approach to land meant that once it was assigned, it did one thing only – it couldn’t serve multiple purposes. This obviously very negatively affected the environment as it drains the soil of its nutrients and makes it easier for pests and invasive species to take over.
I don’t think commodification of land and environment stewardship are necessarily mutually exclusive – but the process of assigning pieces of land singular tasks definitely is.
Aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable than European land use – the European way used the land until it couldn’t give anymore whereas the Aboriginal way used the land for a bit, moved to a different new piece of land which allows the ground time to recuperate. The cultural attitude of the Aboriginal people was also more sustainable – they didn’t feel the need to accumulate objects and possessions just because they could like the Europeans did; the Aboriginal people just used what they needed from the land, not everything they could take from it.
-
sharonshi
The commodification of land meant the transformation of goods that is now regarded as a marketable item used to satisfy needs and wants. The environmental implications of the commodification of land are such like overuse and deterioration. Land can be owned, however, it is the treatment of land that makes the difference notable. Aboriginal land was both an efficient and effective one because it ensured that the land and all its resources will be there for future generations. Their strategy of systems that they used worked with the environment because they want the resources to last for longer periods of time. However, subsequent to the commodification of land, such resources will be seen as a “right” to which one can use to the fullest extent. This proves to have more negative environmental impacts in that once overused, the resources will soon be depleted.
-
roypat
I don’t think that environmental stewardship and commodification or land are environmentally exclusive, but given the era when New England (and the rest of what is now the USA) was colonized, the consequences of their actions at the time weren’t fully understood. It is only in retrospect that we can now understand the long-term consequences to the soil as well as the misunderstandings regarding ownership between the original european settlers and the aboriginals. I hesitate to say that ‘if the settlers had known these things before, they wouldn’t have colonized land in the same way,’ but I feel as if someone 50 years from now will say the same thing about our current society.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than european or north american land use due to its well-planned timing, where moving each season allowed certain resources to be replenished.
-
erikaw
Environmental Implications of the commodification of land – soil degradation (depleting minerals due to monoculture crops and no (or little) crop rotation), not ideal use of land (not planting crops where their ecological “best fit” is.) Overall they may have had greater outcomes in the short run but less crop productivity in the long run. If the Europeans had learned from Indigenous crop tenure they may have been able to maximize productivity in a sustainable fashion.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because it didn’t deplete the soil (it actually added to the nutrients!) No plants can grow forever on weak and demineralized soils – since everything the plant needs (nutrition) comes from the soil. Even if the Indigenous peoples didn’t realize that they were replenishing the soil (as mentioned in course notes) they still had knowledge on what worked best in the long run. In the present day we still have much trouble with mono-culture crops (only now they are on a much larger scale!) Why aren’t farmers yet keying in to sustainable biodynamic farming methods that are better for the environment and the nutrition of the plant (and in the end us!)? Hm….. It seems money may be involved as usual. Thoughts?
-
jaydee
I think the largest barriers present in our society to these sustainable farming methods is our huge population and our reliance on past methods. The method of agriculture that Europeans used (sedentary monoculture), and the system we use today, is capable of producing a large amount of food over a longer period of time in the time scale of a few years. This system allowed European and North American populations to increase drastically over time to the point that it is today. However, these methods have their limits, and over centuries, make the land more and more difficult to use. Technology has allowed us to slow this process, but eventually the limits will be reached.
Because of the surplus population we have built, we cannot cannot switch to the sustainable life style of the indigenous people because doing so would mean periods of starvation, and with this many people dependent on our high food production, it would mean the deaths of millions of people, as well as causing many social and political problems. Thus we are now forced to rely on a system that will continue to worsen our current state. We are stuck digging our own grave.
-
bgibson
Money certainly is involved. Farmers now produce crops to yield profit, which in turn provides them with a means with which to buy food, shelter, creature comforts etc. Aboriginal techniques didn’t deplete the soil but the system was also subsistence farming. If modern farmers produced this way we would not be able to enjoy any of our modern conveniences since we would all be working the land to survive the winter. I’m not educated on recent developments into biodynamic farming methods but Jaydee is probably on the right track here. Unless these methods can produce enough food to sustain an overpopulated planet we are going to continue to produce food through the method that yields the largest return.
-
-
youngblutt
European land use and land commodification has implications that are still felt today. Foremost of these is the unsustainable manner in which other resources have been used by landowners to delay the effects of soil degradation. Surplus production methods involving an exponentially growing dependence on fossil fuel energy began with the idea that the owner of a plot of land was essentially “the king of the land” and it was his job to exploit his plot and it’s resources as best as he could, for the betterment of society and in turn, for the betterment of his wallet.
It is enough to consider the environmental impacts that this European attitude had, but the commodification effect also largely shaped the course that North American society would take in forming social hierarchies based on the value of commodity ownership. It seems to be a self-perpetuating process that derived from the relative abundances of North America, even compared to European societies of the same time period, where greater “per capita” considerations provoked earlier sustainability debates.
-
paige
Commodification of land locks the soil into one use which generally leads to much faster leaching of nutrients and involves a long recovery time. By micro-managing the areas, more natural processes are not being allowed to happen, such as burn offs. These processes help set the ecological cycle and maintain productivity of the land. We still see the consequences of actions like these today. Commodification and environmental stewardship are not the same thing because stewardship would think of the future and plan use according t sustainability. Commodification just prevents diversity and creates limited use land decrease the length of that lands usefulness.
Aboriginal land use was much more sustainable that European because aboriginal use conformed to the natural order of things. Without human impact the earth would function as it normally does. Aboriginal use was existing with the earth, European land use practices were using the earth for human existence. The crop rotation and the human movement allowed the soil to maintain and regenerate it’s nutrients before being fully depleted.
-
bgibson
The commodification of land is not exclusive of environmental stewardship, setting aside park lands or buying land for protectionist goals allows environmental stewardship to take advantage of land commodification. I think the notes make it pretty clear that aboriginal land use was more environmentally sustainable than European practices since they did not establish permanent settlements nor did they leave a permanent footprint. However, European practices were better suited to sustain a population than aboriginal practices. Simply look at how permanent settlements and agricultural practices have allowed the human population to increase and for the quality of life to increase. In that regards perhaps European practices are more “sustainable.”
-
emilym
The European viewpoint of land as something that can and should be owned has far reaching implications to this day. The commodification of land has led to environmental degradation as people have changed their individual plots of land in order to yield profit off of them. Whereas the Native Americans used land on a rotational and communal basis for varying uses, Europeans split land down arbitrary lines of ownership and then proceeded to over-use the land to the point of environmental degradation. However, I do not think that commodification of land and environmental stewardship are mutually exclusive as land can be owned and used in a sustainable and eco-friendly way. You can also have the opposite problem where communal lands turn into a “tragedy of the commons” situation.
-
sampethick
The environmental implications of the commodification of the land were that the climate was changing (the summers getting hotter and the winters getting colder), new and foreign plants (including weeds) were being introduced, and soil exhaustion and erosion became an issue. Also the deforestation which was taking place at this time was eliminating the canopy that protected areas of the land; this canopy kept the ground cooler in the summer and was a habitat for wildlife. I think that aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. They used only what they needed, rather than the maximum that they could use simply because they could. They also weren’t ripping apart the land and cutting down forests. The aboriginals were not damaging the land but were instead living in a way which allowed the environment to survive as well as them; the Europeans were living in a way which harshly damaged the environment, especially in the long run.
-
Olga F
First of all, i this the implications of putting price on land, is that people feel they own it, literally, and thus can do whatever they want with that land. This is especially true will large corporations like oil sands, logging etc.
Absolutely, Aboriginal land was used sustainably, because they knew if they abuse the nature, it will get back at them. Eg, if they over catch the fish, next year and the year after they may not be enough for all. They dependance on land created responsibilities for land. We do not feel such responsibility for land, because in modern society we are not as connected to nature (incl. land), as we should be. We are not completely aware of it and thus do not exactly care for it. However, sooner or later, the nature fights back. Great example climate change or pollution. We think we can pollute as much as we want for our “benefit” but in reality it harms us just as much. for instance, cancer rates are through the roof. Why? people do not see the connection or what? ….. -
nytsuen
With the commodification of land, over time, our lands have been so exhausted from continuously planting one crop. The Europeans believe that since they have ‘ownership’ of the land, they can do anything with it. On the other hand, indigenous peoples don’t see land as an exclusive ownership but as a piece of land that grows their precious crops. Indigenous use of lands was definitely more sustainable than Europeans. It has always been about growing and expanding for Europeans. (Industrialization, globalization) They don’t just want to sustain, they want to live an advanced and comfortable life. The indigenous just want to live and therefore, they didn’t find the need to over produce like the Europeans. European actions have resulted in degradation of land, environmental problems, and depleted resources. However, there are consequences and I believe, we are slowly recognizing them in these decades.
-
lcoulthard
I think that Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because their tendency to move around allowed the land to regenerate much better than the intensively used European areas. I don’t think that the commodification of land and environmental stewardship go hand-in-hand, because the Europeans flattened large areas of forest in order to raise monocultures – both two environmentally degrading acts. Intensive soil use from monocultures can lead to degeneration in quality or salinization of soil even with legumes planted for nitrogen fixation. Privatized European monoculture crops also introduced weeds and were at risk of crop failure from disease. Aboriginal land use took more from what was already there rather than remodel the landscape. Their communal methods of land use were more beneficial to humans also, because it allowed for a wider range of people to have sufficient resources.
-
brenden
I agree with the general consensus that aboriginal land use was more sustainable then European land use. Aboriginal culture revolved around a close connection with the environment in a spiritual manner and they did not share the european views of mercantilism, private property and surplus production. European culture motivated individuals to cultivate large parcels of land and fish and hunt in surplus to generate wealth. Aboriginal culture was more concerned with providing sustenance, as evidenced by their hunting and cultivation practices (ex. using all parts of an animal slain) as opposed to europeans who would simply decimate animal populations in pursuit of furs and other animal byproducts. Commodification of land leads to the exhaustion of resources and put strain on the environment as it damages biodiversity but interrupting natural habitats and food chains.
-
Keaton Briscoe
That is a very good point that the commodification of land leads to damaging biodiversity and interrupts natural habitats and food chains. I think that is something that is often overlooked as the majority of the attention is focused on the land itself, not what else depends on the land.
-
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think that Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land use because it did not focus on a make sure a surplus was present and they had a different connection with the land and environment than the Europeans. They also moved around a lot so they didn’t keep using the same field continuously which would cause the soil to be exhausted and unusable.
I think a problem that is associated with commodification is that the land isn’t really seen as earth or part of the environment, but it is seen as a setting the is spefically used for something, such as making a profit or surplus. This changes the lands ability to serve different purposed and be diverse. I also think that because of this division of land, the one particular area that society is expecting great profits from will get over used. -
midara
What were the environmental implications of the commodification of land?
Are commodification of land and environmental stewardship mutually exclusive?
Was aboriginal land use more sustainable than European land tenure in North America? Why or why not?The commodification of land implies fixed land uses and allows more production; yet, the commodification definitely brings more soil exhausion and less vegetation dynamics on the land. Due to ownership of land, the owner who depend on the land for specific goods production will overcrop and harvest the land; the overproduction and lack of abundant period will soon lead to soil exhausion and nutrient deficit. The lack of vegetation dynamics and the aboriginal agriculture (i.e. growing beans and corns to balance soil nutrients) are also the reasons for environmental implication of the commodification of land. In modern days, artificial fertilizers and pesticides may be added to the land in order to improve production; yet, these scientific methods cannot fully recover the loss of nutrients and further harm the soil itself. Hence, it is hard to say that commodification of land and environmental stewadship are mutually exclusive because the latter is deeply impacted if commodified land is not properly managed.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. The reason is apparently because aboriginal land use allows abundance period for land to restore its soil nutrients (either naturaly or manually by burning). Also, smaller scale of production also limits people from overusing the land and its nutrients. The creation of forest parking nevertheless keeps the population and dynamics of wild creatures less disturbed than that of the European land tenure. The aboriginal land use is then more sustainable. -
Danni
Environmental implication and commodification Not mutually exclusive, because both are closed linked to each other, because the ownership of land sustainable impacts the environmental implication in the land stewardship. European Land ownership culture affects profoundly of the environmental implication. Issue about commodification of land is the culture of consideration of land as private properties, like their own house, furniture, and animals. Aboriginal land is more sustainable, because their sizes of communities. Their sizes of communities are much smaller than European’s, and the resources they have to extract from the land is much smaller. Therefore, there are more “room” for land recover. Furthermore, aboriginal also found their way in the stewardship of land, which is much efficient and beneficial than European’s. However, European seem could be able to obtain more profits from their stewardship than aboriginal community.
-
alyumam
Like most of the people here, I do believe Aboriginal land use has been certainly more sustainable than the use of European did of the land. However, an idea comes to my mind regarding how was land tenure in Europe at that time. Does this North American example was the same than in Europe? What differences they established in the New World? And, how they did they acquired, or if they ever got close, to sustainable agricultural practices?
I believe the question about commodification of land and environmental stewardship is a difficult one, since here, different contexts and/or cultures can be involved as also contribute to this debate; however, as for the example we have read and the circumstances that we live today, I do think they are mutually exclusive. Perhaps in a future, lots of organization and communication among landowners within a large geographical area can change this. -
tsung
The Commodification of land alienated us further from nature and has divorced land with ecological use. The need for efficiency and rapid growth has no consideration for the environment whatsoever and as long as the land is of value and of use, we remain and continue to exploit its resource until another plot is needed. In terms of whether commodification of land and environment stewardship is mutually exclusive, I must say no. Different people may own land but each person will have a different purpose for what they own. Aboriginal land use was more sustainable that European land use as the aboriginals worked with the land. They never saw it was a commodity and used it for the purpose of feeding. Europeans on the other hand may have used it for feeding purposes, however, the land was considered a commodity. It was fixed and used by one person for their own means and unlike the aboriginals they never shared their plot or allowed for regeneration of land. By introducing animals as crop machines, not only the soil was further eroded but also increase in crop production to feed the animals was necessary.
-
jlin
The commodification of land ultimately divorced the human relationship with the environmental furthermore in the sense that it created a dominant view of “humans over nature” that eventually spread to all corners of the planet. Whereas before humans shared a more two way process with the land, appreciating the relationship that they supported each other’s survival, the commodification of land made land exploitable…something to be commanded and controlled. As a result, we standardized a lot of ways to interact with the land using technology and management approaches that allowed us to limit the diversity of nature’s form. This meant that we further reduced biodiversity and modified many ecosystems in negative ways.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because it did not concentrate stress on one piece of land, they used organic ways to keep the soil healthy and most importantly it was sustainable because the land was not able to reject anybody from using it in the future (whereas privatizing land does). -
yitailiu
Commodification of land destroys the natural characteristics of the land and makes the lost features less resilient. I think that aboriginal land use is more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. Aboriginal people’s usufruct rights shifted with ecological use, which means that they did not claim to own or commodity the land, but rather claim the resources on the land available at different times of the year. Their frequent movement allowed time for the land to recover and they are not exploiting the resources because the aboriginal people had little sense of accumulation or exclusive use. Commodification of land and environmental stewardship are not entirely mutually exclusive. Even in a commodified land, the environmental stewardship can still stand to make the effort in limiting the negative impacts on the environment.
-
hannahepperson
Another thing to consider (much has already been said) is the more general paradigm that came with the so-called Enlightenment, that basically emphasized that humankind is industrious and ingenious enough to be able to ‘rise above’ any complications that may come up and prove threatening to our survival, or even just our comfort. One of the gruesome mantra’s in popular economic discourse is just that – use stuff up, and human ingenuity will find a way to adapt when the resource is gone. What is missing from this perspective, obviously, is any hint of a value system that reaches beyond abstraction of Money. This proves to be highly problematic in terms of cultural, social, spiritual and environmental survival and sustainability.
-
phoebe
The environmental implications of the commodification of land was that a single piece of land was continuously used over and over again without being given time to rest. Thus nutrients from the soil were quickly used up and were not given enough time to replenish itself before the Europeans began to grow another crop.
Commodification of land and environmental stewardship do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts. It all depends on the social influences and practices of the culture and in particular the individual to whom the land belongs to. There is a tendency to associate environmental abuse and creation of toxic waste simply to large corporations. However, even everyday individuals may cause car pollution, waste of freshwater supplies, and the littering and destruction of natural marine habitats. Thus, it is not the ownership of land that causes environmental abuse, but the atttitude we inherit and learn from her culture and society on whether or not we value nature and the environment.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land use likely because their culture celebrated nature and stressed the importance of taking care of the earth in order to ensure that there would be more harvests and food in the future. In comparison, European culture celebrated the ability of humans to overcome nature and to bring forth “civilization” to the earth. These two contradictory ideas demonstrate the differences in the attitudes of the Aboriginals and Europeans with regard to their use of the land.
-
congo96
The commodification of land by Europeans resulted in faster deterioration of the ecological system the ‘property’ belonged because it did not take into account the ecological ‘big picture’. Commodification of land and environmental management need to be mutually exclusive but it tends to be so because the property is used to further the private interests of the individuals who own it. Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because their culture valued a relationship with the land and thus served the big picture even at a disavantage to themselves. The commodification of land tends to serve the needs of the land owners even at a disadvantage to the environment.
-
eddietastic
Since the industrial revolution, European industries has resulted in land deteriorating at a much faster rate due to just population and need. Aboriginal land use was much more sustainable because they had traditions such as fishing only what was needed or burying skeletons in the farm that resulted in a much more healthy environment. in addition, the industrial revolution brought about a greater sense of consumerism and the Europeans became unhappy with what they had. Furthermore, aboriginal communities were much smaller then the cities which Europeans built. As a result, the sheer pollution and trash which came from Europeans was much more detrimental to the environment. Lastly weapons and industrial manufacturing needed a huge amount of natural resources and fossil fuels both things which aboriginals did not need a large amount of.
-
-
Brandon Davis
Record your reactions on the wall.
-
sharonshi
I liked the exercise, but at the same time my results surprised me. The ecological footprint measures how much you demand of the Earth’s ecosystem, and if everyone lived like that how Earths would be needed to sustain everyone. If everyone in the world consumed as much as me, the Earth’s resources would soon be depleted (as my results were 4.2 planets with 26.6 global hectares). The result of a Sudanese farmer may be different in that the lifestyle between us is different. For example, my family lives in Toronto, which means I have to fly back often in order to visit them (this in end increases my Ecological Footprint). The Sudanese Farmer may have a smaller Ecological Footprint than I for this, and many other reasons. However, I do have choices. For example, my household could try to cook vegetarian meals and be energy efficient by turning down the thermostat in the winter. Nevertheless, the Ecological Footprint calculator gave very surprising results for me to think about.
-
msmith92
This exercise was definitely thought-provoking as, even just living in a nation like Canada, where there is a certain standard of living, puts us well above needing one Earth to support the global population. Even though I don’t generally think of myself as a particularly huge consumer, I still got a result of 3.4 planets. There was a number of things that had a huge impact on my number of global hectares that surprised me. For instance, buying organic foods decreases global hectares substantially and air travel increases ecological footprint substantially. This exercise will definitely make we think more about the little things that I do that could have a huge impact on my footprint.
-
nytsuen
This exercise was very interesting as I learned that I leave a pretty big footprint although I don’t drive and commute almost everywhere. However, my downfall is my food and housing footprint. I ended up with a result of 4.92 planets! My diet consists of meat, seafood and vegetables but I often have 2 large meals a day with small snacks in between. My mind and body will only function if I have food in my belly. Housing-wise, I live in a pretty old townhouse so it doesn’t run on anything that’s energy-efficient. Neither is it built with sustainably harvested wood thus, the footprint there resulted much higher. If everyone consumed as much as me, the earth’s resources will be depleted fast.
The Sudanese farmer will probably have a much smaller footprint than I because he grows his own food! That means increasing the amount of organic food consumed rather than going to the supermarket and buying food. Also the temperature in Sudan is much higher than Vancouver’s; as a result, there is no need to heat up water or to heat the house during the winter months.
-
Keaton Briscoe
This is a good exercise to do, and one that I have done many times. Through the many times I have completed this exercise, I have always received around the same number of Earth’s (4.5). I am living in a basement suite in an older part part of town. It is hard to say how much heat is used or if things are energy efficient as we don’t really have control over them. A big part of my footprint has to do with my diet as I eat meat or fish or diary in every meal each day. It is hard to have a smaller footprint because of the standard of living we have in Vancouver as well. In that case, the Sudanese farmer would have a muc smaller footprint than I would as he would most likely grow all of his own foot. He would not have to buy food from any supermarket or store, and he would not have to travel anywhere get his food. But, the farmer doesn’t really have a choice of his life style, meanwhile I do. Things can be done to reduce my footprint, like turning off computers and lights and doing less laundry. I think that my results in this exercise would be much different I am had a different diet, but I love food!.
-
bgibson
The exercise was definitely thought provoking. I did not realize how much of an effect my diet had on my ecological footprint, and it seems that many of you had a similar reaction. I was surprised that my carbon footprint was not larger, I drive to school a couple time a week but since Wikipedia tells me BC gets ~86% of its power from hydro it ended up being lower than I expected. I’m a little surprised that eating organic food reduces a footprint as much as it does. I’m sure there are upstream (and downstream) effects due to an industrialized food system but I would have expected that GMO’s and other food technologies would offer the ability to make more efficient use of the land available on this planet.
-
emilym
This is a great exercise to make people think about their consumption and how much of an impact our lifestyle choices have on the environment. I think the biggest thing that affects my ecological footprint is transportation. I grew up in New Mexico, lived in Barcelona last year, and now am living in Vancouver so flying to and from those places puts an immense strain on our environment. My food consumption also affects my ecological footprint. It is sometimes difficult to buy organic foods on a limited budget. A Sudanese farmer would definitely have more sustainable consumption patterns and a smaller ecological footprint.
-
katehaxt
I was really suprised that my footprint came out so low on this calculator. Although I do try really hard to minimize my footprint in every area of my life, I do fly from the UK back to Canada once a year and I thought this pretty much destroyed all my other efforts. I’m not sure whether to trust the calculation but it is nice to feel that all my other choices do translate into something. Also, because lack of money is so often used as an excuse for not being environmental, it did please me to realize that my home, with its super low footprint (made with local, sustainable wood and local sheeps wool and powered by wind), only cost around 4000 pounds to make. We have more choices than we are aware of.
-
youngblutt
I felt as you did Kate. I fly between Montreal and Vancouver several times a year and am generally concerned about that substantial footprint. I was excited to score so low on the exercise (considering I have three children) but I have my doubts about the accuracy of the calculations. For a family of five, I think it would require a more detailed, manually derived formula. One thing is for certain, I have big plans to put the kids to work this spring and doubly expand our backyard garden. That oughtta wipe out a footprint or two. In my Montreal suburb organic produce is not nearly as popular, and therefore accessible, as in Vancouver. I miss a lot of things about BC but the people’s interest in sustainable living is the thing I miss most!
-
jlin
Over the years I’ve done this exercise a few times and it’s always around 3-4 Earths. My result this time, 3.3 Earths is one of my lower scores and that is a reflection of some changes our family has made at home and especially since I became a student with a UPass (Yay for UPass! and not knowing how to drive). I feel okay about the result because I feel that the little changes we’ve been making do contribute to the lower score but obviously, we still only have 1 planet. The ecological footprint, measuring the demand of Earth’s ecosystem from our behaviour (both in producing what we consume and removing the wastes from our consumption). The implication of the result that the calculator gives is that the planet’s ecosystem is stable but in reality, nature and the whole system (including humans) is unstable and my action might take 5 Earths instead of 3 tomorrow! As well, obviously not everyone on the planet is going to have the same ecological footprint-some may be higher and some may be lower. A Sudanese farmer will have a smaller ecological footprint. Unlike us, the farmer may not have a lot of choices to alter his/her ecological footprint due to a variety of things. However, even though we have a lot of choices, sometimes we do not make the best decisions because we are limited by money, habits that are hard to break and time.
-
roypat
I’m rated at a whopping 5.12 earths, but this isn’t all that surprising to me since I live in a relatively large single-family home with my family. I know that in the future when I move into an apartment, my footprint will be smaller. Of course, not everyone on the planet could possibly fit into their own single family home in a family of 4, and this wouldn’t be the lifestyle I’d live most places that I’d move to. This in some ways goes back to the idea of a rising middle class for developing countries, where everyone wants to have a house, a car, and 2.3 kids who go to college.
-
paige
This was a fun exercise. I’m surprised by how low my result was, but I guess considering I’m living as a student in a tiny place with a upass that changes things. And even then we need almost triple the amount of earths we already have for the whole world to continue to live the way I do. It’s a scary thought. If we were all able to get back to simpler ways of life these would obviously drop, most likely to a sustainable number.
-
tsung
This activity was very interesting. Although I am a little ashamed of my results – 6.8 Earths, most of my contributions came from driving and air travel. Living about 45 mins away from Vancouver and having to drive all the way to UBC is one of the reasons why my results were so high. Additionally, I often visit my family overseas and a 13 hour flight does contribute a lot of carbon. I have been very sustainable in other aspects, however, realizing that I need 6.8 Earths, I need to do more. Air travel can heavily damage the environment, however, it is one of the only means for those who need to travel overseas. I try to fly with airlines that promote sustainability via upgrading airplanes and having programs that offset carbon. My next goal is reduce the driving but transit out east of Vancouver is pretty scarce.
-
jaydee
I consistently got much lower than the national average with the exception of the food footprint. Despite this, I still managed to get more than a couple earths. This may be a bit naive, but I didn’t think it would be that large. Considering how much lower I was compared to the national average, I’m a little concerned. I think what this shows me, if anything, is that even changing small things about our lifestyle can accumulate to make relatively large reductions in our footprints. I feel as though increasing education about these changes, or even creating regulations for some, so that every person lowers their footprint, would greatly help our situation.
-
jenniefrench
I love calculating my carbon footprint for two reasons – it always shocks me into renewed action (immediately turning off unnecessary lights etc etc) and it provokes conversation and discussion in the house I live in. I live with 6 other people in a 4 bedroom house, and we all have such diverse opinions and beliefs. What I love about the carbon calculator is that it gives the individual responsibility. It says “look this is what YOU do” – not your government, your country, your gas company – YOU. And I think it is this agency that helps people (especially those who already care slightly about climate issues and the environment) makes changes and take action.
-
lcoulthard
It was surprising how many earths my lifestyle requires living in a rancher-style house on a 7700sq. ft. lot. I commute to UBC each day via car though from North Van, and my parents commute to Burnaby and Coquitlam for work so that adds up. We added up to 5.41 earths! Even though I was above the country average for food, goods and services, and housing footprint, my hectare use for carbon was over 10 hectares below average. If my lifestyle was true for the world it would be disastrous… A Sudanese farmer is most likely given less options regarding lifestyle choices – so naturally their consumption levels are probably lower and footprint would be less. It is also possible, however, that the few options they are left with seriously impact the environment, where in some cases I may be able to pick an alternative. For example, a Sudanese farmer may only have chemical fertilizers that are degrading to the environment, but a North American farmer may have access to organic ones.
-
hoskinso
As a student I don’t consume as much as if I owned a house or car. The biggest contributor to my footprint is food. I could reduce my footprint considerably if I relied more on local produce rather than processed and packaged foods. I am not surprised that my lifestyle would consume several earths, given the discrepancies between the affluences of developed and undeveloped countries. In third world countries there is a much greater awareness of the cost of things such as electricity, heating, water and foreign products. Due to our privileged position in the first world, we can afford to be much more wasteful in the interest of pleasure or convenience. Regardless, there are many ways I could strive to reduce my environmental footprint voluntarily.
-
jonl
I was disappointed to have 5 Earths as my result. The only thing I have that is above the national average is my food consumption and that is probably because most of what I eat comes from the supermarket. As a student on a budget though, I hope that will remedy itself after. Is my lifestyle unsustainable for the world? Unfortunately it is. What I am curious about is, can we ever go back to living under “one earth” levels without taking down aspects of our society (Superstore and Futureshop comes to mind for some reason).
-
midara
I have used the second calculation method provided, and I ended up with 1.41 planets (I see this as a pretty big number, but when I was reading other’s comment it seems to be a fair size already). Because I am currently living in Canada as an international student, I used the data when I am living in my home country instead. I think this is a really meaningful exercise that this definitely helps me to reflect and review more aspects that I can work on daily to lessen the burden of resources. Although I feel that I am somehow environmentally friendly, I definitely think that I can work much better than this. I found that most of my footprint is spent on goods and services that I feel that I should consider improving my lifestyle as a whole.
The ecological footprint is measuring different aspects of a person’s living style and condition in order to find out how much the individual is consuming the Earth’s resources. I guess if everyone consumed as much as me, I guess the Earth might still suffer from the effects individuals bring (however I am feeling great about myself walking and commuting through public transit all the time after doing the exercise).
I guess if a Sudanese farmer might have a much smaller ecological footprint than I do. One thing I found the second calculation less accurate because most of the options are North American based, and I am assuming that many of the options not applicable to people living in other countries, for instance, the Sudanese farmer. Some options like “what kind of energy saving options, like insulation blinds etc, are applied to your housing” may not apply to countries in different climate zones; I found these options may give the calculation a less accurate result of the size of footprint is, depending on countries. Yet considering all these, I guess a Sudanese farmer will still have a much smaller footprint than I do because they definitely have much less choices in consumption and spendings than I do. They for sure are travelling mostly by themselves instead of any sorts of transportation means, and have very limited choice of energy (mostly wood instead of natural gas or electricity I expect). -
erikaw
Reactions – I really realize how many aspects to sustainable living there are! And yes as I do take some of them into consideration there was many that I had never thought of! (For example the water aspect etc.) Part of this aspect (not to make excuses…) is living in an older apartment building where none of these things were taken into consideration upon building and myself, being a renter are not willing to install myself (such as a low flush toilet.)
Thankfully I was still far below the average consumption of Canada. I think this is because I don’t own a car (even though I flew allover the world last year!), and that I eat an organic plant based diet, so I did score better in those aspects. I did a bit worse in housing and goods and services footprint. In total we would need 1.64 planets if everyone lived the way I do.
This website is a great tool to track your consumption and make goals for yourself (and your family) in the future. Then you are able to compare how your global footprint has changed overtime and they also give you some resources to learn why some habits (that you may not have considered important) are more beneficial than others.
-
sampethick
I’m not really sure how accurate mine was, I still live at home I had to guess a lot of the answers. But if it was accurate then I have some adjustments to make!! My carbon footprint was way above the countries average, which (I am ashamed to say) I’m not too suprised about.
-
phoebe
I used the second method and was rather surprised when I got 4.92 planets. It was much higher than I expected. However, it is rather useful and makes a convincing point that I should think more about reducing about reducing my carbon footprint.
-
natashap
I used the second calculater (the first one didn’t work) and got 2.26 earths. I’ve done a few of these in the past and I found this one a bit challenging to use – it asks for your travel distances for a year whereas a lot of others do per week so I had to do a bit of estimating. I think the answer is pretty reasonable – it’s no doubt hard to get much lower than that when living in a country such as Canada.
It’s a bit frustrating to hear that I consume so much though because I can’t think of many things I could do to reduce my impact – I live with my boyfriend in a basement suite, we both use public transportation to get everywhere, get the majority of our groceries delivered from Spud (they have organic/local products).
I think one of the main things we could do is maybe move into a higher density neighbourhood or an apartment. Also dividing up our garbage more diligently – making sure that recyclables are recycled and food wastes are composted.
-
alyumam
I enjoyed finding my ecological footprint, as I also see interesting other posts which talk about their footprint increasing by visiting their home town, even if this was just once a year. Others also talk about failing to recycle some electronics or any other random item out from their garbage; something that helped too increase their numbers on their footprint.
For me all this was at the same time frustrating and revealing. At first it was frustrating because I think I do take the effort and look to what I buy is not entirely from industrial producers (food, clothes among others), or conversely, I think I conduct myself with frugal habits in order to not waste unnecessary amounts of food or other things I know from beforehand they will be wasted.However, given the results, that tells me in case I want to continue with my lifestyle I would need 2.5 planets Earth. This is a revealing fact that urges me to modify my habits and think twice what I buy. Perhaps this involves also a change in my lifestyle…
-
yitailiu
This exercise is thought provoking and makes me think about the environmental impacts more as an individual responsibility. This exercise explores the everyday activities of an individual that contributes to the “usage” of the earth’s capacity, including choice of food, housing, transportation, and many other details of life choices. The result I got was that if everyone lived my lifestyle, 3.26 earths would be need. The result is quite shocking and I realize that a little difference in lifestyle of each individual can make a significant change in the environment.
-
kimzzzy
My ecological foot print is 3.5 which tells me how much land and resources (in hectares) is needed to support my current life style. My ecological foot print is much greater than the world average and this worries me to know that I others that score less have to take on the damages that I have caused from my current consumption patterns. I have to take action in changing my lifestyle since there are people who are able to live life in a more sustainable way and taking on the responsibility of controlling climate change.
-
brenden
I was shocked by the results. I understood before the exercise that the results would likely surprise me but I never expected that my roomate and I have consumption habits that would require 3.6 planets to support us if the world population shared our habits. Our consumption habits utilize 15.3 global hectares of productive land. Food (27%) was our largest footprint followed closely by services. I find this data to be rather alarming and I plan on following some of the suggested steps to reduce our footprint. I’m going to show this calculator to others because I think many people take for granted the significance of their actions impact on the environment.
-
-
Brandon Davis
What do you think? Are dramatic cuts in consumption necessary to prevent environmental disaster? Are there reasonable alternatives to the growth and consumption we associate with our modern society?
-
sharonshi
I believe that “dramatic” cuts in consumption is hard to achieve and may deal other problems into the situation (for example, a reduction of money circulation, decrease in GDP…). However, I do believe that small, but significant cuts in consumption that are regulated for long periods of time will help prevent environmental disaster. Reasonable alternatives is to produce/consume goods and services that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. That way, consumption reduction does not have to be reduced to such an extreme, but environmental disaster can still be prevented. However, an issue that may arise there would be whether the consumer would be willing the spend the extra dollars on “environmentally friendly” products, and the parallel, whether the produces will be willing to make the investment.
-
jonl
I definitely agree that the cuts are difficult, though probably necessary. The thing with increasing prices (or having to spend extra) is that people will want to be paid more in their jobs thereby going on and on in an endless cycle (kind of like the teachers’ strike). I have no idea of a solution to curb our societies desire for continuous growth and consumption. If we take a step back, we can see that we actually have way more than we need and I’ve noticed that I do sadly waste a lot of things.
-
-
msmith92
Yes, I do think that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary. However, I also agree that this is incredibly hard to achieve because it is exceedingly difficult to place limits or control what people choose to spend there own money on. As the idea of scarcity society indicates, the only way to create an ecologically sustainable future is if human gratification is decoupled from material consumption. This suggests that there would essentially need to be a reversal of humanity’s shared ideals. This is extremely difficult to manage, as it would likely require authority to impose and enforce this. This in turn would likely result in a host of other political problems. I suppose it is difficult for most people to imagine another form of our society where growth and consumption are not the driving factor.
-
jenniefrench
I liked your reply. It is very hard for people to envision a different future, and to not believe that bigger is better and more is necessary. Do you think people (from any background) are ever content with what they have and where they are? I think that in order for people to change it has to start at the ground up. For example, I need to decide that I don’t need that bottle of wine, that second pair of shoes, or that pretty pillow. I need to make the change in myself. Like you said it is hard to place limits or control people. But we can control ourselves.
-
-
nytsuen
Yes, dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary and without taking this action, it is likely that countries will continue with their rate of consumption and worsening the problem. However, I agree with everyone above that it will be extremely difficult. It is evident that there are many disagreements on cuts in consumption as expressed by different countries. Developed countries wish to do something about it but can’t reduce their consumption to the level that is suggested without sacrificing something. Developing countries think that this hinders their chance to expand and grow; they think it’s unfair. The only alternative that I think is possible is the same as what sharonshi had suggested. In the module, it kept going back to “sustainability” and making sure that our actions and our way of life does not affect the lives of the generations to come. Therefore, we must find sustainable alternatives that allow us to consume but not to a disasterous level.
-
katehaxt
Yes dramatic cuts in consumerism are necessary. I think the whole system of consumer capitalism probably has to change but at the very least everything we buy should be built to last for a lifetime, no more disposable crap, and everything we but should reflect its true cost ie blueberries shipped from Argentina should cost a fortune to reflect the carbon footprint of shipping, plastic wrapped food should cost more than unpackaged food to address the cost of recycling/land fill etc etc. Cheap air flights shouldn’t exist. Unfortunately this will disproportionatly hurt the poor, while bankers who made millions trading fradulently on the stock market can go on as usual. This is what makes me question the whole system. I also do not know the answer when it comes to developing nations- how can we ask them to give up luxuries such as cars and cheap air travel when we’ve been enjoying them for decades. We can’t. Yet if all of India and China decides to start driving and flying we are truely screwed.
-
hannahepperson
Kate – I like your reference to commodity chain analysis. It does seem like consumer products should reflect the more comprehensive costs of extracting/producing/manufacturing/shipping … but like you aptly pointed out, this sort of system only increases the gap between social classes. For example: if you look at the case of obesity in North America – it is paradoxically predominantly in the lower classes that obesity occurs, because there is a tendency for really shit quality food to be much cheaper than high quality, fresh, organic alternatives. And so I also agree with you, that our overtly libertarian economic values – and the market systems that are attached – are very much at the core of this (and indeed many other) discussions.
-
-
Keaton Briscoe
Yes, I believe that dramatic cuts in comsumption are necessary, but i agree with the other comments that it is too hard to acheive. There is no way to manage what people choose to buy or waste and not having the end result escalade into other political issues. I do agree that everything we buy should be built to last a lifetime, instead of rebuying items over and over again. In all, I don’t think that there is a reasonable way to limit the ways of consumption without limiting different societies and nations. A more environmentally friendly approach to living by everyone with help contribute to the environment in the long term, but it needs to be implemented by all, not some.
-
bgibson
I wanted to reply to the statement you made suggesting everything we buy should be built to last a lifetime. I have mixed feelings on this point. On one hand I truly enjoy well made and well designed products that will last. I work part-time at MEC, which sells outdoor gear (climbing, hiking, skiing, etc.) and offers a “life-time” warranty on all products. On the other hand I took a materials science course in first term and we looked at all sorts of awesome emerging technologies and devices. Unfortunately many great innovations simply are not conducive to longevity.
-
-
hannahepperson
I feel like a broken record, but I honestly think that the education system is too often neglected in these discussions. In Sheila Watt-Cloutier’s address, she underscores the importance in Inuit hunting culture of teaching values, where ‘values’ AND ‘teaching’ are both key words. Just for example, things like – the tragic lack of intergenerational dialogue used as a method of consensual learning; or academic assessments that are woefully mechanical and uncomprehensive (ie multiple choice, standardized testing!?) … I don’t know how we can hope for very real, comprehensive and wide-spread change unless there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we teach each other and our children how to think, be critical, be compassionate, creative and empathetic. These seem like the most important tools to be equipped with in the face of something as huge, complicated and terrifying as global warming…
But we can start by translating our own words into actions. Like President Nasheed articulated, we shouldn’t be content to shout about the perils of climate change … and we as individuals have to break from our OWN habits of complacency towards climate change if we are to expect our neighbours and our world leaders to as well.-
hannahepperson
dumpster diving date, anyone?
-
bgibson
As an aside, your comment about the current education system reminded me of an article I read last week about Apple’s new electronic textbooks. The article talked about how new technology and the rush to digitalize education was creating a shift in the way certain subjects were taught and how rushing ipads and laptops into elementary classrooms might not be ideal. I’ve been trying to find the article for the last 15 minutes with no luck. If I have a brainwave I’ll try and post a link.
-
hannahepperson
If you can unearth that article, I’d be keen to check it out. Thanks!
-
-
-
bgibson
I think it has been aptly pointed out that “dramatic” cuts to consumption will be exceptionally hard to accomplish, and perhaps impossible. Not only because of the logistical challenges and the dramatic cultural change that would have to accompany such a drop in consumption but also because such changes would have dramatic effects on the current market system (as Sharon pointed out). If nothing else the recent financial troubles have illustrated how nothing seems to get people upset quite as much as messing with their bank accounts. I think reasonable alternatives are emerging to curb the consumption currently associated with modern society. I think of a recent interview I heard on the radio talking about how big data centers run by massive online corporations like Amazon and Facebook were being moved and set up to run on mostly sustainable power (solar, wind, etc.). I found it interesting because I never really associated using Facebook or accessing websites as having a significant environmental impact. However if these data centers (which require a significant amount of energy to run) are operated using coal or other “dirty” energy sources it can be argued that using Facebook may have a certain environmental impact.
I see the developing nations in the Southern hemisphere and Asia as being a great challenge for sustainable growth and consumption. These nations are experiencing an industrial and technological revolution, and as has been discussed in this module curbing excess and growth may prevent development. The hope would be that instead of following the development arc of “Western” nations (including the largescale industrial pollution that allowed for growth) such emerging nations could leapfrog years of polluting and jump to cleaner, modern technologies. If this can be accomplished it may be possible that growth could be attained without the associated environmental disaster.
-
brandond
Brenden,
Here’s a recent article detailing the locations of some of the world’s largest “server farms”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8850861/Global-server-farms-around-the-world.html
Many of the major ones are located along the Columbia River. It’s kind of interesting to think about how our virtual worlds are largely powered the Columbia!
-
-
emilym
Dramatic cuts in consumption are absolutely necessary, but as everyone has pointed out, they will be extremely difficult to achieve. I also agree that most consumers will not change their buying habits based solely on the ethics of environmentally conscious consumption without an economic incentive. I think an environmental tax put on items which have a highly negative impact on the environment (such as airfare and styrofoam) would be a good start. Still, even if we can manage to convince consumers to think about the environmental impacts of their purchases and cut consumption, the massive population growth and industrialization of countries like India and China will lead to increased consumption and depletion of our finite natural resources.
-
youngblutt
Are we so horrified about the prospects of a “communalistic”, “authoritarian” governing approach to society and climate change mitigation, that we continue to opt for the slow, remote possibility of a discourse for middle-class restraint to eventually defeat the fat-cat, socializing mandates of transnational corporations in a market society? Isn’t climate change a “dire circumstance”? I can’t help but feel like we’re choosing agonizingly modest solutions because we’re scared of what real change looks like. Capitalist nations are too busy with new enjoyments like trading carbon credits in a fun new market game to ever seriously change consumption rates. These systems are based on profit and there is simply no profit to be had by limiting consumption. So we have plea’s to the masses and educational reforms concerning gratification beyond material consumption, but these have proven to be easily marginalized by the media freedoms enjoyed by the same transnational conglomerates that at once whimsically cast seeds of doubt about climate change and fear-monger against extreme left politics. I think Ophuls’ prediction of resource scarcity is accurate but his Marxist/socialist fear is Cold War-inspired. The real educational reforms should be geared towards systems of thought that encourage global, communal responsibility. We should be looking at the amazing things happening right now in South America, where eco-socialists are running towards in the hopes that a real system change is occurring.
-
hannahepperson
Ok – this is good. This guy called Slavoj Zizek wrote that “power generates its own excess which it then has to annihilate in an operation that imitates what it fights.” I think this paradoxical logic offers an interesting point of departure in a discussion of the economic concept of “scarcity.” There’s this other guy, James O’Connor, who argues that capital is its own barrier because of its self-destructive forms of power appropriation, along with things like the capitalization of external nature. Ok, so O’Connor advances this notion by suggesting that so-called “natural barriers” are in fact capitalistically produced. So in a capitalistic context, the notion of “scarcity” is conveniently translated into economic jargon, where an idea like ‘Limits to Growth’ is cast as a necessary evil, over which capital/ism must exercise brute force and declare its anthems of ‘progress,’ ‘efficiency’ and ‘expansion.’ The capitalist obsession with identifying “limits” and “barriers” to growth is, I think, an internal function of capitalism, where barriers assume the form of economic crisis – a mess in need of cleaning up. Seen in this way, it is tempting to suggest that the so-called “barriers” of capitalism are in fact that which structures capitalist excess. Put another way, “scarcity” is the phantom-limb of excess, which capital/power/excess is compelled to see as the Other of itself, something which must necessarily be annihilated. we fail to identify ourselves, our excesses and our greed, with the production of Scarcity. From this perspective, it is not difficult to recognize the extent to which capitalism is inherently crisis-ridden and crisis-dependent. What I find troubling is the potential for a supposed crisis of scarcity to be expounded as a scientific absolute, an assertion which effectively disarms the capacity for open discussion and prevents important questions from being asked about destructive patterns of consumption. Like, how is it that real needs have become so disastrously supplanted by the greedy patterns of a libidinally driven economy?
There is so much more to say here, I feel my comment is unfinished, but this is taking much longer to articulate than I had anticipated … In any case, thanks for your comment. -
brandond
Up to this point, it seems that most everyone agrees that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary, and particularly necessary for individuals living in the global north. I still wonder about the question of how such dramatic cuts could be implemented politically. Ophuls warns that an authoritarian political response might lead to widespread violence and war (maybe due to Cold War fears as Derek suggests). At the same time, he also feels optimistic toward the possibility of a democratic movement in which the citizenry would voluntary cut back their consumption habits, which is something a number of you have suggested might be possible. As someone raised in the consumption mecca of America where freedom is equated with the ability to buy things, I don’t know if I share his optimism. I wonder what you all think about this issue. Is it possible to make dramatic cuts in consumption in a democratic society, or will democratic governments need to behave more like the Chinese government, which has, among other things, enforced quotas on the number of babies women can have and, more recently, on the number of cars people can own? Any thoughts?
-
hannahepperson
I’m just thinking about connections between things like voter apathy and the concerning complacency of so many people towards climate change/global warming … do you think there is something seriously amiss with the way our culture neglects the important relationships between things like ‘art’ and ‘science,’ or ’emotional’ and ‘rational’? The reason I bring this up is because I have talked to so many people who have said that they just have to ‘shut off their emotions’ towards things like politics and climate change in order to simply function on a day to day basis, or hold a job, or get a degree, etc. I don’t think people can be MOVED into taking action on any issue unless they can FEEL something. This is an incredible talk/animation which I find very very interesting, especially within the context of this discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
-
brandond
I’ve watched a few of the RSA talks and am surprised by how much I enjoy them. I wish someone could make such drawings for all the presentations I attend!
I know I have to take measures to avoid thinking about certain aspects of American politics, which can make me very disturbed. One worry with this course is that there is too much doom and gloom, and that students will walk away in a state of despair and not want to think about these issues ever again. Finding ways to move people can be hard. I’d say an artists might be more skilled at this than academics.
-
hannahepperson
Funny you should say that about artists vs. academics … yesterday, in a ‘state of despair’ precisely about the content of this class, i wrote a new song. This has been a pattern through my whole undergrad: finding ways to translate academic discourse into expressive alternative mediums. i feel like people should be more encouraged to exercise this sort of cross-discipline, intermedia approach. ok for example, here’s one song written in response to the 2010 olympics during a particularly tumultuous academic semester… http://hannahepperson.bandcamp.com/track/we-will-host-a-party
-
brandond
The song was pretty rockin’! I share many of your sentiments towards Vegas.
-
-
-
-
-
paige
While dramatic cuts in consumption would be ideal, that may not be realistic. There are still people out there who do not believe that climate change is happening. I was listening to last weeks This American Life podcast and one of the acts was about a young girl in an American high school who believes that global warming is “propaganda”. Many schools in the states are now teaching both sides of the climate change debate as if it is a matter of opinion and not scientific fact (if they are teaching it at all). This little aside is just leading to the fact that it is hard, as we have seen in the past, to get people to change. This is even harder if people do not believe there is reason for this change.
At this point if we are going to think of ways that can save our planet, changes in consumption are more likely to lead to a result than waiting for reductions. Consumers and producers need to come together to support a system of sustainability and dramatic reductions in over-consumption need to occur. -
jlin
This is a short 3min clip about increasing working hours despite the arrival of technology which was believed to increase productivity and hence give the common citizen more leisure hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nk2_rk0FLwThe clip talks about how, aside from the regulation of employee working hours by firms, the culture of consumption has led to the “up-scaling of the American Dream” and so people have began to work more and more in order to meet their consumer desires and realize the bigger than ever American Dream.
The idea of freedom and consumption is interesting and I think this video alludes to some of my own thoughts on the balance between the two. In a sense, I think the video shows that by increasing our abilities to do more (in this case, via technology) we increase our “wants” and therefore our freedom (because we are less limited, we have more choices). For example, because we have the automobile and it can be refilled with gas, people have the choice of going down to the outlet across the border to buy things. Does it mean everyone who has a car will do this? No, but the availability of such an option is surely attractive to some consumers.
The amount of exhaust that comes from driving down to the States (and the long hours it take) scares me sometimes. However, when I think about discouraging such actions from a political view and the intervention of governments, that idea also scares me.
I don’t think governments need to be more “authoritative” in order to achieve cuts in consumption. The above examples of the Chinese government is a threat to individual freedom, something I think our culture, aside from being a consumer one, also highly values (and rightly so). I don’t think any government should have the right to say what anyone, as an individual, can or cannot buy/consume. Instead, I think the government can cut consumption indirectly by limiting the productivity of larger corporations who mass produce on a regular basis. While I recognize that legally, corporations are treated as “natural persons”, I don’t think putting a cap (such as the amount of GHG emissions allowed annually, for example) on its productivity is the same thing as dictating what a consumer can/cannot do by law.
At the individual level, I think the government can also encourage responsible consumerism through educational programs and via different platforms of communication (i.e. advertisements, social media, etc). As a government, I believe that it has the responsibility of informing citizens on the state of the world and especially by incorporating advice on how we should act in order to ensure the well being of our planet and the sustainability of the economy. Growing up in a society characterized by its consumer culture, it is difficult for people today to realize the significance of their consumer behaviour aside from “boosting the economy”. Is it time to take the environment as seriously as the economy? Yes. Do we hear enough about it? No. I am not against supporting the economy in any way, but I think instead of having an over emphasis on one thing, the leaders (especially political ones) of our world should broaden the level of awareness we citizens have. Our discussion as a class should not only occur on this wall but it should be addressed on a daily basis, discussed in conversations with friends and recalled whenever we feel the urge to buy something.
-
brandond
Joyce,
You make a number of good points. It’s easy to forget that our ability to consume is directly tied to our need to work endless hours to afford all the things necessary to enjoy the “good life.” Your point about China made me realize that while the Chinese government readily regulates its population it largely gives transnational corporations a free ride. I will say that the one major shortcoming with government education programs is that political leaders, especially in Canada and the U.S., have largely failed to take a positive stand on issues like climate change.
-
-
roypat
I think a dramatic reduction in consumption is absolutely necessary – note the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch – However, with birth rates decreasing in much of the developed world, it’s really areas of the developing world which will have a much greater impact on the future of our planet. As mentioned in the article, they’re trying to “catch up” and want the same opportunities that developed countries had to ‘become middle class.’ I think that true, sweeping change will only really happen when a large shock to the global economy occurs (peak oil is confirmed, panic ensues, prices for everything go up, consumption goes down…?)
-
tsung
Dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary, however, just as everyone has mentioned, it will be hard to achieve and implement as consumption in modern times has become a part of our lives. Naturally people don’t like changes to their everyday lives, however, dramatically cutting consumption and changing everything in the short term may potentially create chaos in other aspects. In a capitalist society, cutting down on consumption is potentially impossible. Society has been socialized into buying and wanting things. The media a major contributor in perpetuating the trend of consumerism therefore it is virtually impossible to escape consumption. Although short-term change might be impossible, long-term changes may potentially help. If each of us begins acting local -doing little things that may better the environment, we may potentially create positive results. By avoiding doing the little things to help or saying how climate change won’t affect us and will be dealt with by the next generation, we are constantly creating excuses. Escaping a highbrow lifestyle and trying to adapt and indulge into something much more “green” can be hard, however, we must do it.
-
jaydee
I feel as though there are parallels between this kind of issue and the history of the Greenland Norse. Here we have reached a societal standard of living with little understanding of the consequences. Now that the global environment is changing, we may very well come to the same fate.
However, I feel that, as Ophuls argues, our society will reach a breaking point, resulting in civil unrest and turmoil. Coming from Alberta, which is heavily dependent on the oil industry, I find it hard to believe that our society is capable of such a drastic change in such as small amount of time.
That being said, our generation has a very different perspective on climate change and global warming compared to our parents. With increased education on climate change in the school systems, perhaps we can raise a generation of ecologically responsible citizens. It is difficult to foresee the outcome of our actions at this point. -
sampethick
I think that it’s fairly obvious that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary to prevent environmental disaster; the issue is people’s willingness to do so. A theme I’ve noticed in some of our readings so far, and in Sheila Watt-Cloutier’s talk is respect. I’ve noticed that many people hold the idea that once society begins to see our environment with a new respect we can begin to change the way we live, and therefore cut back on our consumption and eventually prevent environmental disaster. Like some of you have already said dramatic cut backs in consumption would be really hard to achieve and it might be best to strive for smaller “baby step” cut backs. But then, will that help? Because it seems to me that we need to make a dramatic change right now, or else it’s going to be too late. Maybe we can find a happy medium.
Cutting down on growth and consumption will require (as discussed by Nasheem Mohammed) the breaking of old habits. He makes the point that our consumption is a bad habit, not necessity. Once this bad habit is broken we may be on the road to changing the disastrous effects of climate change. -
jenniefrench
I absolutely believe that we should cut our consumption in the developed world. After World War 2 there was a golden age of commercialism and materialism, where believe believe (perhaps rightly so) that they deserved to indulge, once they were able, after the horror they had faced. However, saying we should limit consumption is all fine for some in the developed world, but the developing world may take offense as they do not have nearly the standard of living we do. It is easier for us to say we need one less TV in our house, than for those in the developing world to forgo clothing and food. Also, there are those in the developed world, the poor and homeless, that should not be included in the faults and failures of the wealthy. The fallacy of growth is important. Like the Earth we should look for equilibrium, between peoples, incomes, and standards of living. In the developed countries we should set an example of how to live wisely, using what we need not always what we want. However, society needs a huge shift in attitude and perspective to come around to this way of thinking.
-
lcoulthard
I think that the only solution would be to dramatically cut back in consumption, but it is not easily achievable. There are a lot of different parts of the globalized economy that people living in “Western” nations are addicted to, and the idea of a Democracy of Restraint implies that the majority of the people must take it upon themselves to radically alter their lifestyle. They would have to sacrifice various foods and items that are produced cheaply in other parts of the world, and it would be expensive to keep the same production going back at home. I also do not think that using an alternative material to keep the same type of lifestyle would be viable. Efficient disposal and recycling programs require precious space and money, and the alternative materials would require these programs. Landfills and garbage combustion are already two issues at hand today…
-
hoskinso
I believe that current trends of consumption, resource use, and pollution are unsustainable in the long term. It is difficult to avoid over-consumption because most countries and people want to enjoy the benefits of an affluent society while few would willingly make compromises for the benefit of others.
It is inevitable that consumption and growth will eventually decrease from their current unsustainable rates. If economic activity and resource use continue increasing as they have been, the result would be permanent environmental damage in the form of pollution, climate change, resource depletion, and the loss of habitat and biodiversity. This would result in economic slowdown or recession. This was seen to some extent in the most recent major recession (late 2000’s). A recession might result from cumulative effects of environmental damage, resource depletion and unavailability of cheap energy.
To reduce the environmental harm this scenario would cause, another possibility is to retool our society for lower per-capita consumption. For example as information technology increases in affordability, ubiquity and ease of use, more of our lives could be conducted online from the comfort of our own homes. This would save on the expense of office buildings, automobiles and intercontinental travel. I believe this change will come about both voluntarily (due to the increased convenience and productivity) and involuntarily (due to rises in the price of transportation and fuel).
It is crucial that the cost of environmental damage is reflected in the price of the resulting product. This way there would be a natural tendency to switch to more environmentally friendly options because they are cheaper.
-
midara
Yes, I agree that dramatic cuts in consumption is necessary and essential to prevent (or improve the already happening) environmental disaster. And like many of us have written on our replies that this is extremely difficult to achieve; as quoted in our lesson, I believe “only if human gratification could be decoupled from material consumption” will the cut be gradually achieved. This reminds me of an example that probably everyone have seen in their daily lives: cellphones (or to be exact, Iphones). I saw many people in my class or even my cousin keeps buying new cellphones or new generation Iphones because they do not want to use the “older” models regardless of the fact that the machine they owned are still functioning properly. I believe it is mainly because of their chasing after the newer products that severes the problem of excessive wasting and pollution; in other words, if people keep their habit of overly consuming there is no way to solve the environmental disaster.
All in all, I truly think that materialism and capitalism are some of the main factors that contribute or add burden to the consumption and growth problems. While many people thinks that they are spending the money they earn, they are in fact occupying resources of all mankind. This resembles to the inequity problems happening between the developed and developing countries. I guess in many ways putting limitations on accessing to resources to different countries will be seen unfair; while developed countries feel like losing control to their own authority, the developing countries are losing the chance to catch up further to development.
In my opionion, the only alternate way I can think of at this point is that instead of capitalism or materialism, reusing and recycling should be pushed further in education to all people. The change and result will take a long period of time, but I guess altering our habits from bottom down may be a good way to give everything a fresh start. -
erikaw
I absolutely agree that drastic cuts in consumption are necessary to prevent environmental disaster. At current we are not only over burdening our own country with burning of carbon and excessive waste but we are also placing extremely heavy loads on the developing countries from which we accumulate most our goods and energy. This excessive waste and destruction will never allow developing countries a fair shot at clean and sustainable development. Instead of learning from our failures, they will continue in our paths, if they even get a chance.
Even though some consumption patterns have become slightly more sustainable in the past (stemmed from global and ethical awareness) us as the Northern Developed nations still consume at a rate that is above and beyond attainable for the entire globe. It’s one thing to make greener choices, but to think that we can still keep consuming at our current rate (or even higher levels) is completely unattainable. The problem is that even when people recognize their consumption patterns, and how excessive or destructive they are, individuals are still quite selfish (for the most part) and continue on with this consumption even though they know there is wrong in it. I see this in myself, even though I buy 100% organic fair trade food (bla bla bla) and live a pretty low key lifestyle (no car etc etc) I’m still consuming above about 95% percent of the population I would say! So even though I see wrong in my actions it’s hard to change on a personal level when you live in a society driven by consumerism and consumption. This is part of the reason I believe greater initiatives need to be taken at a governmental level to cut consumption and thus environmental disaster (both locally and globally.)
There are no doubt strides being taken in more environmentally friendly products that are cleaner and better for the environment and human kind in general. And as time continues I hope these products become more mainstream and readily available (luckily I live in Vancouver where many of them are!) But these alternatives are not just to cut environmental destruction. These environmentally friendly products and resources need to be coupled with mass cuts in consumption and consumerism to really make impact on global change.
-
Danni
A reasonable reduction in consumption helps gradually preventing environmental disaster, but not a dramatic cuts, especially in a short period of time. I think a balance between growth and consumption is more important to prevent environmental disaster. A dramatic cuts might induce other issues, related to economy and society. On the other hand, I did, like other classmates, observe lots of typical scenarios about over-consumption. I agree that it will eventually lead us to environmental disaster. However, the plan of reasonable reduction is complex, which might elicit lots of political issues. In those case, our time and resource will be spent on negotiation, in lieu of actually reduce in overall consumption. One of the alternatives to this issue could be achieved via education to the public, promoting public concerns about the environmental disaster. We could actually prevent this situation by reasonable cuts in consumption, instead of waste all time and resource on the negotiation table between countries.
-
phoebe
I also agree that drastic cuts in consumption are neccessary to prevent environmental disaster. However, smaller steps are probably more realistic then to expect everything to change all at once. Although it might not be much, I have noticed that since bottled water became popular, people in Vancouver have become used to bringing along their own water bottles and coffee mugs. The reduction in the use of plastic bags is also much more common in supermarkets by implementing the use of a small 10 cent tax on each bag and encouraging customers to bring their own bags at home. These are very small steps and like everyone else I agree that steps such as these should be further encouraged.
-
kimzzzy
I think drastic cuts in consumption will only be possible through changing the values societies have. People will not cut down on consumption if they can not see how they are connected with their nature. The majority of people living in urban areas are consuming at an increasingly high rate because they are disconnected with nature and so unable to see how their lifestyle damages it. I think we need to shift to measure growth in terms of sustainability which I believe is often left out of the equation. Only when all economic sectors begin doing so, will we start seeing trends in technological advances and in life style changes that helps to preserve our nature.
-
natashap
I think changes are definitely needed to reduce the current rates of greenhouse emissions – whether these greenhouse emissions and “climate change” will lead to an environmental disaster is not certain yet though. So I would say no, dramatic cuts in consumption are not needed to prevent an environment disaster because it is not obvious that one is coming.
If cuts in consumption were to happen, the economy and government structure as we know it would likely need to change dramatically. In order for dramatic cuts to happen, there would no doubt be a lot of industries that would completely collapse or need a lot of government stimulus to survive as they switched over to new technology. Our current economy is based on growth so a change that reduces consumption and causes it to shrink could cause unpredictable effects throughout the world – as we’ve seen recently with Greece, even a small country can have widespread effects on the worldwide economy, this would no doubt be much larger.
-
yitailiu
Dramatic cuts in consumption is necessary to prevent environmental disaster in our world of growing population. Although making dramatic cuts would significantly reduce the negative environmental impacts, it is difficult and very unlikely to be implemented. To enforce such dramatic cuts through authoritarian political control would confront strong opposition, possibly even violence. However, I agree with Ophul’s alternative way of dealing with material consumption, which it is not the authority but an idea that a “democracy of restraint” would influence individuals’ values. So that a significant cut in consumption would likely be made willingly by each individual instead of having a politically enforced dramatic cut.
-
alyumam
To answer the question regarding the cuts in consumption, my short answer would be yes. And at the same, also as a short response, I do believe there are plenty of alternatives that can help to allay the uncontrolled growth and consumption modern society today has.
However and perhaps seen from a collective perspective, in my opinion, it seems a difficult chore to reach these goals and this possibly might be unrealistic (at least for some countries); therefore, there might be the need to apply these cuts and as a consequence the growth and consumption in certain countries will be diverted.
I believe some examples are already happening in countries like Greece or other members of the European union.if a dramatic cut would be even possible, I do not see it happening any soon. This is not because
I think these two questions should integrate also a
-
brenden
I believe that we do indeed need dramatic cuts to our consumption to prevent environmental disaster and while there are reasonable alternatives which can help us control our over consumption, our current economic structure is preventing their use. In a capitalist society where the dollar is king, there is very little incentive for individuals to do what is environmentally sustainable when it does not coincide with what is economically profitable. So long as our non-renewable resources our provided to us at a cheaper price then their sustainable alternatives, human will continue to consume and over-consume them. Only when our natural resources have been exhausted and the market forces have driven their prices above their sustainable alternatives will individuals reduce and substitute their consumption habits. I feel that based on this theory it is important for governments to enforce strict controls over natural resources including price regulations and import/export bans as the market forces of supply and demand will continue to regulate individuals behavior regardless of the environmental consequences
-
Olga F
I think that before considering dramatic cuts in consumptions, we have to consider how to stop or even decrease population growth. Even if each person on the plant will cut its consumption of whatever, resources, food, meet, water etc, the population will still be growing and putting pressure on everything.
In my opinion, our main goal in the modern society is to stop being so greedy. we WANT too much, and thus we get too much. we always want to upgrade to better technology, because we are made (by large corporations) to believe our technology doesn`t work well, or we HAVE to get something getter or newer. I just think greed is our biggest challenge!
-
-
Brandon Davis
Why do you think the Norse failed to adapt to changes in their environment and climate? Why did they fail to adopt any of the Inuit techniques for getting so much out of the un-forgiving arctic environment?
-
sharonshi
I believe that the Norse failed to adapt to changes in their environment and climate due to the fact that their culture was rigid and set. Such strict culture repels change, even though change is a key aspect needed to enhance and lengthen survival. For example, their unwillingness to eat fish caused starvation. On the other hand, the Inuit had substantial advantage, not only with their weaponry, but the fact that their food supply was of more a variety than that of the Norse. The climate change also affected the Norse because it limited their trading supply. This in end should cause the Norse to trade more with the Inuits. However, they failed to do that, which limited their supplies even further.
-
jenniefrench
I believed the Norse failed to adapt to changes in the environment and climate because they were a deeply traditional and conservative culture. They were also very European influenced, something that had become part of their culture, and it was a way of life they valued and identified with. They were unwilling to adapt to their environment, preferring to adapt their environment to suit them – sound familiar? As well, they did not seek help or information from the natives of the area, the Inuit, probably believing they were superior, in that they were European, to the “primitive” peoples. I think the Norse are a good example of a people unwilling to accept that they were changing their environment in a negative way, or that with the environment changing around them, they refused to be forced to change.
-
sampethick
My thoughts are along the same lines as yours Jennie.. probably a feeling of superiority towards the “non-Europeans” had something to do with the fact that the Norse were so unwilling to adopt any of the Inuit technologies and techniques for survival in the area. These feelings most likely created a large divide between the two groups which was neither side cared to fix.
-
-
jonl
It seems pride is definitely entrenched in the European culture which the Norse chose to carry on in their settlement. I definitely agree with the point of viewing themselves as superior to the Inuit. I think the failure to adapt to eating fish is what really brought them to their downfall.
-
msmith92
The Norse valued their European roots very much, to the point where it may not have been practical to do so. For instance, they insisted on wearing European fashions even in the harsh cold of the Arctic. This may have been a major contributing factor as to why they did not think they needed to adapt. Additionally, they likely thought of the Inuit as inferior and so did not seek their help or knowledge on many topics that could have prevented their downfall. Lastly, their lifestyle had functioned so efficiently for so many years that they were reluctant to adapt as the climate began to shift. Their successful system probably made them complacent and less likely to change their ways.
-
roypat
The Norse may have failed (albeit, over a number of years) due to both changes in the climate, and an unwilingness to change or admit fault. An inherent stubbornness may have caused this – or just the fact that they were xenophobic and did not want to communicate with the Inuit and trade or learn their ways.
-
jlin
I think my answer is pretty much the same as everybody else’s so I won’t repeat it again but yes! This unwillingness…possibly part of the implication of the environmental determinism we were talking about on wall 2.2 eh? Makes for an interesting comparison to our own society. The collapse of the Norse and other civilizations in the past, I wonder if it makes us think that somehow our world today and our society especially is immune from a “collapse” as well. Certainly that should not be the case unless we want to prove the validity of this quote: “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”-Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
-
brandond
I like that quote Joyce! Obviously one of the key questions that should come up in this module is if we will be able to break such patterns. Unlike with previous environmental catastrophes, we have some ability to predict how climate change will shape the planet and can plan ahead. Yet whether or not we will be able to use this advantage and actually adapt is still an open question.
-
-
-
bgibson
I have a similar view to many of you in that I attribute the fall of the Norse people in Greenland to their conservative culture. While the European lifestyle that they tried to emulate in Greenland was successful for a number of years, it proved to be unsustainable. The European lifestyle and agriculture they imported depleted their natural resources (trees) and it is likely that the Norse would have experienced difficultly maintaining that lifestyle without making changes. However, the Little Ice Age exacerbated the problems and challenged the Norse to make wholesale changes. Due to their reluctance to abandon their European roots they eventually starved.
Someone above postulated that the Norse may not have been willing to learn from the Inuit because they viewed them as “heathens.” I think this is a valuable point since modern parallels can be draw illustrating how religion can sometimes prevent cooperation and understanding between different peoples. Furthermore, language barriers may have prevented effective trade or diplomacy. Additionally there are many historical examples of cultures being distrustful of others who look or dress differently. The inuit would certainly have looked strange to the Norse who insisted on wearing European fashions. -
congo96
The readings mentioned that the Greenland Norse were very conservative and held on to their european tradition. If the Greenland Norse were so set in their ways they would not want to adapt to the ways of a different society. Furthermore if contact between the two societies mostly resulted in conflict it would make each group more reluctant to imitate the other culture in spite of the possible positive effects.
-
paige
If the Norse was so set in it’s European ways, demonstrated by wearing very inappropriate linens, then a shift in lifestyle towards the Inuit ways may have been look down upon. Clearly it would have helped, but cultures are what cultures are. I agree with what people have already been saying previously.
-
phoebe
I agree with the conservativeness of the Norse which led to their downfall. Their pride in their European roots likely prevented them from trading or recieving any advice from the Inuits which they would have considered different interior people. Possibly, the changes in the harsh climate along with the arrival of the Inuits made them just decide to pack up and go set sail for greener pastures and to leave what they considered harsh and inhabitable lands to the Inuits.
-
katehaxt
As mentioned by everyone else the Norse’s inability to adapt to climate change and to learn from the Inuit was probably due to the fact that they were trying to hold onto a European culture (food, dress, sense of superiority) in a non-European climate. The stratification of the society may also have inhibited change. One can imagine the poorer Norse being hit first by difficulties but perhaps the few at the top were unwilling to consider abadoning a situation where they held all the power and wealth. When eventually the leaders started starving as well, it may have been too late to change. A more democratic, egalitarian society may have been motivated to address the situation sooner and by drawing on the intelligence of the whole community may have been able to respond better. Hmmm….
-
youngblutt
Along the lines of other posts that suggest the Norse failed to give up their European values, some research suggests that they may have been in an economic trade bubble with North Europe over ivory. When Europe began exploiting Africa they suddenly had all the ivory they could ever want; they no longer required ivory trade with the Norsemen. So, it may have been that the Greenland Norse were able to sustain themselves for a short while but when trade dropped off the impacts of their deforestation, soil degradation and lack of necessary adaptation, set in.
Research by Kirsten A. Seavera – Desirable teeth: the medieval trade in Arctic and African ivory
-
tsung18
The Norse failed to adapt to changes to their environment and climate as they were unable to change or revise the values of their culture as well as their “way of life” through customs of eating and hunting Caribou and Seal. As a central component to this module, “humans are products of their environment,” the Norse has relied on a few resources far too much (such as wood) and didn’t bother looking into other resources. As the climate began to change, the Norse still continued to rely on certain resources and didn’t adapt accordingly. In comparison to the Inuit people who were willing to adapt and ensured survival, the Norse people seemed too proud of their Eurocentric values and didn’t want a change in their customs or way of life. Instead of using different resources in their surrounding environment, they relied on trade with Europe. In comparison, the Inuit people used any resources available in their surroundings and therefore, were able to survive. The Norse were simply too proud of their identity and were unwilling to adapt to the ever-changing Arctic environment that lead to their demise.
-
jaydee
Is it possible that the climate change itself played a role? If the climate was becoming colder over time, the Norse would have become more and more constrained to residing in the warmer environments. Meanwhile, the Inuit, who are well adapted to living in these colder areas would be capable of living and surviving in the environments that the Norse could not. Between this and the inflexibility of the Norse culture, it is not surprising that they did not thrive.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think that the Norse inability to adapt to changes in their environment and climate was do to their inflexibility and stubborness about their values. Their culture was dependant on cariboo and seals which they did not consider adapting and their culture was set a specific way. Their inability to set aside their cultural values and adapt to the changing environment clearly was the reason for their demise. It could have been possible that they were too proud of their culture to change the ways in which they lived.
-
lcoulthard
It seems like climate change played a major role in the downfall of Greenland’s Nordic populations. Their over-harvesting of the trees drove them to run out of their fuel source, also contributing to a loss of cropland because of soil erosion. Also, since ~80% of their food came from seals by the 14th century the increasing sea ice from the temperature drop would have made providing a main part of their diet very difficult. On top of that it would have been harder to obtain fuel or food supplies from the mainland because of the ice. The Inuit, with more advanced techniques and previous arctic-like climatic experience, probably out-competed the Norse for what scarce resources there were. It doesn’t seem like the Inuit were explicitly aggressive towards the Norse, so it is possible that the Norse did not try to adapt or have relations with the Inuits because they may have been put-off by “outsiders” who used different types of tools and lived in igloos.
-
nytsuen
I think there are 2 reasons to this question and the first one is how their culture is so traditionally rooted and conservative. Like the module has mentioned, they had developed practices that worked for hundreds of years so changing these might not be a good idea. However, if your people are dying out because of starvation, wouldn’t you change your ways to preserve your people from extinction. Thus, the second reason is that they probably wanted to preserve their pride. I believe that the Vikings probably carried the European attitude over to Greenland thinking that non-Europeans and indigenous peoples were babaric, and uncivilized. Therefore, they didn’t want to ask for help or associate with them because that would ruin their ‘reputation.’
-
yitailiu
It seems that the Greenland Norse did have a deep rooted set of beliefs and values which would not be easily changed. The Vikings did manage to adapt to the Greenland climate during their early years of settlement in Greenland. During those early years, they still maintained trade with Europe but their way of living is effected by the environment, for example, they shifted from farming to hunting because the climate in Greenland is less suitable for farming. They were willing to adapt to the changes of their environment as long as the changes are not in conflict with their traditional European values. As the climate condition worsened, the Norse failed to adapt to the environment because they refused to any further actions that would challenge their traditional beliefs.
-
kimzzzy
I think it could be that the Norse did not want to take from the environment due to their beliefs about preserving nature. This meant that they were not able to adapt to the environment in Greenland and led to their starvation. Culture is important as it helps form ties between a group of people, so it was difficult for them to break free of their norms without being considered as an outcast. This is especially true for Norse since it was previously mentioned that it was more likely for individuals to conform than to not.
-
shalinb
I think there are two factors that related to the Norse failing to adapt to the changes in their environment. The first, the culture of the Norse most likely restricted them from expanding their food intake to include fish, which would have benefited them substantially seeing that there was an abundance of fish. However, it was a shared belief between the Norse to not eat fish, therefore probably implying it was some type of cultural belief. The second factor was that they still dressed in a more european type of way, which shows that they were still connected to their past beliefs of a european lifestyle. As a result of this, it showed they were not really adapted to broaden and accept the change that was necessary to live in a colder climate than they were used to. The environment impacted their lifestyle, but they were not completely able to adapt to the environment due to this bond they had with their european beliefs and lifestyle. This tie to european views was probably the reason they refused to get help from the Inuit that had seemed to adapt and live in the harsh cold climate. The view that europeans are superior to others was probably shared between the Norse, thus asking the Inuit for help would show a weakness for the Norse.
-
Danni
Despite the climate change reason, the major causes are Viking’s living habits actually altered the environment, like cutting trees and turf; and their failure in learning from Inuit, who held their expertise in surviving in the Artic area for thousands of years. Animal resources are recover more rapidly than plant resources. Inuit used seal’s skin for kayaks making, seal’s oil for fueling, in lieu of cutting trees and using wood like Viking. In this case, Inuit’s living habit has far less impact on the environment than the Viking. Moreover, Viking’s diets were too rely on seal. When the temperature gradually dropped on the SW of Greenland, their hunting and trading had been slowing blocked. However, if they could adopt some surviving techniques from Inuit, their settlement could be managed longer. For example, they could overcome their taboo in fish free diet, or attempt to alter their habits in energy consumption, like using seal or whale blubber.
-
erikaw
It seems that the Norse failed to adapt to their environment because they were holding on to their past culture and habits (or their ancestors past habits and culture) from life in Europe. Wood houses and sustaining on meat and dairy were ideal for the location of Europe, and the time in which they resided there. The Norse did not adapt their ways to life in Greenland either because they were stubborn in thought and didn’t think changing their actions could suite them better in a new environment or because they were simply blind to the resources surrounding them.
Maybe they failed to adopt Inuit techniques because of thought processes that were engrained in them from back when they lived in Europe. Abrupt statements such as those by Montesquieu probably made huge impact, and caused some very narrow minded thought processes to develop.
-
natashap
I think the Norse failed to adapt because they were so culturally European. When they moved to Greenland, they didn’t really try to use what the environment there offered them – they just tried to replicate their life from Europe.
I think they failed to adopt the Inuit techniques because they had been surviving using their own for so long. Since the Inuit showed up at the very end of their slow downfall, they probably seemed foreign and untrustworthy – perhaps if the Inuit were around a bit earlier, the Norse may have “warmed up” to them a bit more. Another reason they may have failed to use Inuit techniques is because some of the things that the Inuit did were taboo to the Norse – such as eating fish.
-
eddietastic
looking at the culture of the Norse vikings, one would make the conclusion that their society was one that was both rigid and unforgiving. Weakness was probably not accepted due to the need for them to pillage and gain food and riches because their own land was unforgiven. Furthermore, vikings did not communicate as much as they should because of their need of plunder and as a result may have not gained many of the techniques which the Inuit used to survive
-
brenden
I agree with the comment above that based on the picture of Norse culture presented to us, they seemed to be very rigid and conservative which likely led to their doomed society. The Norse tried to maintain their european culture in a country which was much different environmentally. Greenland was much less forgiving then other parts of europe and it gave the norse less to work with (forests ect.). While they did make some adaptations (feeding cows hay and seaweed in the winter and hunting seals and caribou) they did not adapt to the land they way the inuit did. Why they did not trade with the inuit is a bit of a mystery. Considering that they had access to european goods which would have likely been of great value to the inuit populations, it is odd that they did not develop a system of trade which would have mutually benefited both parties and provided the Norse with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. I assume that their stubborn nature and reluctance to change played some role in it.
-
-
Brandon Davis
How would you define culture?
-
jonl
I believe culture to be a mix of the beliefs and practices of a group of people. When these people get together in a certain place (country, town, workplace), they create the culture of that place based on their beliefs and practices.
-
sharonshi
In my opinion, culture is a overarching set of beliefs and norms to which all, or most of a group of people concur to. As a result of the ubiquitous acceptance of such “culture”, anything that deviates away from it is deemed abnormal.
-
jenniefrench
To me culture is created by a community that come to share a set of beliefs and values, as well as being able to understand what is important to each other and each others motivations. Historically these communities and cultures would have been formed based on a shared environment and eventually family ties. Over time traditions come in to place that not only highlight the values and beliefs of the community but also help to keep order and preserve the culture.
-
emilym
I think culture is a shared system of beliefs, values, and way of life within a community that gives the community a cohesive identity and sets their norms of behavior. I think culture must be broadly defined and can change over time.
-
msmith92
I think that culture is a set of traditions and values that is accepted and shared by a group of people. Culture can consist of a set of “unwritten rules” that are understood and followed by everyone within the community. Essentially, culture unifies a group of people.
-
roypat
I think culture has a vague or rather, a broad definition that can apply to a small group (small business) or an entire continent. There are different traditions, habits, values, expectations, biases and racisms that conform to each group’s “culture.”
-
Keaton Briscoe
I see culture as a set of beliefs and norms that a group shares and truly believes in. If these norms and beliefs are undermined or broken, it is seen as going against the culture. Norms and beliefs in cultures are sometimes expected or unwritten.
-
bgibson
I believe culture is defined by the shared behaviours, beliefs, traditions and values of a particular group. As stated in other posts above culture can apply to large or small groups. Culture facilitates the existence of societal norms and plays a significant role in forming a group identity
-
Olga F
I think culture has to do with a group of people that have same believes and traditions
-
brandond
When I think of the definition of culture I’m often reminded of this quote form poet Gary Snyder:
“The term culture, in its meaning of ‘a deliberately maintained aesthetic and intellectual life’ and in its other meaning of ‘the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns,’ is never far from a biological root meaning as in “yogurt culture” – a nourishing habitat. Civilization is permeable, and could be as inhabited as the wild.” -Practice of the Wild, “The Etiquette of Freedom”, 15 (1990)
I guess the reason these thoughts about culture appeal to me is that it seems so many definitions of culture from the perspective of the social sciences often neglect the role landscapes or humans interactions with landscapes have in shaping culture. This quote suggest there is almost an organic element to culture, the way bacteria adapts to milk to create yogurt is likened to the way human adapt to earth to create civilization and culture. Okay, maybe I am taking this metaphor a little too far…
-
congo96
Culture is the set of values, beliefs, and tradition belonging to a particular group
-
jlin
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nate_garvis_change_our_culture_change_our_world.html !
To me culture is the production and reproduction of a way of life that is characterized by common, or at least popular belief, traditions, values and expressions (among other things) that emerge as a response to the environment we are surrounded by.
-
paige
To me culture means the values in practice in a certain subset of a population. It is dynamic and yet rigid at the same time. It evolves over time but maintains tradition throughout the years.
-
sampethick
This is a tough one. I would define culture as the beliefs, practices, values and ways of going about their daily lives of a group of people. This kind of ties in with what a lot of you are already saying. Culture I think is sort of a learned behaviour, something that is slowly taught to you from birth by your family and your community, the people within your culture and also something that just becomes a part of who you are. Culture involves language and religious beliefs, as well as traditions, myths, gender roles, and many other aspects of human life.
-
phoebe
Everyone has mentioned culture being parts of the values, beliefs, and traditions of a particular group. I would like to add that culture is also part of the arts and literature. Whether part of things considered high culture such as an orchestral performance, opera, or a reading of Shakespeare, and even low culture such as watching reality TV while eating McDonalds. Culture is anything that a group of people can identify as being a part of their common identity.
-
katehaxt
I would add to everyone else’s points that culture is also food and a communities traditional food tends to reflect both an iteraction with their environment ie what grows well, what is in season and wider belief systems ie food taboos. Food seems to be a big place where culture and environment interact as the Norse exampe highlights .
-
youngblutt
The shared and learned behaviours and interpretations of a group in relation to their surroundings.
-
tsung18
Just as everyone has indicated, culture encompasses many facets. Literature, art, food, values, practices, language and learning are all a part of what culture really is. I believe everything has a certain culture and what truly matters most is how culture and knowledge of that culture and it’s attitudes are passed on to the younger generations. In general, its a shared and valued identity among a group of people .
-
sampethick
I just had a quick second thought. I think that when defining culture we need to consider the fact that “culture” probably has different meanings for different cultures. That might be a big part of it; culture is whatever a certain culture believes it to be.
-
jaydee
As mentioned by multiple people already, I think culture is a collections of beliefs, values and traditions that a group of people share in common. It is an identity for a population, as well as the individuals themselves. Classically, culture has been geographically stable. However, in this day and age, culture is considerably more independent of geography. Furthermore, I believe culture to exist on a continuum within a population, meaning there are subtle differences between what two individuals of the same culture associate with their particular cultural identity.
-
lcoulthard
I define culture as a combination of every possible interaction that goes in between a community of people who share similar beliefs. It can include the food they eat, their gender relations, religious beliefs, economic systems, the medicines they use… the list goes on and on. I believe that culture is partially defined by geography as well. For example, part of the culture of B.C.’s historical native populations was to migrate across various parts of what is now defined as a province. Because of this, their diet was influenced to contain things like salmon from being near the water, and they also didn’t necessarily have fixed residences – an important cultural aspect regarding land-issues today.
-
midara
In broader terms I would define culture as the way of living of certain groups of people, where the group is formed by shared ancestors, beliefs, religion, ethnicity etc. While the group is sharing similar ancestor tree, history etc, they will share and spread their actions as part of the practices or habits as the whole group. For instance, the habit of not eating fish as a food way is originated by personal taboo of Eric the Red. By sharing living habits and actions within the group, the group members increase acceptance and identity of themselves as part of the in-group; these habits and actions taken and passed on become unique cultures that might different from group to group due to different origin of their group (which is formed by the earliest reaction of the group members to the nature).
-
nytsuen
Culture is a way of life, a belief system, a tradition of doing certain things which define a group of people. Perhaps, two groups of people share similar cultures but I think that there is never the same, exact culture. For example, there are many different ways to mourn for the dead in each culture. The Chinese tradition is to burn paper money, paper humans as servants, watches, and clothes so that the dead will live a good life in heaven. In the hispanic culture, they celebrate the Day of the Dead by going to their loved one’s tombstone to drink and party.
-
kimzzzy
I believe that culture defines a group of people that shares similar beliefs, life style and carries out the same rituals. Cultures are influenced by many things and one of the biggest influences is the geographic locations in which the culture originated from.
-
yitailiu
I think that culture is the set of beliefs, values, knowledge, and ways of doing things shared by a group of people living in a certain region. Culture promotes a sense of unity within the community and it is also defined at a particular time. Over time, the people living in the same geographical region may have developed different sets of beliefs and values, and adapted to new ways of living.
-
shalinb
I would define culture as a common set of beliefs, values, knowledge, history, and lifestyle within a group of people, varying across different types of groups. Culture can be customs that one grows up with in their household, or one may learn cultural beliefs through the education system. Culture brings a sense of community and belonging.
-
Danni
A set of consensus in attitudes, values, goals, and practices that were shared in a group, organization, or society. In our case, Vikings developed a taboo in fish eating during their settlements in Greenland, comparing to the Inuit settlements consumed large amount of fish. Although they were attempting to settle in Greenland, they developed different attitudes, goals, and practices against the same “fish eating” issue. Culture actually played a important role in their adaption on Greenland.
-
erikaw
Culture – a lot of words come to mind. Historical shaping of a set of beliefs that fit into today’s society. With these beliefs come comfort from certain food, religion, clothing, speech, marriage practices etc.
-
natashap
Culture is a very broad word – it can be applied to something as large as a country or something smaller like a university or even an individual company. It refers to the history of the people as well as their customs, clothing, food and many other things. In a course I took on technical writing, there was a whole section of the textbook that discussing “company culture” and how that could affect the tone and type of writing we might do.
-
brenden
To me, culture is a very broad term which refers to a set of common beliefs, attitudes, values, ethics, goals. Culture can further refer to common languages, religion, habits ect. It really depends on the subject being discussed. On a macro level, one could talk about canadian culture and refer to things like hockey, bilingualism ect. On a micro level, you could talk about the culture at UBC and refer to things that are common between our fellow students.
-
eddietastic
To me culture is what people do when they have their own free reign to do what they want with their own rules. When a third party that is not from the group cuts in then their culture becomes limited.
-
congo96, 
nytsuen, 
eddietastic, and 26 others are discussing. 
phoebe, and 28 others are discussing. 
brenden, 
kimzzzy, 
yitailiu, and 23 others are discussing. 
natashap, and 24 others are discussing. 
roypat 3:37 am on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It’s interesting to think that the spread of railroads necessitated the creation of standardized time zones. In a certain sense, it was the start of globalization both in the sense of increased (and faster) international trade by way of coal/steam trains, but also in the sense of uniformity and internationally understood time zones. This may have affected the way that people saw the world by inspiring a bit more cooperation and empathy between nations & people.
jonl 11:13 am on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What’s most interesting to me is that the more we (humanity) progress, the faster time seems to go by. If we’re inventing all these things to make our lives easier, why do we still find ourselves overworked? Busier than ever. I think the time zones made people acknowledge that our world is bigger and it probably clicked on them that time (based on the sun) isn’t constant through out. I imagine people would always refer to what time it was in their hometown when referring to time (eg. “It’s 5 o’clock in London now”) Standardizing things definitely helped people get around and stay oriented with the day.
hannahepperson 12:02 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
the paradoxes of time! it is funny, isn’t it, that with all the advancements we’ve made to ‘make life easier,’ as you say, we have become increasingly overwhelmed, overstimulated, bogged down. I think this has to do with our libertarian ideals as they pertain to the market economy … we’re so exhausted by choice these days, that our consumer freedoms seem much more a drain and a burden then they do an enviable liberty…
hannahepperson 12:32 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Also, you might like Ivan Illich, who writes a lot about ‘speed’ ‘acceleration’ etc, and how it relates to society in general. I recall him having written that “High speed is the critical factor which makes transportation socially destructive.” Anyway, you might find it relevant, and he’s also an incredibly engaging writer 🙂
sharonshi 4:07 pm on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the creation of standardized time zones affected the way people saw the world in that it allowed them to keep track and like roypat said from above, encourage the cooperation of people living in different time zones. I agree with his point in that having standardized time zones allows people to recognize the time difference within different regions and give them the ability to fully manage their time and effectively organize their day. It gave people more structure of their life, and in that the control they needed to make the most of it.
alyumam 5:27 pm on March 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I see and understand that the standardization of time, has effectively helped people to manage and organize themselves for common goals, as it also has helped to coordinate people and places from different areas, something that, as you recognize, creates a full management of time. I just wonder how this is coordinated with other cycles, such as the one the earth has.
I found this article looks very interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15546124
msmith92 6:10 pm on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I had never thought about the origins of standard time zones before but it makes sense that they came with industrialization. As different places started to become more interconnected via railroad, trade, etc., there needed to be a common time scheme to hold people accountable for getting things done by a certain time. This change probably actually resulted in people being more impatient as standard time left no excuses for lateness. Similarly, it probably also played a huge role in ingraining the idea of efficiency as a priority, something that is so commonplace in modern society.
katehaxt 1:26 pm on February 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the transition to standardized time probably started to give people a new feeling of control over the environment. Working to the sun and working to the clock are different experiences and I guess the rise of standard time might have widened the gap between people and nature and changed the power dynamic.
jenniefrench 5:44 pm on February 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I find two ideas particularly interesting about the creation of standardized time zones. First, that it was about control and productivity. It was a logical thing to do and it encouraged more people to work in a similar way for similar “benefits.” I agree with katehaxt it was a way for humans to control the environment and nature. The second thing I find interesting is that it also encourages us to look at the earth as a whole. While we may live in different time zones, the planet and us are all revolving around the same clock. Universal time standards linked the whole world into one being. That being said, we still have so much trouble understanding how what we do over ‘here’ effects other people over ‘there.’
youngblutt 10:21 pm on February 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Standardized time allowed time to become a commodity with measurable value. It could then be used to propel an individual up the socio-economic ladder by effectively exploiting units of production versus units of labor time. Capitalists atop the ladder became “outside of time”, while labourers became more restricted by the structures that standard time made necessary. For industrialists and workers alike, time became a casual condition of production which became a casual condition of money; and money of capital which became social power.
For only a short while after standardized time people could still understand the relationship between time and nature. Constructed structures of time were developed and used by the capitalist elites to control workers and other means of production by controlling when these commodities were expected to do certain things.
paige 12:11 am on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think this is so interesting! It had never crossed my mind that time had to be created, but so obvious now that I’m aware of it. I think that standardized time zones must have standardized the world as well. Everywhere was working in relation to everywhere else. In some ways it takes the authenticity out of individual areas. No longer were they completely independent, they were all coming together. This does create a sense of a smaller world because it homogenizes the geographical areas in this one way.
hannahepperson 1:14 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The standard timetable literally turns time into a gridwork … instead of moving fluidly, time is measurable in right angles, columns, pixels, and becomes disjointed from the natural cycles and flows of time. In some ways, marriage to this kind of regimented time alienates people from both their own instinctual cycles, and also the much slower, unrelenting cycles that occur in the natural world. Imposing on Nature a standardized temporal grid with the expectation of Nature’s compliance sets us up for a lot of conflict and difficult. Doing so has certainly spurred on a whole lot of technologic innovations, many of which have not brought us nearer to our humanity, our world or ourselves, but rather distanced us from those things. Kate said it pretty succinctly, I think.
Anyway, I was just reading Rilke’s ‘spanish trilogy,’ where he contrasts the cacophony and “chaos” of the City with the Shepherd who is “unhurried” in his step. Rilke offers a poetic reflection which resonates with a lot of the material in this course, and even more particularly with this conversation about time and its complex relation to space … It’s worth a read.
erikaw 5:03 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Before timezones were implemented individuals would probably not often think of others on the planet and most often be focussed on their own communities (because there was no means of communication that would connect them with those across the globe). When timezones were regulated it would bring a sense of the world to every individual and how time and the earth’s rotation affects every community on the planet slightly differently.
Joyce Lin 8:53 pm on February 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The creation of time zones gave people a global sense and connection to the world beyond the local. Standardized time zones allow us to have a sense of our own lives in relation to the lives in another part of the world. This is interesting especially when we consider the power relationship that is embedded within this standardized system (ex. even the Prime Meridian at Greenwich for example, is not by random). Megacities were developed with influence of standardized time zones; the location of Tokyo, New York and London ensures that there is one market that is opened at any one time when another city may be resting. Standardized time zones also added to the growing sense that humans have control over nature and have power directly over it. As a consequence, we can further control and adapt other functions that are related to the initial variable that is controlled.
emilym 11:48 am on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the creation of standardized time zone changed human perception about the world we live in quite a bit. It opened up human horizons to view the world as smaller and more accessible. Now we all look at a clock many times a day and regulate our lives around standardized legislated time, but in creating an artificial way to measure our conception of time and how is moves, we’ve stopped thinking about time in it’s connection with nature. Before clocks, people made sun dials and counted time locally through sunrises and sunsets. We have completely overridden that concept of time and it’s connection to nature and instead have become obsessed with increasing productivity in every hour of every day, completely disregarding the cycle of the sun.
natashap 11:49 am on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the creation of time zones made the world seem both smaller and larger. Larger in the sense that people could relate to others in different areas of the world more easily since time zones were brought on by train travel and the need to standardize times. It made the world seem smaller since now it was easier to get places that were further away, so you were less limited by where you lived. So the creation of time zones and the technology that led to them needing to be developed played a large role in the globalization of the world.
Keaton Briscoe 10:03 pm on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think time zones forced people to understand that the world is a much larger place than anticipated. Time zones enabled people to obtain a greater concept with the rest of the world. However, the creation of standardized time eliminated peoples connection with nature (the day was powered by the sun) and focus more on productivity and how much time was left to produce. The sense that people now had a control over nature was introduced, instead of nature (the sun) having control over how people ran their day to day lives.
bgibson 3:53 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the creation of standardized time zones would have spurred a lot of discussion about globalization and trade. While local time had been the norm, and certainly everyone had a good grasp of time and clocks and how the time can be a commodity, standardized time may have helped people understand how much closer the world had become. Britain only experiences a one hour difference between Western Europe and two hours from Eastern Europe.
brenden 4:15 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that the creation of standardized time zones was a fundamental development of civilization. Before it was implemented, time was something determined rurally, a symbol of rural production and economy and it demonstrates the disconnect between different communities and countries during that time. The industrial revolution and the spread of globalization made it necessary for the world to operate on standardized time. The result was increased productivity and a feeling of connectedness between the cities and countries of the world. Standardized time zones have effectively made the world a smaller place by connecting cities and countries and allowing the spread of globalization.
sampethick 6:26 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Standardized time zones probably created the feeling of a sort of unity with a larger group of people. What I mean by this is that there might have been a sort of feeling of connectedness because everyone in your time zone is now running on the same schedule as you. It’s interesting to imagine not having this; it was probably a lot more relaxing! I think that in creating this form of unity through standardized time zones a sense of modernity was also created. Today, standardized time zones can be critically helpful. They’re helpful because we are now so connected to the world around us; shipping goods around the world, travelling, world politics, that is important to know what time it is in other places. The standardization of time zones opened up a lot of doors economically I would imagine, and now that I’m thinking about it the standardized time zones are a big part of the industrialization of the world.
jaydee 6:37 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the underlying idea behind the development and use of standardized time zones is that humans felt they could exert and use time itself. Time, once fit into little boxes to be used, become another commodity, in the same way land has. In fact, the idea that time became a ordered “gridwork” as, hannahhepperson puts it, quickly elicits the memory of my reaction to the picture of the farm field from the Wall 4.3. And this idea that time is made up of small chunks to be bartered with is so true. I always look and plan out my day by hourly sections. I say to myself, “If I work for 4 hours from 2 to 6, I can have one or two hours for myself”, as if everything requires a strict schedule.
tsung 7:46 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The creation of the standardized time zones is inevitable with the onset of Capitalism. Time essentially became a commodity “time = money.” In terms of commerce, we see that shipping, or travelling is essentially made easier. The time zones allow us to track things, know where they are, what is happening and above all, connects us together which is the essence of today’s globalized world. In general, the standardized time zone crafted efficiency that goes with the world bureaucratic structure. Although some of us may view this creation as enrichment, some will disagree. Agrarian farmers for instance would disapprove of this modern establishment. They wanted to preserve the agriculture life and go by “gods time” or the sun that was a part of traditional life.
lcoulthard 9:26 pm on March 1, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The standardized time zones were necessary for the development of capitalism, and their creation helped to make the world much “smaller”. This is because one of the crucial aspects of capitalism is the need to shorten production times. The development of time zones and hourly wages helped to organize and reduce production time. The railways that developed alongside time zones also helped to shorten production times by facilitating faster transport of materials or finished goods. With all this in mind, peoples view of the world was shrinking – not only because they could get on a train and cover more ground than before, but because it allowed for exotic goods and materials to be brought in from greater distances.
midara 12:36 am on March 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the creation of standardized time zones somewhat marks how science and technology have come to change people’s live gradually and completely. Before the invention of clocks there were and are tons of way to tell what time of a day is, such as observing the sun and shadows, hourglass and so on; but clocks and creation of standardized time zone represent that people have a more accurate way to calculate the time of the day, and they have the knowledge to do so. That is why they are aware of the difference of timezones in different areas of a country (or even in different countries) (which, I guess if they cannot measure the time accurately in the past, travelling in ships and trains will mess their sense of timing up). Also, the creation of standardized time zones also changes people’s life by joining them globally as a whole. In my point of view, the feeling of people living in different time zones in the same planet is pretty amazing and that draws my attention to how this creation will bring people’s thought together as a whole.
kimzzzy 6:56 am on March 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Creating a standardized time zone will allow trade to be more efficient. People can coordinate better about travelling to places and working schedules. Also, people may work a more during a standardize time zone because the people in places with longer nights and shorter days may be required to work more now when they can compare their working hours with the people in the opposite daylight situations.
Also standardization allows people in different parts of the world tofeel more connected with on another. They have a better prediction of what the people in different parts of the world are doing at a particular time. This again gets work done in a more efficient way when it comes to having to work / trade with people from other parts of the world
alyumam 5:43 pm on March 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I find the creation of a standardized time zones as a two faced characteristic of the industrial revolution. Yes, it has helped people to organize themselves for different common goals, local and global, creating positive developments and technological advances; but it also has affected negatively the way people see the world, creating an alienation from local environments and therefore affecting them. I found the next article from the BBC very interesting, it talks about a shift in this standardization of time. is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15546124
yitailiu 8:27 pm on March 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the creation of standardized time zones was a step towards globalization and made it easier for international communication and cooperation. Before the standardization of time zones, people usually see their lives at a local scale. Now people would be more aware of the diversity of the different countries around the world, and yet see a shortened distance between the continents.
Danni 12:42 am on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It is easier for people from the different zones of latitudes, but from the same zones of longitude, to keep track of the time changes according to the exposures of sun light at the same angle. It helps people predict the change of time during their travelling. I think it is essential to have this standardization especially in regard to economy (i.e. stock market, and banking). The trading time in some specific location is highly essential to be kept track accurately. For example, Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) Index, the starting time and closing time are strictly according to EST. In addition, the standardization of time zones also help people getting use to the daily life. If, for example, people travelled from Vancouver, Canada to London, England, but we have 9 a.m. in the morning in Vancouver, instead of 4 p.m. in the morning. In this way, there will be lots of confusion disturb our daily life.
phoebe 12:46 am on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Standarized time zones allowed people across greater distances to better coordinate together in cooperation. For example, when the railroad annouced that it would be departing at 8:30 am and arriving the next day at 3:00 pm, it would be neccessary for both places to have the same time in order for everything to run smoothly. Trains also often use the same tracks going in different directions at different times. If time was not coordinated carefully, train crashes would be commonplace. While the creation of a standarized time was certainly more efficient for manufacturers and businessmen, it also placed a lot of stress on workers that were now paid by the hour or needed to finish work by a certain time.
eddietastic 4:38 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Standardized time zones are very important with the rise of globalization because business for one is not taking place only in one time zone. With the increase of globalization and people becoming closer and closer there is a need for time to also be changed.
nytsuen 3:08 pm on March 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Before, they lived based on their own time determined by sunlight.I believe that standardized time zones helped people realize how big the world really is and how people are spread over vast areas of land. In a sense, it was nationalizing. At the same time, time zones helped make the world smaller. People from opposite ends of time can now communicate, travel and work with each other which helped with the process of globalization.
congo96 11:56 am on April 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In standardizing time and connecting places trough railroads the world could be seen as one continual space.. You could now plan to meet someone the same day at a set time.. I think it connected people in a way knowing that they were living at the same time that you were if in the same time zone.