"So, we might ask...which different cultural practices matter more to maintaining collaborative intelligence and sustaining life?...What in our day-to-day lives or in our political and economic practices needs to be conserved, and what changed? These are questions that call us toward recognition of, and conscious participation in, a collaborative intelligence-that is, a dependence on a living system, where everything including our knowledge is created within an interactive web of communication, an ecology of mind."
-Rebecca Martusewicz, Education for Collaborative Intelligence
As Scott said in our discussions yesterday and today. This is where our philosophical rubber hits the road. Or in food terms, the lips kiss the chocolate! Our conversations were delicious, sweet, and soup for the heart and soul. First we had a great presentation by Mercy on Martusewics. Mercy did an excellent job of summarizing the text and applying it within both historical and modern contexts.
I thought she did an nice job of discussing how the ancient Zenu cultures in historic Columbia and their agricultural practices. There are many examples of ancient cultures living more harmoniously in relationship and in many ways a more sophisticated level of collaborative intelligence (as described in our text) than many of our post industrial cultures today. Examples that come to my mind include many aboriginal cultures in Austrailia, the Inuit cultures of North America, and the Lakota cultures that once occupied vast stretches of the Great Plains.
However, there are ancient examples that support the opposite position as well. Where humans were unable to form this sustainable relationship with the land. Two ancient examples include the deforestation of many parts of modern day Lebanon by ancient cultures and Easter Island being extreme examples of a relationship between humans and the natural environments they lived in being out of balance. As modern states and the huge technological structures are over layered across the fabric of older and more largely sustainable cultures and communities, the impacts can be devastating as demonstrated by this video of the impacts of large hydroelectric dams on the local indigenous communities in Columbia.
Mercy then explored this concept within the modern day examples of the Gulf Oil Spill and Hurricane Katrina which I thought was a wonderful application of Martusewicz's work. It was obvious in our small and class discussions to see the misapplication of technological intelligence and science in this horrific environmental catastrophe. Both the corporations and government entities involved failed to act within the framework Martusewics presented. As a result of this cognitive lapse and misapplication of ethics and corporate greed, people died needlessly in a catastrophic explosion, the surrounding ecosystems were seriously degraded, and many communities are seeing economic livelihoods that have existed for generations evaporate.
While BP and the government may be reporting that most of the oil has been collected or simply evaporated and disappeared. And that Mother Nature did her job and it looks like we are all going to be okay...amen (isn't it a nice way to start reducing payments to the affected workers and communities?), there are significant effects that (as evidenced by research in another oil spill in Alaska) will impact this region for decades if not longer.
My final thoughts on this event reflect back to Brower's concept of the ecological and cultural commons. What are the impacts of this event on other countries that share in the ecological well being of this region (Cuba, Mexico, Belize, etc...)? Do we have an obligation to them? I think so.
"Although the international community has managed to control population growth somewhat, we are still expected to have close to nine people on the planet by 2050. That's a big family to feed..."
-David Suzuki & David Taylor, The Big Picture
The familiar metaphor "soup for the soul" works here. For me this article was very fun to read in light of all the previous work we have done until this point. In my mind Suzuki seamlessly moves from the philosophical foundations of the deep ecology movement to praxis and activism. In this text and on his programs, Suzuki uses the language of science as a lens to for deconstructing presenting complex topics (in this case our agricultural and ecological systems directly connected with the intimate relationship we have with our food) in empowering ways for his audiences.
In my opinion Suzuki seems to argue that it is only through understanding of our ecological and evolutionary dependence upon these complex natural systems in partnership with the practice of "sound" science that will solve many of these complex environmental issues facing humanity. While I am used to experts who stand on the mountain yelling that only the experts can save us, David is fundamentally different than your traditional scientist or scientific solution.
While he may argue for both scientific and industrial reform, he also eloquently connects environmental change with members of the public. By example, in trying to protect the world's fisheries or our organic food systems he not argues for change in business practices and government reform, he shows viewers how their economic choices and actions can contribute to the solution as well.
In preparing my presentation on Suzuki I was enticed again and again by the passion evident the his "praxis" of science. In my experience, very few scientific experts have the knowledge, skills, expertise, and passion for change and act on them is ways that Suzuki does. Delicious and empowering soup for the soul indeed.
Film
As someone madly writing my final paper for this course, it was nice to take a break from reading and watch this documentary. Both Suzuki and Garcia examine our agricultural systems. Like Suzuki, the makers of this documentary are critically examining the dangers of industrializing our food systems. However, a key difference with Suzuki in this documentary is in how it describes the impact of science.
Garcia lays out a very convincing case about the dangers of genetically modifying our food. While some changes may initially appear benign such as enhancing flavor or shelf life, others are much more unsettling such as the infusion of insecticide production within plants or a "terminator" gene which kills the plants ability to produce viable seeds for future generations. The implication here, Garcia, argues is that farmers would be increasingly reliant on these mutant seeds which require chemical inputs from the corporations engineering them.
Given the apparent distrust of these sciences (rightfully so in my opinion) it would be interesting to see Suzuki's perspective on how science is presented in this documentary. There are clues in Suzuki's article about the ancient relationship between food and how humans gathered and eventually cultivated it. Suzuki rightfully argues, and I think Garcia would agree, that organic gardening is an ancient and intimate process by which humans used "sound science" to create the thousands of varieties of crops that are currently at risk by huge industrial monocultureral practices used in many countries today.
The answer, Suzuki and Garcia might argue, does not lie in the future but in our co-evolved relationships with these animals and plants in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment