Armando+Anzellini

Today's discussion, which focused on the industrialization of meat production, was very enlightening. I especially liked the way that Matt described meat becoming a commodity. The statistic of each head of cattle bringing a profit of 59 cents just put into perspective the cold separation that existed between the business and the actual dirty work. This was also shown in the book when Cronon described the luxuriousness of the negotiations building compared to the blood filled channels of the slaughterhouse right outside.
 * 2/22/2012**

The other part that really got to me was the fact that the butchers were pushed out of business and subsequently incorporated into this commercialized killing of animals that became more about profit than about food, more about the product than about the subsistence of humans. The problem I have is not even about the freshness or the quality, but about the dissonance that currently exists in a lot of our society that was caused by this commercialization.


 * 2/24/2012**

The degradation of the farmers contrasted with the idolization of nature and open spaces is a really problematic dichotomy for me, especially because it was driven by the consumerism of society, and the intensification of materialism after the industrial revolution. Although this might not be the best place for a philosophical rant, this degradation of the farmer was caused by the untethered of the period. The greed of the owners of the consumer goods companies created a system in which the people that work for them can no longer afford the goods that they are producing at the pay they are given. This is especiall true for the companies that distributed the farmers goods, and those that created a corporation out of the intensification of agriculture.

Why does our culture see this consumerism as a good thing? Why is " getting ahead" equivalent to owning more stuff or having access to "luxuries" that should be available to everyone? And the subservience of nature to the city still occurs today, even those environmentalist movements that believe themselves to be working for the good of nature are actually incresingly promoting the idea that we can control nature by planting new trees and the like (this obviously does not include those groups that only want to lessen the impact of humans by actively changing our destructive practices; there is a difference between trying to change ourselves and trying to change nature.)

Rancheria Falls, Hetch Hetchy Wilderness, Yosemite National Park, CA
 * My Idea of Nature**


 * 3/12/2012**

While reading Scott over the break, I had a moment of obvious high-modernism with my friend. She suggested the use of the roofs of buildings as productive gardens and small agricultural fields to increase the productivity of each plot of land in urban areas. This reminded me very strongly of Scott's mention that even the most capitalist ventures of high-modernism require governmental support. In the case of the rooftop gardens, the necessity for higher weight bearing capacity on these roofs would need a governmental mandate. Increase in productivity and the aesthetics of it all are main concerns of high-modernism. This threw me into a train of thought which ended in the California Academy of Sciences and their "living roof," which is a perfect example of what we had been discussing. Here are some pictures of the roof.


 * 03/26/2012**

Speaking today about the acequias of northern New Mexico makes me think of Scott's idea of organic growth of cities rather than the imposition of a system. Commercialism is a system and there are people out there trying to impose this on the communities that survive using their own system through sharing. The lady in the video was right, those that will suffer most are the poor that cannot afford the commodity that water will become. The idea that commercialism will bring economic prosperity to the region is one that is skewed to those that will gain sole access to the water. What the commodification of water will do in these arid regions is further increase the gap between the rich and the poor, and while it is true that some in the community will benefit, the entire community will suffer not only economically but emotionally since they will begin to lose the ties of sharing such an important resource. "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting"- Mark Twain. This only applies when water has become something to fight over, something that will give you power or standing, not when it is used as the people of northern New Mexico have, a a resource to be shared to better the community.