Category: Consumption

Would you trade your house for more happiness?

By Katie Kish, January 28, 2010 10:51 am

Yesterday for one of my classes we read a paper (Lawn, P. 2001. “Scale, prices, and biophysical assessments” Ecological Economics 38, 369–382) that said you can have sustainable development (whatever that means, now) while maintaining the same level of happiness in the current society. It makes me wonder if people would be happier if they had to start giving things up. …I got thinking about when I heard about the Ipad (which I just learned about yesterday from my mom…) and how it is essentially just… a really big Iphone. But everyone is going to want it. Would people be willing to not get an Ipad? Or the next Iplack? or Ibod? Im not sure that people are willing to start giving up what they have for a sustainable and less excessive future.

Then I came across this grist article that talks about a family who is giving up what they have to better the world. It’s a really wonderful thing and I hope that more people can start to live like this.

It makes me reflect on what I do… Yesterday I ordered a new MP3 player (not even an Ipod…a zone? zune?…i dont know) because my Ipod just flat out stopped working. But I’m not like that with everything. Phones, for example – I buy new phones all the time just because I like new gadgets. Laptops… I buy new laptops and mini laptops because it’s fun to have new things. Clothes… I am really horrible for buying clothes and never wearing them. Jewelry, shoes, stuff… and I’m someone who knows and cares about the earth and other people.

So, what am I going to do about it…? (this sucks…) I’m going to stop accumulating things. No more makeup from Sephora, clothes from H&M, jewelry from Forever 21… etc.etc.etc. I will challenge myself with this for a year and see how it goes. Maybe I’ll save a bunch of money! That would be cool, too. I’ll (try) to keep track of what I don’t spend and will donate the full amount at the end of the year. I’ll keep you updated on it…

(What a year! dieting, not spending money, working my ass off at school… sounds fun =0.0=)

Secular Humanists Should Be Vegetarians

By John, December 1, 2008 4:17 am

One thing we atheists seem to pride ourselves more and more these days over religious folks is our sense of morality – if we do good without the need for a supreme supernatural overseer to tell us to, then we must be morally superior. Is this really so I wonder? For starters, do atheists donate more to charity than the religious? Do we offer up our seats to the elderly more often? Do we treat our neighbours better, or contribute more to our communities? More often than not, I think, we would find that the answers to those questions would be a no. Of course, I am not in any way insinuating that atheism leads to immorality. Instead, I am trying to point out that if we want to claim to be morally superior, we have to put our money where our mouths are. Since this website is supposedly also advocating secular humanism, I should think these ideas aren’t very contentious. But what does vegetarianism have to do with anything? Well, here are some facts about the meat we eat everyday:

The Waste of Meat-Eating

Most of the meat we eat in North America come from factory farms, which are inherently extremely wasteful and inefficient. Consider that when we grow grains to feed the animals that in turn feed us, most of the energy in those grains go towards growing bones, skins, and self-repair mechanisms of the animals. In fact, it takes over 10kg of grain to raise 1kg of beef. How does it look like for other animals? Well…

Producing livestock requires a large amount of resources in terms of water and land on which to build farms and facilities. It also necessitates the use of even more land in order to grow the food to with the animals with. To put it into perspective, 1 hectare of land can feed 1 person per year if it produced beef, while it can feed 22 if it grew potatoes. The land used to produce meat would be several times more efficiently employed if used to grow soybeans, rice, corn, or wheat, both in terms of calories and proteins.

Growing meat, as it happens, also takes a huge amount of fresh water – a commodity the world is starting to seriously lack these days. Here is a chart showing exactly how much water that steaming juicy steak on your plate last night costs:

The world, as a whole, cannot sustain such a great strain on freshwater. This is especially true when the freshwater used for irrigation depletes rivers or underground aquifers faster than they are being replenished, as is happening in many parts of the world.

Really, eating meat is like driving a car to your next door neighbour’s for dinner – it makes no sense.

The Environmental Costs of Eating Meat
Cow vs Car
When asked about what the main contributors to global warming are, an average person would probably never pause to think about meat-eating. It would be pretty shocking then to find out that growing meat is actually one of the greatest producers of green house gases. This is because CO2 is produced when fossil fuels are burnt to produce fertilizers used to produce feed; methane is released from the breakdown of fertilizers and manure; fossil fuels are used during feed and animal production, and the transport of processed and refrigerated animal products.

A study in the New Scientist found that if an average American changed from eating meat to being vegan, he/she would manage to produce 1.5 tons less of CO2 per year, while changing to a hybrid fuel-efficient car would only save 1 ton per year.

Farm animals also produce methane and nitrous oxide, which, respectively, have 23 and 296 times the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide. The decomposition of fertilizers and manure is responsible for 80 percent of agricultural methane emissions and about 35-40 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions; and as for nitrous oxide, livestock produces 65 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions. Animal farming is thus one of the greatest contributors of global warming.

The Threat of Meat to Rainforests
Thanks to globalization and the reduction of trade barriers, the world is increasingly becoming a single market. This means that a global increase in meat consumption causes forests in other countries to be cut down to grow food for feeding animals. In Brazil, for example, vast areas of forest are being destroyed each year in order to grow soybeans that are exported to the US and Europe for feeding livestock. In 2002, 25,500 km of rainforest – an area the size of Belgium – was cleared, with the main reason being soyabean cultivation. All of this forest clearing then releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while decreasing the amount of trees that soak up carbon dioxide.

The Ethical Dimensions
What Happens in Factory Farms
The chickens you buy in supermarkets are raised in very large sheds that hold tens of thousands of chickens, with each chicken given about an average of 96 square inches of room – the size of a standard 8.5 inch x 11 inch page of printing paper. In these sheds, chickens are unable to move without pushing through each other, unable to stretch their wings at will, or to flee aggressive birds.

These chickens suffer from a large variety of problems ranging from blindness, respiratory diseases, sores, and severe tearing caused by a build-up of feces, to chronic bone pain caused by having a growth rate many times the speed of normal chickens from selective breeding. As a side-effect of the selective breeding, these chickens have an enormous appetite, which if satisfied, will cause them to grow grotesquely large and die before reaching sexual maturity, and as a result, are consistently fed 60-80 percent less than their appetites desire.

Cattles, on the other hand, in order to be fattened as quickly and efficiently as possible, are kept on a diet of high-energy grains and corn instead of the roughage they eat normally. However, cattle’s digestive system evolved to break down grass, and when they do not eat it, a great amount of lactic acid accumulates in their rumens, causing gas problems so severe that cattle could suffocate from it. Liver abscesses are also another consequence of this. Giving cattle only corn to eat is equivalent to feeding humans with candy bars; and to prevent them from getting sick and dying before they can be slaughtered, they are injected with huge amounts of antibiotics.

So What?
As secular humanists, we should be cognizant of the ethical implications of our actions. It isn’t good enough to point out the moral sinkholes of bronze-age superstitions – we have to show the world that we can do better. It is frighteningly obvious that eating meat is a luxury for us living in the developed world, contributes to climate change, and is on highly shaky ethical grounds. So why wait? Do the right thing.

Sources and Further Reading

John Robbins, The Food Revolution, Conari Press, 2001
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology), 1999. Contribution of Animal Agriculture to Meeting Global Human Food Demand.

Livestock Revolution. Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, World Bank Report 23241, November 2001
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and Society,” BioScience, vol. 47 (1997), pp. 97-106.

J.L.Beckett and J.W.Oltjen, “Estimation of the Water Requirements for Beef Production in the United States,” Journal of Animal Science, vol.71 (1993) pp.818-826
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues” BioScience, vol. 54 (2004), pp. 909-918.

Eshel, Gidon and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” Earth Interactions, May 2005
“Challenge to Fishing: Keep Unwanted Species Out of Its Huge Nets,” Otto Pohl, The New York Times, July 29, 2003

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2nd edition, New York: Avon Books, 1990

J. Mason and P. Singer, The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, Rodale

Living Modestly Is Not Uncomfortable

By Katie Kish, January 27, 2008 11:58 pm

dumpster-diving.jpg

I hate that living modestly is starting to be equated with disregarding the comforts that we’ve been given… instead of a noble and earth saving way of life.

I have a group of friends who all live together. In a maximum 6 person house (4 “real” bedrooms) there are 13 people. They have no television, only a couple of them have a computer, when I go over there are rarely lights on and they in no way went out of their way to buy new furniture or anything for the house. On top of these smaller things they also bike around – no one owns a car – cook together with vegan, organic, dumpster dived food and they run the house on grey water.

Just a quick summary for those who don’t know – dumpster diving is when you take food out of a dumpster to eat it. A lot of people get a little grossed out by this thought however having worked in a grocery store I assure you there is more than plenty of completely fresh and fine food being thrown out. Before knowing people who dumpstered I often thought “why would those dumpsters be locked???” but now I know that for whatever reason some grocery stores don’t want people stealing their garbage.

Grey water is essentially just reusing water. Most houses that are being built in Guelph are already implementing grey water systems directly into the house by connecting washing machine water to toilets. Said friends put the plug in during a shower and use shower water to flush toilets. And to be honest – the toilets don’t get flushed that often anyway.

For me, this would be an almost impossible way of living. I hate being cold, they never have the heater one. I live on my computer, they don’t have internet. I drink a liter of milk a day, they never drink milk. I will never will with a roommate ever again in my entire life unless I’m getting married, they live with 12 other people. It takes a lot of dedication and passion for the environmental movement to live this kind of lifestyle.

When I told my brother and a friend of mine about this they had the same reaction “that’s disgusting”. … I said that you would just have to get used it, but then they corrected me. Neither meant that it was physically disgusting, but that it was disgusting to see people choosing to live like “the poor”. They felt as though this was a mockery to people who couldn’t afford food, who couldn’t afford to live with just one family in a house and who couldn’t afford to keep their hydro on. Instead you have a household of by no means rich, but by no mean poor… group of kids who are choosing to not work and live like that. They choose to eat “garbage”, to be cold and to stay in the dark.

I brushed it off at the time, but it is now one thing that has been running through my head day in and day out. The only reason grocery stores throw out “almost” expired food is because if they lower the price people won’t buy the higher priced food – so they just keep it until it doesn’t make sense to sell it at the same price point and then toss out the perfectly good food.

Granted, dumpstering started out as a way to beat economic struggling but soon became a haven for “freeganism” (those who want to escape the consumerist life and culture) so it is backpacking off something poor people WERE doing. But with grey water… 50 – 80% of all residential water waste is from grey water.

Is what they are doing inherently wrong because they’re not taking advantage of all that is available to them? Or is it noble because they are not adhering to an overly comfortable lifestyle knowing what damage it does to the world.

I personally take the latter – I think that if you’re going to live in guilt or if you know that what you’re doing is wrong for the world and wrong socially then you just flat out shouldn’t do it. Sure, my friends aren’t taking advantage of a lot of “comforts” that are available to them, but they can also say that they are contributing less to huge problems. Continuing to simply “enjoy” and frivolously go about life without considering the impact that this “comfortable” life is doing is far more of a disgusting way to live than to try and do something about it.

If everyone here in Canada (or anywhere, really…) lived like that we’d have way less water waste, more food to distribute to the actual poor, we would create less of a carbon footprint in general and we’d be more in touch with the “real world” as opposed to being consumed in television and internet.

I can understand that people who have grown up in Canada or “western” life styles wouldn’t be comfortable living like my friends. However, unless you’re able to say that you are helping or lowering your over all impact on the world as much as they are – you should just shut your mouth. Living like that is a choice, it is not a mockery of people who can’t afford more “comfort” it is a choice to do the right thing for the world.

Running on air

By Katie Kish, May 27, 2007 11:44 pm

Best. Idea. Ever.

All we need now are for the regulations of the US crash testings to be lowered and we can all run on air powered cars! It also doesn’t run that fast, but honestly – if the amount of people that drove within areas that are about 50 – 60 km/hr had one of these it would make a huge difference in the amount of emissions.

Not to mention there is no problem is traveling slower I know no one wants to do that, but it is an option. So is driving more carfully and putting more restritctions on who drives so that the crash testings don’t have to be so hardcore. Less speed and more mature and carful drivers would decrease the amount of accidents, for sure.

Running The Numbers

By Katie Kish, May 17, 2007 12:37 pm

I’ve always underrated a lot of art. I underrated the importance of art classes, art galleries and the meanings that art can portray. I always find it hard to see where the artist is coming from, unless there is really something there that I can relate to. The art that I found today most definitely had a thing or two I could relate to. Click on the pictures for a slightly bigger image of it, but check out the website for more detailed pictures, and other pictures.

2millionbottles.jpg

Two million plastic water bottles; the number of water bottles used in the US every 5 minutes

12point5million.jpg

Picture made out of 100 dollar bills equaling $12.5 million; the amount the US government spends every hour on the war in Iraq.

11000jetstreams.jpg

11 000 jet streams; the number of commercial flights made in the US every 8 hours.

60000plasticbags.jpg

60 000 plastic bags; number of plastic bags used in America ever 5 seconds.

426000cellphones.jpg

426 000 cell phones; the number of cell phones retired in the US every day.

And some people still wouldn’t think that something is horribly wrong with our societies.

While I’m talking about really cool and striking art, I might as well link to this really amazing picture of evolution.

evolution.jpg

Again, click to see it larger…which you REALLY need to do for this one.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy