Oppositions in the Omnivore's Dilemma

A principle opposition that Michael Pollan implements in his Omnivore's Dilemma is the troublesome discrepancy between natural evolutionary logic and so-called industrial food logic. In nature, for instance, cows eat grass and live happy lives. Eaten grass is subsequently digested by the cow's rumen, a special inflatable organ designed expressly for this purpose. In keeping with the logic of industrial foods, however, cattle must be fed more "efficiently." Therefore, they are fed corn, which, unfortunately, is not digested by the rumen, leading to the organ's swelling and inevitable suffocation of the cow from the inside out. Antibiotics, namely Rumensin (treats bloat) and Tylosin (treats liver infection), must therefore be implemented by the industrial food companies to keep these bovine machines functioning...or processing correctly. Though a diet of corn would make little sense in terms of natural evolutionary logic as it is liable to cause Acidosis, "or diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, rumenitis, liver disease...general weakened immune system" (78), it makes sense, at least on the surface, from the Industrial side of things.

Corn (the hero of the book) is very cheap to use. According to Pollan, 3/5 of the Type 2 (non human edible) corn in American grown annually winds up at a feed lot, fed to steers in enclosed pasture. Thanks to "federally subsidized corn" (67), these animals are forced to abandon their natural ingrained ways for something decidedly unhealthy. It's a mirror of our own dependence on corn. Like Americans getting more and more morbidly obese on a corn-fed regime, cows experience rapid, unnatural growth, bulking up from "80-1,1000 lbs in 14 months" (71). This rapid growth comes at a price, and an "arsenal of new drugs" (71) must be used to make sure that price is not deadly. Is this really what we want to be eating? Nevermind the threat of "antibiotic resistant superbugs" that might very well form as a result of copious antibiotics floating around day after day, do we want out beef to be medicinal? Has our society fumbled into that future where food cannot stand alone on its own terms? The answer is yes. We are very much in a future where Whole Foods, by and large, untampered with by human means, are a rarity- embraced by celebs and hippies- but ignored by the mainstream. Corporations will continue feeding cattle corn and drugs until the demand lessens...even if the herd begins to languish.

This represents the central paradox, in my mind, of corn-fed cattle and the faulty industrial logic (aka blind, unconscionable avarice) that drives it. As Pollan so eloquently states, "[on feed lots] drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn't be sick if not for the diet...we feed them" (79). We have created a fossil-fuel machine that is bloated, sickly and sad. Numbered, force-fed, slaughtered. The corn-fed cattle debacle is Hitler's holocaust if only the captives had been fed better. That might seem extreme, but this is a monstrous situation without an easy remedy. Home gardening would be one option, more old-school farms without monocultures, without antibiotics and the veil of shifty-eyed "food security". This is an epidemic that must be stopped, but not with harder drugs.

Group Three Handout

Wendell Berry- “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front”
"Mad Farmer" is one of the more well-known poems by Wendell Berry, and it offers a searing criticism of the capitalist, market driven culture that the majority of Americans find themselves mired in. The first few lines seem almost to be commands from a higher power; they have a vaguely militaristic ring to them. “When they want you to buy something/they will call you. When they want you/ to die for profit they will let you know” (505). The beginning lines of the poem also evoke the way people have become so plugged into a system that they blindly follow a prescription for life based on fear of neighbors and death and failure in general, which can be remedied with increased consumption of material goods and adherence to a policy of “quick profit, annual raise, vacation with pay” (505).
Berry’s solution to the mind numbing effects of this sort of systematized life? Be radical, in radical ways. Do things “…that won’t compute. / Love the Lord. /Love the world. /Work for nothing” (505). Simple advice, and yet also difficult to practice. Some critics struggle with the reference to God, but it seems that Berry is simply professing the importance of being able to practice love in unexpected ways and places that are not limited to one method or faith. His use of the word “Lord” can be read as a symbol for the traits, goodness and tolerance and compassion, which often go along with religious faiths. Perhaps professing love for the Lord is simply the context that he finds most easy to understand.
The rest of the poem offers a multitude of solutions and ways to bypass the system that are not based upon personal gain and economic return, but instead place emphasis on the intelligence of universal systems that govern the natural world, a set of perfectly balanced cause and effects that humans have altered to the point of near disaster. He says, “Put your faith in the two inches of humus/that will build under the trees/every thousand years” (506). Trust in nature, and treat the land and those around you with respect, and all will be well. At the end of the poem Berry comes back to the very political idea of there being a set of external controls that are in place to govern what we think and how we act. He suggests we lay false trails to keep those who would practice manipulation at bay.
As soon as the generals and politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection (506).



Wendell Berry- “Preserving Wildness”
In this essay Wendell Berry is seeking to answer the question, how do we come to terms with the fact that humans are not divisible from nature? How do we as citizens, connected to the natural world in a multitude of ways, rebuild and maintain the bonds that exist between humans and nature? These bonds, though quite frayed and broken, still maintain a fierce potency that is not to be ignored.
The first way that Berry addresses this issue is by discussing the way the nature/human divide has become a heated, polarized debate with no middle ground to speak of. There are really only two sides to choose from, and both are extreme. One the one side are the people“. . . entirely in favor of nature; they assume there is no. . .difference between the human estate and the estate of nature”(516/17). People who fall into this belief category, which pulls much from the deep ecology theories, tend to think that all living beings, be they plant or animal, have a right to life, and are strongly skeptical of the idea of stewardship, the responsible use and management of nature. On the other side of this debate are “. . .the nature conquerors, who have no patience with an old fashioned outdoor farm, let alone a wilderness”(517). These people follow a more cornucopia driven theory, based around the idea that technology will solve any problems that arise. “These people divide all reality into parts: human good, which they define as profit, comfort and security; and everything else, which they understand as a stockpile of ‘natural resources’. . .which will sooner or later be transformed into human good”(517).
With these two sides wildly opposed to each other Berry proposes that there is actually a middle ground, and that this is precisely where the main problems are to be found. He outlines seven principles that “. . .state plainly the assumptions that define [the middle ground]”(517). While too lengthy to reproduce here, the seven principles are testament to the dilemma mentioned earlier, that humans are different from, but not separate from nature.
The main difference between humans and nature is culture. Berry says that “. . .humans must be made what they are-that is, in the extent to which they are artifacts of their culture” (520). What does he mean by artifacts of culture? He means that the lessons humans must learn in order to be fully human are above and beyond anything that other animals must engage in, and thus to become “. . .fully human is a task that requires many years. . .and this long effort of humanity is necessary . . .because of our power”(521). It is precisely this immense power that makes humans so dangerous and wonderful, endowed with the ability to create and destroy at massive scales, it is now more than ever imperative that humans develop a clear understanding of and commitment to culture. Berry makes the not absurd claim that without culture humans become “. . . monsters-indiscriminate and insatiable killers and destroyers. We differ from other creatures, partly, in our susceptibility to monstrosity” (521). In the combined reclamation of nature and culture Berry sees a way for humanity to achieve a harmony and balance between“. . .the domestic and the wild” (521).
Towards the middle of the essay Berry addresses the idea of wildness and the fact that, to a great extent, those places that are wild, and which humans depend on for so much, are now, in fact, dependent on us for survival! “The awareness that we are slowly growing into now is that the earthly wildness that we are so completely dependent upon is at our mercy. The only thing we have to preserve nature with is culture; the only thing we have to preserve wildness with is domesticity” (522). William Cronin, in the introduction to “Uncommon Ground” touches on the idea of the folly of preserving wilderness for the sake of wilderness or for the romantic emotion it evokes. He says that wilderness is now “more a state of mind than a fact of nature” (Cronin 88) and until people are able to see wilderness/wildness as part of humanity and not a separate entity there will be no real progress made. Cronin quotes Berry in the introduction essay, and both authors seem quite sure that the economy and the value people place on goods will largely determine the way nature is preserved.
At present the economy does not support the production of fewer high quality products and instead pushes towards a homogenization of goods. This can be seen in the spread of industrial monoculture as well. The idea of conservation is virtually pointless until the real cost of things is taken into account. Berry calls this idea “a loving economy” and says that “. . .it would strive to place a proper value on all the materials of the world, in all their metamorphoses from soil to water, air and light to the finished goods of our towns and households. . .[and] the only effective motive for this would be a. . .love for local things, rising out of local knowledge and local allegiance”(523).
Lastly, Berry addresses the problem of population. He argues that the idea of the ‘population problem’ is dangerous because it enforces already prevalent divisions and essentially claims that some people are more worthy or deserving of life and resources than others. Rather than overpopulation Berry sees the problem as being technological; more people are gaining individual power and are thus becoming dangerous on a singular scale. This is in fact more concerning than population growth because, as Berry says, “. . . one person with a nuclear bomb and the will to use it is 100 percent too many” (528). The end solution is one of possible harmony, between nature, people and economy. With enough understanding of all the factors involved in the life of all organisms there can be a shift in the manner of thinking that has so derailed the way people relate to and understand the land.



Aldo Leopold- “The Land Ethic”
In this essay Leopold addresses the idea that there are two kinds of ethics, ecological and philosophical. He says. “an ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. These are two definitions of the same thing” (277). Ethics evolve from the necessity of systems to work together, either in the natural world or among individuals within groups.
While there is an ecological ethic, there is not one that deals with the land specifically. Land is considered to be individual property (usually) and because of this the way people relate to it usually has an economic undertone. If the idea of an ethic is carried over into relation with the land then people will feel more of a sense of community responsibility to care for natural areas, for the sake of the land’s health, and not entirely because it will give them an economic advantage.
One way that Leopold sees this happening is through farmers who take action to preserve their land, rotating crops, and eliminating erosion on hillsides. Unfortunately these kinds of actions are meaningless unless everyone in a community commits to conservation for the sake of the land and not for economic reasons. Wendell Berry, in his essay “The Making of a Marginal Farm” talks about this idea to some extent, and explains how he was able to save much of the hilly land on his farm through responsible conservation and respectful treatment. He views the land as a living organism with needs and rights, and acts accordingly. While he does not explicitly say so it is clear that the farming practices he employs are connected to Leopold’s idea of a land ethic.
However appealing these ideas are there can be no doubt that the essential building block for this idea is the understanding that land is not an inert object, but a living organism that is part of something Leopold calls the Land Pyramid. He describes the pyramid as an exchange of energies that occurs from land, plants, animals and people. This cycle stays in balance through losses and gains of energy, but humans have begun to exert their power and the cycles are becoming more extreme, more loss, smaller gains.
In the end the essential question Leopold is asking is, “Can the land adjust itself to the new order? Can the desired alterations be accomplished with less violence?”(289). History has shown us that the less extreme imposed changes are to the land the less time it will take for land to heal and for energies to replenish.

Lynn White- "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis"
Lynn White holds many of the same beliefs regarding land that Berry and Leopold put forth in their writings, but White approaches the concept of nature from a religious standpoint. He details the history of the plow and sees it as a catalyst for what will become a massive shift in the way humans regard their place in the natural world. He says, “Man’s relation to the soil was profoundly changed. Formerly man had been part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” (406). White feels that the spread of Christianity helped perpetuate the belief that humanity is separate from nature and that it was the very idea of dominion over nature that has led to irresponsible actions regarding land use.
White says very clearly that science has much implication in this, and that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one”(410). He puts forth the teachings of “. . .the greatest radical in Christian history. . .”(411) St. Francis of Assisi as a solution, or at least another way, to proceed. St. Francis believed in the rights of all creatures and was able to converse with animals of all shapes and sizes. He believed that nature and animal life had a right to exist without undue tampering or control. St. Francis was considered a rebel in his time and his teachings could be utilized as the world faces often overwhelming challenges in the form of global climate change, and all its repercussions.



"Touching the Earth" – Gloria Jean Watkins (bell hooks)
Hooks’ article immediately shows a strong connection with nature. There is an ongoing feeling of love and appreciation for one’s surroundings and a point where embracing what the Earth has to offer shows to be a continuous theme. Hooks shows different races maintaining a sense of togetherness, both shown learning from one another: “Sharing the reverence for the earth, black and red people helped one another remember that, despite the white man’s ways, the land belonged to everyone.” As this sense of “unity and harmony” continues throughout her article, Hooks proves that both races gain a sense of connection with land. The sheer, romanticized importance is described:
“We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man—all belong to the same family.”
Hooks does a wonderful job showing how dedicated people are in regard to their love for the land, describing it as a crucial element where connection is key. However, as Hooks continues, she shows that upon moving north, the so called rootedness that once was with African Americans is now in a lot of ways, non-existent. Upon the shift northward into a more modern-based lifestyle, Hooks shows the disconnect where African Americans felt lost: “Of course, they found that life in the north had its own perverse hardship, that racism was just as virulent there, that it was much harder for black people to become landowners.” Basically, African Americans had to start over from scratch. As barriers such as landownership as well as just settling became more of an issue, the idea of the “great migration” generated a further displacement. Hooks offers a relatable example: “…one of the ‘displaced’ black folks in Morrison’s novel, Miss Pauline, loses her capacity to experience the sensual world around her when she leaves southern soil to live in a northern city.” As the discouragement of not being able to gain a sense of clarity became more difficult, Hooks’ tone shifts somewhat dramatically where there appears to suddenly be a more revelation in which re-self-discovery is established.
Hooks offers a more positive turnaround with a very optimistic tone where that despite undergoing a situation that’s not necessarily ideal, these races (African Americans) looked past and did their best to adjust: “Even in my small New York City apartment I can pause to listen to birds sing, find a tree and watch it.” She continues: “…I have found that I can do it—that many gardens will grow, that I feel connected to my ancestors when I can put a meal on the table of food I grew.” Hooks shows that they’re making-do with what they have, and the littlest form of connection seems to matter the most.
On an ending note, it appears that Hooks’ piece seems to target specifically to an African American audience. Despite that, however, it could/can hold merit in regard to any other oppressed people that may have felt in some form or another, a point of disconnect. For example: Hooks states towards the beginning of her article how Native Americans struggled too. So with this, Hooks succeeds in presenting valiant information that can valuable to any group of people.

What Is Education For? –David Orr
“The truth is that many things on which your future health and prosperity depend are in dire jeopardy: climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity.”
David Orr is an environmental educator, and the founder of the Meadowcreek Project (an environmental education center), and he currently works at Oberlin College in Ohio. As the quotation above shows that there needs to be more of a focus in these areas, Orr suggests that it’s quite possible that the people in charge of the climate’s stability and the natural systems may not necessarily be the best for the job. Orr succeeds in scaring his audience with the cold, hard facts: “We will lose 116 square miles of rainforest, or about an acre a second… We will lose 40 to 100 species, and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100… And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere…” Orr seems to offer a different perspective where the people in charge of these disasters are not typically what you would consider to be a person who is “ignorant,” rather these people are higher up in an educational sense. They hold degrees, PhDs, MBAs, etc. Orr does gives them that, however, he states that: “My point is simply that education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. More of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. This is not an argument for ignorance, but rather than the worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival…”
As Orr continues, he suggests six ways of thought to help better understand the dilemma. He talks about how “ignorance is a solvable problem,” but states that it is clearly not. It’s something that cannot escape the human condition. Secondly, he continues by stating that technology will manage the planet. Although this proposal sounds ideal, Orr states that “…the complexity of Earth and its life systems can never be safely managed.” With that said, it is suggested that we need to “reshape ourselves” so we as a society can make these changes instead of relying on other means which in a lot of ways aren’t working to begin with. Thirdly, Orr states that important, more crucial knowledge is being lost in the mix where “overemphasis” in certain areas aren’t necessarily as crucial as other areas that indeed need more direct focus.
The fourth myth Orr states is that society can reestablish the higher education that we have lost. In a lot of ways this seems to be a great idea: making a valiant effort to put forth real determination and drive to alter the more negative aspects. Orr states that this process becomes difficult: “For example, we routinely produce economists who lack the most rudimentary knowledge of ecology.” He continues by saying that “We add the price of the sale of a bushel of wheat to GNP while forgetting to subtract the three bushels of topsoil lost in its production. As a result of incomplete education, we’ve fooled ourselves into thinking that we are much richer than we are.”
The fifth myth meshes nicely with the fourth in the sense that it deals with education. Orr disagrees that a good education will give a person success: “The plain fact is that the planet does not need more “successful” people. But it does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, and lovers of every shape and form. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane.” The concept seems simple enough where if these ideas were applied, things could easily turn around for the better. Orr seems to suggest that if society can accept the fact that some people aren’t the best for their jobs, it will be more beneficial to put someone in charge who will actually embrace the problems and hopefully change them in the best way possible.
Lastly, Orr states that “our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement.” We’re portrayed as a wonderfully modern and developed country. Sadly with that attitude, Orr suggest that we’re also guilty of “cultural arrogance” as well. We seems to create an idea that our ideas and motives are flawless, and that’s how problems start to arise. Orr seems to suggest that we’re far from it: “Our culture does not nourish that which is best or noblest in human spirit. It does not cultivate vision, imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring, or compassion. Increasingly in the late 20th Century, the economic-technocratic-statist worldview has become a monstrous destroyer of what is loving and life-affirming in the human soul.”
Orr’s conclusion offers alternative ways of thought in regard to education. He first suggest that “all education is environmental education.” He gives an example: “…that physics and ecology have nothing to do with the economy. That just happens to be dead wrong.” Orr proposes the idea that these smaller examples are indeed imbedded in education as a whole, and that needs to be taken into consideration. He continues to say that: “For the most part we labor under a confusion of ends and means, thinking that the goal of education is to stuff all kinds of facts, techniques, methods, and information into the student’s mind…” This idea doesn’t allow a more hands on experience, rather, the process of learning is memorization, memorization, and more memorization. Continuing, Orr stresses that a more “real world” experience of learning will ideally be more beneficial. Upon suggesting alternative ways of positive change, Orr points out what can be done in regard to making these ideas more of a reality.
Orr states that a campus-wide awareness is a good start. Here, one can begin to suggest alternative ways of thought where questioning education can start to take shape. He continues to talk about more hands on experience opposed to simply sitting in a classroom. Orr concludes by listing a number of educational tools that every student should know upon graduating. A few being:
-The laws of thermodynamics
-Least-cost, end-use analysis
-Limits of technology
-Environmental ethics
With this mindset, Orr suggests that people who should not be in charge of certain areas dealing with the well-being of Earth, it’s hoped that by looking closer at the bigger problems, these negative issues will slowly being diminished. Orr ends his article by quoting Aldo Leopold: “If education does not teach us these things, then what is education for?”

David Abram –" The Ecology of Magic"
Abram offers a different way of thought. In his piece, The Ecology of Magic, the basis reveals more of a spiritual/magical way of learning. His purpose is “…to honor and value our direct sensory experience: the tastes and smells in the air, the feel of the wind as it caresses the skin, the feel of the ground under our feet as we walk upon it.”
One interesting example that Abram presents comes towards the end of his piece. He shows a give-and-take-type example which involves the human world and the nature world. Upon staying with a “balian,” (a magic practitioner), Abram explains what he witnesses: “The second time that I saw the array of tiny rice platters, I asked my hostess what they were for. Patiently, she explained to me that they were offerings for the household spirits.” Upon letting the information sink in, Abram recalls that he sees the rice grains start to move: “Only when I knelt down to look more closely did I notice a line of tiny black ants winding the dirt to the offering.” The logic behind this bizarre instance starts to make sense to Abram. The area where the house resided was highly populated with ants—instead of having to deal with infestations where ants could initially overrun the house, the given rice platters were strategically placed in the corners of the house. This was a purposely, repeated process in which there would be a boundary of sorts between the human world and the nature part.
Before this, Abram talks about the magical experience in relation to how one relates with the human world/nature world and how he perceives it: “Magic, then, in its perhaps most primordial sense, is the experience of existing in a world made up of multiple intelligences, the intuition that every form one perceives—from the swallow swooping overheard to the fly on a blade of grass, and indeed the blade of grass itself—is an experiencing form, an entity with its own predilections and sensations, albeit sensations that are very different form our own.” What Abram seems to be getting at is that a person’s relationship with the nonhuman world seems to be overlooked in a lot of ways. Here, it’s suggested that one take a closer look, and really embrace how nature and human life feed off of one another. This acknowledgment can show more appreciation to one’s surroundings.
As Abram incorporates the idea of the magician within the text, there seems to be a point where instead of placing themselves within a community, they do the opposite where they are shown in more of a natural setting: “…such magicians rarely dwell at the heart of their village; rather, their dwellings are commonly at the spatial periphery of the community or, more often, out beyond the edges of the village—amid the rice fields, or in a forest, or a wild cluster of boulders.” Here, Abram shows a nice contrast. It’s not nature making its way into the human world, but the opposite. This shows a nice meshing where the human world can embrace the natural world rather than the other way around.



Gary Snyder- “Smoky the Bear Sutra”
Snyder's poem Smokey the Bear Sutra brings the spiritual world into the our own material world in a cry to deep ecology. Smokey the Bear in this poem becomes the physical manifestation of "the Great Sun Buddha". His purpose is to protect not only the environment, but also those working to protect the environment as well. Smokey the Bear is a human creation who very much symbolizes people's desire to protect the natural world. Placing him as "the Great Sun Buddha" grants Smokey an energy above the human world. The poem uses this energy as a source able to be tapped by humans for the betterment of society. The mantra provided by the poem allows people to tap into this energy, much like conjuring a muse, to aid them in their own individual roles as protectors of the environment.
How does granting Smokey the spiritual identity of "the Great Sun Buddha" aid in the poem's purpose?
Gary Snyder- “Covers the Ground”
Covers the Ground describes the human footprint over the once vast natural lands. The quote near the end of the poem gives the lines "400 miles, your foot would press / a hundred flowers at every step" describing how the lands once were (479). Every part of this land now appears to have been trampled over by humans. The poem describes the land as now orchards. This may seem like nature at first thought, especially with the descriptions of the almond blossoms and the beehives, but the poem also details the destruction caused by even the orchards. Every part of the orchard is controlled by human forces. The walnut is "irrigated, pruned and trimmed" showing the marks of human control over nature (478). To harvest the orchards also requires lots of machinery and people, who must live someplace, drive to places, and consume goods. Even by creating an orchard, we have covered each part of this land with the human footprint destroying the wilderness.

Alan Durning “The Dubious Rewards of Consumption”
Humanity has become a confused bunch. The drive for material wealth has grown into an insatiable appetite for more and more. People have become convinced that having more of the things they want will make them happier. The problem is that more is never enough and there is always more than "more". People have come to the conclusion that everything valuable must have a value. As the piece describes even "leisure time becomes too valuable to "waste" in idleness" (780). People are constantly striving to gain more material to make them happy, and they don't recognize that it doesn't make them happy in the first place. The parts of life that once made living enjoyable have been forgotten in the consumption driven society. Durning notes Argyle's determinants of happiness as "satisfaction with family life, especially marriage, followed by satisfaction with work, leisure time to develop talents, and friendships," (774). Each of these things takes a back seat to consumption. Marriage is often on a material basis, work is more often chosen for pay then for enjoyment, and leisure has become driven by consumption, and time has become too valuable to spend with friends without gain. One may enjoy playing the guitar, for example, but instead of simply enjoying time spent playing guitar, one may spend time working in order to buy a more expensive guitar. In this case his or her talents would not have grown providing any sense of satisfaction and the new guitar would only provide satisfaction until he or she saw an even nicer one that he or she desired.
How can people shift their idea that more is better?
How can the real cost of things, as discussed by Berry and others, be implemented into the way people live and consume?

Walt Whitman -This Compost and Songs of the Redwood
The two pieces by Whitman presented in our textbook, “This Compost” and “Songs of the Redwood,” seem to be written by people proscribing to entirely different ecological disciplines. Both of them are very descriptive of nature’s personality, personifying the trees and the land, but this technique is used differently in each piece. The first, “This Compost,” comes off as being anti-human in a way because he talks about how we are essentially a poison to the Earth. He speaks about the cyclical nature of the relationship and how everything begins and ends with the planet. He brings humans down to the same level as all organic things on the planet, referring to men as “foul meat.” With our foul meat, we are poisoning the planet but in turn, it is purified and made into something completely new; some new life, something that is once again beautiful and pure. I view both of the pieces from a social ecology point of view because of his talk about how much we affect the health and livelihood of the planet by the way we are living our lives. There is a strange air of sexuality present in the poem as well as he talks about his sexual relationship with the forest. “I withdrew from the still woods I loved,” and “That it is safe to allow it to lick my naked body all over with its tongues,” are both examples of his interesting relationship with the land. I really like his ideas about how the planet takes things that were once bad and turns them into something new. I guess pollution wasn’t much of a problem at the time of his writing this, which would definitely affect his thoughts in this area.
For how much he talks about how pure nature is and how much we, as humans, contribute to its demise, his second piece, “Song of the Redwood,” spins a seemingly opposed viewpoint to his previous work. It is a poem about the felling of the ancient redwood forests in California, a place that people are now trying to protect. The importance of our relationship and its symbiotic nature are even more prevalent in these texts, a good portion of which is written from the perspective of the redwood trees themselves. It’s funny in a way because he is talking about the beauty of all these trees being felled, and speaking of their history with one another and how they are happy they get to contribute to the birth of this new nation. He gives feelings to the trees, rocks and land, saying that they have the capacity for the same emotions as humans. The poem makes it seem as if the “crackling blows of axes sounding musically” is appealing to the trees, that they enjoy being destroyed. His view of the destruction of pristine wilderness for the sake of man makes sense for the time it was written. It was the beginning of a new, optimistic nation and he couldn’t know everything that the future would hold. He always presumed that we would live in harmony with nature, shown by saying things like “The new society at last, proportionate to nature,” and “the fields of Nature long prepared and fallow, the silent, cyclic chemistry.”
David Brower “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions”
David Brower’s article consist of a set of instructions detailing what
the earth is made of, the resources, and essential parts and how we can attempt to conserve and protect it. The format of “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” is similar to the instructions that come with a new car or toy. The decision on the author’s part to write the essay in this way is interesting and can be read as a mockery of the consumptive culture we live in. “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” is broken down into three main categories, and some of the main categories have sub-categories that give more detail about their section. The essay lists the main features that alloe for life on Earth, water, air, land, and then goes on to offer details as to how each secion is maintaining or struggling. The sub-section titled Emergency Repairs offers up some gallows humor by saying ". . .it is best to request the Manufacturer's assistance[if problems arise](best obtained through prayer" (557).
Throughout this essay there are statements that seem satirical but are laden with heavily serious undertones. At the very beginning of the article, there is a Warning sign that states “loss or even temporary misplacement of these instructions may result in calamity” (555). We know that if the instructions were lost the world would not fall into calamity or be destroyed, however the truth embedded in the essay, reagarding the sickness of the panet, cannot be ignored or discredited. “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” can be read as a direct reply Buckminster Fuller’s essay “Spaceship Earth”. In Spaceship Earth”, Fuller states that “I think it’s very significant that there is no instruction book for successfully operating our ship” (466). Perhaps in response to this Brower felt the need to write his own planetary instructions. Partly humorous and partly serious, they are still significant in their critique of the way people mindlessly assume that all will proceed as planned, regardless of the increased inputs and outputs of harmful substances that we continue to create.
Calvin DeWitt “Inspirations for Sustaining Life on Earth”
Dewitt presents three principles that he derived from ancient Hebrew text that have been used to help in negotiating international treaties on biodiversity. These three principles are Earthkeeping, Fruitfulness, and Sabbath. DeWitt argues that these principles are only in Judaism and Christianity, but in reality, they can be found in all religions and human societies.
The Earthkeeping Principle says that we must take care of our planet. “human beings must take care of the garden, must take care of creation, must keep the Earth.” He believes that this message is widely accepted across cultures from around the world. He then dives into the bible to make this point clear by attempting to use one word to strengthen his argument. The text of Genesis 2:15 expects human beings to shamar it. “ May god, the Creator, keep you: with everything working right inside of you, everything working right psychologically, everything working right between you and all the people, and everything working right between you and the soil, and the air, and the land, and the rest of the creation- everything in the biosphere.” The Earthkeeping Principle is based off the word shamar. We must shamar the earth by working hard to keep it healthy and sustainable.
The Fruitfulness Principle states that we can enjoy the resources our planet has to offer, but we must not destroy the source of our resources. “What we can gain from the fruitfulness principle is that we may take from creation, we may take the fruit, but most not destroy the fruitfulness of earth’s living creatures.” According to the Fruitfulness Principle, the earth has plenty of resources such as fruits, vegetables, lumber, water and oil, which we can all use. However, we must make sure that we do not alter the ecosystems that reproduces resources. An excellent example Dewitt gives is from Ezekiel 34:18: “Is it not enough for you to feed in the good pasture, must you trample the rest your feet?” So we can drink the water that the Earth provides us, but by keeping the water pure as it was originally it will keep the ecosystem intact which will feed the rest of the animals and plants.
DeWitt’s final principle, the Sabbath Principle, states that we must let the land rest. He says that even God rests on Sunday’s, so the land should also rest. What he means is that if people are constantly fertilizing their land with harmful chemicals, always planting various plants on it, that the land will soon become unusable. DeWitt then talks about a farmer he met in Canada. The farmer said to Dewitt that he must give the land rest because needs it. “I give my land rest every two years because that is what it needs.” Ecologists, agriculturalist, and even scientists will say that the land must rest just like people do.
Towards the end of “Inspirations for Sustaining Life on Earth”, DeWitt presents an overarching principle that he calls Con-Service. He gets these terms from the Hebrew Scriptures. The closest translation he can find in modern speech is the idea of “stewardship.” This principle states that we must serve our land and it will serve us. The Con-Service principle is very close to Jesus’ golden rule, however it includes the land, along with humanity, as being deserving of respect and grateful treatment to ensure the continuing exchange of energy.
Kenneth Boulding- “Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”
Kenneth Boulding, an economist, takes an intriguing look at the present state of our planet through its production, consumption and polluting habits and then posits his idea of what the future is going to be like. What he goes on to describe sounds eerily similar to the plot of Disney’s Wall E, but he actually refers to as Spaceship Earth. It’s his idea that our current economy is a “Cowboy Economy,” with a devil-may-care attitude and in order to assure a better future, we must start thinking about a spaceman lifestyle. His viewpoint is one of an eco-Marxist, which isn’t surprising considering he is an economist and directly references him in the text. This paper calls for a change in lifestyle, because if we don’t care about the future and its problems, then do we even really care about the present and have the capacity to solve our current problems? He outlines the fact that our current societies goals and definition of success are going to have to change as they are currently tied to production and consumption, which in turn, is tied to depletion of resources and contributes to pollution. In order to succeed in the spaceship society, we must redefine our definition for what success is, as it is currently the output of goods. We’re going to have to stop consuming so much and focus our thoughts on conserving and doing the opposite of what we do now.
If we are to make the future work, we are going to have to start putting ourselves and the human race as more active players in the equation. Though in the end he presents the opposing point of view saying that “the needs of the then present will determine the solutions of the then present, and there is no use in giving ourselves ulcers by worry about problems that we really do not have to solve.” This seems to make the most sense to me and ties in with the notions of Marxist and social ecology. Some of his ideas are in opposition of these disciplines in that he isn’t sure if the spaceship earth will be able to fix itself. It doesn’t seem like so much of a solution as it does to an alternate to death. Living in a non-consumption based economy seems like it would be meaningless. How would you be able to judge one person from another, give class labels and make viable comedy. There’s nothing funny about conformity, it’s actually scary. A world full of no waste and priding ones self on their ability to live sustainably seems like a fruitless effort. It seems arrogant to say, but I like being able to know that I’m above certain people and I need a way to quantify that. One of the biggest problems he sees getting in the way of resolution is our ability to discount the inevitability of these or similar events. Its in our nature to shirk obligations and leave things till tomorrow, or think that someone else is going to take care of it.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Michael Pollan's argument of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is that as Americans, we have a selective number of foods to choose from which results in a dilemma. His question of "What should we have for dinner?" is centered on the idea that Americans' eating habits and how AMerican food industries have drastically changed our way of life. What we should eat and how we should eat are binary oppositions that pull us into the unhealthy direction and push us into the dilemmas of the consequences that follow from our eating sources/habits.

In the Industrial section of the book, Pollan begins with the origins of corn. Awesome lol! He argues that everything we eat is made of corn and therefore we are walking corn with legs. However, the healthiness of corn has shifted as its processing rituals have been manipulated by humans and made/processed into foods that are unhealthy to eat. Pollan's arguments remind me of the speaker who talked about the "horrors" of McDonalds. Coincidentally, corn is in every McNugget and Big Mac because it is fed to the animals that eventually become dinner. I feel that both men have a point that our society has turned against the health benefits of eating to a more cheaper and fulfilling treat. However, eating out a couple times a week is not going to make you fat or unhealthy. Honestly, I eat out just about 5 times a week and I'm pretty healthy.

Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front

Of the readings from week six, Wendell Berry’s poem “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front” seemed to raise some interesting questions in class that I would like to expand on a bit for my blog. The narrator begins the poem with an attack on capitalism and society as a whole, saying, “Want more / of everything ready made. Be afraid / to know your neighbors and to die” (505). The breaks in these lines are set up to end with commanding the reader to “Want more” and “Be afraid.” The first command is a more obvious critique on capitalism; the second is more subtle and complex from a psychological standpoint as it shows how desire is driven by fear to a certain extent. Berry also points out that we are afraid to move outside the capitalist system because all we know is capitalism and that which we do not know we fear, just as we fear death. The alternative to the repugnance of capitalism that the narrator prescribes is to, “do something / that won’t compute. Love the Lord. / Love the world” (505). The narrator subsequent recommendations are reminiscent of the teachings of Jesus, such as “Take all you have and be poor” and “Love someone who does not deserve it” (505). This is a rather unexpected turn for the poem as one would expect it to go into a glorification of nature or something along those lines. Although I did find some of these prescriptions to be an interesting and innovative way to undermine capitalism, the line “Love the Lord” was a pretty significant turn off for me. While I appreciate where he goes with the rest of the poem, the overt religiousness of that line alienates me as a reader and I imagine it has a similar effect on other readers as well. It makes the poem seem like it has a specific agenda that is being forced on the reader a little too aggressively. Overall the poem is successful in offering insight into both capitalism and its effect on our society, but the prescribed solution seems to be thrust upon the reader (which, for me, made me resistant to it). Whether or not Berry intends for his reader to have this reaction, I am not sure. Nevertheless, I think the poem would have a significantly different effect if that line were to be altered.

Video: M. Pollan on The Daily Show with Jon Stuart

His advice: eat food, not "edible foodlike substances."

Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing

Short video featuring Patel.  He calculated that the real cost of a fast food hamburger is $200.00.  He uses economics to steer us toward a more humane and sustainable system.  

Cell phones and The Inability to Focus

Ever since the American Industrial Revolution, Americans have felt compelled to have the most luxurious cars, houses, and clothes. We unconsciously felt that our self-worth was directly connected to our bank accounts, and that our image was better or worse depending on how fancy our cars and clothes were. As one Wall Street banker bluntly said, “Net worth equals self-worth.” Many new happiness studies have suggested that Americans have built this false notion that happiness is created by consuming more than your neighbors. This is still true today. However, there is an attention addiction that is replacing the consumption addiction.

Many Americans from all age brackets believe that their self-worth is directly dependent on how much attention they receive through the cyber world. Presently, Americans have become more addicted to being online than any other nation. Blackberries, I phones, Androids, and Nokias, have become our drug that always allows us to exit the reality we are in now, to enter into the cyber world. These smart phones keep people connected to the news, social networks, friends, and work twenty four hours a day, every day. Nowadays, you can’t even take a quite walk on a beautiful summer day without feeling your pants vibrating to alert you that someone five seconds ago posted a funny comment on last weekend’s parties. I see everyday people who can’t even think if they forget their cell phone at home. They typically say “my whole life is on that thing, I need to be connected.” It's a sad shame that Americans cannot live in the moment. We not only cannot focus in reality, but we feel as if we don’t get constant stimulation through the web, that we are nobody, that nobody cares about us.

Smart phones have created a sense of insecurity in virtually everybody that has one. Personally, if I don’t receive a text message at least once a hour, I feel as if nobody cares about me, and that nobody is thinking about me. I am not alone. In fact, if you just watch people around you, you will see that anyone with a smart phone is constantly checking it, regardless if they have a new message. If you are sitting in a class, or eating at a restaurant, just watch people. People will slyly pull their phone out from their pants just to see if they have a new message. The unfortunate thing is that many people check their phones to see if they have a message even if they know they don’t have one. They stare at the screen waiting for it to vibrate. They wait for it to let them know that someone is thinking about them. This insecurity is unfolding a variety of problems that we may not know the deep side affects until more studying has been done. But from simple observation of addicted cell phone people, we can see one major problem that is affecting the foundation of society.

The largest problem that is due to cell phone and internet addiction is the inability to focus. When I am at the library, I see students who try to read a book, but after every few pages, they check their cell phone and fire a text. How can one truly become involved in a book, follow its arguments, and create one’s own analysis if their train of thought is consistently broken by an incoming text? There have been many studies that suggest that addiction to text messaging is creating focusing disorders in children in young ages that are lasting all throughout their life. The inability to focus can pervade all aspects of our life. When people drive, they text. When they are at dinner, they text. And when they are just relaxing, they text.

Even the most ancient and spontaneous art we call conversation is slowly eroding because of cell phone and internet addiction. Before the day of cell phones, people would all sit around a delicious meal, a fire, or under the moon to discuss anything on their mind. Conversations would take turns, and interesting antidotes would fill the air. Everyone participating in the conversation was focused on the words flowing from the speaker. And everyone was thinking hard to put in their insightful input. But now, if a group of people are in a conversation, you can almost be guaranteed that people will come in and out of the conversation depending on when and who they get text from.

Sometimes you may be telling a story that people would typically find interest in, but while you are telling it, you see them reaching down towards their pants or purse to take out their phone to quickly check an unnecessary message. Then after they check it, they attempt to rejoin the conversation as if they never left. But you can tell that they missed important parts, and your feelings are also probably hurt because they felt that their little text message was more important than your personal story. My grandfather recently confessed “conversations used to be lucid memories like a movie with no commercials and advertisements, but now they are broken and fragmented like a short sitcom with plenty of commercials and advertisements.”

Michael Clayton

The film Michael Clayton tells the story of a huge corporation's attempts to win a case in which they have been accused of using toxic chemicals to fertilize crops that have led to major health problems in surrounding communities. The corporation is a client of an enormous law firm whose key lawyer, Arthur Edens, on the case has a nervous breakdown and switches sides after a realizing the corporation's guilt. The protagonist of the film, Michael Clayton, is an attorney who is charged with dealing with Edens' mess and reassuring UNorth that everything is fine. Once UNorth becomes aware of the real situation, the film quickens its pace and mainly focuses on UNorth chasing Edens and eventually Clayton around the city.
As I mentioned in class the other day, the film seems to be in the same vein as Erin Brockovich but focuses on the other side of the law suit. Not to say that Michael Clayton does not offer an interesting perspective on such a case (I actually think MC's viewpoint is a little more interesting), but it seems that environmental lawsuits are becoming something of their own genre. This can be seen as a positive thing as these films make audiences think about pollution. It also is an indication that people are becoming more and more concerned with environmental issues.
Another subject we discussed a bit in yesterday's class that I would like to expand on is Karen Crowder's character. The director's or screenwriter's (or whoever it is) choice to make “the bad guy” a woman was a very smart choice. This is because it makes the audience less able to put her character into the category of the corrupt and powerful businessman and thus makes her harder to dismiss as wholly evil and separate from ourselves. Corporations after all are made up of normal people. The question is how and why do people who make it to the top become so obsessed and desperate to save their company that they are willing to commit such atrocious acts? Understanding this psychology behind this process would probably help us fight against it and bring us a step closer to solving the environmental crisis. Maybe the next Michael Clayton or Erin Brockovich will be about Karen Crowder.

Wendell Berry reading a poem

Group 2 Handout

Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline Palmer, "Eco-speak and rhetorical analysis"

Killingsworth and Palmers' article examines the patterns of rhetoric commonly used in environmental writing in an attempt to offer improved methods for addressing the environmental crises that effect our world. The essay takes a closer look at the roots of the environmental dilemma as well as the issues that prevent it from being solved; specifically, the limiting and worn-out methods of environmental rhetoric (ecospeak) that fail to generate social collaboration and shared interests.

The writers argue that the environmental dilemma and the rhetoric it spawns revolve around questions of ethics and epistemology. This is due largely to the seemingly impossible predicament of the "American Dream" and its conflict with environmental protection. How do we pursue an ever-higher quality of life when it results in disastrous environmental consequences? Killingsworth and Palmer claim that this dilemma is seemingly unsolvable due to Western society's "inability to solve ethical problems" (4) and lack of a unified public. Rather than taking action as a whole, the public is divided into opposing groups that approach critical issues with their own sets of values and interests. Unfortunately, those involved in the environmental debate "work from ethical foundations so widely separated that compromise becomes irrational and conflict endures with no end in sight" (4). This problem is exacerbated by its roots in humankind's removal from nature, an epistemological issue that dictates respective group's differing views of the human and non-human world. Some see nature as merely valuable to the extent it is usable by humans while other see it as a divine, efficient system that is far more important than mankind's modern assaults. This divergence in attitudes requires environmental writers to target not only the ethics of their audience, "but also the way the reader regards the entire community of nature" (4). The writers contend that to be alienated or separate from nature is to actually be separated from oneself, as we are "never entirely independent of [our] social context or natural context" (5). As the issue of environmental deterioration becomes more pressing and entreats upon the consciousness of the general public, participants in the environmental dilemma look to discourse as a way of mobilizing their audience to a cause.

The essay goes on to explain that the environmental dilemma has generated various "discourse communities" (7) that are made up of groups, each with their own interests, beliefs, and methods, that use focused language to promote their respective view of the world. Thus, the discourse of all groups is comprised of respective specialized language that is used by writers and speakers to create appeals that incite "cooperative social action" (7). The main goal of this rhetoric is to provide its audiences with identification: ethical, emotional, and logical requests that allow audiences to connect to a message or cause. However, countless groups such as deep ecologists, preservationists, politicians, etc. have all been "unable to create strong communicative links with the mass public” (7) that would incite major reform or change as environmental rhetoric has become somewhat worn-out and clichéd. This is where ecospeak comes in, having “emerged as a makeshift discourse for defining novel positions in public debate” (8). All too often its methods of argumentation are made up of stock phrases, tired examples and familiar language. These shortcomings run the risk of perpetuating conflicts and steering the public away from resolution as it prevents social cooperation and open-mindedness. Killingsworth and Palmer also point out that it has created a division between "good guys" and "bad guys" (e.g., environmentalist vs. developmentalist) in the media and everyday conversation that fails to reach out to those left in the middle, confused and overlooked by the starkly divided debate. Furthermore, ecospeak fails to highlight other "sources of solidarity and conflict" (10) that could actually help work through the environmental dilemma.

The "retreat into ecospeak" (10) is habituated by various participants in the environmental debate that have differing perspectives on nature’s purpose; there are those that see nature as an object, those that see nature as a resource, and those that see it as a spirit. Ironically, it is used just as heavily by environmentalists as it is by the media and "big business." It dominates the environmental literature landscape which, as Killingsworth and Palmer argue, is not an ideal way to achieve the level of social cooperation necessary to solve the ever-worsening environmental dilemma. Environmental rhetoric is in serious need of a departure from the overused narratives and language that prevent us from getting to the root of the problem. In order to be successful, it must adapt to the modern landscape of environmentalism and implement wider-reaching, fresher methods of rhetoric that will help bring about cultural (and consequently, environmental) renewal.

• Do any of the recent readings fall under the category of ecospeak? How or why not?
• How would Killingsworth and Palmer view César Chavez’s Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech? Are the anecdotes he uses of innocent victims poisoned by pesticides an example of overused narratives in environmental rhetoric? Is his call for action fresh and inspirational to various audiences or does it perpetuate oversimplified oppositions?

Robinson Jeffers, “The Answer” and “Carmel Point”

In the poems “The Answer” and “Carmel Point”, Jeffers turns a critical eye to the “atrociously ugly” tendency of man to sever himself from nature and the nonhuman world. “The Answer” reads like a cautionary tale of sorts for those that have placed damaging distance between themselves and the “the earth and stars and [their] history” as well as those that are “deluded … [or] duped” into fantasies of “universal justice or happiness” (251-252). The message of this poem draws its strength from the concept of integrity; Jeffers repeats it twice as the key to avoiding “man’s pitiful confusions [and drowning] in despair” that is brought about by removing ourselves from the natural world. He values (and suggests that we do, too) “the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty of the universe” that are as connected to us as our own limbs. By respecting and taking pleasure in these things that are intrinsically and infinitely important, Jeffers suggests that we might arrive at “the answer.” He brushes off violence, tyranny, and oppression as a mere blip on the radar of infinite, glorious nature that holds more importance than anything our human interests create (and destroy). This idea of nature as an extraordinary force with unparalleled endurance is repeated in “Carmel Point.” In this poem, Jeffers praises “the extraordinary patience of things” that has little concern for the “crop of suburban houses” that disrupts the beautifulness of nature. He uses words that attest to the natural world’s purity and integrity (“pristine,” “unbroken”, “clean,” “confident”) that is reminiscent of “The Answer”, painting our world as one that should be valued by us finite and destructive humans for its immeasurable perpetuity. The natural world “has all time,” he writes, unlike humans who are but a mere “tide / that swells and in time will ebb, and all / their works dissolve.” The poem claims that the idea that we come from the earth and will be gone long before we can spoil it requires us to “uncenter our minds from ourselves.”

Jeffers’ poems refrain from using scare tactics or tired rhetoric in order to promote a message about the environment. Instead of pointing out the threat that faces human life and well-being or shocking us into heightened perception (as in Toxic Discourse or ecospeak), the intent of Jeffers’ poems is to recognize the “divine” beauty and “organic” integrity of the natural world so that we might close the expansive gap we have driven between the human and nonhuman world. This can be considered a deep-ecologist perspective in that it seeks to defy the Western separation of humans from nature: “Love that [divine beauty of the universe] / not man apart from that” is arguably the strongest line (and clearest declaration of deep ecology) in the “The Answer.” As such, Jeffers’ poems can be connected to the other writers we have read in this course that have similar deep-ecologist perspectives, such as N. Scott Momaday’s “A First American Views His Land.” Momaday’s Native American deep ecology is similar to Jeffers’ poems in that they both express reverence and respect for the land that they are intrinsically connected to: “I shall celebrate my life in the world and the world in my life,” Momaday asserts, sharing in Jeffers’ message of a divine nature that is more than worthy of our respect and reverence.

• How would Garrard respond to the deep ecologist ideas presented in Jeffers’ poems? Critically or favorably? Are there any other ecological tropes to be found in these poems?
• Can “The Answer” and “Carmel Point” be considered ecospeak or toxic discourse? Do they (implicitly or explicitly) attempt to steer the reader towards a certain direction or course of action? If so, what methods or tactics do the poems employ to achieve this?

W.S. Merwin, “Place”

Merwin’s poem “Place” is abbreviated and simplistic, discussing in short phrases the desire to plant a tree “on the last day of the world.” The poem clarifies that the speaker would plant the tree not for the fruit it would provide but because “I want the tree that stands / in the earth for the first time / … in the earth full of the dead” (717). The world is ending and the speaker wants nothing more than a tree that will live in an environment that is surrounded (and connected) to “the sun,” “the water,” “the clouds” through its roots and leaves. The speaker’s desire to plant the tree is far removed from any notion of producing fruit, which would merely leave the tree with a devalued sense of purpose. Merwin supports, like Jeffers, the unifying of man and nature rather than the harmful separation. His description of a tree “that stands / in the earth” and connects to elements of nature despite being surrounded by apocalyptic death speaks to human’s lack of relationship with the nonhuman world. The world might be on its last leg (perhaps from humans’ destructive assaults) and yet the tree that the speaker imagines stands alone in the midst of death with a distinct air of fortitude and splendor. Like the nature that withstands “intrusion” and “spoiler[s]” in Jeffers’ poem “The Answer,” Merwin’s image of the tree is one of integrity and beauty whose strength is innate and deeply rooted. Merwin’s poem can be considered based in deep ecology, like Jeffers, in that it maintains a reverence for nature and defies humankind’s detachment from it.

• Is Merwin’s poem more or less hopeful than Jeffers’? Does it exemplify nature in the same way? Does it exhibit a purely deep-ecologist perspective?

Lawrence Buell, “Toxic Discourse”

This essay, which examines the concept of toxic discourse and its effects on environmental issues, begins with a few quotes that set a somewhat disturbing tone for the essay, particularly the first, which states, “There is a real world, that is really dying, and we had better think about that” (30). The reader immediately gets the idea that this is going to be an essay that employs scare tactics and guilt to invoke action and responsibility in its audience (a method that Anthony and Soule would discourage as it is the opposite of ecopsychology).

Within the first paragraph of Buell’s essay the definition of discourse (not toxic discourse, however) is presented as an “an interlocked set of topoi whose force derives partly from the anxieties of late industrial culture, partly from deeper-rooted habits of thought and expression” (30). The definition does a fair job of clarifying discourse apart from the use of the word topoi (a traditional theme or motif or literary convention, according to Princeton’s WordNet search engine), which further complicates his theory because the reader more than likely has to look up a definition. Put more simply, Buell’s idea of discourse is subject matter that is popularly discussed in part because society is worried about the issue and also because of the way society thinks and acts as a whole.

The following paragraph offers the definition of toxic discourse, which is, “expressed anxiety arising from perceived threat of environmental hazard due to chemical modification by human agency” (31). With this definition, Buell emphasizes how fear is the motivating factor behind this discussion. According to Buell, the two reasons that toxic discourse has not been given enough attention is first that other subjects, such as health or property, are higher priorities in society. The second is what Buell calls the “tribal factor,” or how different groups of people have been talking about the environmental crisis. The differing viewpoints of the groups prevent cohesive action so Buell suggests ““mutual construction” of discourse,” which is a cooperative approach to environmental solution. This is closely related to Killingsworth and Palmer’s article, which promotes social ecology and asserts that the environmental crisis is a direct result of the way people think and act in society. Rebecca Solnit also makes a similar argument in her article, “The Thoreau Problem,” as she promotes both the importance of seeing the environment and society as inextricably linked and the necessity of unified action to solve these interrelated problems. In presenting the reasons that toxic discourse has not taken center stage in public discussion, Buell’s argument can be seen as a form of social ecology as he is implying that society’s way of thinking and acting must be altered to achieve environmental solutions.

Like Anthony and Soule’s piece, Buell also touches on the relationship between the need for social justice and environmental justice. Buell shows that it is not just the elite class calling for environmental solutions, but the non-privileged classes as well. These groups seem to be prescribing modes of action akin to Anthony and Soule’s ecopsychological propositions in that both emphasize the importance of community in remedying social and environmental difficulties.

Buell goes on to focus on what can be described as a rude awakening effect that induces panic in society. He gives some examples of literary works that have this effect on the reader, one of which is included in our readings and is titled “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. Buell claims that the “effective beginning” of toxic discourse was with Carson’s piece. As mentioned earlier, Buell chooses a similar effect for his readers with his choice of quotes that introduce the chapter. It seems Buell sees the rude awakening as a very if not the most effective rhetorical device for compelling his readers to effect change in the world.

• How can Buell's idea of toxic discourse be applied to Philip Dick's short story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
• Do the ideas about beauty, unity and integrity presented in Jeffers' poem "The Answer" coincide with Buell's perscriptions about the relationship between society and the environment?
• How is Buell's idea of toxic discourse different from Killingsworth and Palmer's notion of ecospeak?
  

Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring”

For this class, we read an excerpt titled “A Fable for Tomorrow,” which introduces Rebecca Carson’s book, Silent Spring. It begins with a short description of a town that is at first very lush, green and picturesque but is then suddenly plagued with “a strange blight” that kills all the animals around it and eventually adults and young children. Eventually the landscape around the town dies and becomes polluted and brown. The effect the plague has on the birds is extremely disturbing as they could not sing nor fly but could only shake intensely. This is the origin of the title as no birds sang in the spring. The cause of the plague is the insecticidal pesticide DDT, or, as Carson puts it, the people themselves. While the town described in the story does not actually exist, Carson declares that every aspect of deterioration she describes has happened somewhere in world. Carson then moves into a virulent attack on the dangers of DDT and the damage it has already inflicted on a large variety of birds from all over the world, particularly the bald eagle. The book had a tremendous effect on environmentalism, as is made clear by Buell’s reference to it as the forerunner of toxic discourse. Despite attacks from chemical companies, Carson’s book resulted in the restriction of the use of DDT and, as Buell points out, created a feeling of intense anxiety about the benefits of modernization in society. It can be argued that Carson romanticizes nature in a manner similar to Thoreau or Muir, particularly in the first paragraph that describes the town prior to the introduction of DDT. Killingsworth and Palmer might point out that this romanticism is important for the rhetoric of the book, as it appeals to the emotions of the reader in a very strong way.

• Does Anthony and Soule's concept of ecopsychology correspond with Carson's prescriptions? Does it take Carson's ideas a step further?
• How would Cronin analyze Carson's representation of the town? Would he critique the romanticism or see it as necessary?
• Does Scott Sander's short story have any parallels with Carson's account of the town? Can pastoral ecology be seen in Carson's piece?
  

Beverly Wright, “Living and Dying in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley”

Beverly Wright’s “Cancer Alley” piece discusses environmental racism (spawned by slavery) among predominantly African American communities within Louisiana’s “chemical corridor” due to its overabundance of petrochemical production. Segregation and discrimination are still apparent in the south in the form of housing. People’s health along with the economy is suffering from environmental racism due to “governments and big businesses taking advantage of people who are politically and economically powerless” (88). Because of corrupt government practices and “look-the-other-way environmental policies and giveaway tax-breaks” Louisiana is consistently ranked as one of the most polluted states with high poverty rates.

Wright’s reading shows the power that these corporations have within government. They are well organized with a solid plan of supporting political candidates who in turn support the association’s interests to promote expansion and pro-industry economic development. The Industrial Property Tax Exemption, described by Wright as “a corporate welfare program paid for by the poor of Louisiana, (91)” is a good example of the tight-knit relationship between these chemical corporations and politicians.

A majority of the African American communities within the corridor live within three miles of a polluting facility, a clear pattern of discrimination. Within these communities, there have been environmental justice struggles due to emerging health problems and terrible living situations that could be connected to the Toxic Discourse reading. Such bad health and living situations have produced numerous outcries and battles which Wright addresses in this reading, showing the nightmares that these people have to live out on a daily basis. Living with views of these facilities through their front windows, flares erupting nosily and unpredictably, unexplained booming noises, strange smells wafting into homes that produce headaches and breathing difficulties are only a few of the problems that people face in these areas.

• How can the corporation "UNorth" and their protective lawyers from "Michael Clayton" connect to the ties between government and corporation in Wright's piece? Is Wright's presentation of these corporations, lawsuits, and politics similar to Chavez's speech?
  

Eric Schlosser Lecture

Author of “Fast Food Nation” and contributor to the movie Food Inc., Eric Schlosser spoke at OU educating on the evils of the fast food industry and its effects on both humans and non-humans alike. Schlosser emphasized that millions of people (Americans and internationals) around the world are suffering from obesity, increased levels of cholesterol and diabetes, all of which are helping them die at an early age. His examples of the increased McDonalds chains in Great Britain along with Okinawa expressed how these fatty foods negatively transform entire nations.

He also discusses the affects of what the Fast Food Industry does to animals—taking animal cruelty to a whole new level. Cattle and chickens are packed into small cages and surrounded by their own fecal matter for most of their short lives. To think that one cattle feedlot could produce more waste than five large cities combined, which can amount to three trillion pounds of waste per year is incredible but these days unfortunately not unimaginable. Schlosser could be labeled as an environmentalist. Concerned about what the effects of poor animal care is doing to the environment, like causing mass pollution, Schlosser is outspoken and hard-pressed to create change by speaking out and educating audiences, but the rest he leaves up to activist organizations. He has done significant research to bring light on such important matters and it is from his research that has sprouted many organizations vying for change not just in the fast food industry but also to help preserve health and life for humans and non-humans. Schlosser still admits he loves the occasional burger and fries combo so he isn’t as dedicated as most deep-ecologists are but he does inspire deep-ecologists to take action.

The toxic discourse reading can also be connected to Schlosser’s point on human sickness deriving from bad food that produces mass poisonings like E. coli and salmonella. The chemicals that are put into the ground and consumed by animals that we in turn eat sometimes continue to carry the virus. After many poisonings and recalls, more people have started to rally against chemical products and have turned to organic lifestyles.

Schlosser also touches on people’s loss of connection with the food they consume. Their ignorance keeps them dependent and blind to capitalist industries providing them with food, and everything that goes into producing it. This could be connected to “Michael Clayton.” Consumers can’t take all the responsibility of being ignorant when big companies like UNorth and McDonalds spend most of their time and energy hiding the dangers of their products that happen to be killing thousands of uninformed people.



Cesar Chavez, “Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech”

Cesar Chavez’s speech is a passionate call for action meant to call out and put a stop to “the selfish interests of California grape growers [that] threaten lives throughout North America” (691). He uses information from the EPA, New York Times, and various statistics and studies to reveal the appalling and extremely dangerous realities of the pesticides and poisons making their way into our food, homes, and bodies. Chavez supports his arguments with several examples of innocent children and adults victimized by the “systematic and reckless poisoning” carried out by the “powerful self-serving alliance between the California governor and the $4 billion agricultural industry” in 1986 (691). Referencing the relentless and selfish “self-interest” (691) that lies at the heart of this toxic epidemic, Chavez urges his audience to boycott grapes “until the demands of decency have been met” (694) in the hopes that truth and awareness will be able to combat the selfish interests of the government and big business.

Chavez’s use of information pertaining to pesticides found in grapes (and in water and the air) very much illustrates toxic discourse. Chavez uses information about the ingredients in and harmful effects of poisonous pesticides in a way that highlights the severity and impact of this critical issue. His support of his argument with tragic real-life examples also calls attention to (and generates emotion for) an issue that has been a brutal reality for far too long. Chavez’s speech can be considered toxic discourse in that it uses the flagrant health hazards brought about the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals in a way that capitalizes on the high-level of anxiety surrounding this issue. Furthermore, Chavez asks his audience to become involved and support the boycott, attempting to garner community support for a problem that indeed affects us all. This is similar to both Buell and Anthony and Soule’s position of social cooperation amongst communities is a major key to combating environmental crises. Chavez can also be considered a social ecologist in that a major part of his concern for the hazardous consequences of pesticides is that it exploits the communities and workers exposed to them. He attacks the selfish interests of big business and the government, emphasizing the need for political and social reform in order to solve environmental problems.


Carl Anthony and Renee Soule, “A Multicultural Approach to Ecopsychology”

Anthony and Soule’s piece blends together the themes of “race, ecopsychology, [and] the city” in order to assert the idea that “cities must be made whole in and aesthetic if wild habitats are to survive with integrity” (850). This essay advocates the blending of various cultural experiences, attitudes, and connections to the environment in order to understanding the simultaneously positive/negative interdependence between urban and natural environments. Anthony and Soule’s emphasis of the reciprocal relationship between city and wilderness strengthens their claim that “we are all in this together” and that in order to achieve “compassionate, creative responsibility” humans must recognize and appreciate the interdependence that connects us all (853).

Their stance is reminiscent of social ecology and deep ecology in that it calls for connection amongst humans and the environment if we are to combat ecological issues -- and recognizes political and social reform as a major factor in this process. It seems to criticize the tactics of toxic discourse, however, when it mentions the ineffectiveness of “pounding people with horrific facts and statistics [that invite] fear-based apathy” (853). The need for an overhaul of the way environmental and social injustices are presented is considered critical to promoting participation and responsibility, similar to Killingsworth and Palmer’s assertions in their piece on ecospeak. In order for humans to clearly face the truth in each other and in ecological issues the writers call for respect for diversity and recognition of various cultures, experiences, and values that does not overlook urban habitats and “displaced people”. This relates to Wright’s “Living and Dying in Lousiana’s Cancer Alley,” a piece that examines the exploitation of ignored cities and towns by big business corporations that promote pollution and environmental destruction. Both Wright and Anthony and Soule call attention to the “issues of racism and responsibility” and their affect on the environment and our relationship with it.





"Michael Clayton" (2007)

This film, starring George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Tom Wilkinson, follows lawyer Michael Clayton (a self-described "janitor") who is brought in to fix the mess left behind when his colleague, Arthur Eden, suffers a nervous breakdown while representing UNorth, an agricultural products conglomerate, who are involved in a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit. Written off as a bipolar manic depressive gone off his meds, Arthur has suddenly "awakened" after years of running in the rat race as he realizes UNorth's guilt in killing and poisoning numerous people with their products. Determined to bring them down, Arthur is targeted by UNorth and its general counsel, Karen Crower, who eventually has Arthur killed before going after Clayton as he slowly discovers the truth behind Arthur's staged suicide and UNorth's deception.

The depiction of UNorth in Michael Clayton is a scarily accurate representation of the corporate deception and greed that takes place everyday in the modern world. Concerned only with efficiency and profit, countless corporations jeopardize the health and wellbeing of human beings and the environment. Law firms, like Clayton and Eden's, are paid millions to sweep their wrong-doings under the rug and settle up with the victims who take action against their injustices, leaving the general public either unaware of the health hazards they face or unable to do much about them. "Michael Clayton" could be linked to many concepts and pieces we have read in this course, most significantly the ideas presented in Wright's "Cancer Alley" and Chavez's "Wrath of Grapes," two pieces that go after selfish corporations and the political organizations that condone/support their reckless poisoning of humans and the world. In a particularly biting scene, Arthur repeatedly watches UNorth's deceptively "green" commercial that passes the company off as an innovator of agricultural production with environmentally sound practices. He proceeds to leave a voicemail for the company, calling out their products' toxic effects and the company's callous indifference and violation/manipulation of the public. This scathing attack on the client he was once defending has the same foundation as the critiques of the agricultural industry in Chavez's speech and the companies rallied against in Wright's "Cancer Alley".

The film also presents the tragic way in which so many of people, especially those working in corporate professions, become consumed by their job and consequently are disconnected from themselves, their families, and the world around them. This idea of detachment is represented in the major characters, from Michael Clayton's 17-year-long stint cleaning up other people's messes, to Karen's claim that her job provides all the balance she needs, to Arthur's sudden awakening after years of mindless enabling. The harmful effects of disconnection are based in deep ecology and are touched upon in many of our readings, especially the poems by Robinson Jeffers. His poem "The Answer" calls for integrity, respect for the natural world, and constant vigilance against evil and duplicity that ultimately corrupts us. This is the condition that the characters in Michael Clayton suffer from and their salvation comes from connecting at long last to things that are essentially right, beautiful, and sacred (this is especially evident in the scene where Michael steps out of his car at dawn to witness horses standing in an open field just before his car explodes in a murder attempt).