The Food Problem

In the movie "Symphony of Soil", sustainable organic farming was touted as the one and only solution to mitigate and repair the damage from large scale industrial farming. There were a number of examples that showed how organic farming repaired environments that had been previously damage by monoculture industrial farming and the techniques that they employed in order to it. While I believe that organic farming is a great solution, I don't believe that economically it is viable for farming all over the world.
With the population of this planet growing exponentially year by year, we have to look critically at how we produce food in order to be able to provide food for everyone while still respecting the environment. In this aspect I believe that a number of the practices showed in the film is essential and that is abolishing monoculture agriculture that depletes the nutrients in soils after a number of years that makes in impossible to sustainably grow crops in the future. Especially now that climate change is creating more droughts across the globe we need to do everything in our power to not contribute to these drought conditions and one is by not using monoculture crop methods. If we continue to use these methods we could see conditions akin to the dustbowl of the 1930's in the United States, across the globe. These conditions would not only make it impossible for the people in these regions to produce food but also be the building steps to economic crises.
The last point that I want to make is that I believe that everyone should have a little knowledge about how to produce their own food. Even taking little steps like having a single tomato plant in a pot in your background can make people be more aware of how their food is produced. Along with the awareness, a respect for the hardworking people in the agricultural sector of of labor force will come. Without these people, we would not be able to live the quality of life that we are living right now and to them we should be eternally grateful.

How to Reach Sustainability

How to reach Sustainability

Today most farmers don’t have a sustainable way of producing food that can protect the environment. Most today use chemicals, or GMO’s that are very harsh to the soil and the surrounding environment. It effects everything.

            I believe that one of the key elements to reach agricultural sustainability is farming organic. No GMO’s, pesticides, or chemicals to help plants grow. In the movie “Symphony of the Soil” it discussed the importance of compost and using the natural resources around you to help sustain a healthy environment. For example in the movie we met a man from India who is a farmer and he uses everything he has on his farm to create compost and recycle it back into the earth. By using dung, plants and dirt he made compost. I believe that this can make a sustainable environment.

            Another way to reach agricultural sustainability I believe is by organic farming. A lot of GMO’s that are made are very harsh. They’re made to withstand animals, climate change, and survive with less water. This is great but then its not great. More than not most GMO’s are so harsh that after planting them over and over again the soil and dirt that it grew in is dead. It takes the water out of the soil and renders it useless. I believe that organic farming is a huge key to keep a healthy environment.  Everyone deserves to be treated with love and care and we are not treating our earth right by feeding it so many chemicals. Not only will organic farming treat our earth better but the food we produce and eat will be treating our bodies better as well.

            It is important to have synergy between our famers and the land. Treating the surrounding environment is critical because the way the world and everyone is treating the dirt and soil is horrible. We are already seeing the affects. Drying out the dirt and all the nutrients in the soil is not treating our earth right. We need to make changes in the way we buy food and by supporting the people who grow food the right way.

Creating a habit of Organic

The documentary "Symphony of the Soil" is a documentary that talks about soil and the importance of soil all over the world. They focused a lot on the connection between soil, water, and air. Those three components help each other out greatly and all over the world, the equation between these components are different meaning that the soil is different in different places around the world giving it the ability to grow certain plants and crops.

The film also focuses on the idea of farming this land and different problems that come from farming conventionally. Putting chemicals into the land to make the crops grow better helps in short term production to give the farmer a larger amount of money in their pocket. However, the chemicals add up creating long term buildup and problems that the soil will pay for in the future. The United States relies on conventional farming because this is the only solution that they see providing enough food to feed everyone. Americans are people who live through habit. We dont like to change our ways of doing things if it means more risks. One of the changes is organic farming. I am a huge advocate of organic farming because my family is very involved in it. My grandparents have multiple acreas of organic garden.

Organic farming has many advantages to the soil and atmosphere around it. Not having to till the land as much keeps erosion from happening, creating composte to put in the soil in replacement to the chemical furtilizaters, and putting healthier chemical free food into the people who consume it. Disadvantages to organic farming are the time and energy it takes to maintain it; It takes a little more work to produce, a little more time to produce, but the finishing product is worth it. The problem consumers have is that it is more expensive. Americans are very quick to pick out whatever is cheapest at the supermarket so organic foods dont receive the demand they should be. The habit hasnt been created yet.

In conclusion, I believe that organic farming could become a bigger deal in the world if the education is spread, the demand raises up enough to have more and more producers. The more producers, the cheaper it can become. Organic farming is a slow moving improvement that will improve the land, water, and atmosphere surrounding it. If the knowledge is spread on how to become an organic farmer, I believe it can create very positive improvements on the environment all over the world. The more people that do it, the more the habit will be created.

What else are we missing?

The film “Symphony of Soil” brings a few big topics to light. In the documentary the ideas of sustainable agriculture are discussed as well as our current agricultural problems we have been facing. Although some of our agricultural problems, such as droughts, are the result of climate change in general, there are more specific problems that have conventional farming written all over it. Things like erosion, compacted soil, exhausting undergrounds aquifers nitrogen and phosphorus saturated soil and water ways are some of the environmental issues we are effacing, issues that the film discusses, are all caused by conventional farming techniques. 

The documentary shows us that the things we deem as conventional farming are not the only way of doing things. People were finding ways to preserve water by growing other plants around their crops to prevent runoff. They were also composting and using the newly made, nutrient rich soil as a type of fertilizer that didn’t poison the soil or the crop. Rotating crops is also important as different plants take different amounts of each nutrient. Planting a cover crop such as clover is also important in the off season. All of this just shows us that organic farming, although more tedious and expensive, is achievable and can mitigate or even eliminate the negative aspects that conventional farming exhibit.

While the film just barely brushes on these topics and doesn’t get very technical, for the sake of the viewer, I think they are touching on an issue that is far reaching in almost every industry and field out there. I firmly believe that the way we are built, that is to say the way our minds work, is that when something becomes a norm for us or our culture we define it as the the supreme or even only way of doing something. We don’t often consider other techniques because the current ones have seemed to work (emphasis on the word seemed). Although globalization has changed this a great deal there are some things that aren’t being challenged enough. I believe industry hs driven agriculture to a breaking point where it is not sustainable anymore, but people think it is the only way of doing because conventional farming was once innovative, yielded huge crops amounts and saved money. So now that people rely on this technique for a living, it will be hard to turn to an alternative as it is seen as inadequate in one way or another. Hopefully this changes soon.

This makes me wonder, what else do we not question?

Can organic farming feed the world?

Can organic farming feed the world? As mostly with interesting questions there is apparently no unambigous answer to this one but an ongoing dispute whether this is pure idealism or a realistic alternative.

"Symphony of the soil" is a documentary which offers the viewer a better understanding of the miscellaneous properties and functions of all kind of different soils and furthermore portrays various farmers who have converted their way of agriculture away from artificially produced fertilizer. This can be achieved by harvesting the fields in a more sustainable way and giving back the essential nutrients in the form of compost produced organically by the very same products of the farm. It almost sounds to good to be true. So what are the downsides of this approach?
Unfortunately this question is not intesively analyzed within the movie but the viewer has to consult other sources on his own and will encounter some possible obstacles at least. For example organic farming usually requires a longer time period to regain the investments which might be an issue for many small farmers without the required security for future planning. A whole different factor can be the market. Whereas some western countries notice a trend of demand for organic vegetables there are yet many places where this is just not a relevant criteria of sale. Consequently in these markets organic farming has to convince by other properties like price, quantity or maybe taste.

But would it be possible to harmonize industrial mass production with the concepts of organic farming? If so, this could be a great chance to promoting this agricultural approach. But to my knowledge up to date organic farming remains restricted to a smaller scale of production and typically higher prices. This could be just the usual particularity of a niche development being in a transition cycle which has not yet reached its established form. In this sense organic industrial farming would be an interesting possibility. Nevertheless one might worry this could easily lead to nothing more than an industrially produced vegetable in a "green disguise".

Money Can't Buy You Love

Money Can’t Buy You Love

By Katrina Cloutier

Everyone has heard of the saying that money can’t buy you love or that money can’t buy you happiness. Many have been fooled by the illusion that money can get you just that.

         Consumption is a huge problem that is affecting our environment everyday. Today consumption is about maintaining a social status or trying to achieve a social status. Trying to keep up with appearances by spending money all the time on stuff that makes us happy only temporarily then repeating the same step over and over again is ruining lives. It is said that happier people consume less, however today in advertising we are told just the opposite. Big corporations profit the most from over-consumption and maximize on the idea that if we spend more the happier we will be. When we over spend it gives us this false sense of illusion that we are wealthy and by over spending it is proof of our success and everything we have achieved. In actuality we are spending more than what we can afford. We are taught and brainwashed that the action of buying and overspending is more satisfying than the actual use of the product.

         Over-consumption is the key to short-term happiness. We are very excited and joyful when buying a product we can’t afford and don’t actually need however it makes us extremely happy for that small period of time. On the opposite side when people consume less they are happier. Happier people are often found to consume less. Its like a high, you need it over and over again in order to feel happy. While families that have less and consume less are appreciative of what they have. They’re just so thankful to have what little that they have that it makes them happier people in the end. The people who over-consume are spoiled and after awhile don’t see how fortunate they actually are.

         When children grow up with a family that over-consumes that child will end up the same way. Learning at a young age to be thankful for what you have can change a child’s outlook on life. Some things I think parents should do are lead by example and teach their children how fortunate they really are and it will make them happier. Something else individuals can do to be happier is giving to the less fortunate. Seeing someone who has less than you can be very eye opening. It can change a person. Donating and giving away can be a very rewarding experience because it is hands on learning about a different type of life.

         Leading by example cannot only make your family happier but everyone else around you happier too. Encouraging and inspiring others is what matters most. Consuming less and giving more is the key to a balanced and happier life.

         

Consumption = Happiness

Consumption has become more than just an action, it has become a complete lifestyle. People work so they have the ability to consume more. Instead of consuming what you need and finding happiness with what you have, this new lifestyle has become, consume what you need and be unhappy until you can consume what you want. The wants keep getting higher and more expensive, the standards of things people should have has risen. Society has given people standards that only few can afford and rest feel lower when they cant afford the best.

I beleive that consuming has a lot to do with happiness. Everyone is excited when they buy a new vehicle or a new house and new clothes. What is changing is that advertising has put feelings into their commercials, feelings of love, intimacy with others, laughter, family values. With all of those going into commercials, people feel that when they buy these products, they are buying those feelings as well when in reality that just isnt the truth. The average person experiences over 3,000 advertisments in a given day. That is why society is always unsatisfied and alwasy wanting more, because thousands of times a day they are reminded of things that they dont have. Instead of realizing and being happy with the things they do have.

I think less advertisments would have a huge affect on the way people feel. Life would be less of a competition of who has the most things. People would become more satisfied of the things they do have. No reminders of what they think they need. I think consumerism is very important for all economies and everyone needs to consume, but consuming should not be a competition between people because nobody will ever get to the top of the pyramid that way. There will always be something new. Nobody should feel like they need to be at the top.

Consume responsibly for you and stop worrying about the rest of the world.

A search for happiness

           

            In Buddhist teachings, happiness is not something that comes naturally. It can be found anywhere and everywhere around us, but must be sought after. I believe this speaks to some of the problems we’re experiencing with our consumerist society. In my opinion, people have a misinformed way of attain happiness. I say this not as a generalization, but rather, as a suggestion about people who may be tied up in a materialistic culture. I’m sure I’m guilty of it and I’m you are also.

            I think when we’re talking about a specific group of the population that finds pleasure in materialistic values, we dive into a more complex social problem and an even bigger environmental impact. The environmental impact part is easy; we want more, so we produce more and in turn, pollute more and use up natural resources. This presents obvious problems. I think the focal point should be in the societal norms that promote this type of behavior, in order to change it for the better.

            People buy things and want more to feel happy, but why? Is it just a misplaced sense of belonging or maybe even competition with others? Some sort of status symbol or perhaps just an obsession with owning things? I believe it’s a mixture of all these elements, but the only dangerous part is most people aren’t conscious of it. It is underlying rhythm that drives people. We long to have the car and the house of our dreams, so we slave away at a job we hate. Jobs that take us away from these houses we love for most of the day. Seems ironic right?

            I think we should look at the things that truly make people happy. Love, friendship, learning, hobbies and a sense of belonging are the things we truly aspire for, but somehow, the way we attain these things is skewed along the way. I think we should shift our emphasis from objects to experiences. I think some companies have already started to use this to market their products. The problem with this is that people then buy those products to seem like they exemplify those lifestyles. Nike is a great example. I think if we could truly shift towards that a world whose people created happiness from experiences and interactions in their community it would be beneficial for everyone and the environment in the long run. 

Overconsumption?

Overconsumption is a term frequently used in discussions about the roots of contemporary environmental problems. Statistics about an average per capita material or energy consumption suggest a severe inequality between first and third world inhabitants. While an unambigous level of adequate consumption is challenging to define this article will put aside the difficulties arising from the choice of this terminology and rather focus on the reasons for the kind of consumption that are characteristic for many first world countires although not exclusive to them.

Source: https://www.ssb.no/en/inntekt-og-forbruk/statistikker/fbu/aar/2013-12-17

The given diagram illustrates an average of private expenditure distributed to the different sectors which might vary in its details for indivual households as well as for different countries but I would assume them to all more or less strenghten the following thesis for an average individual with a mean income above a certain threshold: a major part of expenditure is determined by consumption which might not be traced back to the bare necessity of surviving through the supply of food and shelter. Obviously, this is not very surprising and it would be ignorant and simplistic to reduce a member of a contemporary society on these ancient needs. Nevertheless, the distribution illustrates that studying the motivations for consumption might give insights that help to understand and alter it.

Being unsatisfied seems to be a very genereal root of the will for consumption. While I would argue this phenomena not to be restricted to contemporary times but maybe even be an ever reocurring particularity of mankind it certainly seems to be charectiristic to recent times in our historia. An interesting article, by a German philosopher Rüdiger Safranski, put stress on the historical relation of religion and the development of consumerism, which I will present in a free and sketchy translation:
"But lets not forget: Protestanism is half the way towards Nihilism. Religion manifested in the "outside-world" looses its significance and is being deported to the "inside-world". Here it lives on as religious moral until it looses its religiousness and only moral remains. After some time as well the moral is lost and you are left with a kind of nihilism. The contemporary form of nihilism is the consumerism. Even if you don't have a god you can still buy yourself something." 
While a historical analysis obviously has to go into more details the important point for me to note is the fundamental and almost spiritual role of consumption in our live.

Yes, I do think we consume because of unsatisfied desires. A huge amount of these desires might be unreasonably triggered by advertisements or other external or societal influences and can be overcome by undisguising their nature and making them loose their signifance. Nevertheless, I think it is important not to be idealisitic and acknowledge unsatisfied human needs as part of our lives.
Most importantly I think we should all put light on the reasons why we are unsatisfied. What is it that we are really lacking?
In this sense for me, consumerism is carrying an almost spiritual element for our society which can not just be solved through satisfaction but can only transform towards a new understanding of what gives live a meaning.

Consumerism and Happiness

Happiness is a universal concept and way of living that is people strive for all around the world. It is the reason that we keep living and why we get up in the morning. Happiness is described in different ways all around the world and the Western perspective on happiness is a unique one in that in recent decades it have become very closely aligned to and draws from consumerism. In our capitalist society in which we are constantly assaulted by advertisements hundreds, even thousands of times a day, happiness has changed from a feeling and a way of living derived from experiences to something that is commodified and can be sold and most importantly bought. 

Advertising has transformed from selling products that were bought because of their usefulness to selling products that provide you with a sense of happiness. From cars to wedding rings to even something seemingly as insignificant as a soft drink; these products are sold as part of a happy lifestyle. To exemplify this, take the current slogan of Coke, “Open Happiness” which is plastered on billboards and every type of advertisement imaginable until the consumer subconsciously believes that when you drink a Coke you are not just quenching your thirst but are drinking happiness.

The most difficult part of this is that it these types of advertisements have become ingrained in our brains and our subconsciouses where this type of emotion with products is natural. We need to separate our love affair with products and the proposed happiness that we expect from them and begin to look for real and lasting forms of happiness that cannot be bought. This is, of course, not easy to do, but maybe if advertisements were controlled more and we could see less advertisements per day we would not have these messages constantly drilled into our minds. An example would be a state like Vermont that has banned the use of billboards entirely. By decreasing the amount of advertisements that we see each day, instead of being told how to attain happiness, we could have the time to think about it and maybe actually find it.

Response to Articles

The articles "Organic matter reduces copper toxicity for the earthworm Eisenia fetida in soils from mining areas in Central Chile" and "Spatial distribution of copper, organic matter and ph in agricultural soils affected by mining activities", discuss the important topic of copper in Chile. I learned from these articles that Chile is one of the leading countries in copper production and smelting. Copper can be harmful to the environment and requires much study of the effects it can have. I also learned from this article that Chile currently has no legislation on maximum acceptable concerntrations of toxic elements in the soil. This poses a great threat to Chiles environmental health. Without any need to regulation of toxicity produced Chile is in great danger of developing a problem with soil and toxicity levels. In the first article I read, earthworms in areas of copper production were studied. It was shown that Cu and OM we're the two largest contaminates of the earth warms. Earthworms are a good indication of soil contamination because they are macrofauna and can illustrate a good picture of what the soil in that region is carrying.

The second article discussed proximity of mining locations and the effect on the soil. The location of the Anconcagua River Basin is of great importance to agricultural production in Chile. High levels of copper were found around that area. Both previous historical mining and current may play a role in the high presence of copper. The article discussed the distribution of PH levels in the soil and the presence of organic matter. The different levels of Cu found varied upon location of the mines.

Consumption and Happiness

Marjorie Snyder

 Consumption and Happiness

It starts in the early years of life, we as children are given toys and treats as rewards for good behaivor. We grow up believing "stuff", can bring us pleasure. The newest clothes, toys, music, are always sought after. Brands can define us, who we are, what resources we have, our tastes. Consumption is a deep rooted problem in our society. It is engrained in our culture. We consume to stay present and connected with others. It has become a dangerous cycle of never having enough. This cycle has to end, our worlds resources cannot with stand the constant need for more. A new kind of happiness without consumption has to be recognized in order to end the need to consume. 

People consume most when they feel a void. That space in our chest that needs to be filled with something that can bring us happiness. Whether its a new shirt that will finally make us the style icon we've always wanted. Or its the new car that will attract the people we've always desired to be friends with. It is always the next thing. But it is so fleeting. Once we finally obtain that desired item, we move on. Then its the next thing that we've always dreamed of. It is this vicious cycle that leaves us feeling hollow and ready to consume more. This need and desire within ourselves is what must be addressed. Why do we feel the need for more? 

If instead of seeking an object, we sought an experience, we would be getting closer to the solution. If Instead of wanting that shirt that makes me stylish, I sought an experience with the people who are in fashion, or I put myself in a situation where I would meet those types of people, I would likely fulfill my needs much more than just simply purchasing a garment that I would likely move past. I could also attempt to learn to make the garment, or if it truly is the garment I desire, then I should wait a long time and give myself a chance to reflect on why I need to purchase it. Thoughtfulness in our purchasing can make all the differences.

There are so many different ways to approach the things we want. It is through logical thought and reasoning that we can hash out what we actually need, and what we just desire. If as a society, we began to place more value in our thoughts and experiences than on physical objects, our consumption would decrease rapidly. Consumption is a societal problem, it is a flaw within ourselves. We do not need to consume the way we do, we consume because we believe it brings us happiness. It instead brings us the opposite, and only the need to consume more. To end this vicious cycle of consumption, we must address the problem of happiness. Happiness can come from experience, relationships, and many other things. However, I think it is rare that an object can carry with it true happiness. To end our consumption we must realize, consuming more does not make us happier. 

Paradigm Change

 

Crossroads is a movie investigating the current challenges of mankind in all sorts of different facets, as well on a very fundamental level, which is to speak about a worldview and how this is the root of so many problems. Choosing a rather personally empirically founded point of view, I am going to reflect upon worldview as a concept, its practical consequences and the possibility of transformation to the better.

In my eyes talking about a worldview can be misleading because it suggests this view could be universally and unambiguously described. On the contrary there is an infinite and ungraspable amount of different perspectives, which cannot even be individually isolated but have to be understood as embedded in a context of an inseparable system, constituted by both subject and object. The term is in this sense highly problematic but nevertheless very useful if understood as something describing characteristic features of a given society at a given time.

For these reasons I prefer talking about a paradigm which might have a stronger connotation towards a state of mind that is not consciously decided but refers to our glasses through which everything is perceived. A paradigm is usually anchored very deep and consequently influences and determines our actions without the necessity of our awareness. It is thus a crucial force maybe most relevant on a larger scale of time and people, which is characteristic for our contemporary global problems.

A favoured transformation of our current paradigm(s) would undeniably alter our behaviour towards our environment. The causal relation is obvious and verified through history but the crucial point for me remains how such a transformation can be triggered and directed towards a desired direction?

A paradigm change cannot merely be set on a political agenda but it is a transition process that takes time and cannot be planned in all details. Nevertheless, I believe we can influence this process by our political, economical and societal framework. Noticing things that go bad is a start, living better alternatives a required second step into the desired direction. Long-term change will be made up of many consecutive steps, taken on all levels of society. “The system” has to transform but this requires a vision to what it could possibly transform to. I believe it is possible to influence this process.

But I disagree with some voices of the movie crossroads (e.g. “there is no problem, there is only a transition”), that make it sound as if it was only a question of time until we transform to the better. A “better world” can only be understood using concepts of mankind introducing values to the world. It is in this sense not fundamental and independent of mankind. While I have a strong belief into some kind of unity that is underlying everything we have to realize that we are the ones defining ideals that we live up to. A problem is then derived as something that is in conflict with a given ideal. It is our problem and our desire to make it a better world.

Let us live our vision. Individually and collectively.

-        

Get Involved

In the last class we watched a film called "Crossroads", a film that discussed what the creators thought were the reasons behind the current social and environmental crises that our world is experiencing. The major shortfall of the movie was that the creators neglected to provide any ample solutions to the crises that they were describing. The movie was successful in drawing attention to our problems but that was all.
In order create a sustainable future and a more environmentally responsible populace we must begin with the people who have the most power. In the United States these parties would be big corporations and politicians. These people have the power to influence everything that our society is based on and yet a staggering amount refuse to acknowledge or even flat out deny that climate change is an ongoing and dangerous reality. Donald Trump, who is currently leading in republican polls has been quoted saying that he "believes that weather changes" and was unconvinced that climate change is happening and would be until someone proved him otherwise. This type of ignorance is staggering at this day and age and should not be coming from somebody who has this type of power and influence, and much less from somebody who has the possibility of becoming president. The other side to this coin is the big corporations who are either in the business of or are heavily invested in the business of fossil fuels. They have made themselves comfortable in their positions and quite understandably do not want to relinquish their position at the top of the food chain so they will do anything that they can in order to dig their heels in as much as possible. Which means endorsing and contributing to the campaigns of candidates who support them. According to OpenSecrets.com, in 2012 Oil & Gas companies donated over $70 million to federal candidates. These candidates then will go on to create and maintain legislature that protects the fossil fuel companies interests and continue spewing nonsense rhetoric to the public that we needn't worry about climate change because good old mother earth is just going through a phase.
We as a country need to become more engaged in the political process. We need to examine our politicians platforms more carefully and work towards electing candidates who care about our worlds future and won't bow to the loaded palms of the fossil fuel industry or the corporations who are involved with them. By electing more informed candidates we can expect to see more discussions and media spotlights on climate change which will lead to reforms on climate policy. We need to work from the top down because waiting around for a technological fix or a nationwide change in consumption is a waste of time.

"Cooperation"

"Crossroads". This film provokes so many thoughts for so many different topics going on currently in our international society. Every person has their own different perspective on life and the world we live in because each person has seen and experienced different things. This film showed many different perspectives and left my brain swirling with the need for answers. But their are no specific answers. My knowledge and answers are not going to change the world. What will change the world is everyone's knowledge coming together. The world is a puzzle. Every piece is the economic, environmental, geopolitical, social, and technological knowledge between the billions of people in the world, and when we can cooperate, brainstorm, and make changes together, that is how the world puzzle will be completed.

Just like what was talked about during the film, a person's perspective depends on the perspective of others. We are dependent on group environments. "We are happy in groups, sad in groups. We get fat in groups, we quit smoking in groups. We are what our environment is." So if this is true, why are we constantly competing with each other? Why do we have the "Have more - Be more" attitude? People have become more greedy always wanting to be at the top. But yet nobody will ever be to the top because there will always be somebody with more. What is the value of one puzzle piece? Without the rest of the puzzle it is unvaluable. My favorite quote out of the film is "...it is more beneficial to feed your enemy instead of fight them." We all need to work together, we all need to cooperate, we all need to put our piece into the puzzle, because once the puzzle is finished, its beautiful. Once the mess of all the pieces and colors are put together, many questions will be answered. The purpose, the result, the teamwork, will all pay off to create a beautiful place for everyone.

Be unique. Find what you can do and do it. Hug trees. Be your own independent piece of the puzzle. Cooperate. Work together. Educate every person you meet. Educate our young people who are hidden behind video games and television screens. Educate yourself.  In order to finish the puzzle, in order to change the world, we will need every single piece.

Reflections

            In our last class we watched the short documentary “Crossroads” and discussed what we thought were the major themes and some of its flaws as well. We decided the biggest hole in the film was that there was no proposed solution or alternatives to what we are doing currently. Without this vital piece of the puzzle, how are we supposed to move from ideals to reality? It’s easy to protest which makes everyone a rebel, but protesting without proposed solutions is more along the lines of whining (even if its whining for a good cause). Rebels without a cause are just attention seekers in my opinion. If we want to evoke real change we must come together and plan incremental, practical steps that will work with the current system to make small pivotal change and ease our way into a more environmentally friendly future.

            It is easy to play the blame game when trying to pinpoint what the root cause of our environmental problems is. Is it the bi-partisan political system, big corporations that pollute, the media that ignores big problems or even our own materialistic culture? I believe it’s a combination of all these that turns the next wheel in all consuming machine we’ve created. The part that is most disturbing is that I don’t think it was any group’s malicious intentions that got us here. It may have been the pursuit of the “American dream” that got out of hand as people wanted more and more or could be attributed to the way competition works normally in nature, the difference being that we now have the power to affect the future of the planet. So for me, the blame game is redundant, it is a defense mechanism people use to point out others flaws while not willing to correct their own.

            I believe one of biggest flaws in our education system is that we focus on studying how objective subjects interact with the world not how our own actions affect the world. Is intelligence having mastered all the arts and sciences or having complete knowledge of how each of your actions effects the world and the people in it? My first proposed solution is to supplement our education system with reflections on our lives. I strongly believe we would not act a certain way if we saw the negative side affects. It is this blindness that has gotten out of hand. In the film, one of the contributors said that when we pretend, we become. So what we if we practiced intensive reflection from a very early age? Wouldn’t that shape and completely change how we identify as humans? That’s not for me to answer, but I believe the outcome would be a beneficial one. Other obvious solutions are mere lifestyle changes, eating food from organic and sustainable farms, using products that don’t pollute our water and soil, buying clothes from sustainable/responsible companies, riding bikes/driving electric cars, composting, reusing, recycling and the list goes on and on. I’m a firm believer however, that big change will come from complete structural changes. The way our political system works, how companies operate and  how our society  perceives the world will only change from the top. Many liberal activists remain on the bottom and protest these big abstract organizations (industry, political realm), some even run and live on sustainable farms or communities while the machine is still working away at depleting our world little by little. So do we run or do we abide by the system? Do we disguise ourselves as something to get inside and make changes from the top? When the tools are given to us to make the real changes, the changes that will change our lifestyles for ever, are we prepared to use them?

The image I've used is a an eerie metaphor for how without reflecting on our actions, the outcome of what we do can have repercussions we don't even see. The man is looking away, while his reflection doesn't follow. 

Interdependence

             

                
                 "Crossroads", a documentary, expository type film presents the viewer with many different views and commentaries on our environmental and social worlds current crises. The films main theme is that of the "interdependence" of our worlds problems. We are shown the many different social, psychological, and environmental problems we face today, and how one cannot exist without the other. There is no source or one main thing to blame for our current state or crisis. This film manages to incorporate almost all realms of study. However, with this in mind, the film gives such a broad view of our problems and predicaments that it leaves the viewer feeling a little lost. While covering so many topics, it leaves out the most important one. What can we do? The message of this film is positive and remains true. But, in order to move forward we must educate and create involvement with communities and our environment. As well as create a change in our governments policies. The understanding of the relation of all these factors is a key to success in environmental health. 

I believe that we can better our planet through education of our youth as well as with programs that engage people with the environment. Programs that can engage people who are trapped in inner cities and bring them to the outdoors have proven effective in making people more conscious and interested in environmental health. People are more likely to care for their planet if they are able to access the outdoors. We also need inspired people and communities who wish to better the planet with small steps such as community gardens, recycling and composting. These little actions help not only the community directly, but also create bigger steps in the movement towards a greener future. Finally, in the United States alone, the military budget is at a staggeringly high rate. The United States government has a surplus of spending. If more than a fraction of this was put into research for greener alternatives to fossil fuels as well as land protection and conservation, we could experience  significant change. Understanding the interdependence of our problems can help us realize the interdependence in our solutions.