The place that I live in is a small, 9x1 mile island, filled with natural landscape and gorgeous ocean views. I have had many encounters with nature in my hometown, just enjoying being on the ocean or hiking the cliffs at the end of the island. Because I have lived there since I was four-years-old, I had taken the beautiful scenery for granted and never appreciated how lucky I was to live in just a tranquil place.

After leaving my peaceful little island for the bustling city of DC, I quickly began to realize how much I missed the calm ocean always in sight and the quiet nature. I noticed every siren that passed by my window, every loud student voice through the dorm halls, and the lights that never seemed to turn off, blocking out the view of stars at night.

When I returned home for the first time, I travelled to the cliffs at the end of the island by myself. It was a sunny day, but crisp and windy. I walked down a path that my friends and I had always journeyed down whenever we were bored afterschool on a nice day. Once at the end of the path, I sat on the rocks by the water and felt the ocean spray on my face. The wind was chilly, but it didn’t even matter because at that moment I felt free and at peace. Because the cliffs of Fort Wethirill are at the end of the island it opened up to the Atlantic Ocean. As I sat there I realized just how vast the earth is. I did not realize how much I had missed nature and the tranquility of the water until that moment. Being in a city, I have very limited access to quiet nature, and I now appreciate the small town of Jamestown, Rhode Island so much more.

Going off of this experience with nature, I do believe that saving nature is extremely important. Nature provides homes for animals, natural services and not to mention calming experiences such as mine previously described. The more we destroy nature, the more detached from those experiences we will become.

Grass is Not Just Grass

Having grown up in a tiny Swiss village of 1,200 inhabitants, located in a valley in between hills covered with fields and forests, the non-human world has always made up a large part of my familiar environment. Almost fairytale-like, the singing of the birds outside my window used to wake me up in the mornings, morning frost on the fields announced the coming winter, and crossing paths with deer, badgers, or foxes while jogging was part of my daily routine – thus, the presence of nature was in my human life was nothing out of the ordinary for me.

However, one experience with and in the non-human world I remember as having stood out as especially thrilling and magical was my herbarium school project – although in the very beginning, after having received the instruction of putting together a collection of 150 different dried plants that are mounted and systematically classified for study, I was not too excited about this time-consuming and meticulous task.

My high school biology professor, Professor Heitz, was a renown specialist of botany and the curator of the herbarium of the Swiss Society of botany, who dedicated his life to the study of plants. To be able to share and convey his love for the flora and fauna of Switzerland, Professor Heitz had become a high school teacher and with my class being his very last one before his retirement, he seemed especially compelled to achieve this goal.

While Professor Heitz put great time and effort into teaching the subject of biology, he expected the very same dedication from his students, which made his class challenging for all of us but at the same time highly educational. His assignments were complex and time-consuming, demanding for the students to immerse themselves in the subject to gain a real understanding of it.

The scholastic climax of the class formed the senior project of composing a collection of 150 different dried plants that are mounted and systemically classified for study – a so-called herbarium. In other words, the assignment consisted of getting out into nature, collecting plants – it could be leafs of trees, flowers, grasses, etc. – drying them by putting them into a plant press and once completely dry, classifying them using a plant classification guide, recording a detailed description about the plant, its appearance and its natural habitat, and then beautifully arranging them in a folder. Not surprisingly, my class, including me, didn’t seem utterly thrilled about the reception of this instruction of how to complete the project, as the numerous work hours it would require to make our own herbarium were already calling our names.

However, we had no option but to get to work. The following weeks, I spent every possible hour either in the woods or in a field, with the plant classification guide under one arm, a bag for my collection of plants in the other, and a magnifying glass in my pocket, searching for 150 different organisms, which formed part of the flora and fauna of the environment I lived in. And once I really took on the assignment, my negative attitude towards it changed completely. Being forced to look closely to look at the immense variety of living entities that formed the nature I lived my life in, I came to realize the scope of biodiversity that existed.

The task shifted my focus of looking at nature as a backdrop to my human activity to acknowledging the fact that my human existence is embedded in the complex of the billions of existences, human or non-human, that together make up life on this planet. I recognized that grass is not just grass, but there exists a gigantic variety among the different forms of grasses, each of which possesses unique characteristics. At the same time, though, there exist families of plants that are related to each other, that share certain features while each of them retains its uniqueness at the same time.

In this sense, the experience of composing my own herbarium allowed me look at plants form a different perspective that I used to. This new perspective, then, enabled me to experience the most magical engagement with the non-human world I’ve had: an engagement based on the realization that plants, like I, as a human being, a living entities that form together the complexity of life on earth. Not only did it change my appreciation of the non-human, but instead, it changed the relationship I see myself being in with the environment.

Consequently, “saving nature” saving nature is not just something we should “concern” ourselves with but we should make it one of the top priorities on our human agenda. Nature does not simply compose a background in front of which human activities are performed but instead, human beings are one component of life of earth and nature forms another. Thus, we are intimately connected with and dependent on nature as with our her, life on earth is not possible.

However, it is important for me to point out that I don’t want to make the argument that we should “save nature” for the sake of humanity. Engaging with the flora and fauna that surrounds us, I come to realize that human beings are just a small part of life. Instead, “saving nature” is crucial to allow life in general on the planet earth, as without the non-human world, not only humanity, but life in general will no longer be possible.

Quite honestly, at times I feel like human beings, as a form of life, might no be able to live on earth forever and I am not sure whether I think this is a bad thing – many other species have become extinct before. However, what I think cannot happen is that human beings, as one single species that through its technological capabilities has come to be a driver of environmental change, not only destroy their own capabilities for life but also those of all other species or other forms of life.

Non-Human Worldly Engagements

Before answering the first question, I'm going to be a jerk and go into semantics:

"The non-human world" -being a human and engaging in the environment makes at least that specific part of the environment very much human. Even if I were alone and there were no other humans in sight, humans would still have a significant effect on that environment and my experience. The fact that that area is considered "non-human" by some is a direct result of human interaction. Why was one area specifically set aside for conservation and not others? In Second Nature, Michael Pollan points out that most "natural areas" today are not how they had been before European colonization or even before the Indians arrived for that matter. As a result it is very difficult to encounter parts of the earth that would be considered "non-human," and, once encountered, they would cease to remain in that state.

Engagement, also, implies action and/or interaction. A passive engagement is not really an option. Many environmental theorists would probably agree that our relationship with the environment cannot be (and is not) passive. This goes back to biology -each organism plays an equally important role in the environment and and every decision has effects on the surrounding area (whether intentional or not). But active and passive are also very subjective words, since we have active listening, engaging the senses. This appears to be a one-way interaction--nature impresses us and wows our senses, but we (ideally) don't return the favor. Does this then constitute an engagement? If not, since we have to interact with nature, what is the best way for us to return the favor? We could reflect how nature interacts with us and have a passive relationship. But could we?

Regardless, it's still awesome to think of my engagements with the non-human world -and important as well. Reflecting on it makes us appreciate it more and reminds us what we're destroying/preserving with our decisions. For me, being at a high point and looking down on nature is the best because it reminds me of the vastness of nature. Micro is equally important but for me it's (slightly) easier for me to fathom the evolution/composition of a singular organism before the vastness of nature. The specific engagement that comes to mind is looking on Machu Picchu from Machu Picchu mountain which towers a good 600 meters above the ruins. Having hiked there, my body and soul were very appreciative of the view and I was able to get a more personal interaction with the environment--looking at the mountain does not give you the same impression that climbing for hours upon asthmatic hours does. At an elevation of 10,009 feet, I could see the folds of the surrounding land, covered in rainforest. The mountains looked like wrinkles in a dark green velvet cloth that blanketed the jungles eastern Peru. I had similar, less heart-warming experience as I looked out the window of the plane as we passed over Miami (the seemingly endless grids of human consumption); nature got in our way, so we shoved it aside. When you look from above you see things, key results of our actions, that are too often missed.

* * *

As for part II I feel like the phrase "saving nature" is pejorative and a poor representation of the situation. Nature is not a child who needs to be saved from the deep end of a swimming pool. Nature is very capable of swimming and adapting to new situations. Our actions have brought nature to its current situation and it is our actions that we must save. This may be an anthropocentric approach, however I feel that treating nature like a baby and not emphasizing the destructiveness of our decisions will hinder us from real environmental progress.

When facing the first part of this question, I was immediately flooded with an array of enchanting experiences I have had with the non-human world. I try to be outside as much as possible, something I have strived to do since I was young. I grew up in Northern California and spent much time hiking nearby mountains and swimming in the ocean. Yet my best experiences with nature come from my travels; as an avid traveler, I have spent much time exploring the non-human world in other countries. After mentally sifting through my experiences, I remembered one experience which has stuck with me and still affects me to this day.

Last semester I studied abroad in Cape Town, South Africa. I lived at the base of Table Mountain, twenty minutes from the ocean, two hours from the rolling hills of wine country. Yet my most thrilling engagement with the non-human world occurred when I went on a road trip through Southern Africa for the summer. Part of the trip consisted of us driving through Botswana and stopping off in the Kalahari Desert. While there, we hired a guide to drive us to a salt pan nearby where we were camping. Known as the Makgadikgadi Pan, the area is one of the largest salt pans in the world and was once the bed of Lake Makgadikgadi. This lake used to exist three million years ago, but has since completely dried. When we arrived at the location, we were driven into the center of the pan which took ages. Finally the driver stopped and we were able to get out. The ground beneath us was dry and cracked, yet slightly soft and bouncy. As far as the eye could see was ground like this, with absolutely nothing in view but the same landscape. There were no trees, no shrubbery, and no animals. We immediately scattered in all directions in order to experience the view individually. I eventually walked so far the truck we arrived in was only almost nonexistent, and I was unable to see the outline of any of my friends despite the flatness of the region. Being alone in such a flat expanse of desert had a profound effect on me. I felt immediately engulfed by its power and sheer size. I struggled with bliss stemming from such beauty and also with fear from such power, as I felt incredibly trivial. From this, I realized how important nature is in conjuring up these sentiments simultaneously. As I was becoming aware of this, a single orange butterfly passed by me. As another life form, I felt an immediate connection to it. Though even smaller than I, this butterfly was similarly experiencing the same connection to nature, and I immediately admired its struggle to pass through a daunting region of arid, uninhabited land. Unfortunately, human beings do not have the same courage, but rather attempt to trump such landscapes in order to accommodate and manipulate.

For me, nature’s beauty comes from its ability to make us feel insignificant. It makes us feel as though there is something larger, something beyond our individual worlds, something that can engulf us. It is unfortunate that humans have slowly come to dominate earth and the environment because we have lost a lot of these feelings that nature invoke in us. We have this pretentious assumption that we are superior because we have tools that can conquer both the human and non-human world. Yet being in possession of such tools does not mean we have to wield them. It is incredibly important for us to realize our place in nature, especially now in our current state of environmental degradation. If we continue to ignore nature by cutting down trees, polluting the air, damaging other species, and destroying ecosystems, we will become so far removed that we are unable to see the larger picture. I remember when I lived in South Africa I would notice large, imposing trees that looked a little too perfect and slightly out of place. After encountering a few of these trees I realized they were not trees at all, but rather telephone polls that are disguised as trees to create an illusion of nature. A lot of our world now consists of such illusions, which suggests we care only for the image rather than for the meaning. It is important to diverge from such attempts to create nature and rather focus on attempts to preserve nature. Striving to save true nature will not only help to make us more humble and aware that we are merely a small portion of the entire earth, but it will also ensure that future generations will similarly experience the beauty of nature and its overwhelming power.

What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?

When I first read this question, I was surprised about how hard I had to think about my "non-human" experiences with nature. It's unfortunate that most of these experiences are so "enchanting" because they're so rare in our lifetimes. I am lucky enough to have had many opportunities to experience some really spectacular scenes in my life so far. One of the most memorable for me however was my time spent in the Rainforest in Ecuador. I spent two weeks in the cloud forest on an ecological reserve in Maquipucuna, Ecuador. This protected area was thousands of hectares in diameter and was only inhabited by small communities few and far between. I traveled there with a class of fellow students studying eco-tourism and bio-engineering. In order to get to where we were staying, we had to hike through the rainforest for 10 wet, muddy, and muscle-tiring hours, and it was one of the best experiences of my life. The species and things I saw that day were uncomparable to anything else. I saw a glowing round worm that was up to a meter long, a leaf the size of door, bird and plant species that I didn't even think existed -- it was all incredible!. Being throw into a natural environment where you are by no means the dominating species is quite humbling. From spotting Tucans on the highest tree branch, waking up early to the symphony of birds and the flitting up hummingbirds, showering and washing your clothes outdoors, bathing in the river, hand-picking coffee beans, and planting trees on the forest path, it's hard to not feel connected to the world around you. This experience truly was a defining moment in my life. The kind where you reflect on the things that are most important and where you really begin to understand the meaning of an "ecosystem" filled with thousands of species of plants and animals.

So do I think we should concern ourselves with "saving" nature? Absolutely. But, like Bill McKibben, I do also think we need to be realistic about the loss we've already incurred and the loss we will incur in the coming years. Environmental change will take a long time even if we're on the right track. And since we haven't found that path quite yet, it will be even longer. I wish that we could just put a big net around everything we want to protect, but the truth is that the world's ecosystems are still organisms that are affected by everything around them, good and bad. As much as I would like to think that we are going to make swift changes to our lifestyles, I know that isn't true. So what do we decide to protect and how? I think that what we need to worry about is not necessarily individual species (although the token ones do pull on our heart strings) but the health of ecosystems as a whole. What can we do to make sure this ecosystem isn't degraded to the point where it is affecting our climate and global temperatures? I truly believe that everybody needs to start looking at the BIGGER picture. I hope that one day, a child 100 years from now can trudge through the Rainforest and spot a colorful Tucan, but realistically, I know it's not about that one species, protecting the "natural environment" is about slowly replacing our toxic habits with better ones. All animals are creatures of habit, and as such, we hate change. Change for anyone is very difficult, so it's hard for me to imagine everybody being willing to change what they feel they are entitled to. The only way people will change is if they are forced to change through infrastructure. How long that will take is very difficult to predict.

Lighting Africa

http://www.lightingafrica.org/

In my search for an uplifting environmental story, I remembered a program I heard about called Lighting Africa, which is a program run by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. Lighting Africa is interesting because it attempts to completely transform entire communities and countries. Without light, people lack productivity at night, as their activity is dictated by natural light and dark. Because of the need for light, many African countries unable to afford electricity resort to fuel-based resources which are burned for lighting. One such fuel is kerosene, which is expensive; according to the website, African households using these fuels spend around thirty percent of their disposable income in order to experience lighting. Additionally, fuel-based lighting can cause health problems and can be a fire hazard. While these issues are of great concern, another detrimental side effect of such fuel-based lighting stems from the Greenhouse Gases which are emitted. Thus, not only is it in the interest of these families financially to change from such a system, but it is in the interest of the international community to help mitigate these problems by establishing lighting alternatives for Sub-Saharan Africa.

This is where Lighting Africa comes in. The point of the program is to develop a cheaper and cleaner way of lighting Sub-Saharan Africa, for those who do not have access to an electricity grid. Given this, the program focuses on implementing non-electricity grid options which allow people in the region opportunities which their electricity grid counterparts receive. The website states that the program offers customers the latest LED, florescent, human-cranking, and solar technologies.

What is key here is how affordable these technologies are supposed to be. This way Africans are able to focus on their own development as individuals rather than on attempting to be sustainable. I think there is a major issue with people believing they have to focus either on their own sustainability or the sustainability of the environment. Unfortunately, I would assume that underdeveloped communities are focused less on helping the environment and more on ensuring their own survival. While a completely legitimate notion, there are issues which stem from this, as people may ignore actions which lead to environmental degradation. Thus, Lighting Africa in theory is effective in the way it attempts to address this concern by offering lighting that is good for both the environment and people’s budgets. Furthermore, by creating a foundation consisting of efficient, cheap, and clean lighting for developing communities, Lighting Africa is attempting to place these communities on the “bottom rung of the economic ladder”, which Jeffery Sachs argues is the first step toward entering the global market economy. Ultimately, while there may be problems with top-down transformation and development like this, Lighting Africa is an attempt to address both environmental and economic issues in order to build a better future for Africans as well as the rest of the world.

The Power of Community Action

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/fashion/14CircaNow.html?ref=environment

While sifting through the NY Times Environmental section, I came across a rather uplifting article called: "Local Efforts to Help the Earth". This article relays just how important small, community action really is in changing the environmental scene in this country. There are a variety of avenues to take towards political and environmental change, and one of the big ones is mobilizing the community and small-scale action.
The article opens with an example of a 82 year old woman working in Concord, MA to ban the selling of water bottles in her city/county. This is followed by several examples in several cities of people (and groups of people) working towards bettering their local communities by embracing change and making concerted efforts to change the patterns of waste. One of the more inspiring examples came from Greensburg, Kan. "After a tornado destroyed 95 percent of the town[, they were] determined to reinvent [themselves] as a model for eco-living." It goes on to explain that originally, the perception in Greensburg of being "green" was that of "tree-huggers and crazies," as they put it. But after the tornado, the people really started to think differently about the idea, and now all of their electricity is being generated from local wind farms. 
This article gave me some hope amidst all the downer environmental news because it gave concrete examples that people around the country really do care about change, and that the message is reaching farther than the liberal coasts of America.

Green Healthcare

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/12/2306254/welch-allyn-ceo-promotes-environmentally.html

When it comes to environmental protection, I immediately think of policies, treaties, Green Peace demonstrations, or Hybrid cars – but with healthcare I would have never made an association when it come to being “green.” However, the following article proves my mental connections between environmental protection and aspects of human life wrong; it showed me that potential for change lies in different aspects and parts of modernity and thus gives me hope that a shift away from destruction to appreciation, and thus conservation, in terms of the relationship between the human world and nature is possible.

On Tuesday, October 12, the Kansas City Star reported in the article “Welch Allyn CEO Promotes Environmentally Conscious, Higher Performance Healthcare at Tijuana Innovadora 2010” that Welch Allyn President and CEO Julie Shimer advocated in her keynote speech at the two-week conference, featuring important corporations from around the world, for an environmentally conscious healthcare. She argued that the healthcare industry has the duty to provide practitioners and patients with the necessary tools and technology that would not end up harming the earth.

She explained that healthcare is one of the most wasteful, most energy-consuming, and most resource-demanding industries and thus, in light of environmental change, needs fundamental changes. Nevertheless, Shimer pointed out that “today, many healthcare facilities are focusing on sustainable methods to better serve patients that, in turn, will reduce costs and lessen the impact on the environment. This puts us (…) in a unique position to make a clear commitment to health and wellbeing of the planet along with the people who live on it;” or in other words a “high-performance healing environment.”

Shimer then went on by highlighting some of the environmental steps Welch Allyn has recently taken. Its headquarter renovations and expansions project features green systems and can expect the achievement of an LEED silver certification as the very first Central New York manufacturer. It eradicated mercury-containing medical devices and replaced them with affordable and more environmentally-friendly versions. Also, it is conducting research on alterative methods of power delivery as well as recyclable component options for its products. Lastly, it has adopted a “life cycle” perspective when evaluating the impact of its products, so that all steps, from material extraction, to manufacturing, to transportation, to disposal, are included and the full scope can be determined.

The article concludes with an analysis of Welch Allyn’s presence in Mexico, which explains its strong presence at the conference n Tijuana. It opened a manufacturing plant, maquiladora, in 2006 to produce blood pressure cuff products, thermistor-based devices and thermometer prove covers. As an employer of 500 people, Welch Allyn was voted “Best Places to Work in Mexico” and received recognition for its excellent business practices from local commissions in both 2009 and 2010.

The article demonstrates that in a world of capitalism, in which healthcare can be considered a mayor player, the production of more is not always the only goal. While Welch Allyn still wants to be on the winning side of the world market competition, Julie Shimer demonstrates that not all means are justified to get there. Her focus, which reflects the company’s position, of taking into account the environment while producing the goods for the healthcare industry shows that an ideological change is occurring, away from a solely human focal point to a more inclusive one, which acknowledges the environmental as integral part of life.

But why would such a view be adopted in health care without being a more general tendency of society? I believe that Paul Wapner, in his article “People, Nature, and Ethics” provided the explanation for this phenomenon. He states “I am pessimistic about extending moral status to other living things and systems without first witnessing an upgrade in the way people treat each other. Unless humans learn how to practice ethical considerations toward other humans, transferring this consideration to the nonhuman world will be merely rhetorical” (356).

Healthcare, in its essence, aims at providing the tools and technology to heal people and thus improve or save their lives. Thus, an ethical consideration toward other human beings is the origin for this industry, and its inclusion in the “Best Places to Work and Mexico” combined with excellent business practices provides evidence for it. Therefore, I would argue, using Wapner’s thesis, because this human ethic already prevailed in healthcare, the step to extending it to the environment is easier for this particular industry that, let’s say, the weapons and munitions industry.

However, the efforts Welch Allyn has taken and continues to do so still deserve recognition and celebration, especially because the healthcare sector is not commonly cited as positive example in the “green” movement. At least, I personally, have never considered the healthcare industry to be particularly conscious about its impact on the environment. However, this article has proven me wrong and given me hope that change is actually possible; and I believe articles likes this one, demonstrating the successful efforts taken by an individual player in our modern world can motivate others to do so, as they see that adopting to green principle doesn’t mean business bankruptcy but instead, successful results can still be achieved and that others are also investing time and money in making their contribution to change and if joined by others, the impact thereof will be even greater.

Water Buffalo Uplift Farming in Thailand

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia-pacific/2010/10/2010106102524246455.html

A cooperative has been started in a Northeastern province of Thailand that aims to reestablish the use of buffalos in farming. As part of the grassroots community program, new buffalo are being retrained to work in the fields (they are, after all, animals, and must be domesticated). "The hardest part" though, said a member of the cooperative "isn't breaking these animals in, it's convincing more farmers to use them." Even in developing countries the concept of technology seems like such a panacea that we forget the most simple solutions. Thailand had been exporting its buffalos to Laos and Cambodia while it struggled to plow small farming plots with big heavy tractors.
The benefits to this program are significant:
-Social capital -community members are invested in each others' success. These ties can help in other areas of life, such as caring for the elderly, child rearing, in the case of a natural disaster, etc. The return of the use of the buffalo also helps the community members retain their traditions.
-Better growing conditions -the manure from the buffalo is an organic and free fertilizer. Compared to the tractors, the buffalo are much more agile and do not crush the ground with their weight. Environmentally, there is less pollution from the tractors.
-Economically -Do not have to purchase fuel for the tractor or pay for repairs. Do not have to purchase fertilizer. Much more economically logical for the small farms typical of the area.

The news article concludes with the acknowledgment of the fact that tractors will not just disappear. This is very reflective of reality—doing away with technology is not the answer. Like all best solutions, finding a middle ground is the best track.

It's all about the taste

Food is what makes life worth living for me – it’s very simple: I love to eat. If I want to treat myself to something special, it is no shopping spree or a day at the spa, it’s either cooking an elaborate meal with special ingredients or a visit to a restaurant.

But where does this importance of food come in my life? I would argue from my family. When I remember the best moments of my childhood and my time growing up, the memories are always related to food. It can be a home-cooked meal, a dinner at my grandparents, or the experience of tasting real Italian pasta during a family vacation. Thus, when I decide what to eat, it’s all about the taste for me.
However, I believe that my mother, who embraces cooking as a form of art, taught me what to value in food and I can see her influence in my daily food choices today. It has always been and continues to be a ritual of us, a “mom-and-daughter thing” if you want it – to go for groceries together and she would show me what produce to buy, what ingredients to combine, and what flavors to look for.

I guess it is important to note here that because I have spent all my life until I was 19 living in a small village in Switzerland, most grocery stores would carry produce from local farmers, many of whom I know personally. Thus, we would always try to buy products from our very own region to support members of our own community, but also because we knew how they were produced, how fresh they were, and we could be sure that would be tasty. Furthermore, this proximity to local food sources also determined the selection of produce to be found. For example, until I have come to the United States, I have never seen strawberries being available in December, as winter is simply not the season to grow them in Switzerland.
Additionally, because farms are part of many Swiss communities, people relate to cattle as living organisms and value their good treatment very much. I would not eat meat from a cow, from which I know that it hadn’t been given the chance to graze fields, as I neither believe this to be a “humane” treatment of the animal, but also because I don’t think it’s healthy for it. However, I can understand that a person who grew up in a big urban city, such as New York, he or she doesn’t have a personal relationship with animals and therefore does not even come to consider these reasons as important for his or her choice in food.

Along those lines, I am very troubled with the idea of genetically modified food out of similar reasons. I don’t believe that human beings are capable to understand and capture the full complexity of nature, and, therefore, their interfering with it in such fundamental ways scares me. I don’t think we truly know what side effects the scientific modifications have, and I feel more secure by simply eating not genetically modified foods, which generations and generations of people before us have done and have fared well with. Nevertheless, I might be wrong with that, but because I grew up in an environment that for long periods of time had been dependent on nature, and of which some members continue to do so, my relationship with nature does somehow not allow me to fully embrace this concept.

Thus, in short, I value food. I value it as part of my life, as part of my family, and as part of my environment. Because I grew up surrounded by local food production and cattle herding, I believe having a different relationship to food than people who have spent their lives living in urban areas and the different values that I place in food emerge from that.

However, once having moved to the United States and Washington D.C., I had to find out that it was a lot harder to make the same food choices here that I would make at home. Food that is considered organic here, is mostly standard in Switzerland, and in order to buy products that I feel comfortable buying, I need to pay a price that is almost dangerous to my student budget. Thus, to be able to embrace food in the way I know, I had to change and adapt my diet. I used to eat meat 3 times a week, now, I only do so on Sundays. This allows me to safe enough money to buy meat that comes from farms that treat their animals in fair ways. I buy bread once a week in the farmer’s market from a local producer and freeze it, so it will last for the week. I limit my fruit variety to a minimum, as besides apples, most of the exotic kind is imported from South America or some other distant part of the world that tells me that it could not have had enough time to truly ripen and develop the flavor I would be looking for. Thus, with those changes, I was able to continue making food choices that allow me enjoying food in the way I always have. It might be a little more difficult and costly than back home, but it is possible.

Thus, when thinking about my food choices of the last two days, I wouldn’t consider them exciting, as they are limited to apples, bread, water, tea, chicken breasts, rice, and Swiss chocolate (which I brought with me myself), but I know that I didn’t do as much damage to the environment, neither to myself, eating them. The biggest impact I assume has the rice, as for the basic staples I don’t shop at organic markets. I would assume it was industrially produced somewhere in the world and used high amounts of energy not just in its harvesting but also in its transportation.

To conclude, I do believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the modern food production, as it puts a conscious consumer through so much trouble and costs. And as Michael Pollan points out in his New York Times article The Vegetable-Industrial Complex, it poses a threat to public health and national security. Consequently, I hope that there will be a movement to more local food production in the near future that embraces factors of quality over quantity that make good food choices easier and even available to a majority of the people. Not only will it be better for the environment, but also for individuals: at least in my opinion, when I know where my food is coming from and how it is grown, it always tastes better.

Discussion Question 5: Food

As I've grown to notice, I am very indecisive and inconsistent in my environmental actions and opinions. I'm not sure if it's comforting to know I'm not alone. Call me John Kerry, but I'm a flip-flopper. I started the farmers market on campus (something I spent a lot of time and effort on which I have not regretted for a second) and yet I eat unhealthy, horribly processed foods from all over the globe. Food has always been a frustrating subject for me -- not its affects on me personally (I don't have issues with my weight/health and I'm not a picky eater). What frustrates me are the following:

Price. I am extremely frugal and I dislike spending money on myself. I also am very against spending money I do not have. A girl can get by on Ramen noodle soup. Looking at the prices in the grocery store, I get extremely frustrated. The $4 I spend on a box of crackers goes through so many people before reaching the grain harvester or factory laborer. The $4 pays for the packaging I am not interested in and the corporate bosses I have never been a fan of. For some reason, not paying for food, even if it is from far away places or grown under destructive conditions, seems to justify my eating it. By getting it for free I am making a statement that it is not worthy of the work I did to earn that money. I shun the use of the money that propels the system of unjust payment hierarchies in the food indusrty. Farmers markets may be expensive, but at least I know where my money is going. If I play my cards right (or bills, in this case), I don't end up spending more money there. And I certainly end up eating healthier.

Time. Definitely the biggest frustration. Hunger is time-sensitive. It's a shame I can't do all my cooking and eating for the week on Sundays. I could then work through my lunch breaks, go home early, and get my homework done at a reasonable hour. But I already kind of do that by cooking in big batches and freezing leftovers in tupperware. But when I leave for work in the morning and return from my day at midnight, I don't want to carry a picnic basket along with my laptop, books, and gym clothes. Having to cook is not actually a pain for me. I love putting on my apron, spilling flour everywhere, dancing to music as I scrub the dishes, making it a social occasion, and tasting it as I go. If only I could do that for every meal. But let's take my Mondays, for example: Up at 8am - instant oatmeal and a banana for breakfast (let's ignore the factory processing, worker discrimination, and oil burned on production transportation of that meal); 8:30-9 on bus/metro to campus (no eating allowed!); library time 9-9:45 (no eating there!); class 9:55-5pm (in ten minutes between classes I barter baked goods I had made on Sunday for a meal swipe into either campus Boxed Lunch or Tavern; neither of which are local, organic, socially responsible, etc); 5-8pm ultimate frisbee practice -dinner either tupperware from home or meal swipe from freshman friend; 8pm-midnight work; home by 12:45. I am usually hungry again by the time I reach home and am Not in the mood to spend time making a meal or snack. That's usually when I go for the sweet peppers/carrots/cucumbers in the fridge.

Industrialization. I'm not sure if you could tell by my blog post on technology, but I tend to sway away from it. The whirr of machines does not sooth me; I look for ways to do things myself before a machine gets involved. With food it is difficult to avoid it. Unless you purchase unpackaged food from farmers markets, you will run into it everywhere. I tried to eat only from farmers markets for a full semester and it was darn hard. I ended up not saying no to free food (who does that), which made the experiment significantly flawed. I would also eat out about once or twice a week in a social setting. Regardless of its success, I did learn a thing or two. The hardest for me were my cravings: chocolate, candy, and soda. The only time I got these was when it was for free, and boy was I excited. I also had trouble with certain processed foods I had gotten used to: ice cream, peanut butter, sauces. Farmers markets do provide some of these things, but the more processing they need the much higher the price (jelly, honey, bread, baked goods, salsa, etc). Another problem is that I had gotten used to eating food from other parts of the world. In my "experiment" I had to cheat to buy spices for what I was cooking. I have gotten used to eating a banana for breakfast, but Virginia isn't really known for its tropical rain forests. Sure, it's a pain in the neck sometimes to make sure I go to Dupont Circle on Sundays, Eastern market on Saturdays, or Van Ness on Tuesdays (to name a few), but I so much love the atmosphere of farmers markets -- the smells, the outdoors, the happy people, the cooking ideas -- that is the least of my worries. I have grown up with easy, unquestioned access to international and processed food that it seems preposterous for me to not be able to cook a curry or cinnamon muffins or a peach pie in November. I would say that the use of small things like spices aren't what we need to target. It's the culture of smug compliance with industrialized food that enables unsustainable living.

Dicussion Question # 5

As you know, we'll be talking about food and agriculture during our next couple of sessions. Here are some questions to ponder (and respond to on your blogs) as we look to our next class:

1. What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or are there other considerations that determine what you eat?

2. Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why? What goes in to such a calculation?

Technology: A Tool, Not the Driver

GPS, iPhone, Microwave, Airplanes, Laptop, Anti-Aging Sun Block, Flu Shots, Air Condition – the list of items that have been made possible thanks to technology seems never-ending and it is almost impossible to imagine life without most of them. However, while technology is often considered the extension of natural capabilities, as it helps for example elongating the human life span through medical machines, and thus overcome any issue or limitation that human beings are confronted with, I believe this assumption to be wrong.

So far the advantages produced by technology for developed and developing countries have outweighed the disadvantages, or at least been paid less attention, - nuclear energy powering the households of millions of people vs. two atom bombs some people far away from Western eyes (I hope the sarcastic tone reads through this line) – but I believe the human impact on the environment and the destruction that we have caused confronts us with the brutal reality: technology is NOT the silver bullet to everything. It can only address the symptoms of the environmental challenge we face today but the actual cause for it lies in the dominant ideology of unlimited, competitive consumerism, and moreover, it itself has become one of the driving forces in the destruction of the environment as one of the major tools of this mentality. Thus, only a fundamental change in the way human beings think of themselves in relationship to others and nature will solve the serious issue they face and, thus, will allow technology, a human creation, into true instruments for positive change.

In this sense, I very much agree with Ashley’s argument that “we claim it [technology] will ‘save’ us, failing to realize that it will not save us, for only we can. By assuming this, we are placing the responsibility of change on inanimate objects and abstract concepts.” I think she raises an extremely important point in her post, as human beings have come to consider technology autonomous. As we discussed in last week’s class, because technology has developed and advanced so quickly in the last decades, the constant “revolutions” that are introduced to the market seem to have a life on their own as they are extremely hard to grasp for regular people. Ashley supports this point with the just cited passage.

However, I believe that by reminding ourselves that technology is a product of the human mind and thus no powerful entity flying over our heads, the direction it takes stems also from people’s input. Thus, technology itself is and cannot be the solution to the environmental destruction, but neither is it the source of this evil. Instead, human beings have to assume responsibility for the impact they possess on their environment, be it human or natural, which will require a fundamental change in ideology; the currently dominant dogma of unlimited, competitive consumerism portrays the world as the playfield of competitors who can emerge as winner if they can consume more of the unlimited resources that exist in comparison to their opponents. However, neither are the resources limited nor does a consumption of more result in a victory nor do human beings naturally stand in competition to each other.

Bill Joy’s article “Why the future doesn’t need us” that we had to read for last week’s class really left a strong impression on me in regards to this issue, as he as a man heavily involved in the technological world of toady (he is the cofounder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems) has come to a similar conclusion when considering the relationship between technology and the environment. He states: “our Western notion of happiness seems to come from the Greeks, who defined it as ‘the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope (…) But I believe we must find alternative outlets for our creative forces, beyond the culture of perpetual economic growth; this growth has been a blessing for several hundred years, but it has not brought us unalloyed happiness, and we must now choose between the pursuit of unrestricted and undirected growth through science and technology and the clear accompanying dangers.”

The scientist clearly identifies technology as a tool created and used by human beings and acknowledges the importance it has carried for the development of humanity up to today. However, he does not close his eyes in front of the unpleasant reality that the negative aspects of it have emerged more recently. He thus suggests that human beings, who themselves are the drivers behind every technological advancement, change their perspective from an outdated ideology ancient Greeks once developed to a more appropriate one in regards to the current reality. This fundamental change in mentality will mean a alteration of life as we know it today, but Joy points out that the destructive processes that result from the current way of human life will not stop otherwise.

In this sense, his argument supports my point that technology is only a tool human beings utilize according to their perspective of the world. Technology has been present for centuries but both its destructive and its “healing” powers have truly been assumed as absolutes in the last two centuries. Thus, as the meaning and importance of technology has developed with human beings, it can neither be the cause of destruction of the environment nor the silver bullet to it. Consequently, only a change in the way human beings think of themselves in relationship to others and the environment will allow tackling the serious issue of environmental degradation, as it is the basic assumption driving every technological invention, and it will offer technology the chance to truly become an instrument for positive change.

Curbing Our Addiction

Technology has provided the human race with an array of beneficial change. It has contributed to our success as a species, yet at the expense of other species as well as the environment. We have become more affluent and more populous as a result of our technology. Where we lack in physical power we make up in intellectual power, and we have been able to wield this power to encroach on the lives of others. Consider the tragedy of the commons. We have attempted to progress and gain individually (and as a species) for so long that we have now depleted our resources at the cost of both ourselves and other species. As the tools and results of our intellectual power, technology has been used over the centuries to create this tragedy of the commons. And yet today, when we are faced with serious issues as a result of our indifference toward the environment, we still turn to technology as a solution. Such ideas as developing mirrors to reflect the sun’s rays and trees to absorb carbon dioxide illuminate our serious addiction to technology.

Why this addiction? As a tool technology has brought us advancement beyond our wildest dreams, and is still able to propel us further. Each year we seem to be advancing more; consider the ability of smart phones to connect us to the internet virtually anywhere we go, which is quite a leap from where cell phones were five years ago. We savor this constant transformation and the incessant upgrades because we are addicted to progress. And technology has been able to provide us this progress. However, this progress has contributed to our high consumption levels, so while our social world may be advancing, our natural world is dwindling. Despite the damage we have caused using technology, many cornucopians today argue that the solution is to advance more, namely through technology.

Assuming technology is the sole solution is to ignore the dark side of the tools we have created. Giving it such power implies that we are unable to turn to other viable options as a way to combat our issues. Rather, I think it is neutral and can be used to both aid and hinder us. Consider antibiotics, condoms, airplanes, and forms of communication. These are just a few of the ways we have been able to utilize our intelligence to advance our race. Yet when we consider technological inventions like these, we assume that technology is an entity separate from us. With this, we fall victim to imagining technology wields immense power and can thus save us. Yet placing such power and autonomy on technology is dangerous when it comes to the environment; with our new focus on attempting to reverse the environmental degradation we have caused, we have turned to technology as our saving grace. We claim it will “save” us, failing to realize that it will not save us, for only we can (and who knows if that is even possible). By assuming this, we are placing the responsibility of change on inanimate objects and abstract concepts. We got ourselves into this situation, now we need to rely on ourselves, and not the technological products of our intelligence (which, let’s face it, have not gotten the environment very far) to rise out of the ashes of the damaged environment.

Essentially, I am trying to argue that we need to take responsibility for what we have done to the environment. We have slowly but consistently destroyed it, partially through our technological advancements, and must now determine how to address what we have done. This may be through technology, but what is key here is to realize that technology cannot be a solution in itself, it can merely be a tool we may choose to utilize to aid this solution. It is important that we stop and realize that in our technologically savvy world, technology is just a product of our minds and intellectual capabilities. Furthermore, I agree with Bill McKibben that we need to reassess the dominant notion that progress is universally advantageous. By stripping ourselves of this ridiculous assumption we can begin to use technology as a way to live in harmony with the environment rather than attempting to trump it. If we fail to do this, we may find that in the long run our addiction will hinder our advancement more than anything.