Randal+Marks+Journal

2/6/12 Our discussion today in class about mutuality really got me thinking about modern agriculture. My grandfather owns a farm of about 60 acres in southern Pennsylvania. For him, its a retirement hobby; however, he is part of a community of active farmers. I've worked on his farm and some of the surrounding farms for parts of most summers. The thing that struck me today in class was the continued presence of mutuality in this rural community. I can think of multiple examples in which families from different farms helped each other out. One of these examples started a few years ago. It was time to bring in hay bales to the barn from the field, which is one of the most labor intensive activities at the farm. The entire family comes down to help lift the bales to the trailer, drive them to the barn, throw them on the elevator and stack them in the barn. That year, one of the new farmers who had just moved into the area came and helped us throw bales that afternoon. His act of community provided the spark for more development. For the next 4 summers, I worked on his farm myself. This past summer, he was raking his hay in order to dry it when his tractor-drawn rake broke. We were more than glad to lend our rake for him to finish the job. The sense of community and willingness to help each other out is still very much present in the rural communities of the United States. I feel that this is a remnant from the communities that colonists and early Americans developed in an effort to survive.

2/22/12 Our discussion of the "cuteness" with which we portray family farms as compared to the horror we often feel when discussing slaughterhouses seemed to hinge upon the idea that there was a difference between slaughtering for the family and slaughtering for the market. While I agree that there are differences in the responsibility one feels towards the product, the act is still the same. An animal is killed so that a human may eat. Ethically, there is little difference between the two scenarios, assuming that one of the scenario does not contain excessive pain for the animal. I believe that media and culture plays a larger role in our understanding of these slaughterhouses than the actual circumstances. First, we must notice that the first literature that is cited when having this discussion is almost always Upton Sinclair's //The Jungle.// This book was written with the intention of critiquing the capitalist system of slaughter. Instead, the public's imagination was captured by the brutality of the slaughterhouses and some of their more disgusting practices. The effect of the book was to bring about the creation of the FDA. Other parts of American culture served to further damage the reputation of the slaughterhouses. Cronon's book is filled with assaults upon Chicago as a city of vice and sin. The farmers and butchers who were losing business and power to the slaughterhouses in the major cities were quick to attack the city and make it look bad, unhealthy and corrupt in a bid to retain their economic position. These situations, combined with the increasing second nature of meat products, removed America's suburban class from the actuality of meat consumption. We are now disgusted by a fact of life, that our lives depend on the destruction of other lives. This destruction occurs on small farms and in industrial agriculture alike, and is somethine we should be more aware of as a society.

2/29/12 This is Sugarloaf Mountain in Preston Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania. It sits in the background of a cabin that my family owns and immediately came to mind when i was asked to come up with a picture of nature. The mountain is owned by the Bannicky family, who also own and operate the dairy farm at the base of the operation. The mountain has no development on it above their hay fields with the exception of a snowmobile trail that runs around the side. At some point in the first half of the 1900's the slopes were timbered. This is the extent of human activity on the mountain. This scene symbolizes nature to me because it is a place that has been lightly impacted by humans, but not dominated by them. I see nature in the relationship between humans and their surroundings in situations such as this.

4/9/12

[]

That is the wikipedia link to Centralia, the town that has been largely abandoned due to fires started in strip mines in 1962 and continue to burn today. This is another example of the difficulties of coal mining and pretty interesting story.

[]

This link from the U.S. Energy Information Administration contains a large amount of graphs and data on U.S. energy production and consumption over the past century. Graph 2 on Energy Consumption Per Capita was of interest considering our discussion today. We were operating under the assumption that we are using much more energy today than we were in the past. This chart shows that that is true to some extent when comparing current consumption to consumption levels in the fifties and earlier. Even compared to 1950, our per capita energy use has only increased 40%. While this is large, it seems less significant than one would expect when comparing 1950's society to modernity. The biggest surprise comes when comparing the 1970's to now. Since 1973, per capita energy consumption has actually decreased by 11%. As our reliance on energy has clearly increased since then, the reduction in energy consumption must come from increased efficiency in the system.

This leads me to my major point. While some of the decreased consumption levels most likely come from increased social awareness and consciousness in energy waste, it seems that technological advancements must assume the greatest responsibility for this decrease. Technology and science have greatly reduced the energy requirements for many simple tasks. Cars get much better mpg than in 1973. The movement away from incandescent bulbs have decreased home energy demands. Even simple things such as better insulation and larger shipping facilities have increased the efficiency of the system. Most of these developments have some sort of backing from the government but are the result of private development and striving to create a more efficient, sustainable business. A large part of the argument against coal development today was that too much money was being devoted to coal and oil subsidies and that we, as a society, are at fault for this development.

[]

This a link to an article pointing out that there are no subsidies for oil companies. While I freely admit this a politically motivated source, the basic point it makes is true. While oil companies, as many large companies do, may have lobbyists and lawyers to help them minimize taxes and maximize profits, they do not recieve direct payments or subsidies for oil production. Instead, it is farmers and ethanol producers who recieve these direct subsidies.

The point is, we are not still using an energy policy that is mostly fossil fuel based because of a massive conspiracy by big oil and crooked politicians, nor because Americans are too lazy, cheap and short sighted to embrace alternative energy sources, but rather because fossil fuel is currently the most efficient and plausible energy source we have. With time, this will change. Fossil fuel will either become so scarce, or prove to be so environmentally unfriendly as to become inefficient for use. It is most likely that technology that supercedes fossil fuel will be developed and the change from fossil fuel will be organic. This technology cannot be legislated into existence. Much like it was unnecessary to legislate the end of horse drawn transportation, it, in all probability, will be unnecessary to legislate the end of a fossil fuel based economy.

4/15

I found King Corn on netflix and finished watching it on Friday afternoon. I was really struck by the film and I'm not sure what to make of the situation. It seems easy to blame the farmers for this situation, however the film seems to go to lengths to avoid blaming the farmers themselves. I'm thinking specifically of the scene in which one of the farmer states that he is raising the corn to sell it and that its end use is not of his concern. However, I feel that farmers, as part of the corn lobby and as a voting bloc, bear some responsibility for the state of agricultural economics. The use of ethanol in gasoline is a direct response to both the green and corn lobbies. Gasoline now contains approximately 10% ethanol. Ethanol damages the fuel economy and of vehicles, and due to its ability to absorb water, can cause increased engine wear. Further, it is projected that at least 27% of corn will be turned into fuel ethanol in 2012. This added use of corn raises prices and adds to its value as a crop. The corn lobby and midwestern voting bloc are powerful enough to keep this industry subsidized and supported by the federal government despite increasing doubts over the effectiveness of ethanol and increased use of a food product.

Still, while I feel that the farmers deserve some blame for the rise of corn, I am torn as to whether this is actually a negative turn for the United States. King Corn did a terrific job of pointing out the negatives involved in our corn based food system, however, a viable replacement seems unlikely. Removal of subsidies or decreased consumption of corn products would seriously raise food prices. Rising food prices can have a serious dampening effect on the growth of the economy as peoples disposable income is increasingly reduced. While we can admit that there are drawbacks to the current system, we must develop new technologies or strategies do deliver cheap food to the masses before we can hope to do away with the industrial corn system that is developing.

4/18

I thought the following link may be of interest after our discussion of genetic modification and fear of science today in class.

[]

I am an environmental studies minor along with my chemistry major, and one day I plan on having a direct positive effect upon the environment in pollution control or technological research. However, whenever I discuss my career goals, I feel I must make it clear that I am no Environmentalist. I consider myself a conservation. The environmentalism movement is at best loosely based on science; I cannot agree with the social upheaval and sweeping changes it advocates. Instead, I hope to integrate the human experience with a sustainable and rational use of natural resources. Investment and understanding of emerging science is the key way to allow for sustainable methods for society and the natural world to co-exist.