My service experience this semester I think very astutely reflects me as an individual. I am usually very reluctant to undertake new experiences in my life because I'm essentially perpetually nervous and afraid of having a bad time. I rose to the personal challenge a few times, volunteering time at one of the Lord's Acre trips for class and by gardening at the Womyn's Garden off campus a few times. These experiences were me stepping out of my comfort zone; my comfort zone being in my room stagnating, isolating myself from the world around me for no real reason other than feeling like I'm home. When I did exit my little bubble, I tended to actually enjoy myself despite my fears. Digging up sweet potatoes at the Lord's Acre, cutting down trees at the Womyn's Garden, and chatting with friends was a cleansing experience. I am by no means past these fears entirely, but I think these experiences are a step in the right direction.
I've learned about the community around me though, even though I don't fully feel as though I'm a part of it. I've found that there are people who dedicate their lives to helping carry the burden of those who need assistance, like the staff at the Lord's Acre. To me, that's such a beautiful sentiment that someone would make their life's work a tool to better equip the less fortunate. I want to be a high school teacher for a similar reason. I want to leave an impact on someone's life, even if it's just one lost kid like me who takes something profound from my teaching. Seeing what service can do for an individual makes me want to dive into it a little bit more and diminish a bit more of those fears of putting myself out there. Life is better when trying to work toward bettering oneself.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Feeding the World Response
Ron Finley's TED Talk (which can be viewed here) talks about issues we're more than familiar with at this junction: food deserts, food activism, and proposed solutions to issues of hunger on the community level. His tone and style of presentation is very relaxed and casual, speaking to the audience as one would imagine he'd speak to a close friend. He simply tells his story and doesn't censor himself, which is a nice rhetorical choice. It puts him on the same level as a regular individual, rather than putting himself on a pedestal like some presenters tend to do. I really enjoy his approach to getting things accomplished; "Plant some shit." really gets it's message across with no frills. He speaks of Los Angeles' gap of health, which sounds eerily like the topic I tackled in my research essay for class this semester. He proposes change from within the population, rather than through government aid or assistance. He wants his community (and others like it) to take their food into their own hands and quit relying on liquor stores and fast food for their diets. He himself took action by planting a garden in the streets on a part of city-owned land on curbsides. He has since helped build similar gardens throughout South Central Los Angeles, making a big difference.
Two articles we read this week also deal with feeding the world, though on a larger scale. One is by environmental activist and author Frances Moore Lappe about how biotechnology isn't the messiah of hunger, and the other article is written by journalist David Biello about the potential positive/negative results of widespread organic food production. They both are fairly short, interesting reads. An interesting overlap in content comes from them both noting that the world has more than enough food to go around. I really liked the quote Biello used in his article about modern industrial agriculture's sustainability, "anyone who thinks we will be using roundup in eight to ten thousand years is foolish." He suggests that we need to change the way we produce food entirely, and essentially begin again with aims for long term sustainability. Lappe takes a different approach in answering what will be the key to feeding the world. She says we need a system of true democracy, where governments are responsive to the needs of the people, rather than the whims of soulless corporate entities. I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment.
I believe it will take a little bit of all these methods. Local community activism, large scale change within the industrial agricultural system, and a change in the way governments make decisions & giving citizens more influence.
Two articles we read this week also deal with feeding the world, though on a larger scale. One is by environmental activist and author Frances Moore Lappe about how biotechnology isn't the messiah of hunger, and the other article is written by journalist David Biello about the potential positive/negative results of widespread organic food production. They both are fairly short, interesting reads. An interesting overlap in content comes from them both noting that the world has more than enough food to go around. I really liked the quote Biello used in his article about modern industrial agriculture's sustainability, "anyone who thinks we will be using roundup in eight to ten thousand years is foolish." He suggests that we need to change the way we produce food entirely, and essentially begin again with aims for long term sustainability. Lappe takes a different approach in answering what will be the key to feeding the world. She says we need a system of true democracy, where governments are responsive to the needs of the people, rather than the whims of soulless corporate entities. I'd be inclined to agree with that sentiment.
I believe it will take a little bit of all these methods. Local community activism, large scale change within the industrial agricultural system, and a change in the way governments make decisions & giving citizens more influence.
Monday, November 2, 2015
The Omnivore's Delusion / Real Food, Real Farming Response
The debate put together by PBS (watch here), which edits together both Pollan's (author of The Omnivore's Dilemma) and Hurst's (farmer and author of a rebuttal piece called the Omnivore's Delusion) arguments, puts the dissenting opinions side by side so as to allow a better comparison of the two standpoints. After watching the video, it wasn't clear whether or not PBS wanted to promote any of the two differing opinions on the agriculture/food system, or whether they were just presenting the news. I personally sympathized more with Hurst though, who is an actual part of the agricultural community, immersed day-to-day in his work. When compared to Pollan, who was dressed in a button down, sweater, and blazer, he comes off as an experienced every-man in stark contrast to Pollan's academic appearance and manner of speaking. It makes one wonder if things such as these two men's appearances are consciously used as a rhetorical device on the part of the director of the video, or if that is just a reflection of the two men's differing backgrounds.
In Hurst's article, he speaks of being on an airplane stuck in front of a man who is spewing out facts he learned from Pollan's bestseller, and he eventually loses his social tact and tells him not to believe everything he reads. His position in the agricultural industry, at a small-scale (though still considered industrial), gives him the credibility to challenge the information put forward by Pollan. Pollan puts forth ideas about reducing the dependency on corn for feeding & raising animals, reducing the amount of corn we consume (as it makes us fatter as a nation, in his opinion). Hurst refutes these claims on the basis of Pollan not knowing the ins and outs of the industry he is criticizing.
It is important to note and comment on the fact that these two men do not want vastly different things; they both value food immensely, and feel it is everybody's business when it comes to how their food is grown, produced and marketed. They just stand on two ends of the spectrum of food-based activism.
In Hurst's article, he speaks of being on an airplane stuck in front of a man who is spewing out facts he learned from Pollan's bestseller, and he eventually loses his social tact and tells him not to believe everything he reads. His position in the agricultural industry, at a small-scale (though still considered industrial), gives him the credibility to challenge the information put forward by Pollan. Pollan puts forth ideas about reducing the dependency on corn for feeding & raising animals, reducing the amount of corn we consume (as it makes us fatter as a nation, in his opinion). Hurst refutes these claims on the basis of Pollan not knowing the ins and outs of the industry he is criticizing.
It is important to note and comment on the fact that these two men do not want vastly different things; they both value food immensely, and feel it is everybody's business when it comes to how their food is grown, produced and marketed. They just stand on two ends of the spectrum of food-based activism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)