Corn, Corn, and More Corn.

Consuming corn is inevitable, it is near impossible to avoid in this day and age unless you essentially grow and eat your own food. The tricky part is corn has multiple pseudonyms so the majority of the time you’re completely oblivious to it even being there! For example, my dark chocolate has dextrose and vanilla extract, both containing corn, while my canned soup has cornstarch. Given corn is such an integral part of food nowadays, and beverages, it was hard to go a day without eating it. During that time period I ate mostly salad, with a variety of vegetables and used just a simple olive oil and vinaigrette dressing. I unfortunately could not have my normal Kashi Good Friends cereal as it contained waxy maize starch, natural flavors, yellow corn meal, corn flour, corn bran and a multitude of other ingredients that questioned whether Kashi is truly a "healthy, natural" product or if they're just really good at marketing. So instead I opted for a banana and almond butter. Sadly, that evening, one of my roommates made gingerbread and mollasses cookies which has traces of corn and were the culprit behind my ending the corn free fast.

The existence of corn in just about everything we ingest makes one realize the importance of understanding ingredients and what each really signifies. For me, the longer the name of the ingredient (or more foreign looking) the less natural it is. This may or may not be true but I have found it to be a fairly good rule. My organic rolled oats have one ingredient…organic rolled oats whereas oatmeal that has flavoring for instance can have upwards of fifteen ingredients, many of which encompass corn. The fact that corn can be traced back to a multitude of ingredients also shows our connection to corn production in the U.S. Tying into what Michael Pollan discussed in the Omnivore’s Dilemma about the consequences of government subsidies.

Corn-fed Consumers

This week's assignment was difficult, to say the least, and definitely made me realize that we are all just a bunch of corn-fed consumers. Unless one were to go on a raw food diet and completely avoid corn itself, I seriously doubt corn could ever be escapable. And even if one were to carefully examine the contents of one's diet for corn by-products, as many of my classmates have mentioned, nobody can ever be completely certain that the raw foods themselves that we eat never encountered an herbicide or pesticide (even organic!) that contained corn.

I started out the assignment with a fair amount of confidence that I could avoid eating corn. In the morning I had plain greek yogurt which, miracle of miracles, actually did NOT contain any of the items on that very, very long list of corn-based additives. I also had a pear (although, as I mentioned, I can't be sure what sort of herbicides or pesticides were used on the produce). For lunch I had a homemade hummus-like spread that contained chickpeas, garlic, carrots and, because I felt the need to take the assignment super seriously, a quick homemade mayo/aioli thing. I ate the mix with more carrots, celery and cucumber slices because my pita bread and whole-wheat bread were both chock-full of those aforementioned corn-based additives, despite the fact that they are intended to be primarily wheat-based.

During dinner was when I had to give up. I live with three roommates and we take turns making dinner, so even though I chose to do the assignment on a day that was my turn to cook, I felt too bad to make my roommates suffer along side me in my quest to eat an entirely corn-free meal. I did try - I made a simple pasta with fresh tomatoes, garlic, basil, olive oil salt and pepper - but the pasta and olive oil both contained items off of that dreaded list, and so did my supposedly all-natural kosher salt. Go figure.

No Corn? That Doesn't Sound So Hard.

It is. Personally, I found this week's challenge to go a full day (or perhaps more) without eating any corn whatsoever to be pretty difficult. In no way am I offering this up as an excuse, but this corn-less diet is made even more difficult when one attempts to infuse it into an already busy and time-crunched schedule and lifestyle often characterized by on-the-go meals. Obviously, however, I wanted to give it a try. I woke up one morning and perused my pantry for a corn-less item that I could pass off as a breakfast staple. It failed. Instead of eating fruit alongside cereal, bread, bagels, or yogurt, as per usual, I just ate grapes and an apple. Presumably, I made it through breakfast, although I guess I can't be sure that there wasn't any corn in my fruit.

The rest of the day proved to be much more difficult. I pretty much ruled out purchasing any food on campus that day because there would be few opportunities to read ingredients listings. When I returned to my apartment for a late lunch, I again scoured the kitchen, the corn allergen list pulled up on my laptop, cross-referencing with great scrutiny. Pretty much everything I pulled out of my refrigerator was a no go. I, like Nadine, did see that my pasta would work though! Pasta and olive oil it was. The rest of my day consisted of quelling hunger pains with more and more fruit and some of the left-overs from lunch. I wasn't complaining though. I love fruit and eat it often, but I couldn't help but feel like my food options had been significantly reduced.

The principle thing that I learned from this challenge is that corn is everywhere. Not in a hyperbolical, I'm trying to get my point across sense, but actually everywhere. I did a little research and found that even toothpaste, aspirin, envelopes and stamps contain corn products. So assuming that information is reliable, I technically failed the challenge before I ever started it as soon as I brushed my teeth in the morning. I knew it was going to be difficult, I guess I just hadn't realized how pervasive corn actually is in everything that we do.

Cornless diet, I have failed you

I'd like to begin by saying that I really tried to eat corn-free this week. At first it wasn't so hard -- I stuck to my usual regime of fruits and vegetables and beans. I was about to make myself a taco with my wheat tortillas, and I found out that those were a no-go. Corn starch, ascorbic acid, distilled monoglycerides, fumaric acid, tocopherol. 5 appearances of corn in just one non-corn product! Like Nadine mentioned, the corn-free diet became cumbersome pretty fast. Essentially all the food I buy has corn in it in some facet. Even my fruits and vegetables were probably grown with corn-based pesticides. So there's my excuse -- corn is utterly unavoidable.
Perhaps the corniest thing I gave into was my frozen dinner. This was a dinner of chicken (fed by corn no doubt) and vegetables. Just the chicken breast contained high fuctose corn syrup, corn oil, corn starch, caramel color, and iodized salt (which all in all is less disturbing than the fact that the chicken also contained "chicken juices"). As my meal heated up in the microwave and I read the opus that was the ingredients list, I counted 14 appearances of corn. I kept on thinking about what our guest speaker was said about the food we eat today, something along the lines of: You get out what you put into agriculture and food, and right now all we are putting into agriculture is corn-fed livestock and nitrogen phosphorous potassium-infused soil. What do you suppose we get out of this? What are we really putting into our bodies?

So what am I putting into my body? Corn -- and lots of it. Industrial farming of cheap corn has led it to seep into the products we eat and use every single day. It's really remarkable to think about the ways government-funded research has produced so many uses for one crop. Whole markets of new products -- from dyes to thickening agents to vitamins -- have been wholly constructed by finding every use possible for this crop. It makes me wonder when we'll be making nuclear bombs out of corn biproducts. Just think, my fellow bloggers: what if all the time, money, and energy spent into inventing things like hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and ethanol was instead spent on sustainable agriculture?

Is it possible to eat a corn free diet?

When I first read the assignment for this week I thought that I was only going to be able to eat fruit all day. But to make sure I took everything out of my pantry and searched the ingredients to see if they matched anything on the list that Professor Nicholson gave us. I was right most things did have corn in them somewhere, but not my pasta. Success! So then I started planning my meals for the day. Starting with breakfast, my multi-grain cheerios were not an option since one of the grains is corn. So instead I went with an apple. I just assumed that there was no corn in the pesticides, fertilizer, etc. used to grow this corn. One, because I don’t know if corn is actually in those things and two, because I have no way of knowing what products they used on my fruit and vegetables. So I assumed no because otherwise I would only be eating pasta and drinking water all day. I knew that getting food at TDR or ordering from a restaurant was out of the question because I do not know what products they use in their kitchens and chances are that there will be corn in there somewhere. So I made myself a vegetable stir fry that I added to my pasta. I didn’t add any salt to the pasta water, something I usually do to add flavor, because sodium was on the corn list. I used olive oil for my stir fry and then drizzled a little more olive oil on top of the dish at the end so that there would be a little more flavor. I did not want to add any other sauce because the ones I had at home had small traces of corn in them and I did not want to go buy more sauce just for this assignment. So I made do with what I had and it turned out to be a tasty meal. However, I don’t think that I could only eat pasta and vegetables for a whole week.

"One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well" - Virgina Woolf

I'll admit that growing up I would sneak over to friend’s homes to eat fluff, or grab handfuls of Lucky Charms, while in front of Clarissa Explains It All, a refreshing change from Wishbone. But now at the ripe old age of twenty, I am extremely conscientious of what I eat, and well, what I watch. After growing up with a mother that emphasized the importance of purchasing power and our natural environment, I try to be aware of what I buy and ingest.

Food is the realm in which I spend most of my income. Surprisingly though, I don’t mind, though it would be nice if it were cheaper! I love to cook and even more, to eat. So when it comes to choosing a grocery store, a farmer’s market is best, then a local natural food store, and lastly where I shop most is Whole Foods, who’s practices are, well, speculative. Nonetheless, here I can buy my essentials and hopefully when possible, organic as well as local. When I buy produce I always choose organic, as long as the price differentiation is not too large. Not only am I trying to make a point, in that consumer demand is for organic products and hopefully decreasing the price in the long run, but also the idea of eating something directly sprayed with toxic chemicals is unappetizing. As for other goods, I allot myself a little more leeway. Milk is always hormone free and my eggs come from cage range, hormone free, and antibiotic free hens. But as for cheese and bread I am not too picky. For the most part, meat and seafood are out of the question, I leave such delicacies for when I take trips home! Not only are they extremely expensive but seafood is fairly unsustainable and meat is a major contributor to climate change, as greenhouse gases are a large byproduct of the industry. I guess it is appropriate to say that I have both my health and the environment in mind when I shop. I am a strong believer in preventative medicine and the correlation between food and our well being, both mental and physical. To some I may seem like a snob, but this happens to be an issue I am very passionate about.

In the last few days I have had my typical oatmeal with a banana, almond butter and raisins for breakfast and for lunch it has varied between egg sandwiches and salads. Dinner has consisted of a baked egg with herbs, as well as brussels sprouts with walnuts and cheese. On the side, I have made homemade Lara Bars (I strongly recommend this recipe), dark chocolate covered pretzels, and hummus. Of course I am forgetting the copious amount of chocolate that I eat daily. As for beverages, soda makes me sick so I stick to water, milk with my breakfast, and lots of tea. It is difficult for me to say which item has the largest environmental impact but it most likely involves those that require animals, as in eggs from chickens, milk from cows, and cheese from sheep. The reason being, animals require resources such as food, water, and land, and they also produce waste, emit methane and their products require factories that emit pollutants. If I did not love food so much I wouldn’t have blabbered on about my gastronomic adventures but it’s hard to not care for nature’s bounty!

Me want food

When I make my food choices, I have environmental considerations in mind, but predominately “other stuff” guides my purchases. I mostly eat fruits and vegetables. A substantial part of my diet is vegan for a few reasons. For one, vegetables and beans are more economical than meat. They are cheaper in the store, last longer in the fridge, and take less time to prepare and cook. Living on a college student’s budget, I would rather buy cheap vegetables than cheap meat. When I see a $1.99 package of deli meat, it always reminds me of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, and it makes me wonder under what conditions the livestock was raised and under what conditions the meat was processed. I would rather not wonder. I also know that eating meat is not the environmentally sound choice, because the production of meat involves using substantial amounts of grain for feed and emits considerable amounts of methane.

Last week, out of my desire to not cook, I bought a frozen dinner of Thai noodles with chicken and vegetables. This definitely had the most environmental impact of my recent food choices. It also goes against Michael Pollan’s recommendation to follow one’s food from farm to fork (chopsticks in this case). The meal’s grains and vegetables were most likely not grown in the mid-Atlantic area (and most likely not from Thailand either), so they had to be transported across the country by fossil fuel-burning vehicles. The meal included meat, so that increases environmental impact because more resources (ie grain and fuel for transportation) were used. Finally, this meal was placed in a Safeway refrigerator which expends energy 24/7 keeping my food nice and frozen. There was a lot of resource, energy, and time expenditure in the production of my “quick and easy” frozen dinner.

Food Choice Factors

I would say that environmental considerations have some sway over which food purchases I make. I’m a pescatarian, mostly for health and environmental issues. When I was in high school I read Pollan’s work and met him on a Biology class field trip to hear him speak. While the fishing industry obviously has its ills I found it the lesser of two evils when compared to the beef and chicken industries (the treatment of workers in the meatpacking industry is also a consideration of mine).  When it comes to produce, I was raised on weekly deliveries from a CSA farm but now that I’m living with three roommates we usually get our food from a grocery store. On weekends we usually go to the farmer’s market just to check stuff out, but for the most part our food is not locally grown (it usually comes from close to where I grew up in California). In the past few years price has also become a huge factor in what I choose to eat. The cold hard truth is that sometimes, it costs less as a consumer to purchase foods grown in California than it would for me to pick food up at the farmer's markets in DC, Maryland or Virginia.

In the past few days, I would estimate that my food consumption had a greater environmental impact over my beverage consumption because for the most part, I drink tap water. I did however, also have a few bottles of wine from California wineries. Because I don’t usually drink sodas or juices, though I would have to assume that the bulk of my carbon footprint (when it comes to food) is derived from my food consumption, which as I mentioned earlier, is usually shipped from all the way across the country and consumes a lot of oil along the way. Some of the food I eat also comes in packaging (like pastas, canned tomatoes or vegetable broth to name a few), which I imagine would be more harmful than the occasional glass bottle of wine here or there. 

Now I'm Hungry

When it comes to deciding which foods and beverages I consume, I unfortunately don't usually have many environmental concerns on my mind. Before, this class I never did and didn't even actually know how much of my ecological footprint consisted of food goods and services (a lot!). I was extremely surprised by this following my calculation, and have since started to think more about where the food I purchase comes from. I still, however, find that I don't have too many additional options in that food takes up a considerable amount of my budget and I try to ensure that I am spending the least amount on food as possible. I love going to farmer's markets and purchasing fresh and local food, but most times I view it as something I can splurge on every once and a while instead of a lifestyle habit, because it often just seems impractical.

The other thing I typically consider when purchasing food is simply, what do I enjoy? And what are the staples that I am now so used to eating and drinking? Environmental considerations usually fall at the end of my priority list with respect to my food choices. I often want to make a change, and certainly need to, but I always end up feeling like I have no option but to go to my local grocery store to buy the food I need.

Yesterday, I went out for dinner with a friend in honor of the end of a week full of mid-terms. When I say out for dinner, I mean I went to the Z-Burger in Tenleytown. This is probably the meal of mine that had the most environmental impact. I had a cheeseburger and a fountain drink. The burger was prepared using a grill that either ran on electricity or gas, both of which dangerous effect the environment. On my burger, I had tomatoes, peppers, and lettuce. I would assume that all of these different ingredients had to be shipped to the restaurant via truck from fairly far away (although I don't know for sure). This only contributed to my meal's environmental impact. I'm also sure that Coca-Cola or some company of that sort had to come and refill the supplies for the fountain drink machine. Thinking about it now, that single cheeseburger and drink (not even taking into consideration the other 20 people eating the same, if not more, food than I was) contributed to significant negative environmental impact. When we eat the things we do, I don't think many people fully realize how it got there. We are hungry and there is food that looks delicious, so we eat it. Never before this class did I think, "I wonder how far this lettuce had been transported in order to be served to me on this nicely toasted bun?" This, I think, is the issue. People diligently recycle their bottles and cans, but don't even realize that their weekly trip to the grocery store accounts for so much negative impact (most often hidden from plain sight) on the environment.

Why eat that?

Taste is the biggest factor when it comes to what I eat. I try to take my health and the environment into consideration, however; in the end if I like the taste I’m going to eat it and if it does not taste good I’m not going to eat it. I do try to limit the amount of meat that I eat because of the health and environmental impacts. When I shop for my apartment I do not buy meat. I usually only eat meat when I am out to eat somewhere, as a treat. However, I feel like the environmental considerations are more of an afterthought than the main reason I eat little meat. To be truly honest this might be a continuation of my habits when I was living in Kenya. In Kenya meat is much more expensive than everything else therefore, I did not buy meat. I think that I was used to not buying meat and just continued that trend when I got home. Now when I think about the environmental impact of meat, it just enforces the decision that I made in Kenya for economic reasons. I also cut soda out of my diet but that was for health reasons. The only food decision that I have made that I can link to environmental concerns is the fact that I now buy my produce from a local framers market instead of at Giant.

The meal, that I ate this past week, which had greatest impact on the environment, was probably the Chinese food hat I ordered on Saturday. I figure that this is the case because of a variety of factors. Firstly there is the fact that it had chicken in the meal which is something is usually do not have. I also do not know where the restaurant gets its produce from so I do not know the impact of their produce. However, the fact that I ordered the food for delivery makes me certain that the meal had a great impact.

The U.S. in 2111

In 100 years time, the citizens of the United States of America will have long since realized that their former way of life was both environmentally impractical and draining the earth of its resources. In 2111, we will see a very different population of people inhabiting the land. Instead of over 300 million U.S. citizens, there will be around 250,000. That's 30 cities of just over 8,000 people or 40 of just over 6,000, if everyone chose to live in an incorporated city area. A fair amount of the population however, will elect to live in rural areas as "part of nature" and live self-sufficient lifestyles.

As for the citizens who choose to live in urban areas, they will not be the "cities" we understand today and will be organized in a very different way. Instead of having networks of roadways and train tracks connecting one sprawling urban area to another or to its many suburbs, all towns will have walking and bike paths. Since there are only 250,000 people living in the entire country, cities will be significantly smaller than they are today and bikes will suffice for people to get from place to place. For longer distance travel, airplanes (or something similar to them) will still be used except instead of running on jet fuel, they will be completely solar powered.

After significant research in development in alternative energy sources, solar energy is much more efficiently harnessed and is able to be stored for months in case of long periods of bad weather. Schools, hospitals, police stations, homes, and all other living spaces will be powered using solar energy.

Most homes and probably almost all homes in the city will be apartment style, where each family has a floor of a tall building. Each living space will be half indoor and half outdoor and generally much smaller than what the average American family has today. The outdoor space would consist of a terrace where each family would have a garden and possibly animals (if they choose to eat meat). This food that they grow and care for would sustain their whole family. Entire apartment buildings may even begin to function like cooperatives where one family for example, specializes in grapes and another in lettuce and they all share their harvests among each other. American society in 2111 will strive to be completely self-sufficient an unwasteful with regards to food. Everything a person eats, they grow and vice versa.

I think that the three biggest differences in society will be the significantly smaller number of people living, the way in which energy is harnessed, and the way in which people sustain themselves. In 2111, instead of driving in our fossil-fuel burning cars to the grocery store to buy pineapple from Costa Rica, people will eat only what they can grow themselves or trade with another.

A Vision of the US in 2111

When I picture what the United States will look like 100 years from now, it is almost more difficult to envision than is the "island civilization"  that Nash describes in "Island Civilization: a Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium." I find it more difficult to picture the United States in 100 years than the world in 1,000 years largely due my inability to cast aside questions about how the world order may change in just 100 years and how large of a factor this may be in determining what the United States will look like. While I can envision a cooperative, multilateral world in the fourth millennium, this is more difficult for me to envision in 2111, and I have a hard time believing that the United States would put forth such a great effort to rework its entire infrastructure and systems of production without considerable pressure from other nations to do so.

That being said, in 2111 I can foresee a United States that is built upward, rather than outward as a solution to urban sprawl. Suburbs will cease to exist, their materials having been recycled to create the structures of tomorrow, but cities will not. The US will have already enacted efforts to curb population growth, but overpopulation will still be an issue, so people will live in apartment or condominium-like structures that reach high up into the sky so as to avoid horizontal growth. Urban farming will be a huge part of these new cities and every residence will have its own hydroponic vegetable garden. Every city will have nearby agricultural units to supply grains fruits, nuts and grains and the harvesting and processing of these goods will employ a large number of people because the machines that used to do so will by then be outlawed. The natural environment will be allowed to run its course outside of the boundaries of cities and the rail system that will connect the cities. Specific government agencies employing a multitude of specialized scientists will be charged with measuring biodiversity and especially plant growth. Hunting will be used only as a means of curbing animal populations that for whatever reason grow to large to sustain the food chains and ecosystems that they belong to.

The government will have set a cap on the number of children per family at two, and families that have two children will be encouraged to have one boy and one girl. This being said, the government will provide tax breaks for couples that choose not to have children. For families with children, education will be free and children will be educated from home via a smart screen that allows them to have a dialogue with educators and other children that are in their classes. Through the smart screen, children can write or type answers directly onto the screen for their teachers' viewing. Higher education will be conducted similarly. 

By 2111, the government will have already phased out gasoline and energy for homes will be provided solely by wind and solar energy. Structures will be created with a solar panel shell that allows the maximum surface area to be exposed to sunlight. Personal vehicles will be obsolete and all transportation will be public. Most travel within the United States will be accomplished by an electric speed rail (even between agricultural and residential areas) and overseas travel will be conducted for the time being (before energy sources with enough power to return to the air will be discovered) through steam-powered ships.

The majority of jobs will be related either to technology - which can largely be accomplished online from home - or to what remains of the agricultural sector, which will have spatial limits. There will also be limits to the number of animals that can be farmed or fished and meat and fish will be rationed to households that choose to continue to eat meat and fish on a weekly basis. 

Envisioning earth 100 years from today, it is clear that the very fabric of our daily lives will be drastically different – from where we live to how we travel to how we educate. The question is in how much change will be deliberately made and how much change will be essentially made for us -- resulting from nature taming humankind. The future I propose is not utopia; rather, it is a vision for a society most compatible with the new earth we’ve created.

I agree with Robert Nash’s assertion that the sprawl of human civilization is unsustainable. There will be no sprawling suburbs in 2111; the ratio of protected wilderness and human-inhabited space will be essentially reversed. This is not to say we will live in densely populated “island civilizations” as Nash has proposed. The housing developments of 2111 will be small, multigenerational courtyard communities, roughly 500 miles apart from each other. Each would house upwards of 10 families (each with at most 1 child, not 2.2) with a common area for subsistence farming. Living in such small communities would indeed mean more modest living. Smaller communities, however, are capable of holding each other accountable in resource use. With such accountability, the tragedy of the commons would be far less tragic. Residents would mostly work from their homes, working in the online service sector or maintaining their land. After years of incremental phasing out of fossil fuels, these homes would be powered by a combination of solar paneled roofs and nearby windmill farms.

There will be no private motor vehicles in 2111. After years of hiking up prices for car components, car tax, gasoline, and gasoline tax, cars will have been phased out of the utopia. Ideally, residents would use teleportation, but if the scientists of 2111 hadn’t accomplished such a feat, a light rail system would connect communities. New, efficient, light rail cars, made out of reused car parts, would be come with high ticket prices to curb demand. The rail would provide a way for community merchants to trade surplus goods. With the continuation of the information revolution, trading information and services among communities would be more efficient and convenient than it is today. Commuting will be seen as a thing of the past.

The education of children will be drastically different in 2111. Children will gather and have a set time for learning reading, writing and arithmetic, but these will be done within the community. No school buses will be necessary. To ensure quality, the teaching staff would be a combination of local leaders and teachers working with children via internet. Conservation and environmentally-friendly farming techniques will be emphasized. Children will learn how to work within the constraints of the warmer, more volatile environment.

The key to adapting to 2111’s planetary conditions demand a simpler, less individualist society. Living in kinship group communities would ensure that residents can keep track of each other’s resource use. Communities will learn to work together in a collective manner to responsibly use nature and teach their children to do the same.

2111 - An Interesting Look At The Future

It is difficult to conceptualize the “Island Civilization” Nash envisions in the year 2992. One in which a mere 1.5 billion human beings will inhabit the earth, in small habitats scattered throughout the globe. Especially given the time he wrote that piece, in 1992, 5.3 billion people were on earth while now, in 2011, almost 7 billion people inhabit it. Though his scenario sounds idealistic, one cannot help but question what happens to the billions that cease to exist in this new world? Perhaps my imagination is too dull but I have trouble wrapping my head around his “future.” Which is why I stumble trying to envision the U.S. 100 years from now, as a country that has transitioned to sustainability. However, as I conjure such an image it appears as follows.

In 2111, the United States will be a country filled with happy, healthy, and innovative individuals. The population since 2011 will have steadily declined from roughly 308 million to 100 million, as the sustainable global population is around 2 billion. A majority of roofs will have solar panels that are so efficient they provide enough energy to meet everyone’s needs. Energy needs that are substantially reduced from 100 years before, as goods are altered to require little to no energy themselves, and homes are heated by the sun. On the roofs that do not have panels, rooftop gardens will be put in place, providing esthetic benefits as well as contributing to the natural environment. Goods such as plastic bags, bottle, to go containers and the like will be nonexistent and instead everything that is disposable will be compostable. The amount of trash American’s generate will be minimal, less than two pounds per person a month, down from the 4.6 pounds per person per day in 2011. The 5% of protected wilderness in the U.S. in 2011 will expand to 50% of the U.S. in 2111, resulting in the revival of many endangered species and at risk wildlife.

Agribusiness will no longer exist and instead people will obtain produce, occasional meat, and other food items from local farmers and natural grocery stores. There will still be restaurants and eateries but they too will focus on providing only local, organic, and sustainable goods. Fast food restaurants, as well as processed and artificial foods, that contributed to the obesity epidemic in the 21st century will be outlawed, as it created a health crisis that resulted in trillions of dollars being spent by the government and taxpayers. Oil, coal, and natural gas will be replaced with solar and wind energy. Trains, buses, cars, and airplanes will exist but not emit any fossil fuels into the atmosphere, running on sustainable forms of energy, perhaps even compost! Even though such forms of transport will be around, there will be an emphasis on walking and biking to nearby destinations as people live more relaxed lifestyles, not as absorbed in work to generate money because the consumerism that took over the lives of Americans in 2011 no longer exists.

The above has hundreds of gaps but I guess it is a glimpse at my idea of a Utopian society. One in which individuals find joy in the little things, like a walk in the woods or fresh vegetables! Obviously the most contentious issue is with regards to population, and as one of four children, I do not feel I have the right to limit other people to just one. But perhaps it will happen naturally as our world obviously cannot handle the amount of people we currently have or are projected to.



http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=nwps&sec=fastfacts
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
http://www.learner.org/interactives/garbage/solidwaste.html

Less babies, trains and solar energy

What will the U.S. look like in 100 years? That is a tough question to answer. There are so many factors to consider with this question that someone can spend years trying to describe the country 100 years from now. Therefore, I am going to focus on three issues, population, transportation and use of energy. First let us address the issue of population. I believe that 100 years from now the average family will have one to two children. I think that the population size will either be steady or slightly declining. However, I feel uncomfortable assigning a number or rate of decline to the population. This is because there are too many factors that affect population size, for example, health-care. Health care will continue to improve with time. This means that people will live longer. Therefore, the question is will birth rates drop low enough and quick enough to counter the increase in life expectancy? The population will definitely be an aging population, but will it be a smaller population? I feel that I don’t know enough about health-care advancements to answer those questions.

However, I do believe that, however many Americans there will be they will be using more public transportation. In a sustainable society the train network in the U.S. will have been reinvigorated. The U.S. is a large country and it needs a viable public transport system across the country in order to be sustainable. In terms of local transportation, I believe that people in cities will take more public transportation or even ride a bike or walk. This does not mean that there will be no more cars. The number of cars will go down, but some will still be there. However, these cars will no longer be using oil as their source of energy. Cars will be battery powered with solar panels on the roof that charge the battery during the day and a plug in option for nighttime recharging. The battery technology in the cars will also be much more advanced than today’s battery powered cars allowing for greater millage per charge. Also for truly long trips Americans will use the train not their cars.

This brings us to the issue of energy consumption and sources for energy. Coal-burning power plants will be a thing of the past. All of electricity in the U.S., which includes what the trains run on, will be from renewable energy sources. This includes solar, wind and some other technologies that we do not yet know about. Houses and apartment buildings will have their own solar panels but energy plants will have solar plants to make up the difference in needed and provided energy. This brings us to energy consumption. 100 years from now the average American will use less energy than they do now. This is largely due to that fact that buildings will be constructed and retrofitted so that they use much less energy than before. This is also true of appliances of all sorts. The less energy an appliance uses the more valuable it becomes. The U.S. in 100 will have changed into a society that takes sustainability as a major factor in life.

Revising What it Means to Be a "Consumer"

In his piece, “The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures,” Erik Assadourian asserts that “cultural transformation” is demanded in order to address the current environmental situation when he suggest that the state of the environment has become so dire that we can no longer realistically combat environmental degradation with legislation or by creating the so-called “green” products that we find on shelves today. Instead, Assadourian argues that a complete shift of our consumerist paradigm is required in order to transform our habits in any way that could possibly have an effect on the unsustainable practices that lead to climate change. 

In practice, Assadourian suggests that the new culture we must create should be centered around the ideas that deriving happiness from helping to restore the planet should feel natural to people, that our society should be more equitable, that consumption that undermines well-being should be discourage, that we should limit our private consumption relative to public consumption, and that goods should be designed to last a long time using renewable sources, and be completely recyclable. He goes on to describe a six-step process to effect this change, which he believes will come from education, business practices, the government, the media, social movements and sustainable traditions.

I find Assadourian’s vision of a new culture to be a very refreshing take on the environmental conversation. I agree with his assertion that making simple changes within our current framework will probably not ever make a lasting impact on OUR impact. Rather, we must overhaul our belief and value systems in order to create the types of changes necessary to reduce our consumption. What I find most interesting about Assadourian’s argument is that he does not necessarily advocate doing away with the ideology of consumerism completely. Instead, Assadourian seems to argue that it is a matter of redefining consumerism and what it means to be a consumer within that framework. I find this idea of deconstructing consumerism much more realistic than the alternative – attempting to construct a new system entirely – because where would we begin?

Drastic Changes

When Assadourian demands “cultural transformation,” he is implying the need to dismiss consumerism - what drives individuals to find happiness in the purchasing of senseless objects and the very essence of our current culture - and instead focus on sustainability. Though to some Assadourian’s request may appear crazy or impossible, I believe it to be viable and dire, particularly when “In 2008 alone, people around the world purchased 68 million vehicles, 85 million refrigerators, 297 million computers, and 1.2 billion mobile (cell) phones.” This massive reliance on basic goods epitomizes a culture programmed to consume and this needs to change in order to survive. Though I do believe the switch to sustainability with require more than a few “cultural pioneers.”

A valid point Assadourian makes is the influx of problems that will occur if nothing is done to prevent the destruction of the environment and increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. These problems should put the environment on the top of every national security agenda. Without protecting it comes problems with refugees, fighting over natural resources, increased costs in health care, and so on. But the construction of a “sustainability paradigm” is tricky, given how much consumerism is engrained in every aspect of our culture, be it in government, schools, public programming, or even when walking down the street. Though it would be wonderful to change conceptions in every aspect of life, it would require not only grassroots initiatives but also those in power, the government and the businesses that run them.

Fortunately as Assadourian points out, since the beginning of the 21st century increased awareness has formed around this issue. It is true that champions of this cause are making great strides but until everyone makes it a priority to change, little can be done. It cannot be just consumerism or culture that changes but everyday life, a shift in riding bikes rather than driving a car, or making ones own rice rather than relying on a rice cooker all have to do with time and convenience. Being programmed to work eight to ten hours a day while providing for a family, is enough to make many drive rather than walk. Every aspect of life needs changing, from our value system to our work ethic and feelings of worth, but most of all, there needs to be a change in the idea of growth, from a focus on material to an emphasis on mental.

Cimate Change and Culture Change

In his article entitled The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures, Eric Assadourian notes the centrality of consumption in the American way of life. Consumption, he explains, is wrongly seen as having limitless benefits to the individual. What is most troubling about this mindset is how deeply ingrained it is in American culture. The American Dream itself is a dream of ultimate consumption: a car run by fossil fuels, a television for each room powered by electricity, access to airline travel, etc. Assadourian argues that this cultural reality – that consumption provides contentment – is not an innate part of humanity. In order to have a cultural transformation, “cultural pioneers” would have to rise to prominence in every aspect of society: education, media, government, business. Climate change and environmental degradation are multifaceted, interconnected problems and require similarly multifaceted, interconnected solutions – from the food we eat to how we travel to how we even think about these facets of life.

Assaourian’s plan is to fundamentally switch the orientation of the West’s institutions from consumption to sustainability. His ideas are intriguing and inspiring: a more equitable society where individuals aim more towards personal than financial fulfillment, where there is greater access to public services like transportation. I think, however, that these ideas are at odds with a capitalist economy, where greater production and greater consumption lead to wealth, which is seen as inherently good. Instituting these kinds of changes seems to go against the foundation of America’s governance: rich, old white men with corporate interests. I think the most effective way to change our society would be through the younger generations. Changing our education system is, to me, seems the most effective mechanism Assaourian suggests. Educating youth about nutrition, about the environment, about being critical of consumerist media, could all breed cultural pioneers who are inspired to change the American societal paradigm to a sustainable one.