Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

The deepest problem that local-food efforts face, however, is that we've gotten used to paying so little for food. It may be expensive in terms of how much oil it requires, and how much greenhouse gas pours into the atmosphere, and how much tax subsidy it receives, and how much damage it does to local communities, and how many migrant workers it maims, and how much sewage piles up, and how many highway miles it requires- but boy, when you pull your cart up to the register, it's pretty cheap. 89

---

I think McKibben packs a lot of punch in this small paragraph. The key, as I see it, involves how our economic model determines cost, and what it values as cheap or inexpensive. If the only determining cost factor is what you see at the register, then, our current economic model is very hard to beat. But if you consider the list of concerns McKibben names above, our means of feeding ourselves are profoundly flawed.

The selection below is how McKibben defines the cost/value dynamic in his winter experiment of eating locally, and I think it captures the real treasure of this chapter and, truly, the hope of this book:

Quote:

---

Eating this way has come at a cost. Not in health or in money (if anything, I've spent less than usual, since I haven't bought a speck of processed food) but in time. I've had to think about every meal, instead of wandering through the world on autopilot, ingesting random calories. I've had to pay attention. But the payoff for that cost has been immense, a web of connections I'de never known about. I've gotten to eat with my brain as well as my tounge: every meal comes with a story. The geogrpahy of the valley now means something more to me; I've met dozens of people I wouldn't otherwise have known...the winter permanently altered the way I eat. In more ways than one, it left a good taste in my mouth. That good taste was satisfaction. The time I spent getting the food and preparing it was not, in the end, a cost at all. In the end it was a benefit, the benefit. In my role as eater, I was part of something larger than myself that made sense to me- a community. I felt grounded, connected." 94

---

Preparing for our daily bread as a necessary means to transform an entire economy: becoming fully intentional participants and informed partners in the process of feeding ourselves is crucial to defining economic value. Deep economic revolution requires a daily practice of considering: what does the bite of bread really cost?

McKibben also makes it clear that this is not a solitary endeavor geared around rugged individualism and consumer customization. This kind of deep economy requires constant interaction, collaboration, cooperation, engagement, sharing of information: no one really gains unless everyone shares in the effort and sacrifice...and it takes time and labor. There is no easy way to do this. It is inconvenient. But with the effort comes satisfaction: the genuine pleasure of honest exchange and trusted relationships, linked to physical health and an everincreasing knowledge of the wondrous world around us.

I fear we (our Nation) are too deep in the Junkie mode: too addicted to short term gratification and unable to imagine that the minor inconveniences demanded by a deep economy will pay off in satisfaction rarely, if ever, experienced. And, the Pushers who control industry and manipulate policy are not going to simply let go of their control of consumer appetites.

McKibben's vision, in my opionion, is beautiful. But is beauty enough?

Julian: DH, don't forget how conservative the US is

I agree. But I think the very best of American Conservatism is linked to a love and appreciation of the soil and protection of the American farm. I reject the jingoism, patriarchy, militarism, and Christian exclusivism that is expressed by many American conservatives; but I think they are just as disgusted by corporate elites and their tiny segment of the population absconding with the lion's share of wealth. There is a huge portion of American farm culture that is not friendly to the massive agribusiness industries that hold entire villages, cities, counties and agricultural regions hostage. And, there is a vibrant movement of religious environmentalists who practice a Green Faith that involves progressives and evangelicals working together to foster a more responsible stewardship and love of Creation by Christians everywhere. No matter what our solution, it must include conservative Americans...and if that is true, it needs to take seriously their religious belief systems.

Julian: Still, it will take a dramatic shift for the country as a whole to accept McKibben's arguments.

As Climate Change increases (with all of its attending crises) we can count on dramatic shifts like we have never seen before. I think McKibben's arguments will speak to the vast majority of middle Americans who come from generations who were tied to the land and depended upon far more frugal lifestyles within close-knit, local economies. Again, I think an important part of this conversation will have to include Religious Environmentalism, as it will connect the deepest notions of identity, moral obligation, and spiritual practice to care and love of Creation. Middle America understands this language and is mobilized by its unconditional demands.

irishrose: but solutions to the destruction of the earth/society/community by industrial agriculture, and/or the economy as whole, certainly do not need to rely on religion or mythology.

If you are interested in changing the minds and habits of Middle America, which are far more religious than not, then you may want to consider how religion can help. You don't have to endorse anything religious, but if a substantial portion of the challenge involves those who do endorse some sort of religious life...then it stands to reason that religion will be part of the solution. I'm offering one way to get religion into the solution part of the Climate Crisis equation. It's a way that brings different religious communities across cultural and ideological borders onto common ground with secular folk and scientists.

irishrose: My understanding of the conservatives Julian mentions have very little, possibly no, resemblance to the people you cherish describing.

I suggest we lift up those voices of conservative America that accept the truth of global warming and climate change and the role of human activity in exacerbating both. I think it's important to highlight those conservative Christians who see a moral obligation to turn back the tide of global warming and climate change because of their religious commitment to love and care for creation. I think the combination of those conservatives who cherish the earth and those who love creation will be a substantial force in starting the substantial shift of the country that Julian refers to.

RaulRamos: apart from the question of how to make McKibben's suggestions true there is the question of whether we all want to see his suggestions become reality.

I think this is an important distinction: 1. how to bring Deep Economy into actual practice; 2. whether Deep Economy is worthy of emulation. I like what I see about Deep Economy (it's values and vision for how society should be organized as well as its ecological astuteness). I think its important to seek an economic model that actually reflects values I honor and think worthy of emulation. I think McKibben's many examples of how Deep Economy can work are encouraging and make the narrative something more than simply high idealism.

RaulRamos: some problems can only be reached through the implication of all of us, whether religious or not, and that to mobilize us we will have to 'speak the language' of each other, i.e. we will also have to resort to the framework of thinking characteristic of religious people to convince them that their religious view of the world is more compatible with an alternative way of organizing our use of resources

I think Climate Change implicates all of us. The USA is the leader in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, thus the prime human agent in Global Warming. In order to reduce their reliance upon fossil fuels, a radical change in their entire economic/technological/lifestyle systems is required. It may be that a profound shift in worldview and belief system is necessary. If we are considering the worldviews, belief systems and lifestyles of the USA, then we need to consider the role of Religion.

I think there is sincere opportunity to convince a substantial number of Americans that their religious view of the world is more compatible with an alternative way of organizing their use of resources. I think there are many folk already doing this and have constructed entire theologies, biblical exegesis, congregational structures, ethical systems, and spiritual practices to illuminate the greener side of faith...they are progessive and evangelical, Christian and Muslim and Jew, as well as Buddhist, Hindu and Indigenous.

RaulRamos: However, what I would like to point out is that notions of identity, moral obligation and spiritual practice to care and love of Creation is not exclusively linked to religious belief.

I agree. I would never argue that the only way to address identity and morality is through religion. But if you are speaking to religious folk, (hoping to change their minds and practices) I think it's crucial to understand how their religion colors their identity and moral universe. By the way, are you endorsing some sort of spiritual approach, but not necessarily religious? If so, care to elaborate?

RaulRamos: Just change the word Creation for Nature or Life, for example, and many non-religious a person will make those notions their own.

I think this makes good sense. EO Wilson's book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth is an excellent example of how to navigate between the two language systems of religious faith and natural science...particularly as it relates to care of the earth and protection of the biosphere. More importantly, Wilson's small book works to find the constant thread of ethical obligation and moral courage between the two worldviews.

RaulRamos: I would be glad to read somewhere that the eating revolution he advocates for contemplates a fairer use of animals, and an increased intake of vegetables on our side.

I don't have my copy nearby, but I think you are on to something with this line of critique. I don't remember McKibben taking substantial time to discuss our ethical obligations towards animal life. I don't think he makes any arguments for or against vegetarianism...and his year long experiment was clearly an omnivore's adventure. Still, he is clearly opposed to the massive agribusiness livestock processing plants...and the way he describes the relationship between Deep Economic farmer and animal is hardly one of mere commodity. Still, I am interested to see if he does elaborate more upon the rights of animals in a Deep Economy.