Adventures in Corn-Fasting

What do my Parmesan cheese, honey mustard salad dressing and energy bars all have in common? Besides being dangerously delicious, to my surprise they all contain corn! During my little corn-fasting experiment over 2 and half days, I found myself planning meals and then retracting my ideas at the last minute after discovering corn in many of the things I eat. For me, it was a bit of a shock; not only in just the variety of different ways corn shows up in food, but in the variety of foods as well. It’s as though you can’t go for more than a couple of meals without running into something that has at least a little bit of corn in it, if even that much when following a typical American diet.

While it was initially difficult to eat a meal without taking in some corn, I quickly spotted a trend; it seemed as though the more processed the food was, the more likely it was to contain corn. My Parmesan cheese and honey mustard dressing contained corn products because (in my belief) they are meant to have long shelf lives and they also take a step or two out of the food preparation process. In the case of the honey mustard dressing for example, I took a quick look in my recipe book and found instructions for making a similar dressing; the only ingredients called for were olive oil, honey, mustard, lemon juice and garlic, a far cry from the paragraph list of ingredients found on my store bought variety’s label. In fact it looked so easy to make, I began asking myself why I had bought the pre-made dressing in the first place.

Essentially over the few days of corn-fasting, I came to the conclusion that corn is there to make our lives more convenient. Don’t have the time to grate fresh Parmesan cheese? Buy some pre-grated cheese with a little corn in it! Don’t have the will to make your own fresh salad dressing? Buy some pre-made stuff that comes with a bit of corn! The little experience made me question some of my eating and food purchasing habits. Flipping through my recipe book and making dinner on Saturday night reminded me of just how easy and enjoyable it is to make meals from scratch. And when we make these meals from scratch, I think the lack of corn and corn-derived products make them healthier as well. After all, less corn in food means a less processed product, which I believe is the real sign of whether something edible is healthy or not.

Corn,Corn,Corn....Did I mention Corn?

I have a dirty little confession to make….I failed my task this week.

As we all know, we were tasked with trying to go a day, or two, or possibly three is we tried without corn. Now problem one with this task for me is that I am a straight corn freak. While we all know corn is in basically everything, I am a sucker for those little golden nuggets on their own or with the cob. Now when it came time to eat things without corn, everything in my usual diet was out the window.

On the day that I tried to go cornless-last Wednesday, I actually was doing a good job-by starving. Yes I was hungry for most of the day but when I walked into my fridge, basically everything I had contained artificial sweeteners or high fructose corn syrup. So as I wallowed away in my hunger, things did not help my cause as I saw commercials for various snack foods and diet sodas which of course contain various corn products and corn syrups. When it came time for dinner though, I was still on track to complete the tasks given to us. I went with some friends to TDR, grabbed some cornless ratatouille, free range chicken, and a salad. However as fate would have it, I instantly went for my favorite diet coke and thus before I knew it, I failed.

A key problem with having so much corn in our lives is not only is we face it on a daily basis but the fact we are conditioned to eat and drink these products.

Corn Everywhere

After seeing this challenge to not eat corn for 2 days, I knew I was in for a challenge. Immediately I strategized that would stick with eating 3 meals a day and eliminating snacking. This in itself was difficult, I love to snack. I almost exclusively drank water. I found that I could just make eggs for breakfast and avoid corn, so that wasn't awful. Lunch was more of a problem, as I usually didn't have time to cook before class, so I gave in and made myself a PB and J sandwich. The bread, peanut butter and jelly all had corn syrup in some form, although it was the last ingredient in the peanut butter.

Needless to say, by the time dinnertime rolled around I was starving. Only some eggs and a sandwich to eat all day? Not enough. Luckily, I had some acceptable food for dinner. I was able to make some rice, vegetables, and grill some chicken that made for a nice balanced dinner. These were 2 very hungry days, as I had one really satisfying meal each day and I cheated for my lunch. Eliminating corn products from a diet is really difficult and made it hard to have a balanced diet with sufficient nutrients. I'm sure that if I put more effort into avoiding corn I would be able to focus on eating fresh foods that were unprocessed and corn-free, but as a casual 2-day experiment, this was very difficult.

The New Food Pyramid: Just Corn

To answer the question of what I discovered/learned from this experiment:

I learned that just about everything contains corn. To not eat corn means eating mostly pure, unprocessed foods. When not eating corn, I relied heavily on my stock of vegetables and the few other staples that, by chance, didn't contain corn. However, I did eat some things with corn in them. Most of the time, by accident. I would eat something, and then double check it with the list- finding that most of my foods had corn under some other name.

I've seen the documentary Food, Inc. many times, and they discuss how most foods in the supermarket have corn in some form. So, going into this experiment- I understood that and I knew it would be difficult. Yet I was clearly unprepared for just how difficult it would be.

Many healthy eating experts tout the importance of eating unprocessed (often synonymous with unpackaged) foods. I think that has a lot to do with corn as an ingredient. From what I experienced, processed almost always meant corn would be an added ingredient in some way, shape or form.

I find this incredibly unfortunately because of the environmental impacts that industrial corn growing is having on the corn belt. Top soil is being lost and we're starting to grow all sorts of genetically modified corn strains (this is also completely ignoring the fact that no foods containing GM ingredients have to be labeled as such). In all, the prevalence of corn in every aspect of our daily lives as food consumers is a serious issue. What is this doing to our bodies? What is this doing to our planet? People often ignore the ingredients list, or skip over ingredients like "maltodextrin." I'm sure there is also something to be said about seeing "corn extract" on the list of ingredients- it's basically corn, so it can't be so bad, right? Wrong.

It's also important to note what we could be doing with the land that we're using (and abusing) to grow all this corn. Overall, I believe it is a serious issue, and something that I'm going to be interested in learning more about and being more conscious about in the future.

Why the Hell Does Everything Contain Corn?

It's not that my diet is great to begin with, but I see now that I severely overestimated the diversity of that which I consume. Having recently begun a personal campaign to eliminate high fructose corn syrup from my diet, I assumed that going one day without anything corn-related would not be all that difficult, and that it would require only marginally more discipline than I have exhibited in the past. Clearly, I was wrong. 

Starting with the most important meal of the day, I was dismayed when I took out my frosted Cheerios from the pantry, only to find that my delectable cereal contained Corn Meal, Corn Starch, and Corn Syrup. That, thought I, is a lot of corn. Looking further down the list of ingredients I spied Vanillin, yet another item on the prohibited corn allergen list. So, in the spirit of the 24 corn avoidance challenge, I turned instead to Red Raspberry yogurt. A quick examination of the ingredients revealed that this yogurt also contained Corn Starch, rendering it off limits. So too was the winning combination of bread with creamy brie cheese, as the bread that I had purchased that morning from Giant contained high fructose corn syrup (a follow up visit to the grocery store led to the discovery of bread without HFCS, but the damage had already been done). Hungry and perplexed, I was even unable to find nourishment in the morning hours in Ocean Spray White Cranberry Peach juice, a much loved concoction that contains sodium citrate. Lunch was no better. My intended side of potato chips contained malic acid. Fortunately, at dinner I was saved through the grace of a salmon fillet, though in truth I neglected to check if it was farm raised.  

By the end of the day I was unsuccessful in eliminating anything containing corn from my diet even for one day. Because it is used to create so many ingredients, it appears that avoiding anything corn related is next to impossible. I was amazed by the sheer range of ingredients that were made from corn, and I regrettably would be at a loss to attempt to engineer and abide by a diet that sought to avoid it in any form. 

Suckling From the Industrial Food Complex

Food, regardless of where you live in the world or how much money you have, it is the common thread between a rich banker living on wall street and a guy living in a mud hut in rural Kenya. Yet when we look at our food choices in the developed world, we are afforded the opportunity to eat for more than just survival; but for pleasure as well.

When I make my own food choices, I go through a variety of factors depending on the situation. If I am in a bind between going to class or getting somewhere fast, usually fast food or something frozen would better fit the situation. However, say I was on a nice date night with a friend or so, choosing a finer quality option such as something upscale or more unique like Ethiopian or Japanese would fit the bill. However in a majority of cases, environmental concerns are not the first thing that comes to my mind when I am choosing to eat something. I do not heavily research how sustainable the food that I am eating unless the fact is noted to me like Chipotle’s “Food with Integrity” or a special note on a restaurant’s menu written by the chef. While I do feel good that my meal is benefiting the environment, I would not simply boycott a place because they were unsustainable or were not environmental friendly.

Over the last few days, I have been at home for a family event and have had the opportunity to eat out often on my parent’s dime. In thinking about this assignment as I ate my meals, I would have to think that the item with the biggest environmental impact would most likely be the steak that I ate for dinner last night. While some steak- those that are grass fed and open range, do not have a large impact on the environment, the steak that I had was most likely corn fed. All the processed mush that the corn ate was a direct result of the industrial food complex lowering the price of corn to allow for cheap, quick, and fat beef. Additionally, the size of the steak was massive-enough for two people, so all of the calories and grains that it took to raise the cow from birth to its final size was much more then the ratatouille I had on the side or the pasta I had for lunch today.

So while I do understand the issue of food and being environmentally conscience, at time my stomach overrules my head and thus I simply suckle from the industrial food complex we should all avoid.

The Impact of my Food Choices

When making food choices, I am primarily concerned with health. I try to eat a lot of vegetables and fruits, with minimal dairy and meat (because I find that is what works best for me). This is mainly related to my food choices when I purchase my own food and eat at home, although my train of thought is often different when eating out or when someone else cooks for me (many times, the healthier restaurant options are not the vegetarian options- often times a vegetarian meal in a restaurant consists largely of cheese which I try not to consume. And when I am eating at someone else’s home I eat whatever they prepare for me- since my meal choices are not moral-based and I find that is often the most polite and, well, easier option in social settings).

Next, I do consider some of the environmental impacts. For example, I try to avoid fish, especially those on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Guide. I love shrimp, but they are never a “Best Choice,” so I usually avoid them, along with many other fish options (the ocean ecosystems are of special importance to me so I rarely eat fish because I find that it is better to be safe than sorry).

I also avoid meat and dairy as often as possible. I don’t have any meat in my fridge, and I only use almond milk on my cereal. This is for a few reasons: 1) I don’t like to cook, and I am not any good at it, so I don’t trust myself with cooking meat. Also, I like to be able to grab-and-go, and meat just takes too long for me to prepare. 2) I don’t really like dairy. I don’t like cows milk, or most cheeses, but I do eat goat cheese. I understand that these choices are good for the environment, but that is not the most inherent reason I make these choices.

So, while I know that my food choices do have less negative effects that some, I understand that there are still many negative aspects of my food choices, AND I do have vices.

Since I am a college student, I do not have an endless supply of money. If I did, I would probably purchase most of my food from farmers markets as well as purchase only organic. However, I don’t have an endless supply of money. So my fruits and veggies are not always organic, and they usually make a long trek from other parts of the country (and I’m sure, at times, the world). For example, I purchase a lot of my food at Trader Joe’s. I love my raw almond butter, but the only place in the U.S. that grows almonds in California. So, IF Trader Joe’s gets their almonds from the U.S., they had to go from California, to wherever Trader Joe’s makes their products, to the distribution center in Massachusetts, to the store in Bethesda.

I also have a huge vice. One that I hate to admit, and I try over and over again to quit. But I love soda. When I have the money to spend, I purchase Kombucha instead (it has less chemicals so it is better for me, and glass is pretty easy to recycle. I often re-use the bottles multiple times before I even put them into the recycling bin). I even try to drink natural soda as often as possible, one’s that also contain no chemicals or artificial sweeteners. However, every one in a while, I just want a Diet Coke

I had one on Friday. And that was probably the worst thing I’ve consumed in the last few days. First of all, it is HORRIBLE for me. As health conscious as I usually am, Diet Coke does nothing for me. It contains caramel color, artificial sweeteners, and I like to pretend that I don’t know what else is in there, but it is NOT good. And, while I try to buy cans versus plastic bottles (only because they are a TINY bit better- only 10% of plastic bottles are recycled compared to 50% of cans, and it is a lot easier to recycle cans) it doesn’t negate that fact that the Coca-Cola company still makes their cans with 50% virgin aluminum (which is an environmental disaster trying to mine). They are also often scorned for taking the water that they use in their Diet Coke from areas of severe water shortage, like in India.

Overall, Diet Coke is one of the worst things I do to myself and the environment (in terms of food and beverage choices). So I will keep finding and turning to alternatives, and I am known to show up to parties with a Kombucha in hand, but I know that, for me, nothing makes a backyard BBQ quite as complete as a Coca-Cola.

Convenience > Quality - The Life of a College Student

Food has to be one of my most favorite things in the world. I enjoy learning about it watching Anthony Bourdain, cooking with it in the kitchen and of eating it at the table. At this point in my life, what I consider when making food choices encompasses a variety of variables.

As a college senior with a full course load and internship, convenience (unfortunately) is the most important consideration I take into account when making food choices. With a busy schedule and new obligations coming up all the time, I usually get to spend less time preparing and enjoying food than I would like to. Of course there are ways that I’ve found to get around this dilemma. On Sunday nights, I like to make a large casserole that will last me a few days in the form of leftovers, so that I can eat convenient meals throughout the week that I had the pleasure of making myself.

The second most important thing I take into account is the quality of the food, which for me represents its taste, healthiness and how natural it is. For example, one of my favorite foods is pizza, something one finds in the cheapest back alleys and most expensive Italian restaurants around the world. But when pizza has been made with fresher tomatoes and less processed cheese, it’s healthier, more natural and better tasting. This is why I don’t eat at McDonald’s and why Subway usually doesn’t do it for me – sure they may meet my first criteria of being convenient, but the quality of the food often borders on being atrocious. I’m hoping that once out of college however, I will have more time to dedicate to the kitchen and more money as well to purchase fresher, higher quality ingredients, instead of thinking of convenience first and quality later.

Looking back over the past few days, I would say the food or beverage with the highest environmental impact that I consumed was the foie gras appetizer I ate on Wednesday night. First off, it’s meat, so by default already, the amount of Calories put into its production far outweigh the resulting number of Calories consumed by me. Second, not only was it meat, but it foie gras, a product that requires insane amounts of food Calories to produce it on top of already being a meat product. Finally, due to the nature of making it, very few producers in the U.S. make fois gras, meaning that my sampling was probably shipped over from France. Such a journey requires transportation with fossil fuels, and any 3,000-mile journey over water isn’t exactly modest with its fossil fuel consumption. Thankfully this isn’t something I eat every day or even every month, but nonetheless, its impact on the environment is quite harsh.

Idealist Fiction: 22nd Century America

In his piece “An Island Civilization”, Roderick Nash puts forth his vision of a world in 1,000 years. While such idealistic thought makes for interesting fiction, it is more practical to envision such a grand plan for a more manageable amount of time such as 100 years.

We can all agree that if we extrapolated the way the United States (U.S) lives over the next century, the results would be grim. Too many people, too many emissions, and not enough resources are just a few of the problems that would be faced in such a U.S. In order to ensure the future survival of not just the U.S but for the world at large, it is imperative that the U.S show strong leadership on restructuring their society towards a more sustainable one.

The main issue which needs to be addressed is how to deal with the growing problem of cities. Currently, cities in themselves are unsustainable as they have to draw in energy and food from other parts in order to power and feed both their population. To compensate this issue, cities are going to have to take a hard look at starting to supply their own needs.

In terms of energy, the main gripe that is put in place currently is that there is not enough space to place power stations to power a city. In 100 years this concern will be negligible as every building can be turned into a power station. The addition of solar panels in a variety of forms along with wind turbines on every building will allow for self sustainable energy production on a massive scale-much more than any one power station can provide. Not only will this power be 100% clean, but excess power can be sold back to the grid encouraging more investment in the city’s infrastructure due to this moneymaking opportunity. On a larger scale, local waterways -such as the Hudson River in New York, can be utilized as power sources through the inclusion of wave and tidal turbines.

With regards to food, cities should expand already existing projects at creating urban hydroponics facilities. These facilities would act as a main food supply for those living in cities. Not only would emissions be reduced by having food travel from the fields to the tables at a much lower rate than in the 21^st century, but integrating food supplies into the fabric of the city would be just another way to promote city sustainability. Also, by having individuals in the city get a better look into just how food comes from the fields to the farm, the hope is that the population of the 22^nd century would be more knowledgeable about how their actions fit into the larger world as opposed to individuals in the 21^st century.

While there are countless other issues such as general infrastructure, transportation, and cultural issues, the main focus of cities should be to push for food and energy. Without these two components, citizens in these cities could not survive. While these two issues might be the most politicized in the 21^st century- through the oil and corn lobby, finding ways at looking toward the future rather for selfish current needs is the key to ensure America’s survival.

100 Years Forward

I am profoundly confident in the abilities of humanity to address its problems. I believe that despite our cultural differences and contradictory priorities, it is within our collective ability to engineer a society that will serve both humanity and the millions of other species to which this planet is host. Roderick Nash’s “Island Civilization” is a compelling and insightful article, and in 1,000 years’ time from now I agree that the world (assuming it still exists) will look distinctly different from how it appears currently. In one hundred years time, however, I am less optimistic. In certain cases, conditions must deteriorate before society fully comprehends the necessity to make fundamental alterations to societal and commercial interaction. One hundred years may seem like a long time, but to the natural world in which we live, it is but a brief moment in its prodigious longevity.

To move toward a society in which sustainability is at the core of our moral value system, humanity will first need to identify a reason to change its existing systems that is both strong and convincing enough to appeal to the majority of society. As has been noted, environmentalism has become a matter of political ideology, not one of scientific observation or even common sense. For this reason alone, changing the social mentality across the political spectrum will provide a significant obstacle toward universal acceptance of sustainability, one that will likely require social pressure exerted over at least one generation.

A second fundamental challenge is the actual shift toward sustainability. If we are to make such radical changes, we will have to solve existing social problems before this massive undertaking. No government in the world has the power to address sustainability, along with a myriad of other problems, simultaneously, though progress in any one area is likely to have positive effects on another. Even the abilities of government (or some other change agent with a high degree of prevalence) will have to be strengthened to initiate such changes.

With this in mind, here is my vision:

In one hundred years time, the US energy infrastructure will be composed of a much higher percentage of renewable energy alternatives, such as wind, hydro, and electric power. The reliance on petroleum will have decreased after the implementation of federal policies discouraging their usage from both environmental and security-related considerations. Surprisingly to some, nuclear energy will play an important role in this sustainable future. This will be made possible by a breakthrough in scientific research to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel, which will efficiently eliminate radioactive materials. Unlike the large nuclear plants of Europe, reactors in the United States will be much smaller in both size and scope.

Similar breakthroughs will occur in US tax policy. To prevent careless consumption of scarce resources such as water, a new policy will be implemented. This policy will designate a set price structure on usage of water, and will consider such factors as geographic location, family size, and the climate of the particular region. Water usage up to the point designated as appropriate (based on the aforementioned factors applied to each individual household), will be treated as a public utility, while every additional unit over the designated threshold will be taxed at a higher rate to discourage over usage.

Public transportation will be much more prevalent and efficient. The number of private vehicles bought in the United States may remain around current levels, but actual usage will fall due to the high reliability of public forms of transit. Public transportation will not be viewed as a commuter system for the poor segments of society, but rather for society in its entirety. The DC metro system’s escalators will function 100% of the time.

In the corporate sector, the adoption of corporate social responsibility will be conventional rather than atypical. Companies will seek profit as a motive along with sustainability within the community. The rise of “B Corporations,” or social enterprises where social value is as important as commercial value, will be such that social businesses outnumber profit-maximizing corporations.

Lastly, in 2111, the Chicago Bears will have won their 92^nd Super Bowl Championship, marking a sports dynasty that began in 2019, when the then thirty-year-old billionaire philanthropist Luke Tecson bought their franchise. 

A Sustainable U.S.

In 100 years, I see a sustainable United States functioning entirely on clean energy. For all of the buildings that we DO have, solar panels will be on top. Wind turbines will provide wind energy, and a multitude of other options will allow us to function completely off the grid. People will feed themselves with food grown within their immediate community. Essentially, while we will have moved forward in ways to provide energy, I see us as reverting back to local, family farm or community agriculture. You won't have to buy oranges from Mexico because, if you live in Florida, they will be grown right in your community.

As Nash mentioned, the population will be infinitely smaller. The economy will be, as well. In fact, just about everything about life will have gotten smaller. You and your extended family will all live in the same area- so there would be no need for most of the population to travel constantly around the globe. The economy will be mostly local, with some exceptions that will allow all of our communities to stay connected. Transportation is the one thing I disagreed with in Nash's writing. Not because I don't think that instantaneous air travel would be the best option, and I am sure that eventually we will get there, or get close. But for now, I think we need an alternative until we get to that point (because telling people that teleporting is our best option is not very convincing). So, until our scientists can figure that out, I do see how air travel between communities is the best option for long-distance travel. But the airplanes will rely on some sort of renewable energy, or fuel that emits no harmful byproducts. Local travel throughout the communities will be mostly on foot, or bicycle, as they will all be small enough for that to be possible and I see no reason to create a more advanced system of local travel (in fear that it will be a gateway back to exactly where we are now).

The communities themselves will be compact, as well, as Nash mentioned. I still see a place for single-family homes, but they will be stacked on top of other single-family homes as to take up less space, and there will be solar panels on top of the homes, as well as rain-water collectors, and any space left over will be for a green roof.

I was also intrigued by Nash's point that technology isn't inherently bad. That we could, in fact, use technology to our advantage. And in many ways, I agree. Especially in small communities, technology would be necessary to help make them run, and to communicate with other communities and spread ideas and data on how to live more efficiently and sustainably.

Essentially, I agreed with most parts of Nash's vision. I think that scaling down (which I found to be his basic point) is the key to sustainability. Yet when I first began reading "Island Civilization," I was reminded of something that was mentioned in our discussion group last week- that man feels as if it needs to conquer nature. This fact makes it difficult to argue that humans should move over and allow nature to have its place as well. Then, as I reached the end of the article, Nash wrote that, with his imagined world, "Humans could take their place along with the other predators"(137). In a world where the wilderness is in our backyard, and humans know how to interact with it instead of solely fearing it, I believe that humans can satisfy these needs while living in a sustainable world.

My Vision of a More Sustainable United States

In my view of the U.S. in 100 years, the country will have gone through some interesting transitions and technologies that are in their infancies today will have become mainstream. First of all, population will have been stagnant for a few decades and by 2111 will have begun to decline. The Baby Boomers will have been the last generation of its kind in terms of numbers and after they died off population began to slow. This accounts for the U.S. population in 2111 to be around 280 million. In terms of population disbursement there will be a movement inland due to areas on the coasts, especially in the low-lying Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, being submerged by rising sea levels. This will have a profound impact since many major cities will be victimized. Thus, the Midwest will see an influx of people who will begin to congregate around freshwater sources such as the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and the Great Lakes.

The advance of sustainable technology will have the most impact on our future. What is defined today as “alternative” energy will become mainstream energy 100 years from now. Solar power will become extremely important and widespread, with solar panels being built in the Southwest and in Death Valley to power vast swaths of the region. This will be feasible because the initial costs of solar panels will no longer be prohibitively expensive and will allow for infrastructure to be developed so that the solar energy can be spread around the area. We will also have embraced wind energy provided by wind farms placed all over the Great Plains and offshore on the Great Lakes. Those will be crucial for providing power to the increased populations of the region. The U.S. will still manufacture high-end goods, especially green technologies. This will make them cheaper domestically and will provide a competitive advantage when exporting them to other nations in need. Solar and wind energy will be important developments in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

In terms of transportation, gas-powered machines will be reaching the point of becoming obsolete. Cars will be electric and will utilize batteries that harness the great amount of solar energy that is being produced. While expensive now, these batteries will also become cheaper as the technology develops, allowing them to be mass-produced and consumed for a reasonable price. Airline travel will still exist but will be severely diminished by the creation of a national high-speed rail system similar to today’s Maglev trains that glide a few inches above the tracks using electromagnetism.

It’s not likely that all of these predictions will come to fruition, but I believe that they are good milestones to strive for in our attempt to adapt to climate change and live in a sustainable future.

To a Sustainable Civilization in 3 Steps or less

In response to Roderick Nash’s article Island Civilization, I will take my own quick look at the United States 100 years from now. While I Nash may come off as a bit idealistic in his piece, I strongly agree with him on the need to find a sustainable solution to human civilization.

In my first step towards a sustainably civilization, I agree with Nash on where people need to live to keep the Earth alive - cities. I am a big proponent of moving people to cities in to make our planet healthier. We can build apartments housing hundreds of families on the same plot of land that one or two families take up in the suburbs. Thanks to the high density of services and employment that cities provide, people don’t need cars, but can rely on bikes, public transit or their own two feet to get around. Moving people to cities would be the first step in my plan to make human civilization a bit more sustainable.

The second step in my vision would be finding the cleanest source of energy possible. No matter what we do, we have to pollute to get energy. Whether it’s mining silicon for solar panels or setting up wind turbines in sensitive areas, we should admit to the fact that even clean energy comes with costs. In my sustainable vision, these clean sources as well as nuclear energy would be the only forms of energy production allowed. And likewise, society itself would become much more efficient in its energy use. When Thomas Edison opened one of the first coal power stations in Manhattan in 1882, it converted 3% of the heat energy into electricity. Today’s natural gas power plants have an efficiency of 60%. Likewise, I think that we are just starting to scratch the surface in terms of improving the efficiency of today’s societies, whether it’s in the realm of transportation, buildings, food production, or anything else vital to us.

My third and final step would be a cultural revolution of sorts. People would learn to live with less. Smaller living spaces, less consumption and less long-distance traveling would all be on the table. Being asked to travel less or downsize one’s home may seem harsh, but I think it’s possible with a kind of philosophical approach. I’ve come to realize that when I don’t have as much of something I appreciate it a lot more. Whether it’s eating a steak every few months instead of every week or visiting my family back home for a limited time, scarcity makes us value objects for what they are really worth. Likewise I think if people traveled less and consumed less, they would better appreciate the times of indulgence, and a life of less wouldn’t be as bad as many proclaim.

I may come off as a bit idealistic in my vision – it’s true, it’ll be a tough road to go down. But coming from a civilization that builds towers into the sky and sends men to the moon, I think we can accomplish anything we set our hearts and minds to.

Sacrifice for the common good? No Thanks!

In Erik Assadourian’s article The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures, Assadourian calls for a cultural transformation of one of the foundations of American culture – consumerism. According to Assadourian, this is the only way the world can avoid complete ecological annihilation. It is a controversial argument, but one I think to have much value and truth.

From my understanding of Assadourian’s argument, we (the consumers) must change our perceptions of what brings us satisfaction and happiness. In the United States today, consumerism plays a significant role in shaping people’s lives, whether it’s the night’s plans to hang out at the mall or go nuts on Black Friday. As individual consumers, we’ve become accustomed to having the latest gadgets, the best cars and the most fashionable clothes. Assadourian claims that to effectively combat climate change, we must change our attitudes towards materialism, only consuming what we really need rather than what we want.

For the most part, I agree with the steps Assadourian advocates in bringing society towards a more sustainable future, mostly with his idea of government intervention through taxes and regulations. The world’s most livable cities didn’t end up that way because their citizens suddenly felt the need to buy reusable bags– it was government actions that incentivized populations to change their daily routines. Not too long ago, Copenhagen was just as car centric as any wealthy Western city – but through government action to make driving inconvenient and biking easier, people began to choose biking over driving. Thanks to government action, the city of Copenhagen has become home to one of the liveliest biking cultures in the world, with 37% of residents choosing to commute by bike.

Governments have the power to change the culture of their citizens – the only issue lies in the how much a government is willing to put up with. After all, it is much harder to take something away from someone than to give something. Consumers won’t like new taxes, restrictive regulations, or any sort of sacrifice that may be called from them (just ask Jimmy Carter how that worked out for him). We can move towards a less materialistic and consumption driven society, but the road ahead is fraught with difficulties that may just prove to be too much to overcome.

Consumer Culture

When Eric Assadourian says we are in need of a cultural transformation in order to combat the environmental situation, he is saying that we essentially need an overhaul on all of our behaviours, ideas, and morals. Everything that we have come to understand about consumption is a part of our culture. The person with the most money will be happiest. The person with the best clothes will be happiest. The person who can take the most vacations, buy the newest technology, and have the most stuff in general will be the happiest. Even though all of us may understand that to not be entirely true, I think we can all agree that we fall victim to this multiple times a day. I know that there are times when I'm thirsty and I will go into any store or vending machine and buy a coke. Not because water wouldn't be more than sufficient, but because my culture has become intertwined with my tastes and there is something about that coke that appeals to me more than the water fountain. And, although I do try to do my best not to consume unnecessarily and to be as environmentally friendly as possible, I fully recognize that my culture has impacted me and the consumer decisions I make on a daily basis.

Assadourian notes that sustainable technologies can make basic levels of consumption ecologically viable. However, most of us are not taking part in "basic levels of consumption." This reminded me of the video called "The Story of Stuff." It is the idea that we just have too much, and that it is having a negative effect on our planet and our ability to be economically, environmentally, and socially just. Assadourian also noted that we must change the consumerism paradigm which, while incredibly difficult, is possible and necessary.

Assadourian outlined three ways in which we can change our culture of consumption:

1) Consumption that actively undermines well-being needs to be actively discouraged

2) We must replace private consumption of goods with public consumption, consumption of services, or even no consumption at all

3) Those goods that do remain necessary should be designed to last a long time and be "cradle to cradle" (eliminate waste, use renewable resources, and be completely recyclable at the end of their useful lives)

I agree with each of these steps. Essentially, we need to 1) consume less and 2) consume sustainably (as hypocritical as that sounds). Assadourian recognizes that our consumption will never halt entirely, but in a culture where buying that bottle of coke is seen as a BAD thing, more people WILL choose the water fountain to fill up their recycled glass water bottle.

In all, I am entirely in agreement with Assadourian's arguments. As much as I like to try to be environmentally friendly, I do know that I fall victim to our consumer culture multiple times a day (our culture tells us that consumption = happiness). But there are small steps being made now. The fact that "being green" is generally seen as a positive thing is a step (albeit very small) towards a cultural shift. More small steps just like that can eventually lead to greater paradigm shifts. So I remain hopeful that our culture will become more environmentally aware, and hopeful that I can condition myself to resist the consumer culture as well.

The New Culture of Sustainability

There is something fundamentally wrong in a society in which happiness is measured in terms of monetary expenditure. Yet in the United States, the social pressure on success (defined in terms of salaries, prestige, and material possessions), is such that the allure of exceptional wealth appeals even to those of us who should know better. In calling for a cultural transformation, Assadourian is not only advocating a monumental shift in aspirations but also for an acceptance of a radically new, healthier lifestyle in which sustainability, not consumption, is in vogue. The United States may have evolved into a nation of consumption, but with the right impetus it can change its ways for the better. Citing business interests, media, government, and education as the most prolific factors responsible for the current mentality of consumption, Assadourian asserts that the first step in leading to a more sustainable society is transforming the paradigm of society, or the underlying assumption that shape the way individuals perceive their surrounding environment. Assadourian cautions that changes in policy and other indirect measures to encourage sustainable practices fall short of what is needed. While the implementation of regulations to encourage more environmentally beneficial practices is part of the solution, it is the intrinsic orientation of culture that must be changed. 

Discouraging the mentality of consumption will be even more difficult. Consumption is firmly rooted in culture, and reducing it will be heavily resisted by retailers and the corporate sector. Assadourian's second initiative of replacing private goods with public goods is much more viable. Given the resources to develop parks, public transportation, libraries, etc., US municipalities have the potential to lessen the amount of private vehicles and waste from discarded books. His last point, that products should be designed with longevity as a foremost consideration, is perhaps the most feasible of the three. While it is in the interest of companies such as Apple to design products to become outdated quickly, it is not outside of their ability to design products that last longer and remain fashionable. 

Assadourian also makes the point that culture is driven by institutions rather than the individual. The challenge is to link institutions with similar objectives together and to bring them into the mainstream from the periphery. This point, taken along with the steps he advocates to change the paradigm of culture, provides a convincing argument that a new, more sustainable culture can be engineered through means that are already in place. Despite the nature and pessimism of other readings for our class, Assadourian's pragmatic approach towards making fundamental change to culture is both refreshing and welcome. 

A New View

In talking about a “cultural transformation”, Erik Assadourian pushes for the idea of limiting consumerism and changing the way that we as people view how we use things. Rather than thinking we are happy for just having the latest gadget, we should take pride in our efforts to conserve as much as we currently do to consume. While Assadourian points out that the effort to change our culture is a hard task as it is “embedded” within us, he does push for the fact that we need to find “cultural pioneers” who can objectively view our habits and spend their lives trying to change the way we view being consumers.

The only problem with the idea Assadourian is pushing is the time length. It is alright to talk about easy going solutions which can save our planet with the help of a few good men, but changing the attitudes of over 7 billion people in just a few decades is almost impossible. If these “pioneers” came from the developed world, the reaction of those in the developing world would most likely be why are you restricting our livelihood even though you were able to live in the lap of luxury. Likewise, should a “pioneer” come from the developing world, the vast amount of resources available at the hands of major multinational institutions would drown out any effort these individuals would put forth keeping us on our own destiny with destruction.

Yet I do not think we really need “pioneers” to set us straight. If you are not abhorred by some of the data set forth by Assadourian then you really need a reality check into both your way of life and common sense. While it is ok that we do use our affluence to buy things, extracting enough resources to build 112 Empire State Buildings is just absurd. While the concept of water on the go is useful for many activities, why would anybody buy water that studies have proven is less healthy then tap water especially 60 billion dollars worth of it.

However our embarrassing behavior has been so bad, it has caused some natural pushback which is fighting for planet earth. I do agree with Assadourian that the best way to combat this effect is by shifting the paradigm of how we view consumerism. If the most powerful person in the supply chain is really the consumer, then by shifting the value patterns of how we buy and what we view in a successful company, then in turn it will change the way producers create things slowly turning our world into a sustainable one.

Assadourian Response

In his essay, Assadourian argues that the dominant worldwide culture of consumerism must be drastically altered to a culture of sustainability to prevent the collapse of the human civilization. He acknowledges that in the short term, asking consumers to limit their consumption is the equivalent of “asking them to stop breathing – they can do it for a moment, but then, gasping, they will inhale again.” Being fully absorbed in this consumer culture, I completely agree with this sentiment and thus tried to step outside that environment to see Assadourian’s point of view. This was no small task, but I have still found aspects of his argument that I think are reasonable.

The only way Assadourian’s goal of an end to consumerism can be considered feasible is if there is a paradigm shift to sustainability, brought on by cultural pioneers. Even when I try to step back and see this point of view from an objective, unbiased standpoint, I still cannot imagine this happening. I’m sure that it also has something to do with the fact that it could never be achieved within my lifetime as well. This is because I believe that the world is driven by the economy and money and GDP and financial well-being will trump sustainability in people’s minds for a long time. However, I do like many of Assadourian’s suggestions that will lead to greater awareness and a stronger fight against climate change; I just do not believe that they will be significant enough to shift the world from a consumer to sustainable paradigm.

I strongly approve of the various proposed steps to change: discourage promotion of excessive consumption that harms well-being, replace private consumption with public consumption, develop “cradle-to-cradle” goods, enhance sustainable education, and promote greener practices in the media. These practices will produce significant changes in the fight against climate change and will thus be beneficial to the planet and its inhabitants. In this sense, they need to be pursued and undertaken to the fullest extent. I am still not convinced, however, that they will decrease the citizens of the world to “want” more. Besides the unlikelihood that those in developed countries will want to sacrifice what they already have and give more, the people of poor nations also have to be considered. It is just as unreasonable to think that their desire to have more and live comfortably will be abolished. The American Dream that has motivated the U.S. and millions more for over 200 years has become synonymous with consumer culture. Self-advancement and opportunity are desirable precisely because they will lead to comfort and indulgence and the possibility of excess. This powerful idea is not one that can be overcome simply with time and a few “cultural pioneers.”