Ecology

This is an essay for my Food Culture and Agriculture Course. It’s not my best writing ever; however, it has given me opportunity to coalesce some prior thoughts (avid readers will note some hints of material from earlier weblog posts).
There are any number of criticisms one can raise concerning agriculture; there are also arguments that we have larger issues at hand to consider. However, I would propose the primary concern of any society is agricultural. Without the production of food; society ceases to exist; agriculture and its corollary components are the base of human existence. Until the Industrial Revolution, the world was based on agrarian societies. We planned our years based on agricultural cycles; we lived near the soil. Now we think of soil as something dirty. It is something dead and dusty that gets tracked into the house and must be vacuumed up and disposed of. At best, we look upon soil as an inert medium in which we grow plants (and will at least deign to have some inside for houseplants). As our societies and religions evolved in close connexion with agriculture, they have an innate link to the soil. If this connexion is dismissed or severed, the base substance of societal cohesion and faith will suffer. Without the regeneration of soil, agriculture is impossible; arguably, without the human-soil connexion, our connexion to the earth and each other is diminished. In order to find a truly sustainable agriculture and society, all these elements must be considered.

This is a comparative essay written for my course on Henry David Thoreau’s Walden and Free to be Human by David Edwards.

Humans make reality; or, rather, we build our society and psychology based on notions of what reality is or should be. These notions are generally understood to come from individuals; the citizens of a “free” country are the masters of their own destinies. They are capable of making decisions that shape everyday life and the future. Thoreau and Edwards contend the issue is more complex. In Walden, Thoreau proposes these decisions cannot be made freely unless the individual chooses a life and manner of thinking that allows for freedom; a century and a half later in Free to be Human, Edwards questions whether the structure of society and economics allows for intellectual freedom at all.

It’s Christmas shopping time and most everything is crap. Sorry, might as well say it; most of the stuff wrapped in boxes and mountains of paper is either poorly made or made for only a season of use. The electronic thing you buy will be obsolete before next year so you can buy another one. The toy is for 7-10 year olds; your nephew will be 11 next year and will want something else. Clothing might last a little longer but is subject to the whims of fashion.

We had last week the first session of Food Culture and Agriculture, a course on how societies view the growth of food and the customs that surround it. “Customs” here are far-reaching; we are not merely discussing table customs, but the cycles of consumption and waste that are necessarily connected to our “modern” food “industry” (perhaps food should also be in quotes as the pre-packaged frozen salted preserved irradiated bar-coded best-by dated substance purchased in the supermarket bears little resemblance to what was once considered cuisine).

For most of human history (or, “civilised” human history, if you like) the most disappointing thing one could do would be to shame one’s ancestors. To break family honour or lose face in society was (and still generally is) a terrible matter. To have a parent or close relative say, “You have shamed us all” could send a person into a downward turn for the rest of his or her life (which may be spent in psychological or physical exile depending on the severity of the transgression).

Humans hold a paradoxical view of culture (by “culture” I mean the encompassing sphere of human thought: the arts, political systems, religion, economics, and so on). On one hand, we tend to view both history and the future through the eyes of our current culture; as if culture has not changed for some very long time and is unlikely to change for some time more. Such a myopic view robs us of history’s wisdom and binds us to a pre-packaged determined future. Concurrently, we also view past and future culture as something vastly different than the current human experience. Our forebearers (noting even the separation of one generation to the next) lived lives so different than our own that their experiences and accumulated knowledge are invalid for the present. Future generations will encounter a world so changed from this one that we may not even speculate their circumstances. Of course, neither of these views is entirely satisfactory; but both are necessary to address our current situation and plan for the future.

A few weeks ago, while visiting my parents, I read a guest commentary by Jeffrey Jarrett in their local newspaper. Mr. Jarrett is the assistant secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy. The same commentary was apparently printed in multiple newspapers around the country (see here, here, or here). His article warrants debate; my response follows:

I’ve no illusions that my words or actions will wholesale save or destroy the world. Despite the “single-handed hero” concept promoted in our literature and film, I doubt that any one person can have such power. No one person, no matter how great their goodness or malevolence, can move the mechanism of Earth and society in such a grand manner. However, there are people who have great power and influence over many; their actions and ideas will, as a consequence of the authority we afford them, form the course for a certain future. I am pessimistic concerning the health of our world and society. It’s not that there are too many people for the world to support; thought that is a concern. It’s not that we may have irreparably damaged the environment; though that is also a concern. There are a litany of recognisable and evident “problems” we can list that will “end life as we know it.” My concern is that, “life as we know it” may not be such a good thing to promote.
Recently, at a trade summit in Asia, President Bush (addressing President Hu Jintao of China) made this statement:

This is the genesis of an essay I plan to write over the incoming week. (I’m posting it online more to spur me on in the process than to inform everyone of impending profundity.) The writing and editing of this curriculum spreads good seed in my head; this is part of the Discovering Your Culture session.