Over the years I have limited my diet, not so much based on the ideal of my environmental impact, but mainly due to food preparation. The media has a large role in this, and the way I look at food has never been the same.
When I was in my freshman year of high school, I saw super size me. Seeing how food was processed, where the food came from, learning the countless number of chemicals put into each meal and seeing the overall quality of the food made me quickly change my diet. I have not had a ounce of fast food since. The same ideal went with certain types of chicken. I saw the documentary Food Inc. That movie changed my life. It was horrifying to see how companies like Purdue and Tyson’s treat the animals. Conditions are horrible, pens are overcrowded and unclean, and there are vast amounts of runoff from animal waste that flows into the rivers and streams. Seeing this caused my to immediately stop me from eating chicken nuggets. The worst part, I had just bought some at the grocery store…that was money wasted. Because of this fact, I eat entirely organic, even though it may be expensive. It is important to me that by fruits and vegetables be pesticide free and that my meat is free range, grass fed.
Even though I mainly base what I eat off of the nutritional and health conditions, I do try and buy local whenever possible. While abroad I was introduced to the amazing culture of farmers markets. I loved how fresh everything was, how feasible it was to obtain and how remarkably inexpensive everything was. So, every Wednesday afternoon my roommates and I would walk to the market and get our fruits and vegetables for the week. Not until looking back to I realize how much this lowered my environmental footprint towards food. Food was grown naturally, decreasing the impact on the environment through runoff pollution. Food also did not have to be transported far unlike the millions of products people consume everyday that must be shipped miles and miles for consumption.
I try to instill these values on my roommates, family and friends and have been somewhat successful. Although everyone sees the importance of eating organic or local, not everyone can give up the processed unhealthy foods they love. The worst part is, they know exactly what they are eating, and they know exactly how the food is processed. However, the marketing and the long-term lifestyle of eating things such as chicken nuggets or McDonalds overpowers the ideals of what is really going into your body, or the industry you are contributing to when buying the product.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Too much food on my plate
As a college student, food is one of the great challenges in my life. Is there enough of it? How much does it cost? How long is going to take me to make it? Etc. My freshman year was the first time I started to put real consideration into where my food was coming from though. My mom decided to be a vegetarian my senior year of high school, and as she did all the cooking and grocery shopping I followed along pretty blindly. Then I got to college and decided that I wanted to keep doing it. I had to have a reason though – why did I want to be a vegetarian? I wasn’t a huge fan of PETA, so the whole animal protection thing was out, and I honestly didn’t know many other reasons why people would decide to not eat meat. So I did some research. I ended up writing a paper for my freshman writing class all about what would hypothetically happen if everyone in the world stopped eating meat tomorrow. It was actually all about health and the environment.
I can’t honestly say I’m a very good vegetarian. I can’t justify wasting meat, so when someone puts it in front of me, I eat it. Also, I love traveling – new cultures are not always so conducive to my eating habits. Finally, sometimes, I just really need a burger – I like to think it happens to the best of us. Clearly, I’m conflicted.
But in any case, it’s not just about the meat. I try to buy most of my produce from the farmers markets around AU (the one on campus actually gets all its produce from right around my hometown – so I know just how local it is). I also try to limit myself to fresh fruits and vegetables that are in season. Again, I’m not always so successful at these things. Eating environmentally is not always so cost effective.
Taste and health are also important considerations but for me the primary ones are the cost and the environment; the balance is tricky. I like to think that just being aware of what I’m putting in my body is the key at this point. My decisions reflect my awareness and eventually I’ll get to the point where I can fully commit. I realize it’s the slow track, but sometimes you look down and just realize there’s too much on your plate to begin with.
I think that the most environmentally thing I’ve consumed in the last two days would have to be the coffee that I can’t live without. This is one of those places I tend to make a few too many compromises. Fair trade, sustainably grown, organic coffee is an expensive thing to come by so my solution is to ignore the problem completely and get the cheapest kind. I know it’s flown in from some obscure corner of the world where they pay the farmers nothing. I know they probably slashed and burned an entire rainforest to plant it, and I know that the chemicals and pesticides will probably make the land unusable for generations to come. However, without it I’m hardly awake enough to get out of bed, let alone save the world.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Technology is not upper hand on nature
Technology is a concentrated mean to serve human’s self-interest. Reacting to the environmental problem is also one of the self-interest based activity. The big trend of environmental conscience is not derived from acknowledging the dignity of the nature, but from the threat that we feel from the environmental change.
We commonly believe that human is superior to other species on the earth and technology seems to prove it. Technology provides us the notion that we can do something about the nature and it is better than letting the nature cure itself. We totally underestimate the nature’s ability of self-recovery. That is why it is hard for us to yield to nature to do that. It drives our tendency to think that the technology will fix the environmental problem. It seems to work well to reduce human effect on environment because it fixes the tangible problems. We are likely to find the side-effect later in the future though. We can’t really see the side-effect when we create the solution in the first place.
Take the ozone depletion example. There are two possible solutions to restore the ozone layer; the first one is exposing the chemical material to build up the ozone layer and the second one is banning the causations of ozone layer depletion like CFCs. These solutions look the same; both of them are human decision, but there is a huge difference in terms of a technology. The first solution represents our belief in technology. It is true. We can build up the ozone layer with our promising technology like we make a dam to control the nature. But in trying to preserve the ozone, there might be some side effect of our decision. On the other hand, the second solution is our acknowledgement that nature can heal itself. Nature functions to stay in its original design. If we let nature be as it is, then it would cure itself from the damage by human. Natural recovery does not bring any side-effect. It always goes back to how god initially created.
Technology is the key idea that allows our creative destruction without having to stop our activities. People always see the damages and output of environmental change. The solution may be found if for we do not concentrate on the result of environment change, but rather think about the causes of it. How many people would interpret the hurricanes, floods and rising sea level as god’s message? No. People would rather expect technology to save us. We should have realized by now technology cannot restore the earth back to the way it was.
We commonly believe that human is superior to other species on the earth and technology seems to prove it. Technology provides us the notion that we can do something about the nature and it is better than letting the nature cure itself. We totally underestimate the nature’s ability of self-recovery. That is why it is hard for us to yield to nature to do that. It drives our tendency to think that the technology will fix the environmental problem. It seems to work well to reduce human effect on environment because it fixes the tangible problems. We are likely to find the side-effect later in the future though. We can’t really see the side-effect when we create the solution in the first place.
Take the ozone depletion example. There are two possible solutions to restore the ozone layer; the first one is exposing the chemical material to build up the ozone layer and the second one is banning the causations of ozone layer depletion like CFCs. These solutions look the same; both of them are human decision, but there is a huge difference in terms of a technology. The first solution represents our belief in technology. It is true. We can build up the ozone layer with our promising technology like we make a dam to control the nature. But in trying to preserve the ozone, there might be some side effect of our decision. On the other hand, the second solution is our acknowledgement that nature can heal itself. Nature functions to stay in its original design. If we let nature be as it is, then it would cure itself from the damage by human. Natural recovery does not bring any side-effect. It always goes back to how god initially created.
Technology is the key idea that allows our creative destruction without having to stop our activities. People always see the damages and output of environmental change. The solution may be found if for we do not concentrate on the result of environment change, but rather think about the causes of it. How many people would interpret the hurricanes, floods and rising sea level as god’s message? No. People would rather expect technology to save us. We should have realized by now technology cannot restore the earth back to the way it was.
Aunty Earth
I'm not going to beat around the bush: Technology is going to save us.
And now I am: But not on its own.
Anecdote: My aunt has high cholesterol. She has to take medicine for it. She also has to exercise more and eat a healthier diet. Her husband helps with the diet, making healthy foods and laying off the nasty, fatty, artery-clogging foods himself, so she's not doing it alone. Her sister (my other aunt), goes for 3 mile walks with her every morning. My mom does yoga classes with her once a week. Her doctor has developed a friendship with her, and checks up on her almost every week. It isn't easy for her to change her lifestyle in such a manner, but she's got a whole team of people who love and care for her helping her out, making sure she'll stays healthy, so later on heart disease doesn't become a factor.
Metaphor: The earth is my aunt. Aunt Earth, instead of Mother Earth. Aunt Earth is not going this road alone. She has help from all sides. The technological aspect of her condition, the medicine, is but one small part. An important part, certainly. But not the whole of it.
Looking at technology from an environmental aspect...the idea that technology could save us is simply saying we can develop tech over time to slow down or halt the environmental degradation going on, without sacrificing how we, as consumers, live. Being saved by technology to a certain extent means perpetuating the consumer lifestyle. We don't want to give things up, but if we can simply switch out something without having to sacrifice too much (like switching out light bulbs), then hey, saving the planet isn't so hard.
That's not going to work. And admittedly, not all environmental technology is used for the purpose of pushing forward the "buy buy buy" ideology. Straws that filter water in developing countries are there to save lives...but they're also helping save the environment, in a roundabout way (if you have clean water your less likely to die, if your less likely to die you can concentrate on thriving instead of just surviving, if you can start thriving you can start worrying about the environment, same old theory). Still, technology just replaces practices that are bad, it doesn't reprimand them.
We need to go on a diet and exercise program too. ...That can be taken literally up to a point, but figuratively we need to live with less, purchase with the long-view in mind (i.e. solar panels are expensive right now, but overtime pay for themselves), and work harder for a healthy planet.
And some might say, "Well why don't we just do only diet and exercise and not worry about the technology." That's not going to work either. My aunt isn't going to just get better if she only diets and exercises. That technology is needed to help fix what's already a problem. The dieting and exercising are helping reverse and prevent further complications.
To summarize: You can't just halt, or prevent, or reduce, or reverse, a problem. You have to do all of them. Technology can help fix the things we've already screwed up (SORRY AIR. AND WATER. ...AND OZONE.AND TREES. ...AND PLANTS. ANIMALS. PEOPLE. ...our bad!), but reduced consumption and increased advocacy and action will prevent the situation from slipping back into old, really bad for the planet, habits.
And now I am: But not on its own.
Anecdote: My aunt has high cholesterol. She has to take medicine for it. She also has to exercise more and eat a healthier diet. Her husband helps with the diet, making healthy foods and laying off the nasty, fatty, artery-clogging foods himself, so she's not doing it alone. Her sister (my other aunt), goes for 3 mile walks with her every morning. My mom does yoga classes with her once a week. Her doctor has developed a friendship with her, and checks up on her almost every week. It isn't easy for her to change her lifestyle in such a manner, but she's got a whole team of people who love and care for her helping her out, making sure she'll stays healthy, so later on heart disease doesn't become a factor.
Metaphor: The earth is my aunt. Aunt Earth, instead of Mother Earth. Aunt Earth is not going this road alone. She has help from all sides. The technological aspect of her condition, the medicine, is but one small part. An important part, certainly. But not the whole of it.
Looking at technology from an environmental aspect...the idea that technology could save us is simply saying we can develop tech over time to slow down or halt the environmental degradation going on, without sacrificing how we, as consumers, live. Being saved by technology to a certain extent means perpetuating the consumer lifestyle. We don't want to give things up, but if we can simply switch out something without having to sacrifice too much (like switching out light bulbs), then hey, saving the planet isn't so hard.
That's not going to work. And admittedly, not all environmental technology is used for the purpose of pushing forward the "buy buy buy" ideology. Straws that filter water in developing countries are there to save lives...but they're also helping save the environment, in a roundabout way (if you have clean water your less likely to die, if your less likely to die you can concentrate on thriving instead of just surviving, if you can start thriving you can start worrying about the environment, same old theory). Still, technology just replaces practices that are bad, it doesn't reprimand them.
We need to go on a diet and exercise program too. ...That can be taken literally up to a point, but figuratively we need to live with less, purchase with the long-view in mind (i.e. solar panels are expensive right now, but overtime pay for themselves), and work harder for a healthy planet.
And some might say, "Well why don't we just do only diet and exercise and not worry about the technology." That's not going to work either. My aunt isn't going to just get better if she only diets and exercises. That technology is needed to help fix what's already a problem. The dieting and exercising are helping reverse and prevent further complications.
To summarize: You can't just halt, or prevent, or reduce, or reverse, a problem. You have to do all of them. Technology can help fix the things we've already screwed up (SORRY AIR. AND WATER. ...AND OZONE.AND TREES. ...AND PLANTS. ANIMALS. PEOPLE. ...our bad!), but reduced consumption and increased advocacy and action will prevent the situation from slipping back into old, really bad for the planet, habits.
The Values of Technology
I like my iPod. I like my computer. I love being able to walk into my house, turn on the lights, and take a hot shower after a long day. Technology is a difficult thing to imagine living without – especially depending on how far you go in defining it. For example, a shovel was a pretty hot commodity back in the days of subsistence farming and by the definition we came up with for technology in class – a tool that helps us extend our capabilities – it meets the criteria. Now, I know a lot of environmentalists, but I don’t think that any of them would make the argument that we shouldn’t use shovels because they’re damaging to the environment. Therefore, technology is relative, it can’t all be lumped together as something evil and destructive, or something good and desirable.
Of course, most technology isn’t completely neutral either. Some technologies lack any redeeming qualities, nuclear weapons for example – bad for people, bad for animals, bad for the Earth. That’s like the US claiming to be neutral while it’s shipping guns and tanks over to Europe to destroy the Germans – sure we’re not pulling any triggers, but we’ve obviously picked a side. But then, who gets to define what’s good and what’s bad? Shovels are also used to help build energy sucking sky scrapers, are they bad technology then too? Where does one draw the line for the desirability of technological enhancement?
So here’s my theory: in order for technology to offer any positive advancement, it must be recognized as a tool and not a solution. Technology is a reflection of societal values and desires. If it is not created with this in mind doesn’t catch on, doesn’t develop. In fact, if it doesn’t reflect those core concepts it usually isn’t even dreamed up because there would be no demand and no market for it. Think about it, our technology today reflects a society that is fast paced, information driven, and individualized. Very little of the things we use don’t reflect that.
Unwittingly, by spreading technology with these core values to different cultures, we have also spread the values they were designed around. Africa’s values may not originally have been reflected in an iPod or a BMW but after being exposed to something so new and exciting, it’s hard not want to at least try it. Over time, prolonged exposure to a certain technology will change the way one considers the world and thus change their value system. Consider the definition of fast. Before the widespread availability of cars, riding a bike across town would have been really quick. Now, if it takes more than ten minutes from Tenley to Downtown it’s a travesty. And that’s life, we don’t even think about it.
So here’s the thing, once again, it comes down to changing our core values and thus the things we expect/want out of our technology. We need to jump off of this bandwagon idea that technology just develops and we have no idea where it will end up. It’s true to the extent that human ingenuity is amazing and we can create unbelievable things seemingly without trying. However, we can guide it to some extent by changing the way we see the world. So my answer to whether technology can save us or not is a resounding no! However, I think that technology will be a helpful tool no matter if we continue to think of the world as disposable or if we change our mindsets and consider it the valuable life force that it is.
We Shall Overcome...maybe.
Technology is a touchy subject when it comes to environmental sustainability. Many believe technology is the answer because it solves the short-term problems. For example, fish stocks are running low, so we can apply technology to genetically engineer them or, fresh water basins are starting to decrease at a rapid pace around the world, so why don’t we use technology and enhance desalinization processes. What most members of society don’t realize is while technology may fix the short-term issues involving depleting resources or climate change, the long-term effects of a technological fix may be just as catastrophic.
Here and now the world is in crisis. Polar ice caps are melting, rivers are at all time low levels, the ozone layer is depleting and natural resources are being over-consumed. Lucky for us, technology is here to save the day. In our society and others around the world, we are adept to consuming vast amounts of goods and services. This desire to buy our every want and need is part of our culture and is not something most would give up lightly – this is just a fact we have to accept. Technology allows this consumer culture to continue, while making people feel that they are contributing to saving the environment. Technology then becomes our savior…at least in the short term.
But what happens when the side effects of technology outweigh the positive environmental impact they were supporting? This is a frequent question with stratospheric ozone depletion. Some scientists and environmentalists think that by blasting chemicals to technologically alter or build-up the ozone layer will solve the problem of climate change. If implemented correctly, ignoring the politics of it all, an average citizen could be convinced this is a great idea. Again, technology has provided a fix. However, the long-term effects of stratospheric ozone depletion have yet to be sufficiently discovered, and the idea of who would govern such a system has not yet been conceived. This example supports my main argument, that while technology is a great thought, it is not a solution. Technology does not fix a problem; it only delays the catastrophic effects or makes life easier. In a time when everything must be short, quick, simple and efficient technology will always be our savior but, technology can’t be designed as an end to our means.
Here and now the world is in crisis. Polar ice caps are melting, rivers are at all time low levels, the ozone layer is depleting and natural resources are being over-consumed. Lucky for us, technology is here to save the day. In our society and others around the world, we are adept to consuming vast amounts of goods and services. This desire to buy our every want and need is part of our culture and is not something most would give up lightly – this is just a fact we have to accept. Technology allows this consumer culture to continue, while making people feel that they are contributing to saving the environment. Technology then becomes our savior…at least in the short term.
But what happens when the side effects of technology outweigh the positive environmental impact they were supporting? This is a frequent question with stratospheric ozone depletion. Some scientists and environmentalists think that by blasting chemicals to technologically alter or build-up the ozone layer will solve the problem of climate change. If implemented correctly, ignoring the politics of it all, an average citizen could be convinced this is a great idea. Again, technology has provided a fix. However, the long-term effects of stratospheric ozone depletion have yet to be sufficiently discovered, and the idea of who would govern such a system has not yet been conceived. This example supports my main argument, that while technology is a great thought, it is not a solution. Technology does not fix a problem; it only delays the catastrophic effects or makes life easier. In a time when everything must be short, quick, simple and efficient technology will always be our savior but, technology can’t be designed as an end to our means.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Who needs trees when we artifical ones
Technology has increased so much over the past century at such a remarkable speed that even from decades to decades what technology we posses is unimaginable and our progress has increased greatly. Technology though will not save us from the looming environmental disaster that our current path is leading us towards. Technology has actually lead people to stop thinking that our environment needs saving because technology will replaced what is destroyed. Technology though should not be needed to step in when the earth has a natural way of doing things it seems illogical to use technology when something occurring naturally. Technology can be used in environmental terms by reducing the current impact on the environment through greater efficiency which leads to using less natural resources.
The ozone depletion comes from technology use through our previous economic output which allows the people on our planet to have a good lifestyle. Technology has lead to more developments economically which have greatly impacted the environment because these further technological gains have put a greater strain on the environment. Ozone depletion is a good example of this because as there have been more CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to further damage and has significantly contributed to climate change. Technology being used to fixed the ozone depletion would be ironic since it is the development in technology that has led to the ozone depletion in the first place.
The ozone depletion comes from technology use through our previous economic output which allows the people on our planet to have a good lifestyle. Technology has lead to more developments economically which have greatly impacted the environment because these further technological gains have put a greater strain on the environment. Ozone depletion is a good example of this because as there have been more CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to further damage and has significantly contributed to climate change. Technology being used to fixed the ozone depletion would be ironic since it is the development in technology that has led to the ozone depletion in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)