In his classic work, The Death of Ramón González, Angus Wright analyzes how contemporary corporate agriculture undermines human health, local economies, and the environment. He points out that even short term productivity of modern “super” crops relies on extensive pesticide, fertilizer and water inputs that are unsustainable in most global climates. According to the World Health Organization, the pesticides used in this type of farming are responsible for 20,000 reported fatal poisonings a year –and many times that which are not reported. They are also a prominent cause of the current cancer epidemic.
But even as Wright details the ruthlessness with which agri-business maintains its profits in the face of unfortunate technological strategies, he observes that there are alternative technologies that do not poison our air, food, and water, erode soil, or undermine ecological and economic systems. Agri-business might just as well profit from these.
So why make bad choices—and pursue them with vehemence? The crux of the issue, Wright proposes, is the worldview that holds progress in such esteem. “Progress”, the GE saying famously had it, “Is our most important product”. But the same worldview that elevates progress in this way never critically examines it. It loosely equates “progress” with “advancement”, continuing the legacy of Francis Bacon, who asserted that humanity’s purpose is to control nature through science—and anything that humans invent to do this is good.
But when we equate progress with anything humans come up with, we wind up with methods of food production that have so many disastrous results.
Indeed, there is considerable tragedy to unexamined notions of advancement. Throughout history, conquerors asserted they were bringing progress to “backward” societies as they took over their lands.
Today the notion that industrial technologies are progressive as a matter of course licenses one-size-fits-all development that too often subjects third world peoples to debt, cultural disintegration, and ecological ruin. The assumption that industrial nations are more advanced than others inhibits both our partnerships with non-industrialized peoples and our acceptance of alternative technologies tested for centuries on local landscapes.
The destructive consequences of this logic haunts our own society us as well. According to social historian Ulrech Beck, technology becomes our fate when we accept it without evaluation. That is, when undefined “progress” is considered good per se, we don’t get to choose it, we just have to figure out how to deal with its results.
This lack of critical perspective on progress and the technologies under its umbrella twists perceptions of reality—as in Monsanto’s response to the decimation of its BT corn from pests gaining resistance to its engineered corn within three generations. Responding to reports from scientists in Iowa that BT corn fell over in the fields from root damage, Monsanto denied it happened. There is a parallel dynamic with Monsanto’s assertion that its gmo seeds are “high yield”, in spite of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report, “Failure to Yield”, which shows just how far such crops fall short of the mark.
Biotech ads asserting that we can’t feed the world without their technologies only work in the context of a worldview which assumes new technologies yield positive results without seriously evaluating them. Farmers are not the only ones to whom such bogus progress is sold. Consumer gadgetry hawked on the basis of its being new technology adds to the burgeoning consumerism that is ravaging our planet.
And tragically, a worldview that sets up unexamined “progress” as its shining light also gives its manufacturers dispensation from moral responsibilities. This is an essential historical lesson derived from Wright’s analysis of industrialized agriculture. If our worldview did not sanction progress in the way that it does, agribusiness would not have this ground with which to license their attacks on presumably “backward” forces that challenge their profits.
The logic involved in fighting such challenges is exhibited in Monsanto’s decades-long battle against the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Labeling gmo foods, the head of a Monsanto subsidiary stated in 1994, is tantamount to putting a skull and crossbones on them. (Kansas City Star, March 7).
Such an argument only carries weight if one assumes that manufacturers have the right to impose a new technology on consumers in spite of their resistance—that is, if biotech “advances” override democratic choice.
Monsanto’s fight against the public right to know parallels numerous other violations of justice, public health and the environment in the name of progress. Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner document such egregious industry practices in their rigorously peer-reviewed Deceit and Denial, using industry’s own internal documents.
For instance, they detail how the lead industry used notions of progress to create an Orwellian double think, in which the very thing that is supposed to make our children’s lives better—progress—winds up destroying their intelligence as well as their health. Thus there were those ads claiming that lead solder used to seal baby formula cans was a modern technology supporting babies’ health. Even though industry knew better from its own research, the assertion of progress–and protection of profit– trumped their ethical choices.
Indeed, when a worldview with an unexamined idea of progress operates in an economic system that rewards profit however it is gained, there results moral as well as environmental disasters. There is, for instance, the case of plastics manufacturers in the 1950s. At the same time that they boasted that their plastics were the wave of the future, industry leaders had in hand x-rays of the dissolving bones of the workers who manufactured them. Their response was to hide this data not only from the public in general but from the effected workers.
Historically, coal mining, asbestos, steel smelting, lead, vinyl chloride and pesticides industries, among others, have likewise hidden data documenting the disastrous effects of their products on workers, local communities and the environment—sometimes for decades. When such information finally did become public and irrefutable, these industries told the public such negative effects were the necessary price of progress.
I would assert, however, that no society can call itself advanced if its “progress” undercuts justice, community power, quality of life and self-determination for some in order to create profit for others. Nor can any technology that undercuts the sources of all life by destroying natural systems rightly be termed advanced.
The European Union has a better handle on technological advancement. It puts health before profit through the precautionary principle which mandates that manufacturers certify a new chemical harmless before it is released into the public domain. If we were to institute this principle in the US, industry might attend to more land-friendly food production, just as historically they might have paid attention to a non-toxic gasoline additive discovered—and ignored– as ethyl lead became the additive they pursued.
Indeed, if we had more of an eye to the social and environmental effects of our choices, we might not now be getting around in gas-fueled vehicles with all the attendant problems of climate change. There have been alternatives to this single-car system from the start– alternatives attacked by General Motors, who was only belatedly fined for undermining the street car systems in major cities.
Progress becomes our most destructive product when we don’t critically examine it—but it might be our most beneficial product if we hold it to standards of social and economic justice and sustainability. The GE commercial was right. “Progress is our most important product”. This is the very reason it must not be our most unexamined product as well.
Filed under: Environmental ethics, environmental philosophy Tagged: | agri-business, Environmental ethics, environmental philosophy, genetic engineering, progress, sustainable agriculture
This reminds me of a lot of stories I have heard before. In my international environmental policy class we watched a video about big agri-businesses and their effects on the local landscape and people. This big company came in and looked around and just saw the kind of profit that could be made from such vast land, and so they started their crops in the name of progress for the local people. It was much like you stated “bringing progress to ‘backward’ societies as they took over their land.” In the local communities women started to miscarry, livestock started to die, and the general health of the people and land went down. The company denied that they had anything to do with it. ‘Progress’ shouldn’t be more important than the lives of people or the ecosystem, and to many times it is and one reason why we see so much degradation everywhere.
In America we create new and wonderful chemicals and products all the time. This is because the companies know how hazardous these things are but are to concerned with profits and how well the stocks are doing that they release them to the public anyways. Eventually, people start to notice negative consequences that are happening as a result of using this new chemical and product, and so once the evidence becomes to much those companies just make another new and “better” product. It’s sickening how greed can be so much more important then the people and the land, and as you said “industries told the public such negative effects were the necessary price of progress.”
How can this be? How can very few people making money be more important then the rest of the people? I will never understand this. I have also wondered how some of these company owners and head officers can knowingly do most of what they do. Especially since most of these people have families of their own and children or grandchildren. How can they knowingly screw up the future for their families? If not care about other people at least I would think they would care about their own, but that doesn’t even seem to be true.
Hi Laura. You pose an essential question that Wright attempts to get at with his discussion of worldview and progress.
To frame it in terms you pose, it seems that the idea of “progress” allows these industry folks to lie to themselves: they tell themselves they are doing good, moral, progressive work and this allows them to ignore or deny– or diminish– the negative consequences of their actions on others.
Since the unexamined notion of progress allows them to convince themselves they are acting morally. if we demanded a critical definition of progress and what it does and does not entail, perhaps these folks would begin to look at their own actions differently. Interestingly, there are a number of cases in which their sick children convinced commercial farmers to switch to organic methods– as in the case of the grape grower in Bill Moyers’ “Pesticides and Children”. He tells the interviewer that when his son got sick, he said to himself, “What am I going to tell him? It was more important to spray the grapes (than to protect his health)?”
Humans have created a situation where there is feeling of urgency of the need to fix things (our mistakes) and often science and technological assistance is accepted without critical evaluation because of this. It is disturbing that after so many errors in judgment we would continue in this manner. The technological advances have caused our modern society an inability to slow down enough to consider these things. Also, the necessity to earn income to feed a family often limits people (due to time constraints) from becoming knowledgeable about what is going on in the scientific world enough to evaluate and consider any possible consequences. People are just busy day-to-day trying to get through the very basics of the current living situation. Because of this, I think people feel like there is no time to consider an alternative worldview. It comes up against those who are financially gaining from the “progress” and the deep-rooted ideas in American culture, and there is no time to argue.
An example of this is the feedback my “hippie” parents (and many others) receive from their purposely avoiding the use of computers and microwaves. They have found the time to consider an alternative worldview in some areas, but in return, they are often teased for their lack of “tech savvy-ness.”
Often the disagreement about a worldview leads to disharmony between people and it is the effort to avoid that disharmony that causes people to be quiet.
Thanks for sharing your points for consideration here, Julia. One thing that flows from your comment is the idea that if we don’t evaluate the negative consequences of some technologies, those who are just getting by, living their lives, as you note, may decide either to accept everything out of weariness– or, like your “hippie” parents, to reject all new technology– an understandable response given the problems of unevaluated technology in the past– but not an entirely pragmatic one.
It would be great it the precautionary principle allowed some evaluation of our modern technology, as it does in the EU– in the absence of this, I am grateful for those who volunteer to do this analysis on the public’s behalf, as does, for instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Working Group.
Your parents sound a little bit like my Mom, although she will use computers she does it with care, as she is very concerned with privacy. She will use a cell phone but works with teenagers and feels that kids being as tied to handheld technology as they are is a huge downfall for our society.
The way you expressed yourself in this response really shows balance. I admire that it easy to get caught up in how things should be, and ignore the realities that humans face everyday trying to survive in a materialistic society.
Hi Erin, it actually sounds like your mom has a bit of balance in her responses, as well– since she does not reject computers, only uses them and cell phones with care. Thanks for the comment.
A fundamental point that the “progress” worldview ignores is personal responsibility. It takes a huge base of consumers willing to work 40 hours a week and ready to spend their earnings at a moment’s notice to support a small group of people who profit from them. Each of us have been educated to believe in the “progress” worldview through a carefully crafted system that starts when we are infants. We are told what to wear, what to eat and what to enjoy. For decades, maybe even our whole lives, we are unconscious participants in this human social cycle of use and misuse. It isn’t until we each plateau in our consciousness that we can become critically aware of what is going on around us and how we are actively contributing to it.
If we are to become a more intelligent species in regards to our relationship with the planet and its ecosystems, I believe that it is each of our personal responsibilities to educate ourselves and others, and end the perpetuation of consumerism, misuse of resources, and the seemingly voluntary ignorance on the part of the masses.
What can I or you do? We can each start by buying our food locally, have a more vegetarian diet, and understand that every time we spend a $1 we are casting a vote for or against big corporations that do not have our best interests in mind.
You mean, I take it, that the unexamined “progress worldview” that is the problem– or the assumption that whatever we do is progress? I would not argue against those who assert we need to progress: I just want some agreement on what progress is. For instance, I think we need to make progress in feeding all the hungry children in our society–and in protecting our air and water– not to mention, climate.
I do have a problem with statements about the “human species”– which overrides cultural differences–and the influences of contrasting historical, economic and cultural contexts.
Exercising personal choice is essential, as you indicate; however, I am not sure all consumers are so “willing to work” the hours they do. Unless one is born into privilege, we must work to live in this culture.
How do you respond to Beck’s idea that the notion of progress obliterates social choice? It is a key question as to how we accede to giving up our freedom and how we might get it back–and how we share that task with others.
I think we cannot do this, in turn, without taking back our responsibility: as your example of voting with our dollars indicates, responsibility and freedom are intertwined. Certainly, responsibility is key to a functioning democracy, which is based on citizens’ exercising informed choices.
Dwayne,
I really like what you said about what happens when we reach “our plateau in our consciousness” to become aware of the state of things and how it affects us. It seems we cannot do much about how we consume when we are small, but as we grow older there is little excuse for the way in which we consume and affect things. An example that comes to mind for me is Johnson and Johnson Baby Oil, (weird, I know). When I was little my mom used this baby oil on me all the time. So much so that the smell is soothing to me because it’s so familiar and nostalgic. Because it is for babies, I always assumed that it was more of a natural product, (a mistake I no longer make). Now that I am about to have my own baby, I have been doing a lot of research on baby product and was horrified to find that it fell into the category of “moderately hazardous/toxic” on the website “Skin Deep.” I would never have known this had it not been for my own research and would have most likely used it for my own child.
I think that you make a great point in saying that all we can do is start to take accountability for ourselves and out own purchases/intake. Over the past few years, I have learned so many things and deterred from consuming so many bad products merely by googling them before I buy them. It really is so important for every person to take responsibility for themselves, their health, and our environment by merely adjusting our intake of bad products and supporting the better companies that provide better/less toxic products.
Good for you in your “taking responsibility for yourself and your purchases”, Amanda. That is a very large step– and not an easy one in a consumerist society in which the stories of how consumer products and what is in them are so readily obscured.
There is sadness in your baby oil story: my hope is that our children will inherit a world in which their memories of nurturance are linked to health for themselves and the natural world.
The way our society has been structured, awareness of the environment has not been an initiative that most people feel is essential to sustain them. The importance of having a well managed ecology should be emphasized to everyone from a very young age. The wisdom of how important nature is to our well being needs to be extended from religious beliefs and specific college classes to the common knowledge of everyday living ritual. So that as we keep advancing technologically we can incorporate the ethical values of regulating natural resources and ecology into the core design of any new development.
Also, more companies, maybe more nonprofit/NGOs should be created to test and monitor products and assess ecological health so that the general public as well as the regulatory agencies can benefit from these readily available information.
We can make drastic changes effectively because we do have a fairly good governmental regulatory infrastructure that can help fight big corporation bullies but the policies and procedures need to be updated to heavily enforce conservation and environmental ethics.
Thanks for sharing some thoughtful as well as pragmatic points, Shailesh. We might indeed use the regulatory infrastructure we have to care for our commons– and corporate “bullies” (as you aptly put it), certainly do not deserve monetary rewards for such behavior as hiding the destructive effects of their products.
That means we should not undermine that infrastructure– or allow lobbyists to do this. And I think we need to re-establish the EPA labs and ability to do independent testing that Reagan did away with. I am also concerned with Obama’s recent directive to Lisa Jackson of the EPA to drop the concern over air pollution guidelines and the proposed new guidelines that would save 20,000 lives a year, so as not to interfere with the “economy”– this is definitely on the wrong track. As you also point out, there is much to be done by business moving in right direction– as those in csrwire.com are doing.
My hope is that the crises we all face in healing the environment that sustains us might take us beyond our differences to work for the health of future generations.
When I’ve heard of genetically engineered foods or ways that people are working towards making barren lands fertile using technology, I’ve bought into the notion that perhaps this will be a way to end devastating hunger and widespread starvation in our world As I’ve gotten older I have also realized that much poverty and starvation issues are political and the countries involved could possibly help their people but food and wealth is distributed in such a corrupt manner that the strongest and cruelest do survive. In a book I’m reading for class it mentions hydroponic farming but for many areas with limited water supply I don’t think this is possible.
I have more of a problem with the technology that serves no useful purpose than with technology that is aiming to solve serious world problems, but it seems simple that we would test new innovations first to make sure they are safe before putting them in the soil, air and water. Greed is the corrupter, because to keep making things that are known to harm people and poison land, as many chemical companies in the US have done is just wrong, and they place these type of pesticide and fertilizer plants in the poorest areas and people will work their even though they are getting sick because they have to survive.
Hi Erin, thank for your comment. You bring up an important observation in the fact that the poor (and certain third world communities) have less power in the modern industrial system–and thus fewer economic choices– which is why the issue of environmental justice is so important. If we assured these communities of more choice, they might not accept such dangerous technologies– and be subject to less tragic desperation, as in the spate of suicides from the disempowerment caused “new” farming techniques in India– where farmers have also burned gmo fields (see the essay here, “Why Gmos won’t feed the world”).
As you rightly state, there is no reason that new technology should not be tested before it is released– and I think this certainly applies to new manners of food production in which there is so much at stake.
I am a big believer in the idea that ‘the end does NOT justify the means.’ I also think that public policy, in general, needs to be based upon unanimous vote, as opposed to majority. This means that progress would be grounded, but perhaps it would improve a leaders ability to compromise…or perhaps encourage deception. There are so many things in our world that just don’t make sense to me, that is simply accepted. That the dominate society’s current method of survival is based upon poisoning the earth. Pesticides, exhaust, industrial waste. Nuclear power is propagated as “clean energy”… except when there is some type of unforeseen disaster, then we have a dead zone of highly toxic radiation that takes hundreds of thousands of years to dissipate. Oh, but don’t worry, there won’t be a disaster because we have all this great technology that would prevent it. When I was visiting my dad in Fresno last, there was an air alert, where the air was unhealthy for everyone (not just ‘sensitive types’) and the news people were encouraging everyone to stay inside and wait for the weekend (and cooler weather) to do their errand and drive, etc. Not once was public transportation mentioned. This is because public transportation more or less doesn’t exist outside of a very small area of the city and, obviously, no one thinks it’s a viable investment. Because our society lives in complete and utter denial. We are addicted to our lifestyles, our cars, our technologies…I don’t even know. I just know that people do not want to believe how bad things are. I refuse to live in Fresno because the air is poisoned. It is unhealthy to breathe in Fresno, and to me, that’s a deal breaker (I have other issues with Fresno and most of them deal with it’s toxicity). And people think I’m silly, that I’m being overly dramatic. Because people die slowly, over time and children develop asthma and allergies instead of simply dropping dead in a mass extinction. And I just don’t get it. Like I live in a whole other reality, dimension. And I read these articles and I wonder why we are trying to develop these crazy, mass production farms to feed the whole world instead of creating small, sustainable communities. It creates dependence and powerlessness of developing countries on industrialized countries (and encourages toxic exploitation of the earth, for survival), which did not exist until the last few hundred years (if that). And that we allow powerful people to lie to us, repeatedly, and harm us, repeatedly, without much happening outside of a minor fine or one guy (who is generally just a pawn) going to jail with all us crazy radicals, frothing at the mouth at the injustice of it all, looking crazy.
You have an excellent point, Amy, that such abuses of the idea of “progress” are an example of the thinking in which the “end justifies the means”. Your sense of the necessity of the “unanimous vote” also jives with the fact that indigenous societies characteristically used consensus rather than majority decision making. The problem you right lydiscern with the “majority” system is what happens to the minority in its wake–and the way that system can concentrate more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer who become a minority of the powerful.
I agree with you that it is totally irrational that our method of survival is based on “poisoning the earth.”
Those who think differently from the mainstream are liable to be labeled “crazy radicals” in the attempt to marginalize those who have something very important to say to us– so important that it might change our way of doing things if we were to listen and think for ourselves.
And on that point, there are those who ARE growing food in the small mixed crop farms adapted to place (including urban places) all over the world.
I appreciate your passion with respect to your values. You are not alone. And here is an interesting point. As Al Gore said in a recent speech, he finds so much “push back” on climate change a hopeful point, since this indicates that many are taking the idea seriously enough to worry about–and such push back is often a stage on the way to acceptance.
There is much to change to makes ours a thriving (and rational) world, but if we don’t begin the changes you suggest in our lives and communities it will never happen. I also think we cannot forget that those we label “just a pawn” may also have something to teach us. We need as many bridges and allies as we can get to create a thriving world for those who will follow us– of all species.
I was particularly struck by the part that mentioned labeling of genetically modified foods. I was unaware that this has ever come up as an issue. As I try to eat as natural and organic as possible, I am always researching different providers of my foods and reading the labels at the supermarket. So many times I question the claims of “ALL NATURAL” or “ORGANIC” that I rarely feel like I am getting the full story. When I finally see that “USDA Certified Organic” seal, I almost jump for joy because that is really the only time my mind is at ease about a food or product that I am purchasing. I am always analyzing what I read on the packaging of products and imagining the process by which they are yielded. It would be so amazing to just read about the process or have a disclaimer about how altered or natural a food is.
Something that I think would be very interesting to find out is how much things would change if this kind of disclosure WERE required on foods. If a food had a big “GMO” stamped on it, I wonder how many people would ACTUALLY avoid it, and how many people would purchase it regardless. I think we might all be surprised about how many people would still purchase GMO foods even with a disclosure, (remember that Oregon/the West Coast tends to be far more conscientious about this kind of thing than, say, the South or the Midwest).
I think it is obvious that we, as a society, need to reevaluate the effect that these new “advancements” are having on us and our Earth. The problem is that, even with a raised awareness, there is a tremendous amount of apathy about health and the chemicals/hormones in foods today. So many people eat what they like regardless of what is packed into those foods because they do not see the immediate effect that is is having on them, their families, and our communities – much less the overall health of our nations.
Great write up Amanda, college has taught me many things and healthy food is one of them! I have been making a conscious effort over the last couple of years to read labels more and pay a little more money if need be for products that are healthier for my family and I. I recently visited an alternative medicine office and found out that I have a high amount of chemical toxins in my body, so now I’m working towards cleaning house on my body.
Congratulations on moving to better health, Wil.
Thanks for your comment, Amanda. I know that it is frustrating to see the evident lack of decision-making — and apparent lapses of memory- on the part of many– but when can always make decisions in our own lives.
And I want to nominate the words of Jose Fernandez, the State Department’s assistant secretary for economic, energy and business affairs, who said that labeling genetically engineered food would scare consumers away. “If you label something, there’s an implication there’s something wrong with it.” He neglected to notice that labeling something “organic” does not scare anyone away; there is very particular reason why labeling something GMO might scare consumers, and it is not the fact of labeling per se.
I was in college for my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1990′s when the first big fights over labeling GMO’s began. We worked really hard, yelled really loudly but at some point I dropped away from it to fight elsewhere. The fight seemed like such a strong one, especially because it’s logical, I assumed we’d win. I was really amazed last spring when in another class for F&W we had to look at GMO’s and I discovered that we’d lost the fight! GMO’s don’t have to be listed at all! Nearly all soybeans grown around the world are GMO, including those used in organic soymilk! AGH! It’s interesting to me that “they” did such a good job of shutting down the argument that someone who (I’m assuming) is only 10-15 years younger than me wasn’t aware that the debate had ever been. Or, perhaps, as you point out, Amanda, the argument only seemed loud to me because I was in it.
I didn’t know that about soybeans! I’d just like to add that the same goes for corn. I was so upset to learn that last year, as it is one of my favorite foods. I went on a raw foods diet last year to see how my health would change/improve and was eating a lot of raw corn. I then discovered there was such a big controversy with the corn/organic corn that I started to steer clear from it. Eventually I got back on the bandwagon, though – it’s just so delicious! Anyways… thought I’d share an interesting article I found: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1599110,00.html
Thanks for setting the gmo labeling issue in a bit of historical context here, Neyssa–and bringing up another important issue here and related to the enchantment with progess-and that is, our forgetfulness (or simple ignorance) of the past as experience. My father (who is hale and hearty at 89) is aghast that so many campaign ads out there today seem to rely on their audience’s totally forgetting not just what happened a few decades ago, but what happened in the last presidency.
It is my strong sense that one of the most truly progressive things we can do is to honor our memory–and past that memory on to others.
It amazes me every time I read or hear information like in this article. It truly saddens me how consumptive and consumer driven our( the United States and other western cultures) society is. Part of the reason our society is so consumer driven is because of our need for progress. The idea that all progress is good progress, doesn’t take into account many important societal and biological needs. This ideal doesn’t make room for the thought, is this advancement needed, wanted or even useful. Greed is the ever driving force behind this philosophy, not progress for the greater good of man kind.
You bring up an important point with respect to the drive for progress and the necessity of defining “need” in this context– as you indicate, we must begin to ask questions of such “advancements” as are they “needed, wanted, or even useful”.
Thanks for your comment.
In the name of progress ‘at any cost’ should be added to the end of the slogan. One question I ask myself, could different companies be under a bigger umbrella. Say one company produces fruits and vegetables at the fastest rate, highest bulk density and for the cheapest price. Another company produces medical supplies to combat illness and diseases caused by unconscious growing practices. Is it it possible for these two companies to have the same parent company?
Great post, Will. My first instinct is to day yes, but honestly, I don’t know. I tried finding some info on it. In doing so, I was shocked to see that “Burt’s Bees” is under The Clorox Company umbrella. http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/ Here’s a story about it: http://www.alternet.org/story/131910/
So, while Clorox on the one hand is making money hand-over-fist convincing people that they must rid themselves of all “bugs” they’re also making money with the other hand using people’s love for some of those same bugs.
Interesting connection, Neyssa, I had not known this about Burts Bees– this is new–and part of a trend of corporate takeover of many formerly small environmentalist companies.
Progress “at any cost” is a great addition to this value, Wil. It is precisely that which makes progress be of a higher priority than, say, the health of humans or the environment– or even truth. Thanks for putting this aptly.
These kinds of interlocking corporate interests are far reaching: many share overlapping board members, for instance. And in the historical case of the plastics manufacturers, several companies joined forces to prevent the release of the data on injured workers. Classic today is the chemical companies that produce both chemotherapy drugs and pesticides that cause cancer. There are a number of studies of interlocking interests of these types. And here is a link to an essay on the ways in which big pharm uses doctors to do its bidding: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026.
When I read “Salmon Without Rivers,” one of the MOST infuriating realizations was just how long we have known that what we’re doing is harmful, but we’ve chosen to do it anyway usually because someone stood to make a profit from it. I saw a news clip a couple of weeks ago about some American company’s plan to claim the untapped resources of Mongolia because the profit margin was so big. Not once during the whole story did the reporter ask the talking head of the company whether they’d considered the long-term effects of what they were proposing. My eye was twitching by the time I was done watching it, but I feel so helpless. Those of us who care are so often dismissed as being crazy or, as you say, “backward,” it’s nearly impossible to be heard through the laughter even when we’re brave enough to speak.
For most of my life I’ve questioned the constant need for “growth and progress.” Companies, cities, GNP’s, personal revenue that are holding steady, not declining but also not growing are viewed poorly. Why? Why is supporting yourself and simply maintaining at a healthy level considered bad?
The biotech ads also only work in a worldview of constant, unstoppable, and exponential human population growth. I know I’m beating the population control drum pretty repetitively, but only because I really believe it is the necessary antidote to most of our woes. I’ve noted that very few people discuss this issue and I can’t help but wonder why. Why are those with a voice NOT talking about empowering women to make good, healthy personal, social, and ecological decisions regarding reproduction? Are the biotech companies or others keeping people quiet because lower populations will mean less use of their products? I don’t mean violently keeping people quiet, but perhaps pressure in other ways. Conspiracy theory crazy talk? Maybe.
As so often has been pointed out, if gmo producers are so sure and proud of their product, shouldn’t they be putting big stickers on it that proclaim it for what it is? Organic/green producers have been doing this for years, and because they truly have a product that people value as being higher quality they can demand a price that is more in line with the amount of work involved, and put more people to work in the process.
If we are not allowed to make educated choices because things are hidden from us, can we really call ourselves democratic? If people unwittingly wearing blinders are “voting with their dollars” to buy products that profit ONLY those in the highest echelon while harming others, is this truly capitalism?
It is sad that such destruction in the name of progress not only took place– but that it was a matter of intent rather than ignorance.
You are obviously becoming perceptive about evaluating the nature of progress in your Mongolian example: much tragedy results from the view that whatever land/people are “out there” and “undeveloped” are simply there for our use! I think your perception of this inappropriate way of looking at other lands and peoples is directly linked to the failure to publicize, much less actualize, the fact that the best way to control population is to empower women economically and politically– very different from the notion that we somehow have to fix their backward ideas!
Great point about gmo researchers and labeling– that is they are “so proud and sure of their product” why not proclaim it to the world in labeling? Excellent response to the “labeling will scare consumers away” argument! Did you see my reply to Amanda in this respect?
I think it is an important point indeed that we cannot have a functioning democracy if citizens do not have the information to make decisions within it: And as for your last question, it could certainly not be called a free market.
Is it bad I automatically thought of the movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and when Dolores Umbridge said, “..progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be prohibited.”?? Well, I did. Then my immediate thought after it was the Pixar movie, Wall-E. With its “futuresque” ideology and how the world is in shambles due to all the progress they had made, etc. I watch too many movies.
Anyway, I’ve heard that a lot of progress comes through disobedience. I won’t fault all deeds (I do enjoy the internet, for example) however I will agree that progress can be a burden and needs to be filtered. I believe you can advance without hurting the earth; people only need to realize and commit to it. Folks also need to stop justifying their development with nonsense, tricking themselves into thinking what they are doing is always well sought out and for the better cause.
The article pointed out info relative to cars. Personally, I’ve always been annoyed by certain vehicles. (What are you compensating for with your large trucks?) And I have always said that the more gadgets you have on something (which happens with progression), the more that can go wrong.
I realize a lot of this “evil” stems with greed. In the USA, the majority seem to want the best or the “coolest” out there and worry little about the result(s) of their tinkering. I actually perceive the USA to occasionally think they are in a tiny bubble, immune to what is really going on. People should focus some on advancing in ways to help the earth and improve their understanding of one another. I’m also all for finding a way to deal with overpopulation. Nonetheless, as I mentioned before, new ideas should be processed completely first – although this should not be decided on by merely polling the masses. Besides, if we begin to depend upon the top dogs for everything and rely only on the progress they shove out, we will forget how to truly survive.
Extra tidbit: supposedly “Prosophobia” is the fear of progress..
Not being a Harry Potter watcher myself, I am not sure what attitude toward progress is expressed in this quote.
The range of ideas about progress you express here (ending with the “supposed prosophobia”) indicates one of the reasons why its should be evaluated, yes?
How do you feel about the precautionary principle? Do you think society has a right to impose ethical constrains on “progress” such that it does not become, as Wil Sando has said here, “progress at any cost?” At what point are ethics (and what kind of ethics) more important than change for change’s sake? These are hard questions to which, I think, we should all give some thought.
Thanks for your own thoughtful response here.
As a new parent over 10 years ago, I’d say I was pretty ignorant. Even before that, I was never really educated in environmental issues. Somehow all of this information started creeping into my life shortly after having children, and I was filled with regret at all the choices I’d made that could have potential impacts on them and the rest of the world in the future. I also was deeply saddened that nobody had ever shared this information with me. As I started watching documentary after documentary, it became suddenly clear to me that scientists have been telling the world about the grave realities of our poor choices for decades. I would have been old enough to be told this information 30 years ago, but I wondered if my parents chose not to tell me or didn’t know themselves. I suppose at that time, it was just a whisper in the scientific field. And I’m sure there were many large corporations that had enough money to silence those scientists anyway.
But now I know. And even though my kids are still pretty young, I tell them what I know. I help them understand the consequences of their consumerism, and I ask them on a regular basis to think about all the lives they might be touching when they purchase something. We talk about where things come from and how they got here. We talk about the kinds of people who are making the things we buy and whether they are probably taken advantage of by large corporations or whether they are empowered by companies who have a vested interest in their well-being and the planet’s health. We talk about advertising, and I ask them to think about the perspective of the company selling the product. They understand that people want to make money, but they also know there’s a cost to someone somewhere. Before they make a purchase, I ask them to think about where that product will end up when it breaks or they don’t want it anymore. They know what the landfill is and how stuff does really go somewhere (sometimes permanently). They know what organic, fair trade, and local means, and they’ve heard the term genetically modified. At the risk of overwhelming them, I do it because the risk of not telling them can cause far greater harm.
I read somewhere that it was important not to talk to your kids about all the bad things in the world. They needed to hear about all the good things so they would have hope. And hope is good. But what is hope without knowledge and the tools to change things? Hope is only the direction, but the rest is how we’ll get there.
But now, as you state, Staci, you know–and you are obviously teaching your children not only by what you tell them and how you enact your personal values for the sake of their future.
Thanks for the reminder that we also do not need to burden our young children with all the crises we have created in the world they will inherit– we can instead model our care for that world in our actions–and perhaps tell stories and point out local “heroes” (as the author of our “quote of the week does”) that express our values as well as a vision for the future, that, as Paul Hawken says, will make them feel welcome in this world.
Thanks for sharing your struggle as a mother to give your children what they and our world both need.
This essay discussed an issue that I myself very much stuck in the middle of. I have been raised for so long on the practices that harm this planet that it is hard to change your ways and not always the easiest either. On top of that I have issues with feeling trapped and claustrophobic so I drive a lot. I am aware of what it does to our planet but it seems like my only escape at times that I can do with four children, living in Washington; where it rains all the time. During the summer I try and walk as much as possible. Our lives are so hectic with school as well that we have a hard time getting our kids to recycle properly, so many things get thrown away that shouldn’t. I am very passionate about this essay though. It is very maddening how behind the US is when it comes to taking care of this planet and doing safer practices. It is sad that the primary deciding factor is always money with people and corporations as well as convenience. An what all these scientist still haven’t figured out is all their laboratory constructed super produce does nothing but create super bugs that can withstand them. The same goes for all of the antibiotics they come up with. They find one cure and the a resistant strand of the same disease appears. That is evolution in the works. Nature will always find a way, even if it means wiping the slate and starting a new.
Hi Adina, it is not up to us to judge your personal environmental choices.
Just speaking for myself, I long ago learned to love the Oregon rain and Washington rain (where my family lives) — or at least not let it stop me from getting out and walking. Good raingear is cheaper than car upkeep and driving-=- being cooped up in a car– makes me feel truly claustrophobic.
But then I have a great model: my dad (now ninety) walks his dog a mile a day, rain, shine, ice (he has cleats to put on his shoes to keep from slipping)– or snow. Though he did get stopped by the recent snowstorm that dumped forty inches of snow on his road (he lives south of Olympia).
That is not to say that I go out in torrential downpours–or drag children out in it, though it does make me smile when the daycare center a few blocks away walks their children (all under four) by my window daily in their bright colored slickers and rainhats to play in the park down the street.
It is true that we are conditioned to do things in particular ways and indeed sad when money becomes the deciding factor for anything in our lives. It is asking something of each of us to reevaluate these things. But it can even be a bit of fun sometimes.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I feel the same way, the US has led the world in so many things, yet treating our planet and the people that live in it properly always seems to be the Achilles tendon of our country. One day we will stop caring so much about what the oil companies want and more on what is best for our country. Great comment!
Indeed, seems about time to get back to real democracy (one vote/one person) as well–as one of our new links points out.
I would love to see us exercising the leadership we are capable of as well!
We assume that industrial nations are more advanced than others because we are taught to believe it by a system of misinformation and deceit. We are taught to distrust anything that did not have it’s origins in the U.S. and anything produced in the U.S. is good. Not only does “…technology become our fate when we accept it without evaluation…”, as Ulrech Beck maintains, but if the evaluation exposes liabilities in that technology and we do not actively oppose it, it will be crammed down our throats anyway.
All that companies, like Monsanto, have to do is to get their technologies a foothold in the environment, often with the help of elected officials, and by the time a conscientious citizenry can mount any opposition to it the damage is already done.
I recall a film from one of my college courses years ago in which the narrator was extolling the virtues of DDT as a mosquito repellant while spraying a swimming pool full of splashing children.
We see the same thing in any industry, such as plastic. As long as there has been plastics there has been those who would warn of the dangers we are exposed to. With any technology, utilized improperly, we risk great hazards and there is always somebody willing to profit without regard for the dangers they would expose us all to and look at the environmental and health mess that has resulted from that.
When it comes down to it, the people don’t have to accept “progress”. As long as corporations have access to our elected officials we are going to have it one way or another and any notion of “…social and economic justice and sustainability.” can go right out the window.
This is a good argument not only for the precautionary principle, William–but for the fact that we need to educate ourselves about daily choices AND work to get the corporate money out of Washington.
We do not trust food products that come from other places because we have some very high standards, or so we believe. I for one do not trust anything else made in America. For example, automobiles are built much more efficient and at a cheaper price than American made vehicles. I would never buy an American made car because they have to cut the price of the materials and use all their money to pay their employees. We have become a buy and sell nation. When you have that mentality you have little regard for how and where it comes from.
Thoughtful, Andrew. I do think that there are particular manufacturers who still do care about how (and how well) their products are made– but in a profit first system, this is far from the norm.
It always seems to me that progress always seems to leave something or someone out. In the case of this article it is the health of the earth and sometimes the health of the humans in it. One example that sticks out to me is the pesticide issue. Pesticides were created to save crops and investments, but somehow the step that made sure that it was safe to those who were using it in their fields or eating it for dinner was skipped. This “progress” leaves some hurting and dying due to a greedy need to prevent a natural part of nature from occurring.
Progress is an important part of the natural order, but it cannot be rushed or it can harm more than it helps.
My sense would be that we need to define what we adhere to as progress so that we don’t “leave something out” such as the health of humans and the earth. Progress that overlooks that does not seem to me to be real progress.
I wonder how your idea of progress as a “part of the natural order” compared with the idea most of those in modern industrial society have of progress. Something so important and yet so stereotyped deserves a closer definition.
Thanks for your comment.
Elizabeth,
I have to respectfully disagree about progress being “an important part of the natural order”. The progress that we need is a return to a more natural time when people realized that the earth will provide us with the things we need for life and that as long as we work with what it has to give instead of inventing new ways to coax more than what is natural out of it we will be better able to sustain the life of the earth and our own lives. You had it right when you said that pesticides, which can be used as a euphemism for progress, is an invention to protect investments.
There is much to consider in your response, William, thanks.
Progress is important in every aspect of our lives. A lot of our progress has helped with our health such as disease control, aqueducts, plumbing, We Without progress we wouldn’t live as long as we do or have the commodity’s that we are all a accustomed to. Companies need a check and balance system to determine if their “progress” is better for all or just their pockets
Wow! This article really hits home for me. My neice, is 13 years old now, and she has been battling a unique form of Cancer, if there is such a thing. She was diagnosed when she was 10. Among her are several children in our city battling this same Cancer. Unique. I think not. I’ve heard the saying “there’s something in the water” too many times to count! Unfortunately there is no link to anything she has put into her body as of yet that points to why she or these other children have this Cancer.
The point made throughout this article are shocking. Several times I thought, I should post this..or that..on facebook! My friends and family need to know this.
The part that sticks out to me the most is the final paragraphs discussing General Motors. Why wouldn’t they put their money to a positive task, such as building street car systems and pocketing the fees people pay? Sure up front the earnings would be less; but over time, I bet their earnings would increase. And we all know money is the reason they acted in the first place.
This artcile also makes me wonder if there is a program local to me that would teach me how to grow seasonal foods organically. I have a garden, but here in Oregon that is limited to maybe three months a year. I do grow a couple of plants in my garage, but the cost of the grow lights is high and we use electricity which doesn’t really help the environment overall.
I will also be looking into the company, liberty health, thanks to the prompt to view the “skull and crossbones” comment above.
Hi Danielle, I am sorry to hear about your niece. It is so sad when children suffer in this way.
Please feel free to pass on any information you find here– we can all help inform one another.
Steve Solomon has a classic book out on winter gardening in the Pacific Northwest–and I think there are others that have come out recently.
Check out your local OSU extension agent (if there is one is Salem– funding was cut for these, but Eugene found a way to raise the money to keep them)– they also have a website with resources. In Eugene (I don’t know about Salem) they have a phone line staffed by volunteers who have earned their Master Gardener certificates from the extension service and may steer callers in the right direction for winter gardening info.
Good luck!
And my best wishes for your niece.
The only worldview that modern agribusiness or manufacturers have is making money. They will usually take many risks just to profit the most off of their products. Even though they may have lawsuits in the end as a result of their production, they still operate in the cheapest way possible. Sometimes they can afford to do things the right way but why should they? They may not even have to pay for the damages it causes to the health of the population or the environment. This goes back to the fact that people will use the first piece of new technology or the cheapest form technology. Since research is constantly ongoing, they try and get the newest ideas out there instead of waiting for the break through discovery. The problem with the term progress is that we end up going to quickly without properly planning our actions. This is why we are a spill first clean up later society. That’s why we have so many lawsuits every year in this country.
Yes, this is why we also need the precautionary principle the EU uses and which is supported by the wisest businesses– as those who supported it in the San Francisco initiative.
Industries record seems dismal. Tobacco, plastics, asbestos and more recently baby food, pet food and toys, contaminated with heavy metals and toxins. I agree that if our standard of “advancement” is to develop and exploit all of our natural resources, than corporations and society are essentially conding behavior that is acceptable even though the ethics may be questionable. The other interesting concpet to me was that third world people are suffering from “debt, cultural disintegration, and ecological ruin”, when in actually all us (even in US) are now suffering from these things.
Though we are not suffering nearly as much as the poorest countries, one might hope that the fact that we are all in the same boat as you point out would urge us to see that this idea of “progress” without ethics is not exactly serving us.
A “dismal record” as you well put it, indicates time for a change. Thanks for your comment.
This article makes me wonder what else consumers are not being told. This proves that just because we think we made something better in fact it isn’t true. I found the part about adding lead seal to baby formula was considered better but it was actually harming children.
The lead history is tragic: and what else we are not being told is a key question–and why I think it is important that there are so many doing research on this and making it publicly available even if government regulators are not.
Fransisco, I would have to agree. Hearing it brought up in this context makes me want to seek out more information. The example of the baby formula motivated me to know more about the things I plan to feed my children when I raise them. It’s crazy that the things like that that we assume are completely safe (of all the things… baby formula, really??) might have harmful consequences.
Indeed, it is a sad circumstance that necessitates checking such things out– you might look at the website of the Environmental Working Group– I think they have a section on products for children.
I have a difficult time understanding everything that is implied with genetically modified foods, or seed. Last term I took a course in Population Geography that touched briefly on the topic of genetically modified foods, but seemed to advocate for it as a means with which developing countries could better feed their populations. I understood it to be a good thing. People could use less space, and less money to grow more.
I also read that these genetically modified foods could be bred to be pest resistent which seemed like a good thing to me because that would eliminate the need for toxic chemicals, and fertilizers. It also said that these crops needed less water to produce.
I do not like “playing God” especially in regards to doing the job of nature. But, as far as I had learned (granted my education on the topic is only about 3 months old, and based on one source of knowledge) it seemed like genetically modified foods might be a sound solution to over-populated, poverty stricken, and developing countries.
This article, along with some other recent readings, has opened my eyes to seeing that there is another side to the story. I will certainly be educating myself more!
Congratulations on educating yourself more, Rebecca. You might begin with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report on genetically engineered soy, “Failure to Yield”– which presents the data that indicates the poor production record of gm soy. It seems that one thing “playing God” does is make us fall in love with our own inventions– beyond the greed of profiting from these– so that we fail to look clearly at how they actually perform.
I think I’ll add Failure to Yield to my reading list too! I was having a discussion with a friend the other day discussing some of the issues with GM food – he had been taught what you had Rebecca, that GM foods were awesome for developing countries (not aware of how the majority of corn products and many crops in the US are gm). I tried to discuss some of the problematic elements of genetically modifying foods – both environmentally and for humans – but I found that the academic research he wanted to be rather lacking. I’m excited to potentially have some new material to send his way.
Great, Anna– it is important to spread such research around. And I would not say that research on gam foods are lacking– only that the results are not necessarily well published, given where the money is in this type of research. The essay here, “Why GM foods won’t feed the world’ has some other references.
And we cannot feed the world and degrade our soil at the same time.
Dr. Holden – Thanks for the clarification. I think I *incorrectly* tend to assume if it is not widely distributed research than it doesn’t exist (or doesn’t count) – I’ll head over to “Why GM foods won’t feed the world” and check out the additional references. Thanks!
You are certainly welcome, Anna. I hope you find something useful there.
I think my favorite quote from this essay is the Beck one “technology becomes our fate when we accept it without evaluation.” Oftentimes, it seems that as we take steps in a direction, we forget that we could back up and go another way. Part of this may be that we can’t really “unlearn” things once we know them, so as a group we just keep going. The current direction being taken by some in agriculture makes this a frightening concept. The genetic modification happening with some crops (soy, corn, cotton, and canola) is disturbing enough to some consumers. Then to have Monsanto blatantly deny reports of these crops failing gives rise to even greater concern. I didn’t trust what these people were doing to our food anyway, but now they even get caught out in false statements or at least grosssly misleading- and we still can’t get our food adequately labeled in this country. It seems that many in government have just accepted that this technology is the way we are moving forward and we should all just accept it. Even our judicial system is not currently protecting us. I heard recently that the farmers who were suing Monsanto to stop the company from suing farmers or seed dealers whose crops get contaminated by the patented GMO’s was thrown out. I heard it was because the judge said the farmers were just trying to create a controversy where none exists. Wait a minute- I thought there was a controversy! But if too many people just accept progress, I guess there won’t be too many controversies…
Thoughtful points to consider, Jennifer. Certainly, we are stuck (and had better use the precautionary principle) if we never can turn around or find a way out of some course we set out on. But that is the stereotype of the “progress” that just keeps moving forward– no matter what it brings. We really need some critical thinking on this point: just because we were able to do something does not make it progressive. And here again, is the hubris you brought up in your last comment in the sense that anything humans can invent must be progressive.
As to Monsanto, there are a number of suits here and abroad that they are fighting. To me one of the suits that says the most about their duplicity is the suit Monsanto has brought against the state of Vermont to stop its new gmo labeling law. If a corporation really stood by its products, don’t you think they would want it shouted from the rooftops that this was one– rather than bringing suit to try to hide the fact from the consumers who are purchasing it? My next disgusting Monsanto legal (at least from my perspective) is the case they brought to WTO to force the European Union to start allowing their gmo goods in.
It is interesting to think about how progress affects our society and whether we are actually better off as a result of such progress. For instance, there were many vehicles that were produced in the mid 1980′s that got better fuel mileage than cars produced today. In this instance technology and progress have not made our lives better, simplier perhaps, but they have also damaged our ecosystems in the process. The cars we drive today are equipped with GPS systems, satellite radio, and park assist, but many operate less efficient, pollute more, and manufacturing them has a devastating effect on our natural resources, when compared to cars produced 20 or 30 years ago. Just because we can build something more advanced, doesn’t mean we should, or that the new technology will be better for our planet or ourselves.
The quote, “The assumption that industrial nations are more advanced than others inhibits both our partnerships with non-industrialized peoples and our acceptance of alternative technologies tested for centuries on local landscapes” meant a lot to me for a lot of reasons. Personally, I have lived in multiple developing countries in my lifetime and I would argue in favor of what the above quote said.
It is definitely something that inhibits the partnership between non-industrialized nations because people assume that nations that are more materialistic are better off. What I found when I lived there, though, is that there are things that every country is lacking, and whether or not they are industrialized does not determine their well-being.
The topic of progress is discussed here quite a bit, and after reading I came to the conclusion that it is an abstract idea full of misconceptions. “Progress” is thought by so many to be synonymous with technological and economically advanced, but I don’t think that is necessarily its meaning. Progress to me means moving forward, improvement, if you will. So just because a country is full of corporate success and huge skyscrapers does not mean it is on the road toward progress.
Thanks for sharing your perspective in terms of your own perspective with developing countries, Joce.
As you note, there are things that every nation could improve upon and this is more in line with real progress than is the idea that progress equals industrialization.
Joce, I agree with you on the idea of what progress means and doesn’t necessarily mean. In fact when I hear others talk about people they’ve met, or talk to people myself, who have come to the United States to live after living in a less developed country, I always wonder, and often ask, if they really feel like they are better off, and if so, in what ways. Always it comes down to more earning opportunities, and in many cases better personal security. They are usually people who are responsible for many family members left behind, and don’t seem to consider technology’s effects, either.
Thoughtful point, Kendra. Seems to we need to take up ways of ensuring personal security to our citizens without trashing the natural sources of our subsistence– which is a bit counter-productive in the security arena.
As I read this I felt shocked at the rational used by science and technology as being progressive and safe. It is scary to think of all of the poisons, contaminants, and mislabeled products we’ve been exposed to in the name of “technology” and ultimately money. What has happened to mankind when profit comes before life, nature and health? How can anyone call this “progression and advancement”, when these types of production are destructive to our land, air and water? The new technology, chemicals and pesticides being used by big manufacturers are the sure demise of living creatures and ultimately the planet. The cases of the lead in baby formula and employees dying of cancer from working with plastics is a tragedy that should not continue to happen. I really worry about the foods we buy and the water we drink and how it is affecting my children’s health and future. It is so hard to believe that even though there is so much evidence of irreversible destruction caused by overuse of natural resources and over production of “things”, the people in power continue to produce. It seems morals and ethics and the future of our planet are not in question when a business can make a profit from it.
It is especially scary to think that we are exposed to such toxins in cases where their manufacturers clearly had information on their dangers–and ignored them for the sake of profit.
Could point indicating the need to re-assess our values when “money comes before life, nature, and health”.
It is very sad that your mothering is burdened with so many concerns about what your children are ingesting or exposed to: but this is also good news for them, since your care means they are that much safer and your choices for their benefit aid all of us in their support of a vital environment.
It does indeed seem that the “profit first” dictum becomes an all too ready at hand excuse to set outside ethics. Thoughtful perceptions that also indicate a model for doing better– by placing ethics before profit, that is.
When I discuss the causes of climate change with people I know, both highly educated and otherwise, there is so much unawareness. At first I thought it was denial, but I have come to believe that it is just easy for us, as a modernized country, that isn’t really suffering the effects of climate change in noticeable ways, to continue to use technology that is not sustainable for our planet and its resources. As this essay states, if people could see the effects of our (as a whole) actions, it might affect our use of technology, and lead to a more conservative lifestyle.
Thoughtful point, Kendra. It is only to our detriment as well as that of future generations that we continue to behave as if climate change will never effect us.
We are suffering effects now from unprecedented storms and hot and dry weather in some areas and flooding in others. I just heard from a member of an expedition that spent some time studying icefish in the Antarctic that the temperature there has risen 11 degrees in a decade.
It is not just rising seas that are the resultant problem (though that is tragic for island nations), but this melting ice is already interfering with things like the Gulf Stream that moderate and balance European and Pacific Northwestern weather.
At some point, we will be forced to pay attention– perhaps sooner than we think.
Thanks for your comment.
Kendra, it seems that unawareness has become endemic in our society. Many take such a laissez faire attitude with ideas like climate change, gmo’s, and other pressing ecological concerns. If it doesn’t prevent them from missing their sports, or t.v. programs from their couch, they are not going to think about it. Until the inconviences to people warrant some sort of discussion, many times long after the affects have set in, do people begin to take notice and act. It is the proverbial locking the barn door after the horses have been stolen.
Perhaps climate change, which former NASA director Jim Hanson recently spoke of as an “ethical issue on a par with slavery” might galvanize us, as weather patterns in the US become more and more unstable?
I think our media also propagates apathy, but that is too often because people do not feel their actions count. I believe that if (or when?) people truly believe that what they do in their lives makes a difference to others, they will act accordingly.
In our busy lives, we seem to be on a linear path towards whatever we seek to achieve. We may or may not be aware of the consequences of our actions but they are real. I think you are correct in that if we are not feeling the effects and not “really suffering,” we may be slow to change. We may feel a sense of empathy towards those who suffer but real change must be sustained. I think we accomplish little towards sustainability if our actions are fleeting and not consistent towards lifestyle changes.
Good point, Chris– you have reminded us of precisely the point I brought up in response to your last comment here– that we need somehow to mesh those who act in certain ways with those who feel the negative consequences of their actions. And certainly, we need to stop rewarding them monetarily.
It seems to me that each of us who make our lifestyle choices according to our values as working, step by step, to help place a system with more integrity in place– a system in which profit is not the be all and end all of goals.
I could not agree more in that we need to stop rewarding monetarily to those who create suffering. Bt toxic crops are horrible to pollinators yet these crops are still being planted. These developers of toxic seed should not be exempt from the proven damaging costs to others especially when they state in the beginning how safe their products are.
Technology is, as the essay stated, simply a tool but progress however is an entirely subjective idea which has strong effects on consumer and public acceptance of certain uses of technological tools and the impacts on human and environmental health. Numerous examples such as the use of DDT, asbestos, lead, and mercury, show the failure of technological progress to determine future detrimental repercussions. The use of the precautionary principle would be very helpful in the determination of progress through technology.
Indeed, Paul. Good summary of key points that underscore the usefulness of the precautionary principle and the distinction between progress and technology– and the subjectivity that underlies the former,even while it justifies so much of what we choose as individuals and societies.
The cost of progress seems to never really add up. Cancers, poisonings, recalls and lawsuits are a neverending addition to many of the products that are produced, marketed and sold to consumers in the United States. It is the one size fits all belief that is partially to blame, the other is the fact that businesses put the bottom line ahead of the concumer’s personal well being. Our self-destructive tendencies, which lead to the reduction of our well being all for profit is truly a head scratcher. I am curious as to how many more lawsuits, deaths, and preventable diseases will occur until people will have had enough? Maybe our culture has become to complacent and accepting of this facet of life and just consider it part of the status quo. In any event, it is sad that it continues and it is just as bad that we continue to allow businesses free passes to create these materials.
Very thoughtful posing of the issue of our self-destructive choices here, Travis. It seems to me that the problem is often based on the “profit above all” standard, which allows a few to justify and others to accept such irrational behavior.
Perhaps if we had a stronger sense of community, which conceived of harm to one as harm to all, we would not allow such abuses, much less reward them.
I do think it hopeful that so much information about abuse is being exposed–and this tells me something else hopeful, as well– many of us are not ready to accept the status quo no matter what. In fact, this is why so many businesses worked so hard to keep their harms secret (or even label their products, as in the case of Monsanto), since once they were exposed, they would pay a price for them.
This is also why some wise businesses support the precautionary principle– since such foresight might keep them out of this quicksand. A few (like those at CSRwire) even seem to think they live on the same planet as the rest of us!
Thanks for your comment.
I have often thought about the way we view progress through the Western worldview. Progress that translates into bad decisions, as Wright points, is not sustainable. In fact it seems that we use the word progress even if it harms us in the end. I think of open space and wonder if we see progress in sustaining it and leaving it along. It may take greater restraint to leave it as it is than to build a grocery store in the name of “progress.” Just because we feel that our way is the correct does not mean that it will work for another group.
It is scary to think of all the products produced by corporations for the sake of progress or monetary gain. Things that were created to increase our health turned out to be toxic. Who really knows the health cost due to our insatiable appetite for the all mighty dollar. Are profits really worth the health risk we have put ourselves and the planet in?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Chris. I am glad you have done some personal thinking on the definition of true “progress”– we certainly need more of us to do the same, rather than just responding to wherever this buzz word leads us.
Indeed, progress that “translates into bad decisions” is not progress in any real sense of the word– not is simple profit. And I think, unfortunately, part of the answer to your last question about whether the health risks really measure up to the benefits of monetary profit, is addressed by looking at our system, whose economic structure leads to the health risks being suffered, by and large, by different people who get the profit from these asks. Until we can heal that separation, we are bound to bumble along on this dangerous path.
I discuss GMO’s and bovine growth hormones (rBGH) to my friends and family and to everyone on Facebook. Do any of them read or listen or am I’m looked at as a quack? Before I started school and before it was vogue I have eaten and used organic products. However, it bothers me when my own family laughs and makes poor jokes about me being financially taken by a so called movement. Even after a decade or more they still listen to the doctor first, for example I told them about partially hydrogenated oils way before the media and doctors touted them bad, but did they hear me … no. I tire of hearing how expensive organic food is when people opt to instead pop pills for high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc.
The so called advancements of agriculture are damaging to every part of earth and her ecosystems. Yet few people seem to care how animals, plants or even themselves are effected.