If we build it, they will come (to eat)

My poor attempt at commissioning the quote from Field of Dreams to my cause actually does relate to how I foresee changes in the American Food System coming about.  There has been a recent effort to reconnect the city man to his rural roots, by reintroducing greenery into urban areas, especially with food deserts. Even though there are small efforts few and far in between, the success of current programs has the ability to spur the growth of similar city-greenhouses. Subsidizing these initiatives will not only bring employment to city areas hit hardest by growing urban poverty. Targeting food deserts will become more of a priority in the foreseeable future as obesity rates are skyrocketing despite hunger rates in urban areas, but also are a beachhead for propelling effecting farming practices.

In 50 years, I see the food system dominated by two main forces, subsidized highly efficient and high-density farms in neighborhood and urban settings which provide the majority of produce local populations, and then the large staples farms will continue to produce rice, grains, and maize. Because much of our economy is based on serving as the breadbasket for the world, disassembling that system will be difficult, if not impossible. That being said, I also see the increase of eating more locally grown staples because of the implementation of a food transportation tax. This is an artificial way to control demand because there will be fines attached to foods which travel long distances, which can help disassemble the expectation that, for example, I can have avocados everyday of the year. Regional and time-based food cycles help encourage the reemergence of local diets and cuisine, which are typically more well-suited to the environment and the consumer's health. 

As I see the large companies/farms remaining in control of the staple crops, the biggest change will come in the localizing of produce. I see farm companies which currently grow produce on a massive scale turning to in-city projects as well as helping subsidizing and starting efforts to promote local produce production. I see people who might now be out of work now being 'sent back to the fields' for part-time work. With enough support, cities will be fully reliant upon their own sources for produce, and will bring in crops they cannot produce, the staples. This will cut down food transportation costs and the environmental impact.

I see this being possible because of the relationship that man has with nature. It is rare to come across people  who scoff at the idea of being out in nature. It's the entire reason we have parks in cities, appraise houses with nice gardens, and even sell house plants. It's a way to remain close to nature, despite being removed from a rural naturalistic setting. The Hook piece this week really touches on this, how there is a natural relationship and desire to be with the land. It may be because of how I was raised, but I need never as complete as when I am surrounded by nature, and working in gardens gives me the same satisfaction. There seems to be an innate relationship between us and the land, and with life satisfaction decreasing with the spread of urbanization and consumerism, I believe putting being back to work in the dirt will be a way to improve livelihood while setting up a new system which decreases our impact on the environment.

The Tech Trap

Technology, I would argue, is generally a positive force.  Innovation  has assured our survival as a species and also greatly increased our quality of life though it could be argued, and is by some, that certain technological developments are currently driving us in the opposite direction.  A lot of this has to do with the goals of the the developers/drivers of the new technology.  Consumerism, as argued by both Meadows and Assadourian among others, is fundamentally detrimental to the environment.  As such, if a technology is developed for the sole purpose of selling it, it is a negative development.  The newly released iPhone 5, for instance, is an example of negative technology.  It represents new technology because it is shinier and has a few more bells and whistles than its predecessor, but it is negative because its release has convinced many iPhone owners that their phones are obsolete and that they must buy the new version.  Over the past week, I have rolled my eyes at multiple friends and acquaintances as they explain how their iPhone that they purchased just a few months ago is now worthless because there is something newer on the market.  The production of the new iPhones wastes resources as does shipping, marketing, etc.  Then there is the question of what happens to the old iPhones: do people sell them, throw them out, use them as coasters?  In short, new technology is a negative force when it is developed to be sold rather than to address a legitimate issue.

That said, technology can be a negative force as a consequence of the externalities that result from it.  The green revolution, for instance, caused a myriad of unforeseen environmental problems despite being driven by a benevolent goal.  We see this a lot: a new technology is developed and seems to effectively address a problem but causes  even more in the end.  This phenomenon occurs because we can never fully predict what effect a new technology will have down the road, and this is probably where innovation is most dangerous, which does not mean that it should be avoided. Rather, we should be careful to at least try to foresee more of the "unforeseen" consequences of new technology and then have systems in place to control them.

Finally, I do believe that technology holds the key to controlling and ultimately reversing environmental degradation. Frankly, it has to.  Returning to older practices, more in touch with nature, might be more effective in stopping more degradation, but it is viewed as regression, and as such, I do not believe that it will happen short of some Hollywood-esque post-apocalyptic scenario.  Further, this change would be extremely effective in preventing further damage, but we're at a point where we have quite a bit of cleaning up to do as well, and innovation is absolutely key in this respect.  I agree with Assadourian that people need to fundamentally change the ways they live, think, and consume and that green technology will not fix the problem if we do not fundamentally alter our behavior.  However, this shift is going to have to be framed as progress and accompanied by new green technological innovations. Technology got us into this mess, and it's going to have to get us out of it.

Technology and Environmentalism

In our conversations about how to live harmoniously with the environment technology change is a parameter we can bet on, but not rely upon  The importance of technology change to the environmental movement differs depending on whether you're speaking to a cornucopian optimist or a more dour environmental pessimist.  Over the course of human history, technology change has been the engine to secure unimagined comforts and conveniences; it has increased the length of our lives by protecting us from disease, and made the time we spend on earth richer by connecting us with loved ones.  It is no surprise now then that many environmentalists go boldly forward under the assumption that technology change will also be able to protect us - and our descendants - from ecological collapse.

There is danger, however, in guessing incorrectly the pace of technology change.  Certainly we can say the rate of environmentally friendly technology change will be greater than zero.  Already there are many enterprising, inventive organizations and individuals who have developed ways to harvest energy, produce food, and transport people in less environmentally degrading ways.  Technology change is only one of many factors though, and relying on the rate of tech change to make up for the deplorably slow pace of governmental, social, and cultural change would be folly. 

The effect of technology change is not directly related to the development of new technologies alone.  People do not install solar panels on their roof simply because the technology to do so exists, nor will more people use electric buses because in some lab a scientist has developed a more efficient super-capacitor.  The incorporation of technology change into the way we live our lives is dependent on what government facilitates, and what culture demands.  As Assidourian and Bateson argue in the readings this week, consumer culture has driven production and consumption to levels that would have defied the imaginations of our forebears.  In order for technology change to create a more ecologically sustainable society, we need to construct a new paradigm where such technology is demanded as much as the newest iPhone. 

Technology is unique in the environmental conversation because it comes with a time-tested caveat: technology is a double-eged sword.  While it has been the engine of our success as a species, it has also allowed us to live in ways more disconnected from nature and each other, and by it we have created dangers to threaten the entire human race.  It is inescapably ironic, for example, that the same technology that created the first weapons of mass destruction now fuel our agricultural system.  Technology requires ethical consideration, and green tech is no exception.  Like all technologies, green technology has the potential to aggravate existing social and economic social inequalities.  Some technologies, as described in the "State of the World, 2010", require heavy energy investment at the beginning and only become green in the long run. 

Therefore, it is necessary to consider the implications of the technologies we adopt in our efforts to become less environmentally damaging; it is the creation of durable, reusable, and equality reinforcing technologies that will fuel an ecologically sustainable future.  However, we should always be careful not to invest all our hopes in one panacea.  Technology change is a powerful tool in our arsenal, but it cannot be our only tool - democratic governance, social cohesion, and cultural change are all equally necessary to secure a more prosperous and verdant future. 

Technology as a positive force

While pondering this week’s blog prompt, I realized that I was stuck so I decided to do what most people who are stumped do: define the words in the question. Technology is such an integral part of our society but it’s used so easily that it becomes one of those words that people know but cannot properly define. What is technology exactly? What is considered technology? The answers to these questions are important because it helps us understand how our shape our views of technology’s impact in society through our own definition of what constitutes itself as technology. Well, according to Merriam-Webster, technology can be defined (among other ways) as “…the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area.” The word practical itself is defined as “… of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something.” Now, this something can be an idea, plan, or method. Going by the stated definition of technology, the iPhone 5 is considered technology but so is a recycling method (not the physical product itself but the idea of it) that details how to remove paper from plastic products, for example.

I believe that technology can ultimately be used as a positive force in the environmental fight. There are so many great things that people are doing with technology that it should not be disregarded in discussions of what we can do to help slow down the deterioration of the environment. We should be encouraging (green) technology rather than condemning it. Just look at how far we’ve come with the computer. The first computer was a massive structure that took up an entire room. It must have taken a lot of energy to power it and it could not even do complex tasks. Contemporary computers can do much more while using less energy.

This does not mean that I do not realize the negative impacts of technology on our environment. Honestly, I have never met anyone who has recycled their old T.V. or used batteries. The truth is that most outdated and/or unwanted technology in America is thrown out on the curb and unfortunately spends its last days in a landfill. However, I do not think that it is the technology that is at fault but rather the mindset behind its creation, use, and subsequent abandonment.  Technology can be a positive force in our lives by making certain chores easier, faster, and even more environmentally friendly (the trend nowadays). The problem lies in our consumerist lifestyle. A great example of this is the reaction to any Apple products. With the release of the iPhone 5, people are throwing away their iPhone 4/4S and lining up for the latest technology. Our desire for the latest and coolest technology coupled with our increasingly shortened attention span means that we demand more and more physical products that use up more resources. In a few years, Apple will come out with a new edition of the iPhone that will replace the current iPhone 5 and satisfy our need for change. People should keep innovating and changing the current technology because the current trends in technology shows us it will lead to a more efficient and environmentally friendly end result. The problem is the attitudes that drive our consumption of technology: is it because we want to be more efficient or is it simply because we want to be the owners of the latest technology? 

Technology holds a key, but we are the key masters

 Since a young age, I have been a sci-fi fanatic. From Star Trek to the (often strange) depths of cult sci-fi literate  I have eaten it up. As technologies have been infused with our society, as an example, your relationship is no longer deemed legitimate unless it's 'facebook official,' I have gotten more more giddy about the prospects of the development of holograms, virtual worlds, and an onslaught of new technologies that we can only dream of now. 

I see technology as a generally good force, especially for the development of further green initiatives. The advent of a whole new generation of high tech, low output devices to replace our aging systems. Technology moved us from coal to nuclear energy, it will move us into high efficiency renewable energy. It's brought us electric cars, the stepping stones for future transportation revolutions by  reigniting the idea that there is an alternative to fossil fuels. As the years go by, competition will likely fuel new initiatives for a slightly more environmentally conscious generation.

Technology has one fault though, it is still slave to its creators. Until we can create a sentient, eco-minded AI to make new technologies for us (which would be badass, I am in full support of AI systems, even dumb ones) we are the 'gatekeepers' of progress. Outside of a university lab, it is the market which largely controls the direction of technological developments. The market is still in the 70's-80's mindset of maximize consumption and growth at all costs, and technology follows that model. That can only change with a shift toward a symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. Once that happens, I feel that we will see a much more healthy relationship. 

A Conundrum

Michael Maniates makes an interesting point regarding the emphasis on proposed simple fixes to save the environment.  I agree with his point that the tone of publications such as The Lazy Environmentalist and other publications that preach that we all can prevent climate change and other ecological disasters merely by taking shorter showers or using the right type of light bulb is a bit condescending. Fixing/saving the environment is not so simple.  The government and environmental organizations should be asking for more from people, but general consensus seems to be that people are not willing to do more. Maniates does not seem to agree with this and thinks that people would do more to combat climactic instability if more was asked of them.

One on hand, I agree.  Many of the people who do make the small changes in their lives, particularly the ones who were recruited to the green lifestyle by their favorite pop stars, likely are not aware that they are not doing enough.  As a result, they do not know what they should be doing, and the government, environmental organizations, and eco-minded celebrities (essentially those groups with a public platform) need to stress that more significant action is necessary. They control the information; yes, the facts are out there, but most people won't put in the effort to find them, but that is not to say that people would not take more drastic action if they were fully aware of the scope of the environmental problem.  In that sense, the aforementioned groups bear the responsibility for getting the word out, and by understating the problem, they are not only treating the general public like children but are, in fact, perpetuating the problem that they are tasked with solving.

Conversely, however, I am not sure that people would be responsive if asked to do more to protect the environment.  People in general, especially the American populace, have a long history of laughing in the face of fact.  For instance, there is a sizable portion of the population that still denies climate change entirely, which, after decades-worth of evidence, is completely ludicrous.  As such, if people were asked to  dramatically alter their lifestyles; I generally question whether they would or if they would seek out the sources that make them feel better.

Finally, I want to touch upon the strength of interest groups in American government and the role that they play in preventing the type of strict and comprehensive environmental policies proposed by another one of our bloggers.  Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big-any-industry-that-is-fundamentally-detrimental-to-the-environment have a lot of money and, as a result, a lot of power in influence in Washington.  They can rally supporters among our elected officials both directly by contributing to their campaigns (thanks DC United) or indirectly. I am not saying that our representatives our all corrupt and in bed with big business, but a Fortune 500 corporation can devote a lot more resources to preventing more environmental legislation than an NGO can to promoting it.

Going Green: Taking it one step at a time

Although it was written in November of 2007, the arguments in Professor Michael Maniates’ article “Going Green? Easy doesn’t do it” are still relevant to our world today. The only difference is that the environmental problems that plague our society seem to be getting worse while the pace of our actions seem to be the same, if not slower and more apathetic.

The fact is that going green is considered “trendy” nowadays. It’s everywhere but with most trends, people want an easy way out. The minute and easy little steps that they can do to seem like a friend to the planet is their way of participating and being a part of the green movement with as little effort as possible. Is this ideal? No, it is not. We want people to care about the environment. We want them to take real action and not be complacent with just doing what they think if their fair contribution. We want people to rethink their consumer-oriented lifestyle. However, we also do not want to overlook the importance of doing the small things. Constantly reinforcing those habits in a way that produces discussion of the environmental issues is a good thing.  A lot of people do not have the time or money to be as environmentally friendly as they would like to be. In the short run, it costs more to be environmentally friendly sometimes than it does to just blindly consume and throw away the finite resources available. Our problems seem to extend much further than just not doing enough.

As mentioned in my previous post, the privileged few on this planet that shameless consume far more than their “fair share” of this earth do so in blissful ignorance; ignorance of the scope of the environmental problems that we, as humans, are contributing to the supple world surrounding us.  Ignorance, not the coddling of the masses by environmental elitist, is the root of the problem. How can people demand more drastic action if they are not properly educated on it? In a country where people still doubt the existence of global warming, trying to force drastic action on the public is not going to change much. People need to possess the desire to change the way we consume and dispose of things.  At the same time, they also need to be properly informed on the issue. Unfortunately, it could take a lot of time before that happens and time is a luxury at this point.