Wilderness: Mundane at the end, or all-encompassing awe?

I find nearly every experience I have in the natural world to be interesting and magical since I live in a city and pretty much grew up a city kid.  At least, my relatives in the Midwest called me a city kid even when I lived in a small town surrounded by tobacco fields in North Carolina because they really were out in the middle of nowhere and liked to make fun of me for pitying the worm speared on a hook and used as fish bait.  My hometown in Japan was definitely a city, but people from Tokyo liked to make fun of people from Sasebo for being "country" and having an accent. So, it's all relative. The point is I am constantly awed by everything from snakes and manta rays to the sheer scale of natural formations, and as an adult I venture outside more and like hiking and camping.  Living in the hustle of DC makes me appreciate everything from sitting at the summit of Old Rag to the amount of stars you can see when you're out of the city and away from light pollution.

From a young age I was concerned about "the end of the wild" and I was one of those that worried as much about wildlife and habitat conservation as I did about the social problems of humanity - not without a good dose of guilt, but as Meyer notes in his book human impact is the main driver of the biosphere and everything else now.  While it is possible to lament the spectrum of problems, people are both victims and perpetuators whereas other species are pretty much at the mercy of the Anthropocene.  I'm not saying this is right to prioritize one way or another, I'm just saying it is a less complicated narrative.  In any case, Meyer frames "the end of the wild" as a crisis that is already here, and that we have already lost.  This perspective reminds me of Assadourian's views; it is not inherently pessimistic, but there is a finality of acceptance and a focus on how to minimize the repercussions and build a better future.  Meyer describes the end of the wild not as a barren world, but a different, less diverse, and less awesome one.  We should not just continue business as usual, however.  We cannot reverse what has been done but we must still take action to improve upon the worst possible scenario.  He asserts, "Therefore, we should not evaluate these efforts in terms of their capacity to stop the end of the wild. Their enduring value is that they establish a moral imperative. Like the Ten Commandments, they remind us who we could be" (88).  This again reminds me of Assadourian and his hope for a society post-crash that will not repeat history and humanity's mistakes.  Meyer concedes defeat in losing the wild, and his only hope is a moral shift in the future where we finally act as stewards of the wild instead of consumers, and in a few million years it can thrive again.

Leopold has similar themes in his "Sand County Almanac" and ideas on the land ethic.  As he puts it, "We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness" (133) but as humans are efforts are that of conquerors of the land rather than as equal community members.  This is unsustainable.  Land is currently seen as property, "entailing privileges but not obligations" but under the land ethic, those obligations are highlighted and the land can be defined as more than just earth.  If we value it philosophically rather than just economically, we can become better stewards and determine land use in a better and more well-rounded sense.

Palmer provides an interesting angle specifically on wildlife films and their role in conservation and entertainment.  It is unfortunate that as a rule, "If you look at the choices made by the best-funded wildlife filmmakers, you'd have to conclude that controversy and serious advocacy are bad for business" (29) although An Inconvenient Truth is a clear exception.  I wonder when serious advocacy can effectively be leveraged again, with our current political situation and polarization seeming to have a bigger effect on public opinion.  Images are powerful, and perhaps the next big movement can come out of this medium.

I mentioned above how the issues of wilderness conservation can be sometimes be framed against that of social problems.  In "Last Song for Migrating Birds," Franzen tackles this as well; the problems are not at odds but they do compete for priority in awareness or resources.  In countries like Albania and Egypt, this competition is more pronounced.  In describing the "sinkholes" around the Mediterranean for migrating birds, this issue is highlighted along with other compelling points that link to other themes in the readings and our course.  For instance, hunters avoiding native species of birds and targeting migratory ones because "they're not our birds" shows an element of how responsibility is diffused in transboundary problems.  Cooperative action is difficult; people care about localized manifestations but it can be much harder to conceptualize on a wider scale.  Finally, Franzen tells the story in Egypt of freeing a particular songbird from a net and the conflict with young hunters, and how a single image or issue can be compelling.  As the drama unfolded, he says "We were in a country where millions of birds were being killed, but I couldn't help worrying about this individual plover's fate."  The causes of this problem are complex and systemic, but as humans we can easily empathize with a single story.  This type of story be leveraged for wide-scale change, as we have seen in other examples as inspiration and catalysts for new movements.

Like I said, I see every interaction with the natural world as somewhat magical, even if it's just getting further into a forest so that you can only hear birds instead of cars.  I can't tell if I'm just awed at more and more mundane and tame wilderness if we are at the end of the wild, or if I still have an appreciation of all wilderness that should be expanded and used for Meyer's moral shift to stem the crisis and plan ahead.

Political ecology of Biodiversity conservation

Once I asked a bunch of students what would come in their mind when they heard the word "biodiversity". They answered me that it was the loss of biodiversity and conservation of certain flagship species like rhinos and tigers. Similar tone is also echoed in the given readings: biodiversity is being lost and what it needs is protection. By this, it sounds like biodiversity is a dominion of bio-environmentalists. To certain extent, it's true. But there are several interpretations, which are closer to the perspectives of social greens, on causes of loss and approaches of conservation with respect to human system.

Ramachandra Guha and Madhav Gadgil (1995) proposed a framework of ecology and equity that divided India's population into three categories: ecosystem people, ecological refugees and omnivores (Guha and Gadgil 1995: 3-4). Ecosystem people, that constitute more than half of India's population, depend on the natural environments of their own locality to meet most of their material needs.  As the natural world recedes or faces human encroachment, for example due to mine extraction or dam construction, the capacities of local ecosystems gets shrunk and some of ecosystem people flee to live in the margins of islands of prosperity. They are called ecological refugee, constituting almost one third of Indian population. There is a third category of handful but powerful group of people, also termed as biosphere people (as they can enjoy the produce of the entire biosphere from anywhere, in contrast to the ecosystem people who have a very limited resource catchment). Since the biosphere people devour everything produced all over the earth, they are called omnivores. Based on this framework, ecosystem people should be at the center of assessment of impact and benefits of biodiversity conservation.

Similarly, Escobar (1999) brings four major perspectives around biodiversity: resource management based globalocentric perspectives, sovereignty based third world national perspectives, bio-democracy based southern NGO perspectives and cultural autonomy based social movement's perspectives. Not all perspectives are equally emphasized in the current politics of biodiversity conservation. The last perspective brings an alternative perspective to the current dominant knowledge and process of biodiversity conservation. With increasing criticisms of the first two perspectives, the later two are now making strong presence in the mainstream conservation discourses. As a result we see more socially just approaches of biodiversity conservation. It will help to address the tension like one indicated by an Egyptian bird-seller's question. Unlike the past interpretation (considering conservation as a Western agenda), now local people are participating and benefiting directly from the conservation. There are several success stories. We need more such alternative approach to conservation which bridges nature-culture divide. Therefore we need more engagement of so called social greens in biodiversity conservation.

I have many interesting experiences of natural world. More than 10 years ago, right after my undergraduate study, I was part of a resource mapping project. We were in a field trip to the Nepal's one of the remotest area, north-west mountainous region bordering to Tibet. The region was quite far, almost 8-10 days of walking, from any areas that had road linkage. We spent almost 3 months in those areas by walking around settlements and forest areas doing ecological assessments. Sometime we walked almost two or three days in the rugged landscape without seeing any human settlement. The settlements in those areas were highly sparse. We wondered why people would live in such remote areas. We thought that government should resettle them in accessible plain areas so that they would get government's services and attain easier lifestyles and government could declare those areas as any sorts of sanctuaries or protected areas. Based on our knowledge of that time, doing so would be the best approach for benefit of both, people in those areas and biodiversity of the region. Do you have any ideas about such approach? However, only later on, I was convinced by the fact that people's livelihood and cultural systems are closely associated with the natural environment they live. That is their niche. Consequences of resettling people in different eco-cultural region would be disastrous. Biodiversity is part of cultural diversity of the region. We also see that biodiversity hot-spots in the world are those regions which usually have higher cultural diversity. Therefore we need conservation efforts that puts interests of ecosystem people, not that of omnivores, at the center.

References:

Gadgil, Madhav and Guha, Ramchandra. 1995. Ecology and equity: Use and abuse of nature in contemporary India. Routledge.

Escobar, Arturo. 1998. Whose Knowledge, Whose nature?  Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements. Journal of Political Ecology, volume 5: 53-82.  

Why can't I just not care?

For two years while teaching middle school in Vietnam I would end my class with the same tag line, “now go outside and play”.  I saw a generation of children growing up without clean, safe, open spaces to run, laugh, hide, seek, and play due in part to prioritization of “development” over preservation. Maybe it was because I was fortunate enough to spend my childhood exploring hundreds of acres of avocado and lemon groves, or was able to access true wilderness and adventure from the back steps of my home.  Maybe it was because I was raised mere minutes from the beach where fish, crabs, pelicans, dolphins, and the occasional whale were the norm.  Whatever the reason, I viewed these children’s lack of a natural playground as a severe as a crime. For how can we expect a new generation of stewards to be brought up if they are never in intimate contact with that which we hope they learn to love to protect?

I’ve peered into the pool ball size eyes of a giant black sea bass off the coast of Catalina Island, I’ve foolishly chased black tip reef sharks just to watch them glide, I’ve been attacked by tens of thousands of mosquito's while trekking the back country of the Sierra Nevada mountains in Yosemite National Park, I’ve looked over the bow of a boat in the black of night to watch a pod of dolphins dart in and out of our wake disrupting the phosphorescent plankton giving the appearance of underwater comets, I’ve come face to face with an angry sea lion mom protecting her pups, I’ve seen more stars than could be counted in a lifetime high atop the Andean mountains, and in the heart of the Amazon rain forest I experienced a thunder and lightning storm that rattled my bones and mesmerized me by the power of nature. I have no idea which was more special or had a greater impact on my and how I view the world.  However, I do know that my lifetime growing up in the ocean and in nature has instilled in me a sense of responsibility / moral obligation for conservation and protection of our remaining wild lands that I intend to pass on to future generations.

“The End of the Wild” by Meyer is heartbreaking. Everything is not going to be “all right”. My children, and certainly their children, will not see the same wonder and amazement I have described above.  Our (humans) impact is far too significant and our reach far too great for the planets remaining species to go unaffected.  We boast about being the top of the food chain and without giving our actions meaningful thought, we act a million times per day in a world suited for the comfort and continuance of a very small percentage of the genetic makeup of this planet.  

The state of the natural world dominates my conversations these days.  People ask how my courses are going and I tell them “terrible”.  I say, “I’m doing well but I’m exposed to so much dreary information that it just makes one want to pack it all up and drop off the grid.”  For the sake of my own mental well being, I need to take Chris Palmer’s advice and begin to use humor as a means of communicating these things.  No one is going to ever want to be around me if I don’t.  I spent a weekend in California with my extended family no so long ago and was asked the question about my program.  We got into conversation about extinction rates and someone said that science would take care of it.  I wish I had read Meyer’s book prior to this conversation.  He points out that it is entirely possible science will keep the genetic stock circulating on some level, but his point that the systems that are in place that caused the deterioration of animals species will still be around, and will probably be far more prolific in the future.

None of this has made me want to give up, quite the opposite actually. But the complexity of the situation is overwhelming, and the gravitational pull between what is good for the individual and what is good for the planet are constantly in struggle. I suppose that if I wasn’t wrestling with these ideas and moral dilemmas, I would have cause to argue that I wasn’t getting my monies worth.

I am he as you are he as you are we and we are all together

In keeping with my past posts I am going to talk very little about the reading/topic directly, in favor of discussing the 'big picture' if you will, of the situation we find ourselves in as environmentalists. The challenges we face are not modern, there are examples of the struggle to form a society that works with nature throughout history. While not directly related to the environment, I feel that this quote from Machiavelli's The Prince is extremely apt:

“There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit from the new order. The lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries who have law in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.”

BAM! Machiavelli! I find that this quote, from what is essentially a (in my opinion sarcastic) 'how to be an ultimate all powerful ruler' hand guide, totally captures one of the biggest challenges for environmental reformation. Fear, uncertainty and profit, these things seem to be key drivers/impedements of mass social change. People just do not like to be uncomfortable, and they do not like to be unsure. It makes sense. I think a large part of this is some kind of hard wired survival instinct, which ironically has led to what is possibly our downfall, and has been in the past- Easter Island for example (though honestly I know so little about the history of Easter Island that I should probably not be using it as an example). The issue is 'survival of the fittest ' the placement of the individual over the group. Everyone is ultimately working towards their own personal benefit, their own security. Relation to the whole is a by product of working for your own benefit in a society. I do not think everyone is like this, I'm just stating a mass trend that I perceive.

When I read articles, such as Maude Barlow's 'Where Has All the Water Gone?' and Lester Brown's 'The Global Food Crisis' and Stephen Meyer's 'The End of the Wild', I grow disparaged by the monstrous size of the issues, particularly in relation to the number of people actively working to correct them. It is crucial, I think, to remember that we are a small group, and there is a whole world with various concerns outside of us. For example last week I went to the talk by Francis Fukuyama, the discussion and questions were very interesting, but I continuously went back to the relation of the discussion to the environment and sustainability. None of the questions even touched on sustainability or natural resources, and I felt that if I were to ask a question pertaining to environmental issues it would probably be percieved as irrelevant by a majority of the audience. 

As we have discussed in class there are also differences among environmentalists. Which I witnessed first hand just two days ago. I went on a field trip with an MSSM class (Masters of Science in Sustainable Management) to a North Carolina solar farm. The farm we went to is one of the three farms that American University, George Washington University and George Washington University Hospital are purchasing power from in order to fulfill their sustainability pledges. On the field trip we met with the heads and employees of the three companies involved in this project- Customer First Renewables, Duke Energy Renewables, and Sun Energy 1. We met with business men. They were all wearing business clothes, and carrying business cards, and talking about business things. The conversation revolved around the function of each of the companies with this project, and our questions probed, trying to determine how this agreement really worked. At one point I made the error of stating that something seemed a bit 'sketchy,' the selling of RECs, which are basically documents stating that energy was created at a particular location. AU has purchased RECs from Sun Energy 1 (or perhaps from Duke) to show that the school has purchased sustainable energy. AU will retire the RECs they purchase, but other companies buy RECs in order to sell them again... this seems a little 'sketchy' to me. My comment caused people in the room to laugh, but also was met by a clear point- RECs are not sketchy, but are rather a legitimate part of the functioning of this energy business. I realized a few things at the  moment I was 'corrected'. I realized that it was less than tactful of me to say that (I am not generally given to tact, a personal trait I'm working on) , I realized that this whole field trip was to create publicity for the AU/GW/GW Hospital move to sustainable energy, (as well as an educational experience), and that these companies wanted to create a positive impression of themselves on us. The companies were actually delightfully candid, and very open to questions, but my 'sketchy' comment was perhaps slightly out of line. Anyway, all of this reaffirmed the point that there are gradations to everything, including environmentalists, and that these men, might consider themselves to be environmentalists (well, actually I feel that most of the men in that room would have called themselves 'business men' but are certainly also aware of the benefits for the environment that their work creates), but I wouldn't perceive them as such simply because the environment did not seem to be their main concern. 

Basically what I'm getting at here is that the world is vast, and that the number of people in it looking at things the way we are is minute in comparison.  


Just to wrap up with some water to make this applicable, I love water (I drink 2-4 liters a day, and if I don't I get irritable, I am concerned that I might have diabetes) and I think that the issues of water stem from some of what I am discussing in this post, as well as the issues with international water law in particular. I do feel that it is somewhat indicative, that the IWRM stresses a holistic approach to water governance, water governance focusing on the whole not the individual. People are aware of this downfall of human nature, of focusing on the individual, the question is can we overcome it.  

Water: Conflict and Cooperation

Water crisis has been the most discussed topic in environmental security literature. There are several strands of water security discourses ranging from water wars or water as a site of interstate / intrastate conflict to water as a human right issue and water as a potential site of collaboration. All these discourses of water security emanate from the increasing concerns over water crisis. Barlow's piece sheds lights on water crisis discussing it along the dimensions of depletion, degradation and drying. Such water crisis, in the presence of existing technological institutional and political arrangement lead to the scarcity and inequality which may result into the injustice and conflict; though his article does not explicitly mention about the conflict dimension of water crisis. However, in such relationship, the intervening institutions seem more important than causal factors of water conflict. Conca's piece reveals more about institutional aspects of water conflict and highlights the contentious politics around institution building.

Conca analyzes four examples of contentious politics on water resource namely trans-boundary rivers, large dams, marketization and privatization of water, and transnational expert networks. Each of these examples result into certain sets of institutions, that can be analyzed through the framework of territoriality, authority, and knowledge. According to him, the first example of sharing of transboundary river follows a particular set of territoriality, authority and knowledge, that is territorially bound state centric and rational modern science based knowledge based approach (the regime approach). In contrast to that, the conflict around large dam gave rise to the institution like World Commission on Dam which incorporates more diverse forms of territoriality, authority and knowledge approach (watershed democracy approach). Interesting fact is that, the regime approach though emanate from relatively collaborative situation, but not producing much positive results where as the large-dam related watershed approach though emanate from conflict is showing some interesting results. The later approach, though not fully embraced by several states, is also getting attention on the issues related to privatization and marketization of water. Therefore, for Conca, the approach that incorporates several positions in the dimensions of territory, authority, and knowledge may result into water cooperation, is such is possible.

Based on Conca's framework, it would be interesting to analyze interaction around a large dam that is to be built on a shared watercourse between two or more states which are already in certain forms of water sharing agreements. Question would be whether the regime approach would actually contribute to the watershed approach positively? It brings both several levels of interactions, one at the state level which is cooperative but at the local and transnational level, it is contentious. In such collaborative-contentious type hydropolitics, several local, national and transnational non-state actors would counter the state-centric approach favoring local livelihoods or local ecosystem, indigenous sovereignty or national interests. Provided with their several interests, institutionalizing of non-state actors would always be challenging for a real collaboration on water issues. However, any sorts of deliberative and participatory approach would be the first condition to reach to such collaboration as hinted by Conca's watershed democracy. 

Foundering in the face of depth and complexity

After yet another week of examining in-depth our failures, this time with regard to the global water challenge, it was oddly relieving to have Ken Conca actually articulate the options for responses in our current circumstances: "When confronted with the more fundamental problem of protecting the planet's places...the regime approach leaves us with unpalatable choices: to deny the existence of those struggles, to seek to impose neat resolutions upon them, or to founder in the face of their depth and complexity" (23).  It seems that just about every reading and topic we have covered thus far, from climate change to food, falls into one of these three choices unless the author is a proponent of ripping the entire system down.  By now, I am exhausted and tend to fall squarely into the foundering territory.  It doesn't seem impossible to move out of this, but I've got to break down big issues so I can wrap my head around them and make them resonate and inspire effective analysis and ideas.

In the Nicholson and Wapner chapter, Maude Barlow describes our species' "collective capacity for destruction" (61) and our propensity for this with regard to our freshwater sources.  Different perspectives frame the water problem as one of scarcity or one of inequality in distribution and sanitation, but Barlow describes these as "twin crises" to a massive threat that hasn't received much attention.  Conca delves further into the root causes of the water crisis and how to reconcile the need for governance in the global, transboundary nature of water issues with its local manifestations.  I have never lived in a water-stressed area and have only experienced one or two local droughts requiring water rationing in my lifetime, so even with the understanding that the responsibility lies on a larger scale it was easy to see the problems as, for example, California's or China's problem to fix.

I like the way that Conca changed this framing; these may look like local issues but they have global implications.  In Conca's first chapter, Wendell Berry changes the question to "not how to care for the planet, but how to care for each of the planet's millions of human and natural neighborhoods" (2) which shows the interconnectedness without absolving responsibility to a vague and massive scale.  The current regime approach, as Conca argues, misses this question and responds ineffectively (if at all) due to the way the state system interprets knowledge, territory, and authority (21).  Just as the Westphalian system has failed in other global issues that transcend borders, it does the same with water in its outdated notions of these three elements.  As the case study on large dams shows, traditional state responsibilities have shifted away from the arena of the state.  Once again we must take a hard look at our system and if our responses should be to maintain, reform, or transform it - this time in the context of water.  I'm still grappling with my own conceptualization of the issue so I may have to founder a bit more.

Doomed

I spent the majority of my five and half hour bicoastal flight from DC to LA reading this week’s articles on water scarcity and the global inability to deal with the seeming catastrophe headed our way.  Much of that flight was spent flying over the earth parceled off nicely into large square blocks and circles that can be seen from 32,000 feet.  This scene played out in the plains surrounding the Rockies and in the deserts of the southwestern part of the United States.  It’s not new, I’ve flown this route many times before and witnessed these large crop circles in what appears to be locations as inhospitable as Mars.  Not a river in sight.  Just brown, dry dust.  I got thirsty just looking at it. Yet amongst that dust we grow a good portion of the country’s food supply. Further along the path we approached one of the nations largest urban areas, smack in the middle of this desert. It is an urban area as expansive as any other in the United States, home to almost four million people.  These people live in the City of Angles, they are addicted to their cars (yes plural - most families here have more than one), lawns, golf courses, and swimming pools. Take the 405 south anther hundred miles and you run into another two million people living in an equally, if not more so, parched landscape. Go east about a hundred miles and you continue to find humanity spread out amongst the dunes, mesas, cactus, and lush green golf courses.  Palm Springs, Las Vegas, and Phoenix are all prime examples of this. Traveling around Los Angeles one lives in constant fear that an errant discard of a still lit match could ignite the whole tinderbox for good. With good friends and family living amongst it all, I feel a legitimate fear wash over me upon final decent when I catch myself wondering: Are we too (Southern California and its way of life), on our own final descent?

Mere hours after arrival I steer the conversation to these observations.  Are you worried? What is happening?  Do you think we will run out?  Sure there is concern, some more acutely aware than others, but for the most part there seems to be a mild discomfort by the entire situation.  There aren’t signs posted all over town flashing in bright neon signs screaming, “WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATER AND WE WILL PERISH AS A RESULT!!!!”  I saw a small sign posted at the Getty that as a result of the drought, they have elected to turn off one of the fountains.  No further than ten meters down the path we come to two other swimming pool size fountains and sculptures that are running with their water on.  At UCLA, the same school where just months ago a 93 year old water main broke sending 8 to 10 million of gallons of water gushing onto the campus (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surfs-water-main-break-floods-ucla-campus-n168686) and into the drains, they still run the fountains. Swimming pools are still filled, lawns are still green, and cars still shine in the Southern California sun.  The governor of California, Jerry Brown, recently requested that CA residents voluntarily reduce their water consumption by 20%.  “REQUESTED”  “VOLUNTARILY” What the hell is going on here? Is this some sort of bad b-list horror flick? Why doesn’t water cost $20 per gallon? Why are we dumping this life sustaining resource on dirt to make it green? Why are there still F*#%ing golf courses???? Because, as George H.W. Bush notoriously put in at the Rio summit, “the American way of life is non-negotiable.”  This goes double for the Southern Californian way of life.

Two days before I arrived the Mayor of L.A., Eric Garcetti, announced new city wide water-use guidelines to mandate a reduction of usage of 20% by 2017.  Currently usage in the city averages out at 131 gallons of water per day per person. Doomed. His plan calls for reducing outdoor watering from three days to two. Hopeless. Using pool covers to reduce water evaporation. Condemned.  It’s being touted as “ambitious”, “significant”, and “bold”. Disaster.  Don’t get me wrong, these are definitely steps in the right direction, but we cannot afford to walk, we need to sprint. Directives need to be handed down with reckless abandon, without regard to the next election.  Because that’s what leaders, true leaders do.  Command and control is the only feasible approach on this. We will not change our own behavior, not enough to matter anyway. Because remember, I want my pool. 

The conversation around the dinner table turns once again to water. What will you do if it stops coming out of the taps? Blank stares followed by looks of “it’ll never happen”, “you’re insane”, and “alarmist”.  Maybe I am. Filled with facts, figures, and paradigms from Conca and Barlow.  I gaze out at the ocean and know, sure as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, that this is where our future water supply is. As Barlow says, the desalination plants will ring the earths oceans, but only where it can be afforded. We will continue to grow grass, play golf, and keep those $85,000 cars impressive.  We will continue to the grow food in the desert and ship it overseas, the very same seas that provide the water for their existence.  What will be the consequences of this? What systems will we disrupt and pollute? What dire challenges will we create for ourselves with this set of decisions? 

I don’t know the answers to this.  What I do know is this: Access to clean drinking water is running out.  There is nothing on the planet that is more precious besides air. I’m looking north my friends. Cold and wet. Survive.

Why people starve?

This week's readings cover a range of aspects and interpretation of hunger, famine and food insecurity, such as availability, accessibility, utilization, power and politics based relational aspect and institutional aspect that includes market, technology, knowledge system, rules and regulation and food aid. All of these aspects form the food system which is tightly connected with the larger political-economic, environmental and socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, for me, questions like why people starve actually demand discussion on what the starvation is all about. There are several terminologies used for various levels of starvation: food (in)security, hunger, famine, etc. Without going detail into their distinction, here I try to synthesize several interpretation of starvation based on this week's readings. 

Traditionally food security is understood in terms of food balance: how much food is produced in a particular area and how much is needed. Lester Brown has added range of factors in such availability-interpretation of the food crisis that is imbalance between demand and supply of food. According to him, population growth, rising affluence and consumption of meat, and use grain for bio fuels affect the demand side where as the depletion or degradation of environment soil erosion, aquifer depletion, loss of crop-land, diversion of irrigation water to cities, peak of modern agriculture and climate change in terms of heat waves, ice melting, rising sea levels affect the supply side. This is only a narrow interpretation of food crisis, however much practiced in the policy making. Such interpretation was further refined by more comprehensive theories like that of Amartya Sen's entitlement theory.

According to Sen, it's not food availability; but inaccessibility and entitlement failure is main reason of hunger and famine. Although Sen's entitlement approach is much borader, Edkins has critiqued it as depoliticized technologized response that can fit in all contexts. According to him, food crisis is not a result of some failures demanding technological or managerial fix, it is rather a political act creating winners and losers; therefore needs to be dealt politically. According to him food system is a site of power, politics and sometime violent interactions. He further suggests that famine should be treated like crime, which needs identification of perpetrator. I accept Edkin's attempt for more nuanced understanding of famine, not only based on causal factors, but to focus on impacts and political consequences of food crisis. But distinction between interpretation of Brown and Sen and interpretation of Edkins is not much helpful because they stand on different epistemological, ontological and methodological grounds. For me, Edkins' analytical approach complements Brown's or Sen's more generalized policy oriented approach. In some context, for example from the perspectives of policy makers or during the emergencies, Edkins' approach of changing power relation may not help much. However, in the long run, this gives more nuanced understanding of food crisis.

Richard Manning discusses how knowledge, market, technology and institutions related to food and agriculture has shaped the human history. He looks food and agriculture from much broader perspective of power politics by questioning narrow understanding of utilization limited to nutrition and highlighting its commodity and fuel value. From market liberal perspective, Robert Paarlberg advocated for modern scientific knowledge based, market promoted and technology intensive green revolution. For him green (environmental) and red (social justice) promises of organic agriculture is simply not possible. As a usual market liberal, his disregard to the environmental, public health, socio-cultural and politico-economic costs of green revolution is understandable but clearly removed from the reality. Although the current political economy may support his argument and attract of policy attention in developing coutries, the course he has been advocating for underdeveloped society is simply not possible. Such interpretation highlights need of further discussion on what is the meaning of "coming out of poverty" for underdeveloped countries. We can imagine what would be consequences of the development aid for "non-organic" green revolution to the societies which are already paying price of similar aid made in the past.

Patel's interpretation of nutritional and gender aspect of food is more related to the utilization. Most of attempts of food security are related to increase the production and distribution (availability and access) of food. Such attempt ensures food security only at the higher level, e.g. at the state or community or household level. If we come below the household level gender relation matters much because most of women member in the household are poorly nourished and it has implication to kids' health and education.  

In the current world, famine and starvation leading to loss of lives may not exist in several countries, but that does not mean there is no starvation. Starvation exists at different level in different extent. We need to shift our attention from availability and accessibility approach to more nuanced accessibility and utilization approach. It requires consideration of the larger political economic and environmental contexts, which allow us to see food security beyond the economic growth and production enhancement. This is not a romanticization of peasant farming. We definitely need improvement in the peasant farming. There are several example of locally owned environmentally suited farming system in different parts of the world that needs to be explored and expanded.   

One Vote, One Loaf of Bread

So why do people still starve despite the fact that there seems to be plenty enough food on the planet to take care of everyone? I have no idea. My exposure to this area of development is pretty high, I have numerous friends that work in the agricultural development sector and am constantly around differing views on the topic.  Some mimic those laid out by Paarlberg, that technology and industrialization are the keys to success and that one need not look further than the Green Revolution for proof.  Others contend that Jenny Edkins is more in line with what the real root causes of hunger are, which is that there are a select group of elites that tremendously benefit from the manipulation and control of global, regional, and local food markets for their own benefit.  As someone that has read “Why Nations Fail’, I found myself fairly convinced that systemic failures within a society are exactly that, failures of the system.  Otherwise known as institutional failures.

In my view, there is no reason for a continent the size of Africa’s, with the abundance of natural resources that it contains, should be subjected to the gargantuan undernourishment it suffers from.  I tend to view that situation, and the unequal access to, and distribution of land in Latin America in equal terms.  That there are major motivating factors, by small groups of people, that push to maintain the status quo power structure.  When a person or group of individuals have unchecked, unregulated, systemically ingrained advantages over the majority, there is very little hope in altering that structure without some sort of large scale destruction and rebuilding effort.

There are numerous factors at play that make the probability of such a scenario unlikely. Domestically, the power brokers and resource extractors have a number of tools at their disposal to prevent such a redesign from taking place.  The ability to create, essentially what amounts to fiefdoms, through payoffs and the threat of force is extremely effective. Regionally and internationally, the situation becomes murkier.  Although western democracies may publicly proclaim the need for open and equal societies, the history of the United States is littered with examples of strange, and often outright contradictory to this proclamation, partnerships in the name of stability. The point I’m trying to make, to put it succinctly, is that the deck is often stacked against the worlds poor, and those in power stand to considerably benefit in the short term at the expense of the most vulnerable.  What else could possibly explain the seeming abundance of global food supply, with a seventh of the population critically malnourished?

I don’t think I am fully in the institutionalist camp, but I do think there is much power that can be wielded from an informed, active, and empowered electorate.  In “Why Nations Fail”, the authors point to a number of examples of how institutions can dramatically benefit or hinder successful progression.  One such example is patent laws.  Without the protection of original ideas and the monetary incentive to pursue said idea into a state of production, innovation is hampered, if not totally absent.  The same can be said for private property rights, access to credit, and a secure banking system. All are reasonable examples of how institutions can protect or harm a populations motivation to develop.  Recently the US government has turned to public/private partnerships in the development community.  The explanation is that there is a realization that neither on its own can provide enough incentive to overcome the rampant corruption in developing nations.  I am by no means a market liberalist, however, I do think that the desire for multinational corporations expansion into developing markets can play a significant role in the reduction of world hunger.  After all, as the theory goes, if a population is critically malnourished then they won’t have the capacity to purchase one’s product.  For companies to do business, there needs to be some sort of assurance of stability and regularity.  Although this can come in many forms, as alluded to earlier, one must hope that the US government can push for more openness and transparency if for no other reason than to level the international playing field and make our products that much more competitive.    

Eat your peas.

Perhaps like many American kids, my first concept of starvation "out there" in the world came from my grandmother.  She grew up during the Depression and was one of those "Eat your peas because there are starving kids in China" types.  I would eat them, but only to get her to leave me alone - not necessarily because I could conceptualize and become emotionally distraught by the hungry children somewhere else.  I would mutter to myself that the starving kids in China could have my peas.  Norman Rockwell moment, right?  Now of course it's less of a classic funny story and more of a simplified and outdated anecdote to a global conundrum or even a systemic act of violence.  I can feel guilty about my place in the world all I want, but when it comes down to it I still believe the overarching reason that people still starve is that I have extra food that I don't need and a third of humanity doesn't have enough.  Pretty much every level of our food system is broken in some way.

I hate to frame it in that passive way; of course it's more complicated, especially when you're supposed to be writing these ideas in grad school.  It's not about finding a way to ship unwanted peas overseas so they aren't wasted, and I don't want to think of the global (and domestic) food system as something broken that needs to be fixed.  Edkins makes the point that famine or mass starvation is not something that just happens.  There are perpetrators, beneficiaries, and functions of starvation that give the issue a political rather than technical lens.  I agree with her assertion that famine is a product of a system, not its failure.  It is not that "an otherwise benign system has collapsed and needs putting right" (13) but rather that it is a malignant system with malignant or unequal results.  This is what I mean by a broken system.  We throw food away here, or our suppliers do it for us so that we needn't look upon imperfect foods in our stores.  I want (and can buy) avocados year round, sniff when they get more expensive than a dollar in the middle of winter, and when I make my purchases I don't actually have to be viscerally reminded of the lack of any sort of substantial food elsewhere.  As Manning notes of the billions of malnourished people, "we may forget about them, as most Americans do."  Constant awareness of our bad system and own reinforcement isn't the complete answer, but it would help to have to think more about it.  Who is still texting their $10 to Haiti, or auctioning off Maybachs to send money to the children of Somalia?  These responses have their own questions as far as effectiveness goes, but apparently only well-publicized disasters and crises can garner our attention then after a few weeks it's on to the next.  Maybe every avocado or banana or processed snack we buy here should come with a distribution tax.

The "I have food, you need food" idea is simple.  I like to lament over food waste and maldistribution.  But as the readings this week have shown, the problems are broken down into much more.  We have more mouths to feed, people are moving up the food chain, we want to give grain to cars and cattle, we're running out of untapped technologies, and women are disempowered.  Each root problem has different perspectives on the answers.  I would lean more toward the agroecology policies and solutions than the modernist up the ante on industrial agriculture view.  I hope Paarlberg doesn't actually envision an agricultural system for Africa modeled after the one we have in the United States.  Investing in roads and access to markets is one thing, but let's not get carried away dreaming of Monsanto monocultures and shipping glyphosate to small landholders of Africa.  Are we brainstorming how to spread the wealth of factory farming, too?  We don't have to juxtapose the extremes here, of big industrial agribusiness versus 100% slow, local and organic.  I do find the latter romantic but I think in the short term there is a strategy to scaling back our industrial scale where it has overstepped, and modernizing some elements of agriculture in the developing world where it makes sense culturally.  Paarlberg's arguments have many caveats, such as skimming over the inequality of the green revolution and noting "Wherever small farmers had sufficient access to credit, they took up the new technology just as quickly as big farmers, which led to dramatic income gains and no increase in inequality or social friction."  But the ultra poor rarely have access to credit, and buying agricultural technology on credit still begs the question of unsustainable debt and cycles of dependence on everything from patented seeds to branded pesticides.

I know that any policy or solution has trouble reaching those it is meant for, but I still think the realm of agroecology has more potential than other solutions brought forth in the readings.  Hunger, malnourishment, famine, and starvation are not just technical problems with technical solutions.  Like any issue we sustainability academics like to pore over, the problem reaches into political, social, environmental, and economic spheres.  As Sen and Patel have urged, we can look at these interactions and examine the problem at the personal and household level.  Starvation is a global problem suffered by individuals.  We don't need just tech transfer, just fertilizer, or just better distribution methods.  We need awareness, strong training and social programs like any question in development, and the strategies highlighted by Lappe et al. promoting equity, access to food as a rights issue, fairness in markets and production returns, and diversified practices rather than a stubborn and increasingly expensive reliance on the industrial "solution" wherein we chemically feed then beat the land we have left into submission.  I would say eventually this tactic will fail, but clearly there are two problems with this claim.  First, it reinforces the idea of failure rather than responsibility for perpetrating an action.  And secondly, there is no eventual about it.  Apparently it just isn't that hard to ignore a third of humanity.  Change will come when the rest of us can't get our avocados.

There will be seasons turn turn turn.

This Thursday I went to the 'Living in the Anthropocene' Consortia hosted by the Smithsonian Institution's Grand Challenges Consortia. The last speaker was Thomas Friedman, whos article 'Too Many Americans?' we read earlier this semester. Friedman's speech compared nature and politics, for example he compared ISIS to a monoculture in the plant world, and the carbon debt to the financial debt. These comparisons between the natural world and the political and economic world, the market and mother nature, are things I've been trying to express and dig out myself. The readings this week only futher supported my suspicions about the deep parallels between the natural world and everything else on earth.

I believe there is some kind of underlying natural law, natural law can be defined in many different ways from the philosophical to the ecological. I will avoid discussion for the philosophical for the moment, to focus on the ecological and physical. The earth clearly operates following some sort of law, for example the laws of physics, and thermodynamics. The neverending patterns and cycles of nature clearly point to some sort of plan. I realize I'm walking a fine line here talking about a 'plan' and 'natural law' but I'm not refering to a source, or a divine being conducting the symphony of the web of life, I'm talking about only what I can see and what I have learned from life and science. There are undeniable similarities between the operation of the natural world and politcs and the market. The parallels Friedman drew in his speech illustrate exactly what I'm talking about, as do this weeks readings albeit less explicitly (and I'm going to get to that in just a minute)

I am passionate and fascinated by food on many levels, every thing from food and culture to food and corporations interests me. I believe that by solving the multitude of food problems in the world we will simultaneously solve a huge number of the other issues of the world from the socioeconomic, to the policial. So we're back to connections and parallels. In Patel's article 'Can the World Feed 10 Billion People?' he discussed the use of fertilizer in Malawi, turns out that the over use of fertilizer while increasing the crop yeild had detrimental effects in other areas including nutrition and soil fertility. I could have told them this wouldn't work. Humans are always looking for quick fixes to things and celebrate their inguinutity then act shocked when it causes more problems. This is shown time and again in nature, in literature, in film, humans know this on a fundamental level but we try again and again to use these cure-alls. In 'The Oil We Eat: Following the food back to Iraq' Manning mentions that vegetarian foods such as 'soy burgers' and soy milk may be just as bad for the environment as meat. On a level of nutrition and production this is also common sense. Taking something full of vitamins and running it through a huge series of processes and mixing it with other processed things is bound to create by products and to have an out put of something that is simple much less nutritionally beneficial than what originally went in. What I'm getting at here is that it is no surprise that mass use of fertilizer causes more problems than it solves, and over processing food provides causes health problems. 

There are no quick fixes, the earth operates in cycles, like Friedman said in his talk the Market and Mother Nature are two of the most powerful and unmerciful forces on earth. Why we think we can out smart them, I simply don't understand. 

All in All you're just another brick in the wall. But if enough bricks are pulled out the wall can no longer stand right?

At my undergraduate university the core requirement was huge, with a particular emphasis on theology and philosophy. Due to the large amount of philosophical and theological reading, debate and analysis I have developed a tendency to consider certain fundamental aspects of things, more specifically of humanity and the individual. For it is us humans who lie at the center of all of this mess, not to be 'species-ist' but we've made it such. Human motives, needs and desires have guided this giant anthro-ship cruising global waters as it pleases. I frequently come to the issue of distinguishing between human nature and culture, and trying to sort through my own biases. I feel that through better understanding of the human person we can better understand the actions that need to be made to bring about change. Thanks to this tendency to bring human desire into analyses, I was particularly taken by the thread in Wapner and Willoughby's article regarding the fundamental driving factors for environmentalists, and the discussion of vocation and the individual. It was exciting to see mention of the individual within the system, an idea which is usually pushed to the sidelines. Aside from constant consideration of the individual generally I also reflect upon myself, questioning where I belong, where I could be most effective.

Everything we read puts me through a tidal wave of conflicting emotions leaving me doggy paddling in a kind of cynically hopeful purgatory. Uncertain of where I stand and where I should be hard at work.  Erik Assadourian's class visit was no exception. Most of Assadourian's concerns resonate strongly with me, and I am fascinated by his religious studies background and his idea of an eco religion. I wonder what drives Assadourian. He seems to have made a certain set of truths off of which he bases his actions and statements. There is a kind of air of resignation about him. Clearly he is an active man, nevertheless he seems resigned to some ideas, perhaps due to figures and probability. That's not to say he comes across as completely sans hope, there is at times a glimmer of the possibility of hope. In his State of the World 2012 piece on degrowth he offers some possible movements towards solutions, with real examples of people making positive choices and groups making changes. 

Bringing it back to Wapner and Willoughby, on a personal level I am searching for my vocation. I search for an understanding of the system, so that I can locate leverage points and figure out where I will be the most effective in the implementation of action taken on a leverage point. Vocation is such a powerful world, it reminds me of Plato's Republic, where the city is rebuilt with the different groups- the warriors, the artisans, the Philosopher King. I don't know where I fit into this system, an artisan? A philosopher king? All I know is that at the heart of all this is the human person, their wants, desires and needs, and somehow indirectly or directly these things format the systems and the worlds around us, and it is only through increased understanding of this that we will be able to make truly effective change. 

Reimagining development for sustainability in the low income countries

This week's readings highlight various entry points for sustainability. These points, although mostly discussed in the context of high income countries, also make sense to low income countries. Rethinking development beyond unregulated capitalism is quite relevant for countries which are either rapidly growing or are aspiring to grow. In those developing countries, mainstream idea of development centers on how to attract big multinational companies for large-scale foreign investment, how to build huge infrastructures, how to extract natural wealths, and how to orient economic policies toward capitalism and consumerism. However, the ground reality is otherwise. There are weaker institutions, unchecked environmental degradation, increasing trend of disasters, growing inequality and grievances and existing social and political tensions. Such mismatch between development imagination and existing soco-political and environmental realities actually demands idea of sustainability.

As Wapner and Willoughby have argued, environmentally conscious personal act should be linked with larger social movement which demands redistribution in high income countries and asks for bringing poor communities out of poverty without harming environment. According to them it can be done by increasing state's role on health and education and enhancing people's livelihoods. The irony is that developing countries imagine development in terms of big dams, high rise buildings, expressways, international airports, industrial farming rather than air, water, soil, trees, insects, birds, local groups and farmer's market in their development planning. Such mainstream thinking of development is neither economically secure, nor ecologically stable, nor socially just. As Moore and Rees argue, combined evidence of widening income gaps and accelerating ecological change proves that the policy is only paying lip-service to sustainability ideas by dressing growth economy in green. Therefore de-growing economic development is necessary not only to developed countries, as Assadourian has argued, but also to low income countries, in which possibility for degrow is higher than their high income counterparts. There are several successful examples in which local communities have collectively resisted the destructive paths and provided sustainable alternatives. We need more such examples, based on which we can build a sustained political movement for localized, environmentally sensible and less consumptive development pathway not only to avoid the destructive paths taken by the west, but also to protect them from environmental, political and economic crisis. Current structure of culture such as education and media play both supporting and opposing role to such movement. 

I'm suing America because I didn't know I was eating 3.6 earths and my individual choices mean nothing so it's not my fault.

Reading Erik Assadourian's "Path to Degrowth" piece after his visit to last week's class was a valuable exercise.  I was a bit surprised at first when he quickly responded in the conversation that his outlook is not pessimistic and that "when you know you're going to die, you don't have to be pessimistic about it."  It sounded blunt and apocalyptic, but after reading his article this week and reflecting on the class I see better where he is coming from. His stark view that we will have a collapse and the goal is to build a society where growth isn't at the center post-collapse was jarring for me, and I think a big part of that shock is my age.  I'd like to think I am not so naive, but I haven't quite outgrown the feeling of invincibility that comes with youth.  While I can logically understand my own eventual death and even the end of all things, I haven't grappled with this mortality at an emotional or philosophical level yet - for my own life or for the world.  Perhaps sadly, I'm sure this will come with time.  
That said, I was pleased to see that Assadourian isn't just hearkening the impending apocalypse. He has concrete ideas and examples for a degrowth strategy.  The thought of editing consumer choices was a bit creepy at first but it's already happening, so we may as well not deny it as a strategy. We are already manipulated by marketing, subsidies, tax credits, and more, so if these are already embedded they may as well shape more sustainable institutions than the ones currently being upheld.  Between this reading and the class talk, I tried to decide where to place Assadourian's arguments in Raskin et al's three paths of Conventional Worlds, Barbarization, and Great Transitions.  I found it interesting that Raskin specified how the sub-path of eco-communalism may inherently have to pass through a form of barbarization, which actually lined up eerily well in my mind with Assadourian's points of the approaching ecological collapse and subsequent strategies for post-collapse society.  Then he even mentioned eco-communities in class.  Beyond this, at a higher level Assadourian seems to fit well with a Great Transition.  He is certainly a system transformer, seeing the current one as broken.  I think many of us can agree with the transition to a new paradigm as framed in the transition terms.  "A Great Transition is galvanized by the search for a deeper basis for human happiness and fulfillment" (43).  Growth is a means, not an end, and the definition of success needs an overhaul.
Moving to Wapner and Willoghby's chapter "The Poverty of Lifestyle Change," we delve further into the role of institutions and the alignment of personal choices and structural change.  I appreciated their mention that individual lifestyle changes do have influence and should be supported.  Their discussion on the environmental responsibility that comes with the financial benefits of such choices was unique.  I hadn't thought of this angle before, and the ecological impacts of saving money in conventional financial instruments versus spending money. I'd like to see the numbers behind these comparisons, and I am now intrigued and would like to further research options for perhaps unconventional mechanisms for saving and investment.  I'm more of a saver than a spender, and I do feel like I could do more than simply allocate a small part of my 403(b) from the university to the "alternative energy" fund that Fidelity offers and I that I only vaguely understand...
I'm starting to feel like individual choices are taking quite the beating here.  I know it takes more than that to really make change, but if their only benefit is a nominal ideological shift what are we supposed to be doing?  "Engaging leaders" and "changing institutions" are still hard to understand at a level above the individual for me.  Movements are great, but aren't they collections of individuals?  These are human institutions made up of individual people.  Is it better for me to go to a climate march and write a letter to Congress than it is to be a vegetarian and recycle?  Not that these have to be mutually exclusive, but the more I read the more I'm starting to feel paralyzed by my own futility or potential uselessness.  Continuing this theme, Moore discusses ecological footprints and the case study of Vancouver with its goal to become the greenest city.  While personal lifestyle choices can be significant, they are not enough to get us down to one planet living.  Out of curiosity I calculated my own ecological footprint, and while I expected it to be above one planet, I was shocked to be at 3.6.  I was so pleased with my car-less walking to work vegetarian recycled paper lifestyle, but apparently living in America will send you over the edge no matter what.  Damn my shared one bedroom apartment with its electricity.  For fun, I calculated what my footprint was as a kid growing up in Japan.  I need to look deeper into how they measure these things, because despite living in a Japanese 4 bedroom detached house, riding in my mother's car to school most days, and flying long distances throughout the year, I was supposedly consuming 1.7 earths.  Either someone screwed up the methodology and conversions between countries, or more likely I just don't know the vast differences in electricity generation or something between Japan and America.  Japan is even listed as one of the over-consuming countries!  If anything, at least this takes the readings' themes to a personal and compelling level for me.  I am making the most environmentally conscious decisions at this point in my life than I ever have, and still burning through earths like nobody's business.  Maybe lifestyle choices really are no match for broken systems.  I guess I'll move to Ecuador.

Death of My Social Life

I have to admit, my life has not gotten any cheerier since I started this class. The destruction of humanity and all of nature seem to dominate most of my conversations with friends and loved ones.  I actually quite concerned that I’m going to stop being invited places.  And it’s not like I wasn’t aware of these issues previously, but I don’t think I fully realized the critical nature of the problems. Besides those in the minority that feel as though there are no real problems facing humanity and the fragile ecological systems that bind this planet together, I think there is overwhelming consensus that there are issues that must be addressed.  The question then becomes, what should we do about it?

For those that recognize that global climate change with prove to be the one issue that forces a total restructuring of society because of the nature and complexity of the problems that must be faced, they will say that individuals and the market will work it out. Callously, Some will even claim that climate change will be beneficial for some on this planet; in particular the United States. To my understanding, the argument goes something like this; the U.S. is far more prepared to deal with the devastating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, food shortages, and water scarcity. As a result of our “preparedness”, our geopolitical position as a global leader will be solidified as countries less able to deal with the negative effects come to rely more heavily on us.  Very Darwinian.  

Those less cynical about humanity believe that much is necessary to be done, but what that is exactly is being debated.  Some see population as the main problem, others believe that degrowth is the only solution, and there is also the school of thought that sees a major institutional overhaul as the only possible way to tackle a problem of this scale. I don’t think that any one on its own holds the keys to the kingdom. And honestly, at this point in the course, I don’t know if any of them will do any good overall.  Maybe at most they will soften the landing. But pull us back from the edge of the cliff… probably not. Many like Assadourian believe that we have learned consumerism as a way of life, but I do not believe this to be the whole truth. What I feel we have learned is the expectation of comfort. Of course this expectation has grown with time and innovation, but people the world over are continuously in contact with the higher expectations that surround them in the form of media and societal examples. We don’t know what will bring us higher levels of comfort, but because we have more disposable income to experiment with, we’ll try just about anything. Combine this comfort curiosity with a multi-hundreds of billions of  dollars advertising budget and you have a ripe situation for the consumption of lots of goods (or bads), depending on how you want to look at it.

I’m not overly optimistic in the possibility of re-shifting wealthy nations resources from those that possess the largest shares of wealth to those with small portions. Although more equitable societies tend to have less crime, higher education, lower infant mortality rates, and a whole host of more wholesome other social benchmarks, cultural norms in the U.S. are such that any suggestion to shift the focus away from individual achievement to more collective action is seen akin to communism, and is a political nonstarter.  Just like societies throughout history have watch as the world collapses around them. Workers today are more content to watch workplace equity disappear.  People are working more and longer hours for a relatively smaller slice of the pie.  Those in control of the resources, who have little incentive to change the system, also have the loudest voice within the system.  Civic engagement and action are the only possible way major societal shifts can take place.  The occupy movement failed as a result of a lack of clear, actionable objective.  I do see climate change as a possible rallying target that could shift the balance of power. Only time will tell I suppose.