Environmental Sociology Midterm

What is the typical modern, industrial view of dirt? What is the actual truth about dirt regarding planetary life and health? What biological effects does industrial agriculture have on the earth's dirt?

A typical modern view of dirt is that it is unclean, garbage, waste. However, dirt is very much alive and full of living organisms. It is the source of all fertility. Industrial agriculture, often taking the form of monoculture, has short term record yields but does not produce for the soil, decreases productivity, destroys root structure leading to events such as the dust bowl. Pesticides destroy the topsoil. TYPICAL VIEW: DIRT = DEAD, USELESS ACTUAL TRUTH = ALIVE, ESSENTIAL TO ALL LIVING THINGS INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE = KILLS DIRT = DESERTIFICATION

What is the "Green Revolution," in what ways did it succeed, and what was its successes based upon/what transformations did it require?

AFTER INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1800s) The "Green Revolution" is the increase in food production technologies such as inorganic fertilizer, pesticides, GMOs, and mechanical farming equipment. Successes: Was able to feed more people Create a surplus of goods Increase in quality of life for many people Increase ability of people to go into different jobs other than farming Transformations: Farmers have to buy expensive equipment to keep up production Farmers are stuck in cycle of producing more to keep up profits, because more goods are worth less Large increase in pesticide and inorganic fertilizer use due to growing monocultures

Accurately explain the meaning of the Catholic doctrine of "the common destination of goods" and what it means ethically for human economic and social systems.

God gave the earth to the whole human race without excluding or favoring anyone. The natural environment is a collective good, so if we make something privatized (like land property), we must use it in a way that benefits all. For human economic and social systems, this means that everyone must have access to means of technical education, credit, insurance, and markets. It is a natural right for every man to possess a reasonable allotment of land to establish home, work, family, and a secure life. (93-95) EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE WHAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE AND HAVE A GOOD LIFE

What is the proper role of science in our collective, societal dealings with issues like global warming, climate change, environmental degradation, and food and health? And, despite that proper role, how and why can science—as an institutionalized human activity itself and a source of "facts" that are humanly consumed—be slanted, distorted, and misinterpreted because of human cognitive biases, social interests, institutional dynamics, and power relations?

Science is supposed to provide objective analysis of these issues Scientists have their personal biases, agendas Corporations abuse the power they have by manipulating scientists into spreading false information Powerful people are able to influence research through their donations Vertical integration--powerful individuals or agents are able to take control of most aspects of distribution of information, which limits viewpoints, therefore only allows a narrow set of ideas to reach the public PROPER ROLE: OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ISSUES SOLVING TECHNICAL CHALLENGES TO BENEFIT ALL MISUSE OF SCIENCE: CORPORATIONS AND POWERFUL PEOPLE USE MONEY TO MANIPULATE SCIENTISTS INTO SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION/ONLY FUNDING RESEARCH THAT FITS THEIR INTEREST VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF MEDIA (CONTROLLING NARRATIVE, ATTACKING/DISCREDITING THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT, SPREADING DOUBT/MISTRUST)

What are "cascades," according to Wallace-Wells, and how do they help explain how global warming could accelerate in complex ways that could lead to an uninhabitable earth? Give one example of such a cascade

According to Wallace-Wells, cascades are the assaults of nature that will be felt by humanity. They are the positive feedback loops of climate change that will devastate the planet. The metaphor of a cascade helps to explain how global warming and its effects would worsen without being able to reverse the problems, such as how a cascade trickles water down a steep hill that continually moves down lower levels. An example of a cascade would be how as the planet is warming, the Arctic ice melts further, which means there will be less ice albedo that reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere. The land will therefore absorb more heat and heat up further, causing oceans to not be able to absorb as much CO2, warming the planet even more. CASCADES = ASSAULTS OF NATURE THAT WILL BE FELT BY HUMANITY ONR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM CAUSES ANOTHER CLIMATE CHANGE→ LESS WATER→ CROP FAILURE/FAMINE→ INCREASE CONFLICT/WAR→ REFUGEES

Describe and contrast the "agrarian ethic" and the "industrial ethic," as outlooks on life, society, and power.

Agrarian ethic: Agriculture is a special social structure that creates virtuous citizens and substantive values resulting in enhanced quality of life. Negative externalities such as the breakdown of rural society cannot be fixed with science and technology Industrial ethic: Agriculture is just another commodity sector which should efficiently produce goods Negative externalities can be fixed with science and technology Nature and agriculture should be reduced to their components and scientifically managed to maximize production

Describe the Catholic view of humanity's proper place and condition in creation/the created order. What is and is not the case about humanity's status in the natural order?

All creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator." (83) We are not domineering and destructive by nature nor given "dominion" over other creatures. There is a mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. We can take what we need from the earth for subsistence, but we are responsible for protecting the earth and ensuring its fruitfulness for the future. (67) WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT IT AND PRESERVE IT, NOT EXPLOIT IT

What, according to Pope Francis, should be the proper relationship between a (1) good and desirable society and (2) science/technology/economic growth?

Any type of technological advance should be made with the purpose of advancing the common good. A good society cannot occur if technological and economic growth are only occurring for the benefit of a few. ANY TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE SHOULD BE FOR ADVANCING THE COMMON GOOD, TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR ALL (NOT JUST A FEW)

What role does "authentic" food play in the social construction of identity politics and gastronationalism? And how can that be capitalized upon for profit by the food industry?

Authentic" food plays a role in the social construction of identity politics and gastronationalism by creating social divisions in suggesting that one country's or region's food is superior to another's. This can be capitalized upon for profit by the food industry because producers can upcharge certain foods because they are made in a certain region and are therefore more "authentic" than if the food is produced elsewhere. SUGGESTING ONE COUNTY OR REGION"S FOOD IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER'S CHARGE MORE/ADVERTISING "AUTHENTICITY"

What specific arguments does the approach of ecological modernization theory make with regard to global warming and environmental degradation?

Based on the premise that capitalism is a system flexible enough to transition to environmentally "sustainable capitalism." Encourages modern industrial societies to undergo additional modernization and "super-industrialization." Use better and environmentally friendly technologies as a means of dealing with environmental problems. Reflexivity- constantly reexamining societal circumstances(beliefs, social practices, etc.) in light of new information or knowledge. "Practical" or "realistic" solutions to current environmental problems CAPITALISM IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO TRANSITION TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM PRACTICAL/REALISTIC SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS RATHER THAN DEGROWTH (ECONOMIC SENSE)

How do corporate centralization, vertical integration, and ownership of mass media arguably reduce citizens' understanding of environmental and food problems? What are the various mechanisms by which that happens?

Corporate centralization, vertical integration, and ownership of mass media reduce citizens' understanding of environmental and food problems because they allow a few corporations to control what narratives are told through our media outlets. The following are various mechanisms by which corporations and media conglomerates control our perspectives on these issues: Through vertical and horizontal media integration, a select few companies have complete control over what stories are published and how they are published. In this way, they have the power to push whatever narrative best suits their interests with few conflicting voices. Media conglomerates can manufacture public doubt over issues such as climate change by presenting these issues as having balanced arguments on both sides. For example, even though climate scientists almost universally agree that climate change is caused by humans, media outlets spread doubt and suppress public action by manufacturing fake "experts" that create the appearance of a "climate debate". Large media conglomerates who have financial ties to large corporations are less likely to confront those corporations about their environmental harms. Fear tactics and emotive arguments are used to bash environmentalists rather than having substantive discussions with them about the issues. Large corporations can also attack journalists who try to expose bad company practices. Complex arguments are reduced to phrases and sound bites so that audiences are encouraged to focus on quick fixes rather than complex discussions. VERTICAL INTEGRATION = MAKE MEDIA, DISTRIBUTE MEDIA, etc. CONTROL NARRATIVE, FEW CONFLICTING VOICES FINANCIAL TIES TO LARGE CORPORATIONS = NOT GOING TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM ATTACK JOURNALISTS WHO TRY TO EXPOSE PRACTICES REDUCE COMPLEX ARGUMENTS TO PHRASES AND SOUND BITES = ENCOURAGE AUDIENCE TO FOCUS ON QUICK FIXES > COMPLEX DISCUSSIONS

Describe the Catholic view of the relationship between God and creation/the natural order. How is God actually related to creation? And how does creation properly relate back to God?

Creation- "God's loving plan in which every creature has its own value and significance"(76) God is reflected in all that exists in the universe and the relationships within it. God's goodness can not be represented by any one creature, so He wills the interdependence of creatures. Nature itself manifests God. However, there is an infinite distance between God and things, which do not individually possess His fullness, so we cannot demand something which they cannot give us. (86-88) INTERDEPENDENCE BT CREATURES GOD IS WITHIN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE BUT IS NOT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

What deep changes are required, according to Pope Francis, as a precondition for truly solving our environmental problems?

Dialogue on the environment in the international community- interdependence; one world with a common plan Dialogue for new national and local policies Transparency in decision making Politics and economy need to acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of interaction directed to the common good Religions in dialogue with science-- religion motivates us to care about nature, harmony, and others in society, and science would be meaningless without it. TALK AS ONE WORLD WITH COMMON PLAN TALK ABOUT NEW LOCAL AND NATIONAL POLICIES TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION MAKING POLITICS AND ECONOMY ACKNOWLEDGE MISTAKES, INTERACT TOWARD COMMON GOOD RELIGION (CONSCIENCE) + SCIENCE (ACTION)

How do U.S. government "Agricultural Bill" subsidies influence what agribusiness grows and what Americans eat?

Federal Agriculture Bills allow for the production of artificially cheap food production, which thus has a great impact on what Americans eat. An example of this is the use of corn to feed stock and fish, such as tilapia or salmon. In the artificially cheap production of corn created by corporations and government and legislature, animals have been trained to consume feedlot foods such as corn and processes such as these have made meat impossibly cheap. Internationally, the subsidized corn industry produces corn at such a cheap price that farmers in other countries not being subsidized cannot compete. This eats away at their ability to produce their own food. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES = PEOPLE TRY TO GROW THAT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN OVER OTHER THINGS = FISH HAVE TO EAT CORN??? And DRIVING SMALL FARMERS OUT OF THE MARKET

In what ways does food function as a form of "cultural capital" and an element in the construction and presentation of social identity?

Food acts as a form of cultural capital because it plays an important role in family traditions and acts as a center of social gatherings. Additionally, the culinary traditions of a regional create a common identity based on where and how the food is grown and prepared. Food also constructs and presents social identity by associating higher classes with more expensive, exotic foods and lower classes with less expensive foods. CULTURAL TRADITIONS COMMON IDENTITY (EX: WISCONSIN CHEESE) HIGHER CLASSES = MORE EXPENSIVE, EXOTIC FOODS FOOD HAS A SOCIOLOGICAL ELEMENT TO IT; IT'S NOT JUST AN INTAKE OF NUTRIENTS SOCIAL STATUES, EXPENSIVE FOOD

What is the basic approach of "food regime theory?"

Food regime theory can help us trace backward to understand the ori-gins of the most recent globalizing trends in the food system; this theory was first developed by Harriet Friedmann and Phil McMichael in 1989. Food regime theory highlights relationships and power dynamics in the global food system and suggests that there are three stages in the recent develop-ment of the global food system, which they call regimes."(Food 134) "This theory focuses on the relationships and power dynamics in the global food system and identifies the overarching characteristics and dominant players in the global food system during different time periods, which are referred to as regimes"(glossary) 1st regime: 1870-1930s; US colonies exported to European markets LED TO URBANIZATION IN EUROPE BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HAD TO WORK IN FARMS AS FOOD WAS BEING IMPORTED FROM THE U.S. 2nd regime: 1950s-1970s; developing countries in global South brought into global food system; food aid/dumping: affected their local economies because of the surge in cheap/free products coming from the north BRINGING GLOBAL SOUTH INTO GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM - FOOD AID/DUMPING FROM US Those who stayed on their lands in developing countries were introduced to new technologies to increase their yields --- green revolution --- purchased seeds, equipment from large international corporations --- encouraged to export goods 3rd regime: 1970s-present; corporate-environmental food regime? food from somewhere regime? Corporate food regime? Corporate-environmental: corporations responding to consumers' environmental concerns Food from no-where: reflect the need of social context Corporate: illustrate how corporations have more power in food system than the government JUST READ PG 135-136 GREEN WASHING? FIGURING OUT WHERE FOOD COMES FROM (AVOCADOS FROM MEXICO) FOOD REGIME THEORY - 3 STAGES IN DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM Highlights relationships and power dynamics within the system GLOBALIZED WORLD IS NOT A NEW THING--HAS EXISTED IN DIFFERENT FORMATS FOR AWHILE FOOD BOOK PG 134

What kind of influences do interested food-production corporations exert on official nutritional advice and labeling? What are their means of influence?

Food-production corporations exert financial and political influence on official nutritional advice and labeling by: Providing research funding to nutrition scientists Creating quasi-scientific (SEEMS SCIENTIFIC BUT METHODS ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC) groups to be spokesperson on the company's behalf Influencing regulators by utilizing lobbyists PROVIDE RESEARCH FUNDING TO NUTRITION SCIENTISTS CREATE FAKE SCIENCE SPOKESPEOPLE LOBBY POLITICIANS

How did the evolution of food production from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic eras and then to the Agricultural Revolution develop and change the organization of social and institutional structures?

Horticulturalism (in temperate and equatorial climates (domestication of plants) -LED TO: organized village life craft specialization metal smelting trade and markets religious centers state structures increased militarism Pastoralism in arid climates (domestication of animals) - Slavery from wars over grazing land Trade and acquisition of more possessions Spread surplus food, seeds, breeds, and technologies along trade routes Distinct political, economic, and religious institutions including war, slavery and transition from matriachal to patriarchal societies Agricultural societies (cereal cropping (MAKING LARGE SCALE WHEATS/GRAINS/CORN) w/ animal power, manure fertilizers, irrigation, sophisticated trading, specified regions for certain regions, dairy, hides) Further increases in divisions of labor Unification of empires over large areas Surplus of food to elites Kingdoms Feudalism SMALL COMMUNITIES .... > FULL SCALE SOCIETIES NEOLITHIC: FARMING, PALEOLITHIC: STONE TOOLS

What is the relationship between human population growth and poverty, hunger, and famine?

Human population growth does not necessarily correlate with poverty, hunger, and famine as suggested by malthusians and neo-malthusians. Although an increased population does put more of a strain on natural resources in a region, it is mostly social and political factors that result in poverty, hunger, and famine. Examples: In today's globalized economy, the resources of regions all over the world (and especially in the global south) are used to support the lifestyles of people in other countries. For example, there are currently enough food resources to eliminate hunger and famine. However, more and more land is being used for growing more profitable export items such as coffee rather than staple crops like wheat that could be used to feed local populations. Famines can be used as weapons of political power as seen in Sudan, as former farmers now have to rely on warlords for shipments of food after fleeing violence. Additionally, famines can result from using harmful agricultural practices such as growing monocultures that are susceptible to pests and leach nutrients from the soil. Much of the food that is grown around the world is wasted. For example, supermarkets are packed full of more goods than they can sell, so they have to throw away tons of food that are in the store past their sell by date. I=PAT: Population directly proportional to ecological footprint

Name three ways that the exercise of power operates in the structural relationships between (a) food corporations, (b) food growers, (c) governments (legislatures, regulators), and (d) food consumers—as we saw in Food, Inc. and perhaps some of the readings?

In food Inc, the corporations control the money that the farmers receive in compensation for their production of chickens. As such, they have the power in the dynamic over farmers who might otherwise strive to keep their chickens in safer, more prosperous conditions. Growers are generally indebted to the companies for the initial buildings, new equipment, or other modifications, and this adds to the power disparity. Undocumented workers in these corporations have no power in this dynamic, as they have minimal rights or protections and thus generally do not complain. Customers have substantial power in terms of the influence they have over corporations, for example, Walmart's decision to produce their milk differently was based entirely on customer protest. The government chooses to subsidize various foods, making them artificially cheap, and thus indirectly encouraging consumers to eat those foods. FARMERS: CONTRACTS/DEBT WITH CORPORATIONS CONSUMERS: MANIPULATION BY CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENTS: SUBSIDIZING CORPORATIONS CORPORATIONS: LOBBYING POWER OVER GOVERNMENTS

In what ways may it be that, ironically, when it comes to global warming and climate change, "people who don't like big government are going to get more of it?"

In what ways may it be that, ironically, when it comes to global warming and climate change, "people who don't like big government are going to get more of it?" The results of unchecked global warming and climate change will continue to result in disasters and issues that will require government intervention to mediate and fix. This is ironic because those who are denying climate change in the name of avoiding big government are actually putting the country in a position to become even more reliant on big government. IF YOU DONT FIX THE PROBLEM NOW, YOU'LL NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE RESULTING PROBLEMS LATER (EX: HURRICANES, FLOODS)

How does a sociological approach to understanding and explaining environmental, food, and health problems differ from individualistic, personality, psychological, moralistic approaches?

Individualism focuses on trying to explain things through psychology, character traits, and self-determinism while a sociological approach doesn't focus on individuals, rather, it focuses on the causal powers of social structures, institutions, cultures, groups, social networks, and relations. SOCIOLOGICAL: INTERCONNECTIVITY, RELATEDNESS OF EVERYTHING --- IMPACTING SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

According to the film, Trashed, how do the ways industrial humanity functions differ from the ways that nature functions? What are the consequences?

Industrial humanity creates products and uses up resources at a rate that nature cannot keep up with. Nature has a way of creating things that go through a closed-loop cycle of creation and destruction so as to not disturb the balance of things. Industrial humanity creates products that do not exist in a closed-loop cycle--they tend to be products that are persistent and difficult to break down, such as plastics. Because of this, there is an increase in mass pollution on the planet. The usage of natural resources also far exceeds the rate at which nature is able to create them, so there is a depletion of those as well. NATURE = FULL ASS LOOP HUMANS = START TO FINISH HUMANS: CREATE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH WITH NO DECAY

How and why do pressures to increase the productivity of labor contribute to environmental degradation, the industrialization of food production, and, arguably, the decline in food nutrition?

Large scale, chemically intensive, productivist, monoculture agriculture has a negative relationship with the environment, where it extracts wealth from and externalizes costs in the form of soil, water, air, and species degradation. Industrial agriculture is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Countries in the semi periphery have exploited their resources in order to catch up with more fully industrialized countries, through processes of cutting down forests for timber, agriculture, and mining. These countries also sometimes harm their poorest citizens by allowing them to be exposed to toxic e-waste exported by richer countries. The industrialization of agriculture was historically meant to stave off famine, and selective breeding increased yields. Soil was reduced to its organic parts to produce more yield per acre, fertilizers, pesticides, and machines were all introduced to agriculture. The production of industrialized food tends to include substantial amounts of corn, food from nowhere, and overall less nutritionally dense items. MONOCULTURE → LACK OF NUTRIENTS AND PESTS = FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE = EUTROPHICATION AND HARMFUL CHEMICALS THROUGH FOOD CHAIN INDUSTRIALIZATION = STRIP GOOD STUFF BUT ADD ENRICHMENT LONGER SHELF LIFE → STRIP NUTRIENTS BUT ADD "ENRICHMENT" (BUT LIKELY LEAVE OUT OTHER IMPORTANT NUTRIENTS)

Explain the concept of "negative externalities" and how it helps us to understand how and why environmental degradation happens?

Negative externalities are externalized costs of a benefit, consumption, or profit. They are created by a beneficiary that doesn't pay the full costs. It is basically like forcing others to help pay for a benefit they do not enjoy themselves. This concept helps us understand environmental degradation because it exposes the way that nothing ever done has just one set price. Every single action has a complicated web of effects that tend to degrade the environment. A lot of people believe that the only cost of something is the number on its price tag. The environmental costs and the costs that other people have to pay as a result of environmental degradation are not taken into account. NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES = SHIFTING SOME OF THE COSTS OF A BENEFIT ONTO SOMEONE ELSE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION HAPPENS BC THE COSTS AREN"T ACCOUNTED FOR

What is "nutritionism," on what valuable things about food does it focus consumer attention, and what other important issues around food does it ignore or put out of focus?

Nutritionism" focuses on the nutrients and calories in food rather than where and how the food was grown. This reduces food to just being a fuel that keeps our body healthy, when in reality food plays a huge role in our cultural and social identity. It also justifies the heavy processing of healthy, natural food into a conglomeration of artificial products as long as the right nutrients and micronutrients are added in. In this process, many health benefits of these foods are lost. Additionally, nutritionism detracts focus from where and how the food was grown. This makes people disconnected from their food so that companies can get away with outsourcing, bad treatment of their workers, and harmful agricultural practices. REDUCES TO COMPONENTS IGNORES HOW AND WHERE AND BY WHOM THE FOOD WAS MADE.

What, according to the professor, are some of the hidden cognitive implications, suggestions, assumptions, or leadings of the key words "the environment" and "nature" that might actually contribute to continued environmental problems?

People tend to think of the environment and nature as entities separate from themselves. They view the environment as "otherness," or simply something that is part of the planet that coexists with humans. Because of this view, some people tend to neglect the environment and its issues, as they fail to realize their connection to it. Feeling detached from what the environment is causes people not to care about what happens to it. ENVIRONMENT = OTHER/SEPARATE FROM HUMANS DETACHED FROM IT = DONT CARE FROM IT

Why do most real scientists have difficulty helping to educate the public and politicians about their research and its implications for environmental policy?

Scientists are generally not good communicators, more focused on performing their research than conveying it to the public in an accessible fashion. Additionally, political figures and others have a tendency to cherry pick scientific information to support whatever they would like to believe. Companies such as Exxonmobil have been known to fund over 30 climate misinformation or distortion groups dedicated to presenting climate change as a non-issue. Thus, this can lead to confusion in the minds of the public. Groups such as the IPCC have been emulated by groups such as the NIPCC, who aim to seem legitimate by creating nearly identical appearing reports with contrasting information. Organizations such as these appear to grant legitimacy to some of these groups and thus make people more vulnerable to misinformation. Think tanks supported by companies THEYRE SOMETIMES THREATENED/SLANDERED SOMETIMES NOT GOOD COMMUNICATORS HARD TO KNOW HOW MUCH TO TELL PEOPLE TO SPARK ACTION BUT NOT HOPELESSNESS ITS NOT ABOUT FACTS, ITS ABOUT TRIBES/CORE IDENTITY/IDEOLOGY

What, according to the professor, are some of the implicit cognitive implications or assumptions of the key word "sustainability" that might actually be a problem in helping to make human life more sustainable?

Some of the problems that arise from the assumptions of the word "sustainability" include the idea that we want to sustain life as it is now instead of procuring positive change. The way we live today is what is causing so many environmental issues, so trying to "sustain" what we have now is counterproductive to creating a better future. WE WANT RADICAL SHIFT NOT TO SUSTAIN LIFE AS IT IS, WORKING TO SUSTAIN IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO CREATING BETTER FUTURE

What are the unresolved issues and critical questions that add uncertainty and differences within ecological modernization theory?

Some of the unresolved issues and questions left that add uncertainty include who should take the lead and what should be the role of businesses/producers, governments, citizens/movements, international NGOs, and how much state or government intervention is required to prompt the necessary changes in time. Another question is what structural changes need to occur within campaign financing/corporate lobbying, laws of corporate responsibility, and media ownership for success. Will the losers of the change be willing to lose? Is capitalism inherently ecologically destructive; do we need a different system? Is this just another type of "green washing?"--falsely advertising something as eco-friendly. WHO SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD? WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF BUSINESSES/PRODUCERS, GOVERNMENTS, CITIZENS/MOVEMENTS, INTERNATIONAL NGOs? HOW MUCH STATE OR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION? WHAT STRUCTURAL CHANGES NEED TO OCCUR (in campaign financing/corporate lobbying, corporate responsibility laws, media ownership) WILL THE LOSERS BE WILLING TO LOSE? IS CAPITALISM INHERENTLY ECOLOGICALLY DESTRUCTIVE (greenwashing?)

What are possible ways to eliminate negative externalities and why are they difficult to implement?

Some of the ways that negative externalities could be eliminated include prohibition, regulation, and implementation of the true cost of items. Prohibition could include things such as prohibiting the destruction of forests altogether so as not to impose externalities on the forest and the ecosystems within it. Regulation could come in the form of limiting the amount of carbon dioxide a factory is able to emit. Implementation of the true cost of items would mean changing the price tags of items to reflect all of the costs that occurred to get that object into the buyer's hands, including but not limited to the cost of transportation, labor, depletion of natural resources, etc. These are all difficult to implement, especially the last one, because some things simply don't have a price. The destruction of a mountain is priceless. It would also be difficult to prohibit something altogether or even regulate it in some cases because certain people and/or corporations in charge are very powerful. PROHIBITION, REGULATION, TRUE COST

What are possible ways to eliminate the tragedy of the commons and why are they difficult to implement?

Some possible ways to get rid of the tragedy of the commons includes prohibition, regulation, and marketizing to reduce demand. Prohibition could involve prohibiting humans from visiting national parks, so as to preserve the integrity of the ecosystems there. Regulation could involve limiting the amount of fish that an individual is allowed to catch so as to protect their numbers and all the other organisms and systems that depend on that fish. Marketizing to reduce demand could involve raising the price of electricity during the summer so people are less likely to leave their air conditioners on the entire day. These approaches are difficult to implement because they deal with public and shared resources. It would be difficult to prohibit or regulate something that isn't physically owned by an individual, such as a fish. The last approach might also prove to be unfair since those who have lower income might be penalized more for less electricity usage versus a wealthy corporation who can afford to pay the higher price but uses way more electricity. PROHIBITION, REGULATION, MARKETIZING TO REDUCE DEMAND DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT BC NO ONE OWNS CERTAIN RESOURCES LIKE AIR PRIVATIZATION IS NOT VERY POPULAR POOR PEOPLE WOULD BE PUNISHED

What does it mean, according to Pope Francis, for ecology to be "integral?" What are the important things that must be integrated into a holistic approach? Why?

The bond between humans and the natural world means that we live in an "integral ecology." an integrated approach to environmental and social issues is required. We can't address one without addressing the other. Integral ecology calls for openness to categories which transcend the language of mathematics and biology and take us to the heart of what it means to be human. We must draw all creatures into praise. The response to the world must be much more than intellectual appreciation or economic calculus--each and every creature must be appreciated. We are called to care for all that exists. Protecting our common home involves a concern for all living creatures. ENVIRONMENT + SOCIAL ISSUES INTERCONNECTED APPRECIATING INHERENT VALUE OF NATURE AND PEOPLE MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO HOLISTIC APPROACH BC HAVE TO UNDERSTAND VALUE TO PROTECT

What are possible ways to overcome the collective action problem and what must they all somehow accomplish?

The collective action problem could be overcome by transcending individual rational self-interest. This requires transformative social mechanisms such as negating individuality by feeling group solidarity, legal binding commitments and enforcements, negating self-interest by introducing moral or principled motivations, overriding rationality with emotional reaction, and introducing "nothing to lose" scenarios. TRANSCENDING INDIVIDUAL RATIONAL SELF INTEREST : GROUP SOLIDARITY LEGAL ACTION MORAL MOTIVATION EMOTION REACTION NOTHING TO LOSE

Explain the concept of "the collective action problem" and how it helps us to understand how and why environmental degradation happens?

The collective action problem is the failure of individual actors to engage together in a collective action towards the same goal that would benefit all. Some of the components involved in the collective action problem include the actors being rational and self-interested, the collective action would benefit everyone, participation in the action would be costly, whether in terms of money, time, or sacrifices, if everyone participated, the worth of the success would be greater than the initial costs, and if only some actors participate, the impact of the failure would be greater than the initial costs. This helps us to understand environmental degradation by exposing the hurdles that individuals struggle to mentally overcome in regards to acting in the interest of the common good. Because some individuals are afraid that they will commit to a cause while others bail, some are tempted to let others pay the costs while they reap the benefits, and some fear that their participation is too minor to make a change, the collective action is unable to proceed. Because of this, preventing environmental degradation is very difficult to attain. FAILURE OF INDIVIDUALS TO WORK TOGETHER TOWARD COMMON GOAL PEOPLE ARE RATIONAL AND SELF-INTERESTED COLLECTIVE ACTION WOULD BENEFIT ALL, BUT IT WOULD BE COSTLY AFRAID OTHERS WILL BAIL TEMPTED TO REAP BENEFITS W/O PAYING COST FEAR THEIR PARTICIPATION IS TOO MINOR TO MAKE A CHANGE

According to Pope Francis, what other moral beliefs and commitments are required to secure the common good?

The common good is "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment." Respect for the human person--endowed with basic and inalienable rights. Overall welfare of society Development of subsidiarity--allowing local groups to be included in decision making Social peace Justice for future generations Besides acknowledging the worth of each and every living creature, respecting other human beings is required to secure the common good. Preserving natural resources so as not to abuse what nature provides us with is also important. Respecting the resources themselves is also important, as we can't view resources such as food sources only in terms of what they can give us--we must respect them as they are as well. COMMON GOOD = CONDITIONS WHICH ALLOW INDIVIDUALS THOROUGH AND READY ACCESS TO THEIR OWN FULFILLMENT MORAL BELIEFS AND COMMITMENTS: RESPECT FOR HUMAN PERSON - INALIENABLE RIGHTS OVERALL WELFARE OF SOCIETY LOCAL GROUPS INCLUDED IN DECISION MAKING SOCIAL PEACE JUSTICE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

Who benefits from dangerous waste-disposal practices? Who may be reluctant to admit and own responsibility and pay for changes, and why?

The companies directly benefit from current waste disposal practices as their income is stemming from the current practices. Additionally, governmental agencies who receive funding from waste disposal companies would thus be motivated to continue practices and avoid cracking down on dangerous waste-disposal practices. THE COMPANIES DOING THE WASTING (DONT HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH, MORE CONVENIENT) GOVERNMENTS HAVE OTHER STUFF TO DEAL WITH

How (besides the obvious) is the "consumer democracy" of purchasers in markets "voting with dollars" different from the traditional political democracy of citizens voting with ballots for political representatives? What difference does it make in our notions of "citizenship" and "policy?"

The consumer democracy allows customers to directly support only companies whom they feel are creating good product with moral standards that align with their values. Contrary to an election, for example, if the consumer is dissatisfied, they have the opportunity to take their business anywhere else, or even to grow their own food. Thus, in this system, consumers have the capacity to have a very direct effect on the business' financial situation, which is what they need to survive. This greatly contrasts the political representative democracy, as consumers do not have to worry whether the person they elected will continue to uphold their beliefs or be swayed by a larger influencer. REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC BACKGROUND, EVERYONE CAN VOTE, BUT AS CONSUMERS, NOT EVERYONE CAN VOTE EQUALLY (TO INFLUENCE POLICY YOU HAVE TO HAVE MONEY)

What is the important idea to be learned from any theory of "treadmill" (e.g., of production, of consumption, of technology) that helps us understand environmental problems?

The important idea to be learned from any treadmill theory is the idea of withdrawals and additions. For example, in environmental terms, withdrawals are the raw materials we take from nature in order to turn them into objects with "use value" or "exchange/market" value. Additions are what we return to the environment, such as pollution and garbage. These cycles of withdrawal and addition can destabilize our biospherical systems. The aim of the treadmill is to produce profit for capitalists, so it continuously has to grow in order to generate profit. They must always strive to produce more to keep up, but they can never quite move forward. IN ORDER TO CREATE GROWTH, YOU HAVE TO CONSUME MORE AND MORE WITHOUT REPLENISHING, GOAL IS SHORT-TERM PROFIT, CONSEQUENCE IS LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE/LACK OF RESOURCES/SORRY KIDS WITHDRAWALS - RAW MATERIALS ADDITIONS - RETURN POLLUTION/WASTE TO ENVIRONMENT

If some of the debate over global warming/climate change isn't really, ultimately about the scientific data, then what is it really about? What role do social-identity dynamics of "tribes" and "teams" play in the politics of climate change? In what sense does that offer a specifically sociological analysis?

The debate over climate change has become more about tribes and teams than scientific data. For example, Bob Inglis, a congressman from South Carolina, describes how he began his career as a climate denier. He says he gave no thought to the actual issue, but assumed rather that since it was coming from the opposite team it must be wrong. This is a prime example of how tribalism can affect people's incentive to even learn the truth. It also provides some insight as to how large groups of people can be misled by people who they may support for entirely separate reasons. Credible voices are required on both sides of a debate such as the one over the existence of climate change. However, Fred Seitz, for example, was a credible voice in the field of physics, but he had no credibility in the study of climate change. Additionally, it came to light that he had been employed by the tobacco industry. The social identity of tribes and teams promote groups of people to accept all the things the rest of their group believes. They also tend to discredit any information stemming from outside their group. SOCIOlOGICAL BECAUSE: NOT A QUESTION OF SCIENCE BUT OF WHETHER YOU CAN GET PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IT AND ACT ON IT ACCEPT EVERYTHING FROM YOUR GROUP AND DISCREDIT EVERYTHING FROM OTHER TRIBE

In what ways is the food people eat today not simply determined by individual, demand-side, consumer-driven, personal choice of the food shopper?

The food people eat today is largely driven by what food is available, accessible, affordable, and marketed. Since most people buy their food from supermarkets, these supermarket chains have almost complete control over what food is available and accessible for consumers to buy. This means that supermarkets can charge food producers large fees to have their products in stores, effectively driving out small competitors who cannot afford them. Another important factor in determining what people eat is affordability. Large food producers are able to use economies of scale, industrialisation of production, and even lobby for subsidies to make their products cheaper than competitors. Many people cannot afford to buy more expensive foods, so they will almost be forced to buy the mass produced, highly processed foods produced by these large food corporations. Because of this, more expensive and less processed foods will be much more available in higher income areas than in low income areas, effectively creating "food deserts" where little healthy food is available. Additionally, large food producers can afford to pay supermarkets to position their products in the most ideal locations to increase sales. Finally, large food corporations have the money to run extensive advertising campaigns that target consumer's perception of the brand and remind them to buy their products. This makes consumers familiar with the brands, so that consumers feel like they can trust their products to be high quality and superior to "off brand" products. DRIVEN BY WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE, and MARKETED LARGE FOOD PRODUCERS CAN AFFORD TO BE IN SUPERMARKETS & POSITION PRODUCTS FOOD DESERTS IN POOR AREAS

Describe what are, according to Pope Francis, the main components of the deepest roots of the environmental crisis.

The globalization of the technocratic paradigm: the idea that continuous, infinite, and unlimited growth in control over an external object is possible. Based on the misconception of earth having unlimited resources. Dominant mindset in today's society, so shifting towards the paradigm where tech is just an instrument is inconceivable. Creates a profit-based view in the economy, where we neglect the impacts of the technological advancements on the environment(and other social implications). "To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system."(111) "But we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur."(114) Modern Anthropocentrism: "Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for 'instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in the place of God, and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature."(117) Coexistence of technocracy which sees no intrinsic values in lesser beings and the other extreme which sees no special value in human beings.(118) --- placing humans at the center of the universe When human beings place themselves at the center, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests. (122) TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM - WE CAN SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS WITH TECHNOLOGY AND THAT'LL ALLOW US TO HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES AND GROWTH MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM - THERE IS UNLIMITED HUMAN POWER RELATIVISM - EVERYTHING IS IRRELEVANT UNLESS IT SERVES OUR IMMEDIATE INTERESTS

How and why does the globalized food system and evolving consumer expectations produce massive food waste?

The globalized food system produces mass waste by discouraging variability and locality of products. Certain crops, such as tomatoes, are supposed to be grown seasonally, but because of the globalized food system, tomatoes are able to be transported to places where they aren't in season. Standardization of crops also occurs in which the appearance of the product and breed of product that produces the most profit are scrutinized and preferred. This causes mass waste of products that don't fulfil the requirements. This links to consumer expectations, as most consumers are looking for products that consistently look the same and taste the same. Consumers are also always looking for the newest product. This causes waste in the form of products that don't fit the standardization requirements or products such as phones that have become outdated as a result of increased technological advancement. Globalization has led to standardization of food, consumer demand has led to mass production and waste as items are constantly being replaced CONSUMERS EXPECT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE ON SHELF AND IN LARGE QUANTITIES AVOCADOS ALL THE TIME

Under what conditions and in what ways can the norm of "balance" in news and journalism actually work against rather than for learning the truth?

The idea of balance as found in the idea of dueling "experts" on the news hinders scientists attempting to present a realistic view of the climate and other issues. Experts pitted against the scientists to foster "balance" are often funded by companies with an incentive to distort the truth. Thus, viewers are led to believe that the issue is still contentious among experts even when true scientists may have already come to the truth. Some of these promoted "experts" have minimal credentials in anything relevant to the claims they are making. VIEWERS LED TO BELIEVE IT'S STILL CONTENTIOUS AMONG EXPERTS (WHICH IS NOT THE TRUTH)

In what sense is raising grave concern about global warming and climate change "an attack on a way of life?... a demand that we need to change our lifestyles?... a judgment that the whole way we have created our life is wrong?" Why might that make people vulnerable to the claims of climate-change skeptics?

The idea of the Lynn White Thesis, that humanity is meant to subdue the earth and to populate it suggests a total dominance over the physical earth. Such a mentality, also present in biblical scriptures such as Genesis, suggests that an exploitation of all resources is acceptable. To those who ascribe to these beliefs, concern about global warming and climate change is very much a threat to their way of life. NO ONE WANTS TO BE THE BAD GUY/TAKE THE BLAME OR HAVE TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY LIVE

Describe the "industrialization of food." How has the industrialization of food in modern society and its evolving "dietary regime" changed the way food is produced and by whom? What are the consequences for farmers and the environment? And how has the industrial food system changed the character and nutritional value of food itself for people eating it?

The industrialization of food is the transformation of food production from small-scale farmers producing food mostly for their local community, to the large-scale production of food through the extensive use of machines, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, and monocultures. Today, food is mostly grown in large-scale monocultures by farmers who work for large food corporations. This has led to increased farmer debt as farmers have to buy more tools, machinery, and GMO seeds to keep up with corporation standards and in order to create enough profit as the price of their goods becomes cheaper and cheaper. The industrialization of food has led to widespread environmental harm as: monocultures and frequent tilling leach the soil of nutrients pesticides kill myriad bugs and birds and sometimes contain persistent organic chemicals inorganic fertilizers cause eutrophication Increased processing and packaging uses much more oil Etc. The character of food has been degraded from a staple of culture and tradition to fuel for our bodies. Through globalization, we have been disconnected from where and how our food is grown, and through nutritionism, we have decided to reduce food to just its nutrients. However, in order to increase the shelf-life and mass produce food, it has to be processed and stripped of much of its micronutrients. INDUSTRIALIZATION OF FOOD = TRANSITION FROM SMALL-SCALE, LOCAL TO LARGE-SCALE w/ MACHINES, PESTICIDES, INORGANIC FERTILIZER, etc. LARGE-SCALE MONOCULTURES - LARGE FOOD CORPORATIONS INCREASED FARMER DEBT, TREADMILL OF PRODUCTION MONOCULTURE → LEACH NUTRIENTS + PESTS → FERTILIZER + PESTICIDES → EUTROPHICATION + HARMFUL CHEMICALS → DISRUPT ECOSYSTEMS, TRAVEL THROUGH FOOD CHAIN FOOD SEEN AS FUEL INSTEAD OF CULTURAL VALUE, STRIPPED OF NUTRIENTS

What are the potential benefits of food corporation consolidation to consumers and corporations in oligopolies/market monopolies? And what are the potential costs or disadvantages to consumers and food producers?

The potential benefits are: Cheaper More efficient food production Creates a greater surplus of goods As a result, can raise the standards of living for everyone The potential costs are: Food companies have a lot of market power and control over prices Disproportionately affects small farmers who cannot compete Large companies are stuck on their own treadmill of production as they have to constantly keep up with the expected rate of growth Markets in less developed countries cannot compete with industrialised food producers Increase in exploitation of workers and the environment as large companies become disconnected from operations and focus on efficiency and profits Monopolies not having incentive to create better, less expensive products because there is a lack of competition

What is the "precautionary principle," when does it apply, and what does it commend as a rule for decision-making and action?

The precautionary principle is a guideline for making decisions in situations of uncertainty and/or irreversible consequences. It applies to all decisions made by governments, corporations, and others that could cause harm to any aspect of the environment, including humans. As a rule of thumb, if there is any sign of potential harm or doubt in safety, caution should be employed. BEING CAUTIOUS IF THERE"S A CHANCE IT"S GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL

What are the implications of Personalism's belief that human beings are persons and not merely things for how human beings must be treated? And what implications does that have for humanity's treatment of the natural environment?

The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a "Thou" who addresses himself to another "thou." The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object." When nature is viewed as a source of profit and gain, society faces consequences; the first comer or most powerful takes all. Personalism would bring society harmony, justice, fraternity, and peace. (81-82) HUMANS HAVE INHERENT VALUE AND SHOULD BE TREATED WELL BECAUSE OF THAT THE ENVIRONMENT ALSO HAS INHERENT VALUE AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED BECAUSE OF THAT, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT VALUE IT GIVES HUMANS IF WE DONT SEE THE INHERENT VALUE IN PEOPLE CANT SEE IT IN ENVIRONMENT AND VICE VERSA (HAVE TO HAVE BOTH) ---environmental degradation leads to the destruction of human lives in many ways--they are interconnected

What lessons about consumer awareness and government regulations did the tobacco industry learn in the 1950s-90s that have been subsequently deployed by industries that benefit from "climate-change skepticism/denial?" What are the strategies in their "Playbook?"

The tobacco industry hired public relations personnel who suggested that big tobacco cast doubt to delay policy change. Any delay allowed further opportunities to make money for another day, and other industries that have little to do with the tobacco industry have used this same pattern of uncertainty and misdirection. Identifying your enemies, such as firefighters and the idea of the self-extinguishing cigarette and turning them into an ally with the introduction of a scapegoat such as furniture companies was an effective strategy as well. - The industries that benefit from climate change denial have employed many similar strategies. The climate deniers are not trying to pass any legislation. Their goal is delay, misdirection, and discrediting of the environmentalist agenda. They are not winning the debate, but rather not losing it as they introduce new means of deniability and prevent legislative material contrary to their cause. Thus, gridlock and confusion is the greatest friend to a global warming skeptic as they attempt to prevent the public from seeing the real action in the science and avert the public's focus from the real issue. Additionally, the issue of climate change can also be framed as government control over environmental resources and the market. INSTILLING DOUBT/"BOTH SIDES TO THE DEBATE" MISDIRECTING THE BLAME TO OTHER ISSUES GRIDLOCK AND CONFUSION TO DELAY DISCREDITING ENVIRONMENTALIST AGENDA (EX: MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE SEEM LIKE CONTROL OVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES)

Explain the concept of "the tragedy of the commons" and how it helps us to understand how and why environmental degradation happens?

The tragedy of the commons is when the destruction of a shared, unregulated resource by users who act independently in self-interest occurs. The commons is a metaphor for any public space or resource, including oceans, rivers, the atmosphere, parks, beaches, fish stocks, forests, roads, antibiotics, office refrigerators, etc. This concept helps us understand how and why environmental degradation occurs because it provides insight into the reasons why the motivation to protect and respect the Earth dwindles as people are given limitless access to resources. In situations where people are given the freedom to do what they want with public places or resources, some people tend to abuse that privilege and ignore the consequences imposed on the environment. The unlimited freedom results in environmental degradation, as no one is being held accountable for their actions. TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS = DESTRUCTION OF SHARED, UNREGULATED RESOURCE BY USERS WHO ACT INDEPENDENTLY IN SELF-INTEREST WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVEN UNLIMITED ACCESS TO RESOURCE, THEY WILL ABUSE IT. NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

What are the two central goals of nation state funding of science and technology and the one central goal of corporate funding of science and technology?

The two central goals of nation state funding are to improve the state's military and economy. The central goal of corporate funding is to increase profits.

How, according to the film, Trashed, are mass-consumption, waste disposal, chemistry, the oceans, food chains, eating, and human health and reproduction all connected?

These are all connected because each one has a way of affecting or inducing the other. For example, mass-consumption leads to an increase in trash, especially trash that isn't biodegradable. The way we dispose of our trash affects systems such as the ocean. Microplastics and other forms of pollution appear in the ocean, which then infiltrates the food chain when organisms that we eat, such as fish, intake plastics. We are then eating things that should not be in our bodies, which then affects our health. The way we use chemistry in wars or other applications affects the environment and those in it as well. For example, the production of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War led to horrendous health issues and reproduction issues to those who were exposed to it. The chemical also destroyed entire ecosystems, causing irreparable damage to the environment in Vietnam. MASS CONSUMPTION → WASTE → HARMFUL CHEMICALS (DIOXINS: MASS INCINERATION / LEACHATE:TRASH) → SOIL/WATER/FOOD CHAIN → EAT CHEMICALS → REPRODUCTION ISSUES

Describe in its various aspects, according to Pope Francis in Laudato Si', the ways that a faithful Catholic worldview and idea of a good society and good human lives are different from and even contradict the mainstream world we currently live in when it comes to our view and treatment of the natural world and other human beings on the planet. What are the crucial differences of visions and values, and how should they produce different ways of living and different social orders?

We are used to believing that the natural world we live in is one we have the right to conquer and manipulate for our individual gain The catholic worldview involves the acceptance that humans and the natural world are one and the same--there should not be a dominant figure in the relationship Everything is connected Human life is grounded in 3 fundamental relationships--with God, with our neighbor, and with nature itself. "Tilling" means cultivating, ploughing, or working "Keeping" means caring Individualism vs. the common good Economic gain vs. the common good Power vs. the common good MAINSTREAM: CONQUER NATURAL WORLD HUMANS SEPARATE FROM NATURE ECONOMIC GAIN/WINNER TAKES ALL SOCIAL HIERARCHY (SOME PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE) TECHNOLOGY CAN SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS GOOD SOCIETY: RESPECT AND CARE FOR NATURAL WORLD WE ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH NATURE COMMON GOOD - EVERYONE CAN HAVE A FULFILLING LIFE FOR THEMSELVES, RESPECT ALL PEOPLE TECHNOLOGY CANNOT SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS, NEED SPECIFIC INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES WITH LOCAL INPUT

How has globalization changed the way we—at least modern, middle-class westerners—purchase and consume food today?

Whereas in the past, most people ate local and seasonal food, today we eat food sourced from all over the world at all times of the year. This has led to an expectation that a plethora of different foods will be available at all times of the year, no matter where they come from or how long they take to travel to the market. This has greatly increased the need for large, global supply chains, food preservation processes, and a disconnect between consumers and where their food comes from. LOCAL AND SEASONAL FOOD FROM ALL OVER ALL THE TIME DISCONNECTION FROM OUR FOOD