Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Go Green: Our Earth's Future Depends on It
A few months ago I wrote a column on surviving what I call our Not-So-Great Depression, a double whammy of eco-nomic and ecological crises.
My threefold prescription for survival included regarding our homes as shelters rather than investments, harmonizing our relations with each other and the Earth, and fostering interdependence within our communities.
Apparently I performed one of my functions as a columnist by hitting some nerves. One reader responded, "I think you are right. It is time to live like the Zulus in Africa. No water, no electricity, no doors, no windows, walk 20 to 30 miles to get help, and live in a house of dung." Another wrote, "This depression will not be full of community, but guns, looters and outright starvation. How is that better even if 'less materialistic?' "
The vehemence of these denunciations surprised me, though perhaps it shouldn't have, considering the dominance of materialism in our culture. Fear of loss is pervasive, especially now, and our deeper fears are tied to the fact that our standard of living is unsustainable.
The arithmetic is pretty straightforward. The United States makes up 5 percent of the world's population and consumes roughly 25 percent of its resources. If just 15 percent more of the world's population reaches our level of consumption, 100 percent of the resources would be consumed by 20 percent of the people - and the remaining 80 percent would have to die. So far, few of those 80 percent have volunteered.
While ramping up the production of food and material goods might offer an illusory way out, it is, in fact, unfeasible. Currently, our fertilizers and many of our critical materials are derived from vanishing, nonrenewable resources. Our long-range survival can be ensured only by reducing our per capita consumption in the United States and other developed countries - a process that is under way whether we like it or not.
What is unclear is whether "guns, looters and outright starvation" or an equitable (and healthier), sustainable society will take the place of overweening materialism - but surely there must be some middle ground between the excesses of our consumer culture and living in a "house of dung."
If we decide to opt for sustainability over economic and ecological chaos, we must overcome our fear that reduced consumption means impoverishment. The basic question, then, is: Can we as a species live within our means and still live well?
Three conditions will have to be met for a sustainable society to emerge. First, our economy will have to be based on renewable energy and materials (plant products). Second, global population must not exceed the Earth's productive capacity. Third, we must replace our secular materialism with a new cultural paradigm I call "green consciousness."
None of these conditions implies poverty. Poverty stems from competition for limited, nonrenewable resources and the over-harvesting of renewable resources - all in pursuit of an accumulation of goods in the more developed nations that unbalances the entire global system of energy and material distribution.
Yet the Earth's capacity to grow food and forests, and to produce energy from sources such as switch grass and algae, is far greater than our total supply of nonrenewable resources. Enough sunlight strikes the Earth's surface in one day to power civilization for a year. And virtually every material we need - from plastic composites that are stronger and lighter than steel to filaments that conduct light pulses - can be derived from plants.
It's all ours for the growing if we are willing to make the needed cultural adjustments, such as voluntary population reduction and investments in sustainable systems. Cultural adjustments occur at times like ours when the old order no longer serves our needs and visionaries provide alternatives that are seized upon, sometimes in desperation.
In our time the alternative is green consciousness, the understanding that the Earth is a single living system and that we are all part of it. If you believe, as I do, that the Earth is worth saving, you'll strive to understand that system and share what you learn with others. As your green consciousness grows, you'll see that the entire planet is your ecological house.
25 Comments so far
Show AllIts like meat consumption. People continue to believe that if you eat an animal corpse it means you are more powerful, even though the strongest animals in nature are plant eaters(gorillas, horses, bulls, elephants).
Many people just dont think well.
"To be humane is to be cruel, vicious and unrestrained, like humans.
To be inhumane is to be compassionate, restrained, moderate, like non humans."
Thank you Webber. And as long as you brought it up, I would add my own alternate title to this article:
"Go Vegan: Our Earth's Future Depends On It".
Close to 80% of the world's grain and corn consumption goes NOT to humans, but to the meat and dairy industry to feed and fatten the animals that become the meals of gluttonous humans. The #1 destroyer of rainforests is the meat industry. The second biggest polluting industry on the world is the meat industry. The big agribusiness corporations continue to rape the land and displace the native agriculture of numerous countries. The meat industry is unsustainable.
You REALLY want to go "green"? Go vegan!
Actually, most vegan food products burn more fossil fuels while grassfed pasture raised milk and meat don't.
If you want to go green, stop forcing corn feed down the animals throat and let them eat what they want, usually it ends up being grass and rarely grains.
Update edit: It seems that some vegan products, not most, burn most fossil fuel. Hemp, flax seed, and lentils don't burn fossi fuels for production and since they are great sources of protein and high OMEGA 3 content, it seems that there is hope for vegans too. My apologies.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Webber,
Give me a break. Humans are omnivores. We eat meat. It's healthy. It tastes good. We eat animals.
It's the circle of life (ever watch the Lion King?). Birth and death? Ever hear of it? Animals eating animals? The real enemy of you anti-meat types is nature and G*d.
Pretty soon all of you vegans are going to start telling us "not to murder the vegetables! They are living creatures."
But Webber, it's your own choice, go ahead a eat your soy protein isolate imitation beef jerky, if you're into that kind of thing. But leave me out of it. Thanks but no thanks. I'm happy with my deep fried steak wrapped around a chicken breast stuffed with bacon and cheese. You can keep your gelatinous tofu cake and mung beans.
Are any of you even aware that eating too much soy will shrink your brain, make men grow breasts, and reduce your sperm count? Not to mention that every single vegan I've ever met is a 99 lb. weakling. Think about it, have you ever noticed that everyone shopping at a health food store is usually sick? There's a reason for that...
Eating soy causes:
* High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
* Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
* Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
* Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease. They also block thyroid medication, so people on those meds shouldn't have soy at all.
* Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.
* Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D.
* Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.
* Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
* Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.
* Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.
Veganism is unhealthy.
I will address the posts by both Terence and Joe in one post.
Both of you are being extremely narrow in your scope of the issue. You seem to have focused only on the soy PRODUCTS - in other words, those boxed, processed foods meant to replace the "taste" of meat and meat products. As a vegan, I can assure you there is MUCH more to my diet than those products. In fact, they play a very small role. I cook a LOT. I love to cook - so much so that my lovely female coworkers at the salon/spa where I work (I am a certified massage therapist) actually pay me to cook food and bring it in to them. And it is all vegan . . . and they love it. I use lots of beans (black, pinto, kidney, etc), as well as lentils, peas, and many other vegetables as the base of many recipes, with a symphony of spices and herbs to create orchestral culinary masterpieces - Indian food, Mexican food, Italian food, Middle Eastern food, you name it . . . I've cooked it. I eat a lot of raw food, too - without cooking.
There is NOTHING you meat eaters get that I can't get from my vegan diet . . . other than a bunch of hormone- and toxic chemical-laden fat and cholesterol. (But hey, to each their own.) I am a body builder who lifts weights, cycles, hikes, and does yoga many times each week. I am 175 lbs of solid, lean muscle - not a 99-lb weakling. I am 37 years old and look like I'm in my early to mid 20s. You do NOT need meat to build muscle. That is a lie. And it has always been a lie. There are plenty of vegetarian and vegan body builders out there, and I will also direct your attention no further than NFL All-Pro Tight End Tony Gonzales (Kansas City Chiefs). He is vegan. Care to call him a 99-lb weakling? I don't know what "health food" stores you shop at, Joe, but everyone I always see where I shop are in fantastic shape and have a wonderful glow about them. And we rarely, if ever, get sick. It's been over five years since I've so much as had a cold.
Your list of soy's evils are little more than propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. Yes, they may very well have some small merit to them . . . but again, if you focus only on the soy PRODUCTS out there and if one eats them all the time. Furthermore, I feel quite confident in saying those problems are more related to the fact of these "foods" being processed than anything inherent in soybeans themselves. ANYTHING processed is going to be far less healthy than raw, vibrant foods.
And Terence, I totally agree that you meat eaters should be eating meat from animals that are free to eat whatever they want rather than being corn and grain fed. But tell that to the big agribusiness companies. And again, I assure you MY vegan diet is far more environmentally friendly than any meat diet. I rarely eat those soy products which, again, seem to be your focus.
Veganism is NOT unhealthy. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is the MOST healthy way to eat. Period.
Blessings,
John in Fort Collins, CO
"You must unlearn what yo have learned" - Jedi master Yoda
Seventhson wrote,
"you are being extremely narrow in your scope of the issue"
"You seem to have focused only on the soy"
"I use lots of beans (black, pinto, kidney, etc)"
I'm sorry. My mistake. You don't just use SOY beans, you use lots of different types of beans.
"I am a certified massage therapist"
I never would have guessed.
"I love to cook - so much so that my lovely female coworkers at the salon/spa where I work () actually pay me to cook food and bring it in to them. And it is all vegan . . . and they love it"
"lovely female coworkers" - you dog!
"I am a body builder who lifts weights".
You're a body-building AND you lift weights?!? Wow.
"...cycles, hikes, and does yoga many times each week."
Pretty impressive. I'm impressed.
"I am 175 lbs of solid, lean muscle"
175 lbs! I wouldn't want to make you angry!
"I am 37 years old and look like I'm in my early to mid 20s."
You are amazing! You are really amazing. I'm amazed.
"everyone I always see where I shop are in fantastic shape and have a wonderful glow about them. And we rarely, if ever, get sick. It's been over five years since I've so much as had a cold."
Fine. I admit it. You are clearly a more highly evolved human being.
I've never blamed people for being sick before. But after listening to your POV, maybe I'll give it a try.
Like who are these idiots who gave themselves cancer? They probably ate at McDonald's. I say they deserve cancer. Am I right?
"Veganism is NOT unhealthy. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is the MOST healthy way to eat. Period."
Yeah, the science is wrong. Why? Uh. It just is. It's wrong. Period. Over. End of discussion. I win. Not listening. Nah. Nahhhh... Nahhhh... Not. Listening. It IS the MOST healthy WAY to EAT. Period. Again. End of statement. The end. Fin.
Namaste, Joe. My tone was definitely arrogant and too matter-of-fact. I sincerely appreciate you pointing that out. Still, I stand by the content of what I said.
I should also point out . . . I in no way suggested I blamed anyone for their sickness.
Peace.
Unfortunately, this article avoids addressing the real issues. Philip S. Wenz is correct in saying "Cultural adjustments occur at times like ours when the old order no longer serves our needs and visionaries provide alternatives that are seized upon, sometimes in desperation."
Yes, we will need to get desperate first. And we're not nearly to that point yet. Corporate America is still running the show for "progress" and profit, and until we deal with things like greenwashing, carbon trading and other Gore-isms, nuclear power as "renewable" energy, the 300 million plus private automobiles on our ever-growing asphalt roads, the ignorance of not discussing the number one plant (not switch grass) that could help us in many sustainable ways (hemp), the overabundance of big pharma's unnecessary, harmful chemicals which end up in our bodies and water supplies, GE crops, industrial agriculture, unnecessary conveniences like air conditioners and electric can openers (the human body can acclimate itself to a life without these harmful appliances), on and on.
So my basic question is: While corporations control our minds, our lives and "our" politicians, just how much growth can we expect in our "green consciousness"?
Sioux Rose
MAGARULIAN: You raised all the significant points! I would only supplement by adding that the power of advertising is addictive, like a subliminal drug, and through it have been established FALSE appetites. As others have pointed out in this forum, who needs a 4000 square foot home? And haven't we all known some of our best times in UTTER simplicity? I remember the NY blackout and how much fun it was to have no TV as an intrusion upon ACTUAL conversation. Many people used to camp out to get away from the whole "industrial culture," but these days, they come in RVS and can't seem to leave their TVS and radios behind!
Silence is powerful. It's a chosen device utilized by adepts, mystics, monks and deep thinkers, and it's gone missing in our sensory-overloaded society.
The author raises numerous good points, the problem is that the purveyors of "endless product world" do NOT wish for citizens to realize they can be quite happy with far less, and in fact will start to shed all those pounds and read more and interact more intimately with those around them. I think the shift is inevitable. How painless and how quickly it will arise is yet to be determined.
A friend's child stayed in Africa for a while in a small hut. He described that he had to walk several miles each time to get a bucket of water. Then when visitors came, he realized how selfish he felt about offering them a drink. He found out that water is one of those core things.
The house issue is significant. (BTW, lots of people have houses far larger than 4000 square feet, with like 7 huge bathrooms. I ask, what do rich people DO in their bathrooms?) For many people here, a house is equivalent to gold jewelry in other cultures. It is a way to store wealth. But a bloated house uses too much - energy, materials, space. I believe some of the acquisitiveness comes from false needs promoted by advertising and consumerism, and some comes from insecurity because we have no safety nets in case of illness or unemployment. Many people keep the overly big house as a way to finance retirement.
Same with transportation. Even in very modest neighborhoods, you see houses with 4 cars in the driveway. You could have one car and a community bus that does a loop to the school, the mall, the commuter train station for far less money per capita. But it would mean changing consicousness from "mine" to "ours". Private solutions can be wasteful.
If we could figure out what we really need (water, food, health, education, exercise, dwelling, transportation) and implement it efficiently then we could live more simply and better.
Joe
THANK YOU !! I don't know if you heard it back in 2000 but remember when the DEA bombed out a hemp farm in Lakota nation ? After Al Gore praised the DEA, I hated him and stayed Republican until 2004. Ron Paul has been trying to fight for legalizing INDUSTRIAL HEMP and he's a Republican. I cannot believe the Democrats aren't even doing the same.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
theinitiate
I agree, very good points Magarulian. This is what I have been sorting out in my head for a good two years or more, really. The author states "there must be a middle ground between the excesses of our consumer culture in a dung hut". And as Sioux Rose stated, the shift is inevitable. Just how painful will it be? I have been going around for a few years now, trying to give out and share as much as I can of what I've been reading and learning. Like the book I read written by David Corten- "The Great Turning". When I try to explain to those who HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, some of them or most, think I'm bringing on negativity. They say I'm worrying and that my thoughts are going to bring on negative events. Well, they don't really say it as much any more, because of the events that have been happening since I guess last summer/fall. BUT MY POINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN that by being informed, from different sources of material and points of view, you can use critical thinking. By doing this, it allows you to take action, positive a action. I want to believe that if WE ALL WORK TOGETHER-we can avoid people with guns and rioting and well, revolution... I hope...
theinitiate ,
You are not alone.
I too feel that through hard work, focus, and unity we can build a better future.
The situation could have been much more dire. Bush has led us straight in the problems and challenges we now face. Had we elected McCain then I would have to agree that the situation would be nearly hopeless. I would have advised people to buy a farm able plot of land far away from an urban area and a shotgun.
But we have turned a corner with the election of Obama. We have dodged a bullet, so to speak. Our new environmental policy will be the paradigm of Green consciousness. We will save this planet! We can do it! But only if we support Obama and work together!
It's a huge undertaking to try to heal our environment. We need every man, woman, and child to do their part. We need to invest in alternative and renewable resources like clean coal, wind power, solar power, hydro-electric power, safe nuclear power, geo-thermal power, bio-fuels, bio-mass - in other words, everything in our tool box. We need visionary thinking. We need leadership. And, although we're finally going to get those qualities with the inauguration of Obama, sadly we're getting the right leader only after eight longs years of incompetence.
Sioux Rose
THE INITIATE: I think the "New Age" community's use of this construct of "negative thinking" is a very problematic thing. It makes it a "positive" to discount actual reality. Now dwelling on the negative CAN cause anxiety/stress and disease. This is a factor I confront in my friends who do NOT want to talk about the US economy, or US militarism, or the corruption of our leaders, or the aggressive stances of Israel, or the environmental devastation. I see this as an adjunct of "Mars rules" in that people are conditioned to think they are only responsible for themselves, and altruism to them is the matter of extending concern ONLY to family members. This level of insulation makes concern for others inconvenient. I believe the loss of connection and sense of continuity resulting from this focus on self constitute a form of spiritual blasphemy. In fact I'd say it's just a more hip version of Calvinism.
One reason why this approach is so popular is that the majority of New Age authors who DO get published share this ubiquitous theme of "personal responsibility." Since 1492 often posts about the powerful role editors play in society. They are the gatekeepers of culture. As one who has been challenged by the orthodox publishing industry since I began writing books in l986, I have seen firsthand that they demand writers come up with "the 7 steps to success" and other pabulum that generally supports the materialistic interests of this nation. Much of it then disguised as spirituality. When during Reagan's reign the churches began to say things like "God wants you to be rich," it is the will of heaven than you prosper, we saw a simultaneous increase in the size of bodies, homes and autos. This "more is better" ethos is EXCELLENT for capitalist society as it relies on constantly fueling its insatiable fiscal engine through generating needs where none previously existed; but this way of living is anathema to conservation and the preservation of earth and her placental eco-systems. In other words, it's a suicide pact.
I need to go out so I'll have to cut and run now. Have a blessed day.
theinitiate
Sorry guys, I'm not proof reading very well. I read that over a few times and still messed up the quote from the author about "middle groud between our consumer culture and living in a dung hut. I'll do better...
I am angered every time some careless yankee tries to lecture us about the environment. I'm not an anti-environmentalist but back in 2000, the DEA bombed a hemp farm in Lakota and since then the Left never did anything about it. But then again, it was the "liberals" who signed the overtaxation of Cannabis and they allowed Nixon to create the DEA against people he dubbed "hippies". Hemp is the most powerful plant yet the strongest sign of peace that can save us both economically and environmentally and it pisses me off when none of these authors even mention the name hemp. This article looks like none other than a talking points memo from a special interest claiming to be fighting for the environment but instead engaging in venture capitalism. If you really care to save the planet, you all would be fighting for HEMP HEMP HEMP !!!!
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it needs to be pushed on many levels. We have a strong hemp movement here in Colorado.
Nice. My neighboring state of North Dakota fought hard to overturn the ban. A lot of legislators in that state, conservative and liberal, actually united and the governor despite being Republican signed it into law. The only thing holding them from competing with Canada is the DEA.
By the way, I stumbled across more info on vegans and corrected my earlier reply below.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Terrance,
I have started to become more involved in the hemp issue as I realize how important it is. I hope this country can come to its senses soon. It is SUCH an incredible crop. Kudos to you for keeping the faith up there too.
I saw your addendum. And my apologies for misspelling your name in MY post. : )
Cheers!
Terrance Mitchell, I just now noticed your comment after mine (further down) - as I was ready to post this. Here's more information on supporting industrial hemp in the U.S.:
As I mentioned in my previous remarks to this fluff article, mainstream supporters like Philip S. Wenz don't want to ruffle the feathers of Corporate America. They'd rather push for switch grass, instead of hemp. Before that, it was growing corn for ethanol use in automobiles. Never mind the poor and hungry humans on this planet.
Bills have been sponsored in the House during the past few years supporting industrial hemp. Rep. Ron Paul has been leading the way. Mr. Paul also supports a new medical marijuana bill. See http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/ron-paul-fights-drug-war-with-new-medical-marijuana-bill/
"It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop (hemp). The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States," said Rep. Paul. "By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act, the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit - all without spending a single taxpayer dollar." See http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/473/ron_paul_introduces_hemp_bill_US_congress
Ralph Nader has long supported the growing of industrial hemp. See Hemp for Victory at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0625-23.htm
The group - Vote Hemp "has emerged as the lead political activist organization of the hemp industry." See http://www.votehemp.com/
We will never attain a "green consciousness" as long as we support corporate profits over sustainability.
I have no problem with hemp.
I do have a problem with potheads who say support "hemp" or "medical marijuana", when they really mean "wow man, let's legalize dope, and put a dispensary on every corner."
Industrial hemp is not marijuana. Don't confuse the two. The chemical THC in marijuana is not found in hemp. As for the drug part, go to any country where Cannabis isn't illegal and you'll be surprised. When alcohol and tobacco, despite their high hazards and the fact that they are actually riskier than cannabis, can be legal, I see no reason other than political and business rigging reasons to outlaw the plant. Hope this helps.
By the way, another useful idea is biocrude from algae. Generating renewable petroleum from algae regardless of the location is possible. Imagine turning a dumpster into useful but renewable environmentally friendly petroleum. Oh, and we need to decentralize the operation instead of privatizing it like we did oil.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Nice article. But my guess is that most of the people who post here are still driving gass guzzlers, living in un insulted housing, buying homes built from new construction, abide by the values of consumption, and view issues of sustainability as something someone else does.
Yep, I'm pretty sure of that. By the way, ever heard of biocrude from algae or even hemp? No fossil fuels involved and environmentally friendly.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
AND an energy powerhouse, from what I've seen.