A Changing World

Before reading the rest of this blog, I would like you to take a "quiz" that Bell provided in his book in order to classify people as more post materialist, materialist, or a mix between the two. For this survey, Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist with a theory about post materialism asks: Which two of the following four choices should be their country's top goals--

1. Maintaining order in the nation

2. Giving people more say in important government decisions.

3. Fighting rising prices.

4. Protecting freedom of speech

"Goals 1 and 3 are the materialist responses" which means they are the more traditional responses. Typically they would be chosen by the older population. "Goals 2 and 4 are the post materialist ones" which would be the more modern perspective typically from the younger generations. A mixture of the choices would be people who maintain both traditional and modern ideas of the way the country should be run. I personally fell under the mixture group.

In the past, security in terms of money, property, and safety were what people strived for. In today's world, there is a "greater emphasis on freedom, self-expression, and the quality of life" which are classified as post material values. As you can see on the pyramid below, the focus has shifted to the categories that are considered less of a necessity. This is called post materialism.




This idea of post materialism and finding self actualization is more common than it may seem, and the numbers keep growing. In simpler terms, it means that people are beginning to strive past their basic needs. After their basic material needs are met, they work toward deeper understandings and true happiness in all aspects of their lives.

I feel that this is very common in the society that I live in. Finding people that solely work toward their most basic needs is rare. This probably has a lot to do with my age as well. Because I am in a young generation, these modern ideas and practices seem normal to me because of their growing popularity.













Some people think that modernization and less traditional values aren't the best thing. However, focussing on things that are less materialistic seems to be a positive transition, rather than negative.

Environmental Invisibility

In Chapter 7, Bell talks about theories of environmental concern; postmaterialism [shift from concern about health and nature, materialism to a post materialistic view or freedom of self-expression view] and ecological modernization [recognition of environmental problems and how we can make it a part of our everyday lives]. The main topic of each of these theories is materials and how we view materials. 

I personally believe that we, in the US, are a combination of post materialism and ecological modernization. We are both an industrial and an aware of ecological problems society. Also, we value materials differently than we have in the past. I think that we have changed over the past years due to change in materialism. We went from appreciating traditional things like: concerns about economic and physical security to wanting freedom of expression (Bell, 187). The problem with this is that we are not focusing on what is important, the environment. We chose to ignore what we cannot see or touch. As we have learned in Bell, greater power does not lead to greater concern. My question is, why?

I think that we could help share some of the advances that we have and work together with other countries in order to distribute environmental awareness and prevention of further destruction. We have so much wealth in our country that we do not see how desperate other countries are. We walk around with non- environmentally friendly items like phones, car [most], and electronics while others figure out a way to make it through life. How is it that we are okay with not helping the environment when other peoples' and our lives depend on it? It is ironic to me that we have so much wealth but so little concern for our own environment. Doesn't that bother anyone else?

Dichotomy at its Finest

Man - Woman

Reason - Emotion

Civilization - Nature

Mind - Body

Human - Animal/Nonhuman

These dichotomies characterize everyday culture and we do not really have any control over it. Subliminally we are told that one of the things in each of these is better than the other, and as a result the group with the positive image has more power than the other group. As long as there is a stigma attached to one group, they will suffer at the hands of the other.

As one of the above dichotomies points out, civilization is pitted against nature. Civilization dominates, controls, and, in general, is not particularly concerned with nature's existence. However, Bell suggests that once people become concerned with the rights of people and society, they also become concerned with the decent treatment of animals and nature as a whole. When this occurs, environmental exploitation just doesn't feel right.

I find it crazy that we have removed ourselves so far from nature that helping ourselves isn't the same as helping nature. Helping humans is demeaning and destroying nature and helping nature is demeaning and destroying civilization. Everything that is nature is exactly the opposite of civilization so it helps all of us to forget that we are as much a part of nature as it is a part of us. Even using democratic sensibilities skews people's perception of the environment: it is something different from humans, an afterthought that has to be improved in relation to it's civilized counterparts. "Fixing" things, particularly nature, implies that there is something wrong with them to begin with. Personally, I believe that something is wrong with us, the "civilized" ones, and we are blaming the environment and nature because we cannot live with ourselves if we screwed up so horribly that it is irreversibly damaged and it is our fault.

Nature wins in the end because nature is in all of us. Nature is where we came from. Nature is who we are. Forgetting that is where many of our problems stem from.

Social Status Vs. Environmental Concern

In our discussion of Chapter 7 in Bell, we talked about whether wealthier or lower income people were more concerned with the environment? At first when this question was posed I really did not know the answer. I can also see explanations for how both wealthier and lower income people can be concerned with the environment more than the other.

The wealthier can be more concerned because big businesses who contribute to the majority of the reasons why we are concerned,  recognize this issue and have the means to fix it. On the contrary, big business might recognize they are harming the environment, but because fixing it might result in a lower profit, fixing it is out of the question.

Lower income people might be more concerned because as we discussed before, these are the people who are most effected by the causes of environmental problems such as pollution. Even though they recognize environmental issues, these people may not have the ability to fix the problem in turn making the concern for enviromental issues a non concern because it is simply something they have to deal with.

I found a youtube clip about a story in Detroit that relates to environmental concerns of both the wealthier and lower class. This clip shows the concerns of both sides, and is a way to look at social status vs. environmental concern as something that is in combination as a posed to against each other.
I posted the link instead of the actual video because the tool above did not list this video on youtube when I tried to search it so I apologize for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDGb2_FQO8M

Wal-Mart or World-Mart?

Check out this article about Wal-Mart taking over the world! But really, it's pretty interesting...

Wal-Mart or World-Mart? A Teaching Case Study

Religions and the environment.

Have you ever actually sat down and thought about what different religions say about the environment? Do they tell us to care for the environment, or do they tell us that we dominate the environment, thus, can do anything with it?

Personally, I have never thought about it in that sense. Not until recently have I looked into what different religions, say about man and the environment. 

Below, I will start off by presenting a deeper description of the Christian view regarding the environment, and then briefly present Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Please note that the relationship between the environment and religion is focused on roles of inequality and hierarchy in the way we tend to think about the environment. 

Christianity-

In Christianity, Genesis 1:28, God orders that humans control the animals, and the earth. But what does God actually mean by control? This claim does not only challenge people from inside the church, but people from outside of the church as well. Many believe that the earth was created in order to be used for "profitable purposes" (Wolf, 1981), as people are on their way to life after death. However, I do not think this gives people the power to destroy what God affirms as good in His sight, his creation (Genesis 1).

Yes, God did give humans dominion over the earth, but not to destroy it, He gave them the privilege to take care of it. God put Adam in the garden of Eden to take care of it. Interestingly enough, when "take care" is translated to Hebrew, it means to watch, preserve, attend, and maintain.

In the west, the major source of ideas comes from Christianity. And ideas change the economy, just as much as the economy changes ideas.
The two major theories of Christianity, economics, and their relationship as dominions over the environment are that of Max Weber (Protestantism and capitalism) and Lynn Whites (the moral parallels of Christianity, science and technology).

According to Max Weber, we work for more money than we need. But have you ever asked yourself why that is? Well, to maintain a place on the consumption and production treadmill. But why are we even on the treadmills to start off with? Well, that would be due to the moral anxiety from Protestantism.

Moreover, Lynn White explains that it is no ideal to separate environmental problems from the western origins of science and technology because of the mold-board plow that occurred in the 7th century. Early Christianity however does teach man to exploit the environment (tampering with the it is not a sin). However, the greener side of Christianity supports the taking care of the environment, and that it challenges science; opposition to genetic engineering, and opposition to Galileo.
Being so, the bible asks to be fruitful and multiply. This biblical command does not only go out to man, but to all creatures.

Islam- 

Muslims believe that Allah gave humans the responsibility over the earth. Being so, man is impelled by Islam not to abuse the trust that Allah put, but instead to care and protect nature, and to be kind with the environment. Islam also tells man to make use of the creation, but to be careful at the same time (Quran, Sura 55:3-10). Lastly, the Quran provides guidance to its peoples relationship with the environment, as well as in dealing with nature (Quran, Sura 2, 11). 

Buddhism- 

Nowadays, I believe Buddhism is the inspiration for the protection of nature. The right livelihood, one of the noble eight fold paths, teaches man to take in consideration his/her actions as it would impact society, and the future. Buddhism has actually been influential in government (i.e Thailand) decisions when attempting to improve the economics by 'development', while damaging the environment. Based on Cakkavattisihanada Sutta, it is not only required and expected for man to protect people, but to protect birds and quadrupeds as well. 

Hinduism-

In ancient Hinduism texts, respect for nature and ecological awareness are significantly presented. Yajur Veda, 5:43 and Rig Veda, 6:48:17 are examples of of principles and traditions that are in relevance to man future, and are important to one's present life. In Hinduism, it is believed that if trees and animal life are protected, then man and his community will be safe and survive. Here, people are expected to defend our nature and our environment. 

Being so, the different religions do tell us to protect the environment, but as human beings, we misinterpret what is said in these different religions, and we think of ourselves on a higher level than nature. Religion places man falsely above nature. 

Please take some time and watch the spirited debate with Jeff Schweitzer regarding whether or not religion is harming the environment.  

What are your thoughts about what the different religions say in regards to man and nature? Do you think we are taking advantage of our 'dominance' over the environment?

~Please comment with your thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Thank you

Green Christians

     No, not necessarily an alteration of tared and feathered. It's a movement. Start by going to thegreenchristian.org and checking out what they have. I spent some time on their site and can really start to understand some of the views and beliefs that they link together to gain their philosophy. Watch the video below on a church that takes environmentalism seriously.

     The people at The Green Christian work with churches and pastors, giving them the tools they need to talk about stewardship of the earth, and what the bible says about caring for the planet and our animals. They work to inform Christians about the fact that there are almost a billion people in this world without access to clean drinking water, and that sadly in many cases this is the result of pollution and pesticide runoff from fields. They also supply logic and plenty of information to those who want it, while focusing on spirituality, ethos, and pathos; personal stories about how the environment actually affects people and it’s role in the Christian faith.

Reading some of their sermons and blog posts has really made me think about things I've read in the Bible. Take a second and go check them out. Make sure to watch the videos they have on their website.

To Change Our World, We Need to Change Ourseleves.

Patel brings to our attention a very compelling argument in regards to the food system and draws our focus on ways that it can be fixed. But before we can become superman and solve all the worlds problems we must take a step back and see EXACTLY what the problem is. Food - a basic need of human survival - could be seen as the exact opposite. The food system have contributed to aspects of diet-related diseases which in retro spec could be planting a time-bomb in our younger society (299).  This is happening because consumers are disconnected from the production of food and what we are putting into our mouths that we believe to be "enjoyable."

The food market is not only harming our environment but it is harming our bodies as well. Patel puts great emphasis on the government when it comes to the health of the local communities. Patel states in Stuffed in Starved that "governments have gone to great lengths not to hear the demands of both the consumers...We've already seen that in the US, for instance, over 90 per cent of consumers want labels on the food if it is genetically modified" (303). Not only does this prove to destroy the physical community but it is also creating "biological horrors" in accordance to Patel. Lets take the example of Mad Cow Disease. In order to boost the protein content of the animal food (aka to fatten the cow even more) meat and bonemeal were added to cattle feed. These so called "proteins" were what caused Mad Cow - it may have started with one cow but spread into a world wide epidemic that became unstoppable. When the infectious proteins were recycled back into the cow feed it entered the food chain and the cycle continued, with more animals eating more and more infected beef-based food. (305) This is all due to the fact the people in communities are not well informed consumers when it comes to the food market, as well as the government not looking more into the products that are being sold in the food market.

 

Lets take a look at another problem that falls under a consumers ignorance to the suffering that follows every mouthful of food that we enjoy eating. Patel makes a good comparison when saying just like everything else everything and everyone has its vulnerabilities. In the food market its vulnerabilities could be something along the lines of any oil-shortage. We are so dependent on the markets around us that if they fall a state of panic is revoked. Patel goes on to give an example of something similar to this phenomenon that happened in 2000 when the UK haulage industry blocked access to six of the eight major oil refining facilities. Fuel stations were closed, traffic was cut by 40 per cent, and within hours food was running out. A quarter of UK trucks are carrying food, and the average British family drives 136 miles a year to buy it.  I could see this becoming a weee bit of a problem.

 

 

So how do we stop this? What is the solution? Well, the answer simply lies in the next section of this chapter with one sub-heading blaring the words ... IT'S JUST WE, OURSELVES, AND US. There are ways that every person can reshape the dynamic of the food system, and they indeed need to do this.  Patel puts it in very motivation terms when saying, "there are ways of getting back what the food system has taken from us: dignity in refusing to accept what we are told we must want, and how we must work and live; control over our lives, bodies and self-image; the knowledge no matter where a child is born, she will be able to eat healthy ... " (307). Yes, that is very striking in all its ways so what do we do? We look at a vision known as Food Sovereignty. In the video below Patel tells us the simple definition of Food Sovereignty and the ways to go about it. He tells the audience to turn to  Wikipedia for a good definition. That is weird, yes. But let me tell you this, Wikipedia and I have became very close through out my college years. Wikipedia defines Food Sovereignty as:

 

Food sovereignty", a term coined by members of Via Campesina in 1996, asserts the right of people to define their own food systems. Advocates of food sovereignty put the individuals who produce, distribute and consume food at the center of decisions on food systems and policies, rather than the corporations and market institutions they believe have come to dominate the global food system.

 

 

It aims to reduce the abuse of the powerless from the powerful wherever in the food systems. One way in doing this is by looking at women farmers (which Patel also explains in the video below) and opening the doors to a new social change. Women farmers grow 60-80 per cent of the food in the Global South, yet they own less than 2 per cent of the land. This is an example of a huge weakness in the food market that needs to be fixed. This happens by those people who hold the most power BUT the most powerful people on the planet but have created something universal weak. This weakness is putting not only individuals at harm but also the globe. When trying to dismantle and reclaim control the world of the food market it requires everyone, starting with women and their rights (309).

 

Patel lists 3 ways to change ourselves and by doing this we can change the world. They are difficult challenges but are fundamentally needed if there is to be any progress made.

 

 

1. Transform our tastes - We are so use to eating the foods contained with the most sugars, starches, and salts - that my friend needs to be stopped now. By changing the way we eat could become in a sense a psychological behavior that produces a cultural invitation, in which reclaiming sovereignty in our taste will result in savoring food far more richly and deeply than we have ever before.

 

2. Eat locally and seasonally - Food that does not have to be treated for long distance travels not only tastes better but it also costs less. This does mean less fewer vegetables in the winter, but since we are going to transform our taste we our open to try broader range of foods. 

 

 

3.  Eat agro ecologically - Otherwise known as "organic." Which has now taken off in its own epidemic, where the food system can easily bend its production to accommodate foods with few pesticides in them.

 

 



 

 

Not one person has all the answers. And it is not going to take one person to start this revolution - but this chapter that Patel writes directs the audience in a direction that might better shape the future and gives us a little insight into wisdom that might push humanity to do just that. If we want something done we need to do it ourselves. Kind of like when you are told to chase a dream - you can not listen to those who say you will not succeed, or those who will try to hold you back. Anything that you want, that you demand, YOU need to go and fight for yourself. Then you will see who stands with you or against you. 

 

 



What can we do now?

As I read through the conclusion of Stuffed and Starved I cannot help but sit and think how depressingly true all of this is. The scarcity of water, energy and various natural resources. The abundance of poop and disease infesting our living areas. It’s absolutely ridiculous! All of these problems not only effect individual communities, but the communities who rely on their resources from a far.

 

Like we have previously discussed in class, I do firmly believe there are ways in which we can positively improve these problematic situations but it’s not going to be done overnight. And it is going to take more work than many of us can imagine.

Patel puts this transformation of the food and agriculture industries into ten fundamental changes (all of which we have previously touched upon)…

1.      Transforming our tastes

2.      Eat locally and seasonally

3.       Eat agroecologically

4.       Support locally owned businesses

5.       All workers have the right to dignity

6.      Profound and comprehensive rural change

7.       Living wages for all

8.       Support for a sustainable agriculture of food

9.       Snapping the food systems bottleneck

10.   Owning and providing restitutions for the injustices of the past and the present

 

What can we do now? As college students? On a daily basis?

My opinion is we can begin with numbers 1, 2 and 4of the fundamental changes listed above. We are broke college students who don’t have the time or money to change our entire diet. Yet, we can begin transforming our tastes and what we think we like and need to eat. We can take back over the choices that we have and not subside to the tastes we have been conditioned to like by the food industry. We can also start learning how to eat locally and seasonally. Although many of us eat on campus meal plans or in greek houses we can become aware of our options and how to gain access to locally grown foods and what it means to eat seasonally. Once we leave Hanover each of us will need to know where to obtain those local and seasonal foods. One way we can eat locally is by supporting locally owned businesses. Not only is the food cheaper, but it helps economically promote the community you’re living in.

Apocolypse Now

Imagine the Apocalypse is coming and you KNOW it. You have all the evidence, the proof, even the date when everything is going to hell...and no one will listen. You broadcast it to anyone who will listen, you get your story put on the news and radio, movies are made about your claim, you even get to talk to Congress MULTIPLE times and yet, no one acts. The world continues just as before, heading right for destruction. That is where we are friends, and here I am making another plea that will go unheard.

 

 

Just as Sheldon, Raj, Leonard, and Howard were oblivious to the amazing opportunities around them, we also have our heads looking down just keeping on the path we have always walked, ignoring the problems at hand, which include but are not limited to,

 

1. We're running out of water folks. Yeah, that liquid stuff we need to survive? Evaporating quicker than Usain Bolt with his butt on fire. 

2. It takes just as much energy to support our "green energy" initiatives as they produce. What's negative 5 plus positive 5? Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Not exactly progress.
3. Natural Resources are finite, not infinite. The problem with finite things? They eventually are gone. Forever.

4. There is ALOT of crap. No I do not mean the hot, steaming, rank pile of toxic waste pouring out of capital hill these days, I mean actual poop. There is a dead zone the size of New Jersey in Mexico.

 

 

5. Harsher and harsher diseases are coming out of the food we eat. From mad cow disease to bird flue, diseases caused by companies taking short-cuts to produce their product at cheaper cost to them are continuing to become scarier and scarier.

 

 

 

 

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO??????!!!!!! you might ask. Never fear, there is hope dear friends.

1. Transform our Tastes: That's right, we're going to have to change. I know, I know, but do not shoot the messenger! We have to actually make the demand for bad food go down. We have to make the effort to like healthy things, make THAT the money maker.

2. Eat Locally and Seasonally: Yes, this means what you think it means. You know that watermelon you want in December? That corn on the cob you want in January? Gone. And instead of having pineapples coming in 5,000 miles from Hawaii, eat from the farmers stand 50 miles down the road.

3. EAT ORGANIC!!! You've heard about it, now do it!

4.

 



Support local businesses! Yes Wal*Mart makes the most sense for ease and comfort, but too much ease and comfort and its all over. Is it not worth the effort to travel a bit to help end the walk down the path where all the food goes away and we all cease to exist? Thought so.

5. Treat All Workers Fairly: Just because people are doing jobs we would not do does not mean we get to look down on them. We have to be better and demand that people are treated with dignity and respect.

6. REAL rural change. These areas are often stereotyped as "behind the times". There is a reason for that. Even though rural areas are some of the poorest areas, they are not being helped. 2+2=5 right?

7. An Actual Living Wage for EVERYONE: What? Equality? Martin Luther King had a dream, we've done ok with it so far, how about we extend it out?

8. A Long-Lasting Architecture: This is a bit hard to imagine, but yes, architecture and the buildings around us need a change as well. People adapt to the infrastructure around them, change the infrastructure, change the people.

9. Break the System's Bottleneck: FIGHT THE POWER!!! Yes, we have reached that moment; monopolies must be broken, power companies must be held accountable, a day of reckoning must come.

10. Making Good on the Injustices of the Past and Present: Change is great, and it is veeeeery much needed, but that does not erase what has and is occurring. Restitution must be paid for the evil and the bad that has been done. If we act now real positive change can happen and old would will scar and heal, but only if those who have been screwed over for so long are finally paid back for their suffering.

#firstworldprobs

With technology advancing each day, the first world and third worlds move further apart. Daily life can be hard in anyone's shoes at times, but I started to reflect on my life and all of the "problems" I have.

1. "I have nothing to wear!"

#firstworldprobs

2. "This building doesn't have WiFi?!"
#firstworldprobs

3. Having a flip phone.

(Almost worse than no phone.)
#firstworldprobs

4. "How do I reheat leftovers without a microwave?"
#firstworldprobs

5. "You only have an iPhone 4 charger?"
#firstworldprobs

6. The closest Starbucks is 5 miles.
#firstworldprobs

7. There's nothing to eat.

#firstworldprobs

8.

#firstworldprobs

9.

#firstworldprobs

10. This blog crashed three times and I had to re-find pictures on Google.
#firstworldprobs

So, as you can tell, these seem ridiculous when considering that some people in the world can't even get sanitary water to drink. Yet, I have to admit that I have had personal experience with all of these "problems". Consider what you have. Be grateful. Maybe help with the real problems in the world instead of complaining about yours.

P.S. Feel free to leave your #firstworldprobs in the comments below!

"Freedom" to choose

This chapter of Stuffed and Starved covered a lot of interesting information.  Instead of summarizing everything and rambling on for a long time I've decided to focus on one aspect that I thought was really cool.  I'm going to focus on CHOICES...or our lack thereof.

Patel said it quite clearly on the first page of Chapter 9 from Stuffed and Starved..."We don't really choose our food - our food chooses us."  You might find yourself questioning this simple statement, "we don't really choose our food."  If we don't choose our food, then who does?  No one is making me pick the Marie Calender's microwaveable dinner over the Healthy choice.  No one is forcing me to eat Tostito's scoops chips instead of On the Border chips....or are they?  Why am I drawn to some brands over others?  Why am I willing to pay I slightly higher price for a product that is basically the same as a cheaper product.  It really does come down to the littlest things.  For some reason ( I'm lazy) I prefer a chip that is already the perfect shape for scooping up dip, and I'm willing to pay more for it.  So you could say that convenience plays a large role in what we "choose" to consume. 

Patel makes the argument that our choices have already been made for us by our environment, our customs and our everyday routine.  He says, "Choice is the word we're left with to describe our plucking one box rather than another off the shelves, and it's the word we're taught to use."  So yes, we do have some say in our final purchase, but really, we're just choosing between the items that have already been chosen for us.  I thought of an analogy that I thought explained it well.  When I was a little kid my mom would pick out my outfits for me.  When I got a little older I was super psyched to finally be able to pick out my own outfits.  If you think about it though, my mom is the one who purchased all of my clothes and I was only able to choose my day's outfit from the clothes she had already deemed appropriate and bought.  I thought I was making my own choices (and on some level I guess I was) but my choices were limited to what my mom had chosen before me. 

I found an interesting video online that's all about the psychology of supermarkets and how they influence our "choices". 

Mindfulness or One Way to Find Happiness in Your Life Today

This day, we read more from Patel's Stuffed and Starved. Patel discussed in this chapter the shocking idea that the food that you and I pick up off the shelves is actually much less a matter of choice than we would expect.

There are plenty of factors that go into dictating what we can have for dinner. One of the first determinants of what was for dinner was war; the siege was a war-time tactic that effectively starved the competition. Embargoes are another way of restricting trade, and thereby controlling the food available for one country or another. Many means of controlling our modern-day food supply, you may or may not have guessed, are a direct result of money, and politics. Money and politics- for you conspiracy theorists, or sociology majors- are the bread and butter of the elites.

Our consumption, Patel argues, has been routinized in a way that is, to use the words of famed sociological theorist, Karl Marx, "external to and coercive upon us," meaning that it is - to some degree-  outside of our control, and controlling us.

Fortunately for all of us, there are people out there still fighting for our freedom from forces of social control present in the food market, and elsewhere. The Slow Food movement is an international social movement designed to alter the way we think about, and enjoy our food. Its name is derived as an opposition to the Fast Food that we commonly resort to in our busy lives. One piece of advice of the Slow Food movement is for us all to slow down, and to enjoy locally grown food.

I think this piece of advice can be helpful in many, many of our daily activities. Our lives are so routinized that, I think, it's often difficult for us to find enjoyment in little things, such as eating lunch and dinner. By the time we return home, as one friend of mine put it, "I am so exhausted, that I just want to watch television, and not have to think."

So, my challenge to myself, and to us all is to slow down! Slow....down.... Take time to find the small pleasures in life that are hidden right in front of our noses. What a wonder, what a pleasure it is to enjoy many tastes, sounds, smells, and sights. Take for example, the refreshing blessing of watching a bit of light shine off of a green leaf - have you ever noticed that? Let's go out into the world with new eyes, noses, ears, and skin, and taste buds, and experience the wonders of the world in a new way that is counter to our "hurry up and wait" existence. Enjoy these small wonders, and I hope that you too will feel what it feels like to be blessed in every second of every day.

Perhaps this is one way to combat many of the social problems in our society. We need to slow down, and look at the world around us with new eyes, and start asking ourselves deep and important questions about why things are the way they are, and what we can do to change them. Patel has done a good job by analyzing the food system in the world. What else can you think of that can change the world in a small way that may eventually cause big, important, and good changes?

“Bullies Poisoning The ‘Hood Get Splattered!”

The variety of Wal-Mart is hard to beat.

Wal-Mart - a supermarket where the shopping experience of the customer is governed by specific and carefully crafted music, colors, smells, lighting, and store setup. Wal-Mart - a supermarket chain that continues to thrive despite extreme mistreatment of workers, a history of sexism, and a predilection for stamping out all competition, big or small. Wal-Mart is a place of accommodation, an all-in-one store where customers can buy various items ranging, for example, from carrots to clothes, from apples to air freshener.

Imagine, though, that it is time to go grocery shopping. Imagine that you have three children who are hungry, who need to be fed. You live in inner city Detroit, where there is no Wal-Mart, or any other supermarket for that matter, within the proximity of a walk or a bus ride. You do not own a vehicle. Where do you go in order to buy food for your family?

The lack of variety in a convenience store, on the other hand, is glaring.

You live in a food desert, an area in which it is quite difficult to access fresh food and produce without a car. And, according to Raj Patel in Stuffed and Starved, in urban areas like Detroit, the people who are most often denied access to supermarkets are people of color. This is referred to as supermarket redlining - the segregation of neighborhoods of people of color which denies them access to supermarkets and, in effect, healthy food options.


We have not yet answered our question, though. If you are a mother in a redlined, food desert in Detroit, where do you go to obtain food for your family? The convenience store, of course! Okay, so you walk to the convenience store and what do you find? Highly processed and fat-saturated foods. For a more profound look into the ways that convenience stores are negatively impacting inner cities, check out this video:

Pretty deep stuff, huh? Many citizens in your city of Detroit have taken notice of their precarious food situation. Don’t take my word for it, though. Listen, yourself, to the Detroit Voices.

In conjunction with the Detroit Voices project, the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network is also working to implement programs which will help break the bonds between citizens and convenience stores. The Network is establishing “D-Town Farms”, a “summer urban ag internship program”, an “annual harvest festival”, and a lecture series on healthy eating. To see more of what the Network is doing to achieve positive change in Detroit, visit their website: http://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/. It’s pretty visionary.

Don't we all deserve options like this?

While Wal-Mart and big-box supermarkets are not the answer to solving the food crisis which seems to be occurring in inner cities across the United States, take a moment (as you more than likely are not a mother living in Detroit) and be thankful that you, surely, have access to fresh produce. Be thankful that you are able to drive to the supermarket and buy groceries to feed your family. Although a move away from chains such as Wal-Mart would serve us well, appreciate that you have the capability to eat more than only chips, donuts, and hot dogs which
are sold at the Circle K or the Speedway down the street.

At the same time, though, don’t be afraid to follow in the footsteps of those in Detroit who refuse to settle for the status quo. Visit http://detroitfoodmap.com/ for inspiration. Be the change.

~Carly

Save money. Live better?

First step: Welcome to Carrie's Environmental Sociology blog! I'm so glad you're here.

 

Next step: Please pick the music that makes you feel the most comfortable. Do you like nonlyrical, classical music, or do you function better while jamming to Miley? The choice is yours! Go ahead and play your choice as you continue through this blog.

 

 

I guess I should change the color scheme here if I really want people to get the most out of this blog experience.. Does this bright purple make you feel alert and enthusiastic? Or maybe you'd enjoy a calming light blue? Oh, I know. Green. Now you're calm, but also attentive. And you have suddenly become an environmental activist simply by reading in green! Good for you -- keep up the good work -- you're making a difference!

 

These variables are all a part of the supermarket science called "atmospherics." Supermarkets have spent decades and millions of dollars trying to figure out exactly what components make people want to spend more time in their stores and buy compulsively. They have determined that your time in a supermarket should not be an unpleasant errand, but rather an experience to be had and enjoyed. Atmospheric sciences involve variables such as the right music, the best colors, and the most inviting smells. When correctly achieved, atmospherics reach a very specific goal: happy customers happily spending their money, thereby creating happy retailers.

 

Isn't it nice when we're all just so damn happy?



 

The problem is that we're not all that happy. Turn off the music-- we all know that classical music puts us to sleep and that no one looks sexy while licking a sledge hammer.

As this chapter in Stuffed and Starved discussed, the level of perfectionism that supermarkets such as Walmart has achieved might not be so perfect. It has created a world full of rats. We scurry around supermarkets looking for a specific item, but often we get distracted by brightly colored signs or alluring baked goods. Yet we remain under the impression that we are the deciders of our purchases. As Patel said on page 226, "shoppers' freedom of choice was born in a cage."

Not only have the supermarkets turned us into rats, they have indeed become the Vipers, predating on us and tracking our every move. Through the use of loyalty cards, they know exactly what we buy, where we buy things, and how often we shop. Considering this enormous invasion of privacy, maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Walmart has one of the most powerful computers in the United States, second only to the Pentagon. Coincidence?

The world of supermarkets comes both with good aspects and bad. They kill smaller, local groceries. That's bad. Walmart alone employs 2.1 million people worldwide. That's good. They are big enough that they have undeniable authority within the government and are allowed to bypass rules that inconvenience them. That's bad (really, reeeeeally bad). They provide low prices and  convenience to their consumers that cannot be matched by their competitors. Dammit, that's really good.

So the question raised in this chapter is this: does the CONVENIENCE of supermarkets outweigh all of the social inequality, the unethical labor practices, and the sexism that accompanies a supermarket? The United States and many other countries seem to believe so. The choice to shop in them lies in the hands and in the wallets of the consumers, and it is clear that, while we may bitch about the demise of the Mom-and-Pop Groceries, we love pledging our allegiance to Walmart. Other countries, such as France, have decided that they don't need to rely on multi-billion dollar supermarket corporations to survive. If the people of the United States chose to support operations such as farmers' markets and community cooperatives, we would be set free from the shackles that we voluntarily lock on every time we step foot into a supermarket. Believe it or not, such places exist. You might even be able to find them every Saturday morning, just 6 miles down the road... Click here to learn more about this magical place

Thank you for visiting and please come again soon! (But really-- leave.)

It's a trap.

Never go to the store hungry. I did that the other day and bought oreos, cheese-its, ramen noodles, and the things that I actually went to the store to buy.

I thought this was the only problem with going to the supermarket until I read the chapter Checking out of Supermarkets in the book Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel. 

Atmospherics. Ah, there's the problem. We go into the store to get some milk for our cereal at home, but we have to walk all the way to the back just to get it.This gives the supermarket time to trap us with a song making us more comfortable and at ease in the store then with each step we see different things on sale tempting us to buy them. 

Never go to the store. I did that the other day when all I needed was sugar, but naturally by the sugar was the cookie mix and then the song "Pour Some Sugar On Me" by Def Leppard came on and it made me want to shop a little bit longer, like really, who can leave in the middle of that song? Then I decided to have a baking party and bought brownie and cupcake mix as well. I spent $20 instead of $3. Damn. 

Monsanto's winning the World Food Prize?

Check out this link:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/world-food-prize-monsanto-syngenta/ 

In an obscene development, a Monsanto executive is winning this year’s “Nobel Prize of agriculture” -- the prestigious World Food Prize -- for creating GMOs.Receiving it legitimizes the sort of rampant genetic modification Monsanto pioneered, and helps validate a ruthless business model that impoverishes farmers and monopolizes our food.

If that wasn't baffling enough, the founder of Syngenta, the same biotech giant joining Bayer in suing Europe to keep selling bee-killing pesticides, will also win the prize -- and with it, a share of the $250,000 prize money. We cannot allow this prize to legitimize frankenfoods and bee killers. The ceremony is in less than two weeks, so we need to act now.

Tell the World Food Prize Foundation not to reward Monsanto and bee-killer Syngenta’s outrageous practices.

Winning this prize will encourage the wider use of genetically engineered cropsand be a huge obstacle to those fighting to investigate the long-term effects of its frankenseeds -- which is exactly what Monsanto wants. In 2008, Monsanto made a $5 million pledge to the World Food Prize Foundation, part of its plan to buy the credibility it can’t legitimately earn. By handing its benefactor this award, the Foundation risks undermining the credibility of the most respected prize in agriculture.

In protest, 81 Councilors of the World Future Council have penned a statement blasting the World Food Prize Foundation for betraying its purpose. In the words of the esteemed authors: “GMO seeds reinforce a model of farming that undermines sustainability of cash-poor farmers, who make up most of the world's hungry… The most dramatic impact of such dependency is in India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying seeds and chemicals, committed suicide between 1995 and 2012.”

Despite the criticism, Monsanto and Syngenta executives are set to receive their prize on October 17 -- a slap in the face to everyone harmed by their products. We don’t have much time, so we need to publicize this obscene decision -- if enough of us get word of this out, and let people know the World Food Prize is threatening its reputation, we can shame it into choosing a more suitable candidate.

Genetically-modified crops do not deserve the highest praise. Don’t reward Monsanto and Syngenta.

Soy... What is the Truth?

Soy just seems to be about everywhere in regards to food. There is a classic football quote that pertains to defensive backs, one of my favorites of all time being, Champ Bailey, a Denver Bronco. This quote would go like so with Champ Bailey put into it, "20% of the Earth is covered by land, the other 80% is covered by Champ Bailey." That, may not be a false statement, but who's counting? The point being made here is when it comes to food, it seems as if soy is Champ Bailey. Is there a quarterback safe from Champ Bailey? Is there a food item today safe from soy?

Obviously when we look at the negative effects of soy we are not referring to pure soy. Some examples of pure soy would be miso, edemame, etc. We are more referring to negative effects of soy when it comes to lecithin. Lecithin is key to mass production of food and comes from the soybean. Lecithin, from soy, allows supermarkets and fast food organizations keep their food longer and also makes the food immune to strenuous transportation. In short, it is a just a chemical to make food last longer, not improve its nutritional value. Therefore, it is the soy that is hidden in our foods that we need to find the truth about. There is such a thing as good soy and bad soy, which I mentioned earlier that can be more looked into with this Dr. Oz video found here: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/not-all-soy-products-are-created-equal

Another misuse that soy has served is it's role in animal feeding by agribusinesses. Soy is a high source of protein, which in its pure state is good for you, but soy is being used as cheap protein for the animals we eat. A high dose of soy is used in Chicken McNuggets because of the soy that is given to chickens by the company Cargill is then given to McDonald's as their chicken supply. McDonald's named Cargill their supplier of the year for their chicken produce, imagine that. However, you are getting far from a healthy protein chicken. You are truly ingesting empty calories that hold no nutritional value.

Another interesting fact about soy is the health craze about soy burgers. Soy burgers are simply processed food items that are actually being stripped of their nutritional value. Before we decide to buy the "healthy" soy burger maybe we should decide to go purchase healthy meat and cook it ourselves. Unfortunately, we cannot even trust that to help us get untainted food because majority of the meat in supermarkets come from soy fed animals which strips away the nutritional value.

The truth is, soy AKA Champ Bailey, has us all covered and no one and is escaping the coverage. We are trapped by soy!

McSoybeans, McSlavery, and McNuggets

McSoybeans, McSlavery, and McNuggets

            Throughout class we have referred to social constructions of convenience, in which today we primarily think of cell phones, and transportation, but this chapter exposes another construction that controls almost every aspect of the agricultural community; soy beans. I don’t know much about farming but, I realize the difference between corn and soybeans, and you would have to be blind not to notice the immense amount of soy beans produced in Indiana alone. My thinking, and maybe that of others like me while driving past these large soybean fields, goes like this “I eat a lot of corn, people like corn, animals probably eat corn too, but I’ve never even seen a soybean, I know soy milk is a thing, but there’s no way all of those little green plants are used to make fake milk,” and my inquisitiveness stops there. However, Patel was nice enough to show me why all those soybean plants are there, and even more prevalent in Brazil, but I’m a visible learner so I’ll follow one of his trips through soy bean life in pictures.

Step 1: Illegal farming, crushing, and transportation throughout Brazil

Cargill, based in the United States, is the largest soy producer and exporter in the Amazon, operating 13 silos in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, most of them illegally, and Green Peace tried to stop them with this banner.

Cargill, also employs the lax laws usually characteristic of countries in the global south, allowing slaves to cut down rain forests, farm soy beans, crush them, and transport them to the coast without pay. Illegally built ports create coastal agri-business hot spots that attract other black market commodities, such as drug and human trafficking.

Step 2: More Bad Stuff With a Touch of Legality

Once the soy has been illegally farmed, processed, and shipped, while simultaneously contributing to negative externalities such as human trafficking, deforestation, and removal of indigenous communities, there is still more harm to be done. But now that we’ve followed our soy past the line of poverty and into the global north of the UK, human slavery is less kosher, but CAFO’s employed by Sun Valley, a division of Cargill, are preferred (notice the lack of Sun or Valley). A pinkish McNugget slime is also created.

Lastly, these soy fattened chickens, products of slavery and deforestation, are slaughtered processed and shipped to McDonald’s. Yum.

Now I know why all these soy beans are there, and I still enjoy McDonalds, because Step 1 isn’t in my backyard. But for those that experience Step 1 first hand, affluent MST societies were created. And maybe the silver lining of this story rests in the hands of a community of farmers that, although a little misunderstood, are “not only producing new kinds of farming but new kinds of people.” A true democracy exists here, and reminds us that “though most of us live under what’s called a democracy, we’ve never tasted the real thing. And by precisely this token, we’ve never owned the mistakes that have come of poor democratic decisions- we’ve merely had them thrust upon us.” The idea of providing for ourselves has been tossed around in conversation, but finds a fruitful fruition throughout communities in Brazil. Americans may find the system radical, but a fix to hunger for everyone, and not just the majority, might have its roots in these communal farming methods.

 And in keeping with the pictures, these functional communities might be impossible and radical (The Village), or a possibility that humanity has yet to accept (MST).  

Its Just a Bean. What's the Big Deal?

The soybean is a simple vegetable that has become to be a very important part of the United States economy. It is that secret ingredient that makes massive chocolate production possible. Soybean oil is the main oil used for frying. This means most fast food industries use this oil to fry the French fries and chicken nuggets we consume. The soybeans, themselves, feed the animals that we then send to slaughter. This little bean comes full circle. It feed the animals we eat, and then allows us to fry those animals up. Wow! What a helpful vegetable.

Soybeans are not just a useful ingredient in food. They can be used as a food on their own. Some Asian countries have enjoyed using soybeans as a substitute for meat. Soybeans have many of the essential proteins our bodies need. They are low in fat, and full of protein. Since they are so good for us, why aren't most people eating them?

Through some searching, I was able to find this interesting video. It makes me wonder how "good" soybeans actually are.

Since soy is such an issue, why do people still produce it? Soybeans can be good for the environment. They are able to replace loss nutrients in the soil. This was an extremely important function after the Dust Bowl. The land had become unhealthy and dying. The soybean was used as a way to improve the soil back to a point where it was fertile again. As helpful as that was, the soybean is still not a wonderful vegetable that people may think.

Soy is all around us. It is almost impossible to go a day without being in contact with it. Soybeans go by many names and many forms in the world. This makes it even more difficult to deal with. Soybeans have become like corn: a new "amazing" food that is in everything, but no one knows it. Soybean farmers get huge subsidies to raise their crops. From the looks of it, soy products are going to be around for a long time. Hopefully our economy can last as long.

Birth rates in the US

I would like to take a few steps back to last week when we discussed Malthusianism and birth/death rates. I recently came across an article that discussing US birth rates and found it quite interesting. In class we discussed reasons for the rise and fall of birth rates (as shown on page 115 in chapter 4). We primarily discussed those reasons as being environmental (such as poor living conditions leading to higher death rates), and economic (having more children for work purposes). This article below references recent low birth rates due to economic and educational values. The US birth rate is at an all time low as of 2012. The records used for the below article state that rates are 63.0 births to every 1,000 women. I don't know about anyone else but I found that very surprising. Because families do not have a demand for children to complete labor tasks families are having fewer children. This should be seen as a positive attribute to the environment not using as many recourses and helping cost efficiency. However, the article argues that the increase of lower birth rates hurts us as a national labor force. With the decrease of recent birth the young workers labor pool is becoming scarce and will slowly begin effecting the economy as a whole.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/index.html 

I also came across a short video clip discussing the resent fall in birth rates all over the world. I found it interesting one of the points it touches upon is women's education. Because women across the country are being more educated in various areas they are putting off family and marriage to continue education goals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOuzC0UMBHQ 


The question this sparked in my mind was: Do you believe birth rates have done down due to economic reasons or more due education reasons?