I saw WALL-E yesterday, and now I have an urge to dissect it. I don't usually do so, since I actually dislike it when people over-analyze movies. But hey, what the hell.
Now, first off, don't be fooled by WALL-E's cutesy exterior; this may be a kids movie, but in name only. Sure, it was silly, and geared towards kids, but there was quite a lot going on under the surface. Science fiction is well-known for it's examination of the human condition and contemporary issues, and I think that the things that the creators of WALL-E decided to touch on are an interesting commentary on the issues of today.
The first, and most obvious, is consumerism. In WALL-E, humans have deserted planet earth to escape the massive amounts of trash they've created; the mountains of garbage have literally made the planet uninhabitable. In the spectacular vistas there are advertisements galore, giant super stores, gas stations large enough for fifty cars, all of which have the Buy n Large logo. It's the ultimate Wal-Mart.
Depicting the future earth as covered in trash may seem like an exaggeration, and maybe it is. I doubt we'll ever get that far in our excess. Still, stories about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a giant raft of plastic and other debris that accumulates due to the area's circular rotation, are eerily reminiscent of the possible future as shown in WALL-E.
A friend of mine, after we watched the movie, mentioned that she wished it had focused more on the environment. That would have been interesting, but I think it misses the point. By focusing on consumerism and excessive waste, the creators of WALL-E looked at the real cause of the environmental mess that we're in. Why are our forests and other natural habitats disappearing? Why is toxic waste finding its way into our rivers and oceans? How on earth did there get to be a giant raft of plastic in the middle of the sea? In the end it all comes down to stuff. We deplete our resources and destroy the natural world to make stuff. We create toxins through the manufacturing of stuff. And when we get tired of our stuff, it gets thrown away as waste.
Moving from the planet earth to aboard the spaceship Axiom one finds more social commentary. Much has been made of the humans and how fat they are in the movie; they've become so dependent on machines and robots that they never leave their hover chairs. But what's more interesting, at least in my view, is what the humans on Axiom do. Their interactions are regulated to talking to one another on holographic screens, so much so that even when they're floating right next to each other they don't look at each other. They just watch their screens.
Much of our interaction in the developed world these days is through technology, be it texting on a cell phone, posting on web forums, or conversing through email or instant messaging. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; new communications technologies have opened up faster ways of doing business, ways to talk to people abroad, and ways to connect with people who have similar interests but you'd never meet in real life. What WALL-E shows us, though, is that perhaps, like most things, this could be taken to far; in the end, nothing beats face-to-face interaction, and if we were to lose that we'd be losing a lot.
I could go on—how the "meals in a cup" found on Axiom are a commentary on our fast food society of today, for example. But I'd like to skip the end of the movie. (SPOILERS AHEAD!)
There's been a lot of talk lately about "green technologies" and how they're the future. They're being touted as the answer to our prayers, as the solution to our environmental, perhaps even our economic woes. But there's something fishy about them in my mind. We're led to believe that with the right technology we'll be able to wean ourselves of fossil fuels and go on our merry, over-consuming ways.
I do believe that green technologies are the answer, but there's a catch. I don't think we'll be able to live the same lives we do today. Will we fall back into the Dark Ages? Hardly. But there's something terribly ironic in the idea that we'll fix all our problems, which stem from our consumerist culture, by buying more stuff just because it's "green."
When the humans in WALL-E returned to earth, they returned to an earth in which technology had failed it. The plan to clean up the earth using robots like WALL-E has failed, and what do these humans do? They grow plants. The radically change their lives, moving from a consumerist culture to one that grows things, and builds things. And it's this change that turns the earth green again, not a continuation of their previous lives.
It makes you wonder what we'll have to do to make our earth green again.
Showing posts with label editorial/opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial/opinion. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Day 15 (one day late)
Ooo, the halfway point! Funfunfun. ^_^
I just finished a really interesting book by Michael Pollan called The Omnivore's Dilemma. This isn't really a review of the book or a discussion, both of which can be found elsewhere (most notably here), but more of what it's made me ponder in a roundabout way.
Rough draft, as usual, and a rather rambling one at that. I expect it stretches the "creative" guideline, but I'm not picky. ;)
***
I don't often think about food. Oh, I like it all right, and sometimes my mum or dad will ask me what I'd like to eat for dinner, forcing me to contemplate it for a short while. And I suppose that when I remember events in my life, like trips abroad or Christmas's spent with family, I, like many people, inevitably think about the foods that accompanied them. But where our food actually comes from, well, that's something that doesn't usually cross my mind when chewing on a ham sandwich.
Of course, this is partly because I have a fairly good idea of our foods' origins, a better idea, I'd like to think, than some people out there. I've read the articles about the factory farms, the toxic retention ponds of full shit, the chickens forced to live so close together they eat each other, the algae blooms caused by agricultural runoff, the perils of monocultures, and the death of the small farm.
Thinking about these things while eating would put anyone off their dinner, so instead, when my thoughts do stray to my food, I comfort myself with flimsy reassurances that my mum buys organic, so it must be okay.
Reading Pollan's book, among other things, forced my to examine my ideas and conceptions about food. What I discovered made a lot of sense based on my general world-view, but there were some surprises in there, too. It's interesting to see what you learn about yourself when forced to ponder something relatively new.
I now know that I don't want to be a vegetarian, and I don't think I ever will. I had recently considered whether I should try it, and reading this book help me sort things out. For me, eating other animals is part of life, and not something of which we should be ashamed. Any moral qualms I have are not about killing innocent animals, but their quality of life, the environmental impact of how they're raised, and how they are killed. So instead of eschewing meat entirely, I've decided to make sure I know where it comes from and to eat less of it. It's a grayer position, but then not everything is black and white.
Then there's hunting—Pollan's descriptions of hunting actually made me want to try it. Which was sort of disturbing, until I realized my views on hunting hadn't suddenly morphed into that of the stereotypical sport hunter who owns more guns than seems entirely necessary. I still don't think hunting for sport is right; if you hunt an animal you should do so with the intent of eating it. But the idea that I might actually want to experience hunting once or twice, well, that's certainly new.
Finally, there's that flimsy reasoning that I don't have to think about my food because a lot of it's organic. Turns out that organic food isn't synonymous with small family farms and happy little animals. I suppose if I weren't so naive I would've figured this out sooner; organic agriculture has had to become more and more industrial to meet growing demand.
***
Okay, not sure how to end it. Since it isn't anything special, I think that'll do. Rambles don't need conclusions. ^_^
I just finished a really interesting book by Michael Pollan called The Omnivore's Dilemma. This isn't really a review of the book or a discussion, both of which can be found elsewhere (most notably here), but more of what it's made me ponder in a roundabout way.
Rough draft, as usual, and a rather rambling one at that. I expect it stretches the "creative" guideline, but I'm not picky. ;)
***
I don't often think about food. Oh, I like it all right, and sometimes my mum or dad will ask me what I'd like to eat for dinner, forcing me to contemplate it for a short while. And I suppose that when I remember events in my life, like trips abroad or Christmas's spent with family, I, like many people, inevitably think about the foods that accompanied them. But where our food actually comes from, well, that's something that doesn't usually cross my mind when chewing on a ham sandwich.
Of course, this is partly because I have a fairly good idea of our foods' origins, a better idea, I'd like to think, than some people out there. I've read the articles about the factory farms, the toxic retention ponds of full shit, the chickens forced to live so close together they eat each other, the algae blooms caused by agricultural runoff, the perils of monocultures, and the death of the small farm.
Thinking about these things while eating would put anyone off their dinner, so instead, when my thoughts do stray to my food, I comfort myself with flimsy reassurances that my mum buys organic, so it must be okay.
Reading Pollan's book, among other things, forced my to examine my ideas and conceptions about food. What I discovered made a lot of sense based on my general world-view, but there were some surprises in there, too. It's interesting to see what you learn about yourself when forced to ponder something relatively new.
I now know that I don't want to be a vegetarian, and I don't think I ever will. I had recently considered whether I should try it, and reading this book help me sort things out. For me, eating other animals is part of life, and not something of which we should be ashamed. Any moral qualms I have are not about killing innocent animals, but their quality of life, the environmental impact of how they're raised, and how they are killed. So instead of eschewing meat entirely, I've decided to make sure I know where it comes from and to eat less of it. It's a grayer position, but then not everything is black and white.
Then there's hunting—Pollan's descriptions of hunting actually made me want to try it. Which was sort of disturbing, until I realized my views on hunting hadn't suddenly morphed into that of the stereotypical sport hunter who owns more guns than seems entirely necessary. I still don't think hunting for sport is right; if you hunt an animal you should do so with the intent of eating it. But the idea that I might actually want to experience hunting once or twice, well, that's certainly new.
Finally, there's that flimsy reasoning that I don't have to think about my food because a lot of it's organic. Turns out that organic food isn't synonymous with small family farms and happy little animals. I suppose if I weren't so naive I would've figured this out sooner; organic agriculture has had to become more and more industrial to meet growing demand.
***
Okay, not sure how to end it. Since it isn't anything special, I think that'll do. Rambles don't need conclusions. ^_^
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Day 7 (one day late)
Continued from Friday. I decided to to a bit of editing, so this is the whole shebang. I've managed 1,118 words, which isn't too bad. Not sure if I'll ever be able flesh out any of my ideas to the required length (1,200-1,400 words) for submitting to the The Folio Weekly, but it was a fun attempt, anyway. It gets a bit iffy towards the end; I think I may've lost the plot slightly. That's all right, though. Perhaps I will work on it a bit more, flesh it out just a tad and work on the flow and such.
Anyway, I'll (hopefully) have two "days" up tomorrow, to make up for my slip-up yesterday.
***
Solving for Pattern
Watching the news these days is a bit like watching a scene in an apocalypse movie. The main character changes the channels, each time coming to a news anchor detailing some aspect of the catastrophe(s). "In the ongoing food crisis, riots have spread to Egypt and Haiti," intones one woman. "Oil prices reached another record high today," drones an economics analyst. Another click on the remote and there's someone talking about global warming. "Scientists fear that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted..."
At first the characters dismiss the events as coincidences. They fail to see the larger picture, to see that all the events are connected and that the world as they know it is coming to an end. Then slowly it dawns on them, but it's too late to change anything; all they can do is hope to survive the coming storm.
Of course, the analogy does fall short. We’re not facing an army of zombies, for instance. That’s a fairly simple adversary to comprehend, at least once you get past the fact that they're the living undead and here to eat your brains. Just remember to aim for the head, and for god's sake, whatever you do, don’t get bitten.
But this, this is different. We’re not facing a future with one "enemy," but many. And while some people are still at the oblivious, TV watching stage (whether by choice or through ignorance), the rest of us, if we're not completely insane, are probably starting to get a bit worried. We can't bomb the hell out of global warming, and while invading a country to get at their oil reserves might work in the short term, it certainly won't work for long. (And no, that isn't a veiled reference to Iraq. If peak oil comes to pass, and the worse predictions come true, there will be many wars waged for the control of scarce resources.)
So what is there to do? Many people across the world are working on solutions; campaigning for legislation curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, inventing new green technologies, educating others about speculation and its role in rising food and oil prices, speaking about the changes global warming could, and most likely will, bring to our planet. Their efforts are commendable, and will make some measure of a difference, but the challenges now facing us require a response far beyond anything humanity has ever orchestrated. Not only that, but I think they require a whole new way of thinking about problems and their solutions, and one possible contender is the concept of "solving for pattern."
Wendell Berry coined the phrase in an article of the same name. Originally it was applied to agriculture; however, as Berry indicated in his article, the concept can be applied to just about any problem. And while it was first written about nearly thirty years ago, I feel it's just as relevant today as it was then, perhaps even more so.
Essentially, solving for pattern is the practice of looking beyond the initial problem, engaging in a holistic approach, if you will. In his essay Berry defined a "good solution" as, among other things, one that solves several problems at once and doesn’t cause any new ones. Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest, defines solving for pattern as something that "arises naturally when one perceives problems as symptoms of systemic failure, rather than as random errors requiring anodynes."
Well, duh, you think. Of course a good solution shouldn't cause any new problems. To continue our rather silly analogy, it would be a bit like nuking the zombies without giving a single thought to the nuclear fallout, or the humans still in the city.
The problem is, our efforts to make things better do often make them worse. In a more realistic example, consider the current biofuels issue. On the surface the idea seemed sound—make fuel from plant matter and therefore reduce our dependence on oil, a resource which, sooner or later, we'll have to do without. Biofuels were hailed as the solution to all our problems; understandably, really, since a lot of us are still looking for that perfect fuel that will take the place of gasoline. Trading one fuel for another at the gas pump seems a lot simpler than changing our entire energy economy.
Such a simplified view hasn’t severed us well as we now know; our "green" solution to the energy crisis has had ramifications in areas far beyond fossil fuel usage. Land that once grew food now grows fuel, and while the biolfuels' guilt in the recent increases in food prices hasn't been agreed upon, the fact that the grain it takes to fill an SUV once would feed a person for an entire year speaks volumes.
If less land is being used for farming food, then more will have to be found, which brings us to the next unforeseen consequence of biofuels. A search for farmland inevitably destroys forests, grasslands, and wetlands, which, besides being home to many species and indigenous people, ironically store carbon. One of the solutions intended to help curb global warming is actually causing more carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere.
Even biofuel's claim to reduce the use of fossil fuels seems suspect these days. To grow crops requires fertilizers and pesticides, manufactured using fossil fuels, and tractors have to get their fuel from somewhere. Some people have gone as far to say that we might as well just pump regular gas into our cars, for all the "hidden" fuel costs that go into making biofuels.
So obviously it isn't simple, taking all these consequences into account. Or is it? That's the thing about solving for pattern; very often the best solutions are good because they're simple.
Sustainable agriculture, which Wendell Berry wrote about in his essay, is an example of a solution that solves for pattern. As Hawken explains in Blessed Unrest, it helps to solve quite a few problems: it reduces agricultural runoff, since there are few or no man-made fertilizers and pesticides used; it helps reduce carbon emissions and therefore global warming, because, unlike industrial farming, organic farming sequesters carbon; it promotes healthy soil, because it reduces soil erosion and the depletion of nutrients. And those aren't even half of the benefits of sustainable agriculture.
Solving for pattern, then, is not only possible, but a viable way of approaching the challenges we face today. Just think—solutions that not only take the big picture into account and address several or more problems, but ones that don’t cause any more glitches. It might just work, if we look at things a slightly different way, and watch out for those zombies.
***
[Edit: Reposted here on my other blog.]
Anyway, I'll (hopefully) have two "days" up tomorrow, to make up for my slip-up yesterday.
***
Solving for Pattern
Watching the news these days is a bit like watching a scene in an apocalypse movie. The main character changes the channels, each time coming to a news anchor detailing some aspect of the catastrophe(s). "In the ongoing food crisis, riots have spread to Egypt and Haiti," intones one woman. "Oil prices reached another record high today," drones an economics analyst. Another click on the remote and there's someone talking about global warming. "Scientists fear that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted..."
At first the characters dismiss the events as coincidences. They fail to see the larger picture, to see that all the events are connected and that the world as they know it is coming to an end. Then slowly it dawns on them, but it's too late to change anything; all they can do is hope to survive the coming storm.
Of course, the analogy does fall short. We’re not facing an army of zombies, for instance. That’s a fairly simple adversary to comprehend, at least once you get past the fact that they're the living undead and here to eat your brains. Just remember to aim for the head, and for god's sake, whatever you do, don’t get bitten.
But this, this is different. We’re not facing a future with one "enemy," but many. And while some people are still at the oblivious, TV watching stage (whether by choice or through ignorance), the rest of us, if we're not completely insane, are probably starting to get a bit worried. We can't bomb the hell out of global warming, and while invading a country to get at their oil reserves might work in the short term, it certainly won't work for long. (And no, that isn't a veiled reference to Iraq. If peak oil comes to pass, and the worse predictions come true, there will be many wars waged for the control of scarce resources.)
So what is there to do? Many people across the world are working on solutions; campaigning for legislation curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, inventing new green technologies, educating others about speculation and its role in rising food and oil prices, speaking about the changes global warming could, and most likely will, bring to our planet. Their efforts are commendable, and will make some measure of a difference, but the challenges now facing us require a response far beyond anything humanity has ever orchestrated. Not only that, but I think they require a whole new way of thinking about problems and their solutions, and one possible contender is the concept of "solving for pattern."
Wendell Berry coined the phrase in an article of the same name. Originally it was applied to agriculture; however, as Berry indicated in his article, the concept can be applied to just about any problem. And while it was first written about nearly thirty years ago, I feel it's just as relevant today as it was then, perhaps even more so.
Essentially, solving for pattern is the practice of looking beyond the initial problem, engaging in a holistic approach, if you will. In his essay Berry defined a "good solution" as, among other things, one that solves several problems at once and doesn’t cause any new ones. Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest, defines solving for pattern as something that "arises naturally when one perceives problems as symptoms of systemic failure, rather than as random errors requiring anodynes."
Well, duh, you think. Of course a good solution shouldn't cause any new problems. To continue our rather silly analogy, it would be a bit like nuking the zombies without giving a single thought to the nuclear fallout, or the humans still in the city.
The problem is, our efforts to make things better do often make them worse. In a more realistic example, consider the current biofuels issue. On the surface the idea seemed sound—make fuel from plant matter and therefore reduce our dependence on oil, a resource which, sooner or later, we'll have to do without. Biofuels were hailed as the solution to all our problems; understandably, really, since a lot of us are still looking for that perfect fuel that will take the place of gasoline. Trading one fuel for another at the gas pump seems a lot simpler than changing our entire energy economy.
Such a simplified view hasn’t severed us well as we now know; our "green" solution to the energy crisis has had ramifications in areas far beyond fossil fuel usage. Land that once grew food now grows fuel, and while the biolfuels' guilt in the recent increases in food prices hasn't been agreed upon, the fact that the grain it takes to fill an SUV once would feed a person for an entire year speaks volumes.
If less land is being used for farming food, then more will have to be found, which brings us to the next unforeseen consequence of biofuels. A search for farmland inevitably destroys forests, grasslands, and wetlands, which, besides being home to many species and indigenous people, ironically store carbon. One of the solutions intended to help curb global warming is actually causing more carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere.
Even biofuel's claim to reduce the use of fossil fuels seems suspect these days. To grow crops requires fertilizers and pesticides, manufactured using fossil fuels, and tractors have to get their fuel from somewhere. Some people have gone as far to say that we might as well just pump regular gas into our cars, for all the "hidden" fuel costs that go into making biofuels.
So obviously it isn't simple, taking all these consequences into account. Or is it? That's the thing about solving for pattern; very often the best solutions are good because they're simple.
Sustainable agriculture, which Wendell Berry wrote about in his essay, is an example of a solution that solves for pattern. As Hawken explains in Blessed Unrest, it helps to solve quite a few problems: it reduces agricultural runoff, since there are few or no man-made fertilizers and pesticides used; it helps reduce carbon emissions and therefore global warming, because, unlike industrial farming, organic farming sequesters carbon; it promotes healthy soil, because it reduces soil erosion and the depletion of nutrients. And those aren't even half of the benefits of sustainable agriculture.
Solving for pattern, then, is not only possible, but a viable way of approaching the challenges we face today. Just think—solutions that not only take the big picture into account and address several or more problems, but ones that don’t cause any more glitches. It might just work, if we look at things a slightly different way, and watch out for those zombies.
***
[Edit: Reposted here on my other blog.]
Friday, June 13, 2008
Day 6
There's a free magazine that comes out every Tuesday in my area called The Folio Weekly. It's a fun read—I love their movie reviews, and they often report on local news of interest, such as environmental goings on in North Florida.
They've also got a backpage editorial, and anyone can write one and submit it for consideration:
***
Solving for Pattern
Watching the news these days is a bit like watching a scene in an apocalypse movie. The main character changes the channels, each time coming to a news anchor detailing some aspect of the catastrophe(s). "In the ongoing food crisis, riots have spread to Egypt and Haiti," intones one woman. "Oil prices reached another record high today," drones an economics analyst. Another click on the remote and there's someone talking about global warming. "Scientists fear that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted..."
At first the characters dismiss the events as coincidences. They fail to see the larger picture, to see that all the events are connected and that the world as they know it is coming to an end. Then slowly it dawns on them, but it’s too late to change anything; all they can do is hope to survive the coming storm.
Of course, the analogy does fall short. We’re not facing an army of zombies, for instance. That’s a fairly simple adversary to comprehend, at least once you get past the fact that they’re the living undead and here to eat your brains. Just remember to aim for the head, and for god’s sake, whatever you do, don’t get bitten.
But this, this is different. We’re not facing a future with one "enemy," but many. And while some people are still at the oblivious, TV watching stage (whether by choice or through ignorance), the rest of us, if we're not completely insane, are probably starting to get a bit worried. We can't bomb the hell out of global warming, and while invading a country to get to their oil reserves might work in the sort term, it certainly won't work for long. (And no, that isn't a veiled reference to Iraq. If peak oil comes to pass, as many predict, they'll probably be many wars waged for scarce resources.)
So what is there to do? Many people across the world are working on solutions; campaigning for legislation curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, educating others about speculation and its role in rising food and oil prices, speaking about the changes global warming could, and most likely will, bring to our planet.
But the challenges facing us require a response far beyond anything humanity has ever orchestrated. I personally think they will require a whole new way of thinking about problems and their solution, and I think one contender is the concept of "solving for pattern."
***
Okay, time to get some sleep for a change. To be continued tomorrow. [Edit: Continued Sunday.]
Oh, and did I mention this is an editorial? I know some people will disagree with my assessment of the situation, but please, no flames. ;}
They've also got a backpage editorial, and anyone can write one and submit it for consideration:
These are unpaid submissions that should be between 1,200-1,400 words in length. They can be on any subject, but topics of local interest and/or concern are given preference.Anyway this is my attempt to get ideas down, a practice of sorts. No idea what I should write about when submitting, but this'll do for now.
***
Solving for Pattern
Watching the news these days is a bit like watching a scene in an apocalypse movie. The main character changes the channels, each time coming to a news anchor detailing some aspect of the catastrophe(s). "In the ongoing food crisis, riots have spread to Egypt and Haiti," intones one woman. "Oil prices reached another record high today," drones an economics analyst. Another click on the remote and there's someone talking about global warming. "Scientists fear that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted..."
At first the characters dismiss the events as coincidences. They fail to see the larger picture, to see that all the events are connected and that the world as they know it is coming to an end. Then slowly it dawns on them, but it’s too late to change anything; all they can do is hope to survive the coming storm.
Of course, the analogy does fall short. We’re not facing an army of zombies, for instance. That’s a fairly simple adversary to comprehend, at least once you get past the fact that they’re the living undead and here to eat your brains. Just remember to aim for the head, and for god’s sake, whatever you do, don’t get bitten.
But this, this is different. We’re not facing a future with one "enemy," but many. And while some people are still at the oblivious, TV watching stage (whether by choice or through ignorance), the rest of us, if we're not completely insane, are probably starting to get a bit worried. We can't bomb the hell out of global warming, and while invading a country to get to their oil reserves might work in the sort term, it certainly won't work for long. (And no, that isn't a veiled reference to Iraq. If peak oil comes to pass, as many predict, they'll probably be many wars waged for scarce resources.)
So what is there to do? Many people across the world are working on solutions; campaigning for legislation curtailing carbon dioxide emissions, educating others about speculation and its role in rising food and oil prices, speaking about the changes global warming could, and most likely will, bring to our planet.
But the challenges facing us require a response far beyond anything humanity has ever orchestrated. I personally think they will require a whole new way of thinking about problems and their solution, and I think one contender is the concept of "solving for pattern."
***
Okay, time to get some sleep for a change. To be continued tomorrow. [Edit: Continued Sunday.]
Oh, and did I mention this is an editorial? I know some people will disagree with my assessment of the situation, but please, no flames. ;}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
