Anderson's article was by far the most controversial piece that we read for Thursday. The article discussed how technology can be tailored to create "ideal humans". The article reminded me of much that I recall from Holocaust literature. People can choose what sort of children to have, and they can pick the characteristics that they deem "best" and delete (in one way or another) those children that do not have those desired characteristics. For example, someone who favors the environment might choose to have shorter children that have an aversion to meat and great empathy for others around the globe who have to suffer through the effects of their Earth pollution. One other suggestion broached in the article is that people could be limited to one or two offspring. However, as China's one-child policy has illustrated, if people are forced to only have one child, they tend to get rid of female offspring (in one way or another). If the same could be done for other characteristics, think of how the world would look. It would lack the diversity of phenotypes and genotypes that makes the world such a cool place to live and reproduce in.
Somerville's article addressed how developed countries try to institute their own morals on developing countries, often by insisting that they not follow their practices. Now, we are trying to get our own pollution down, and we are also realizing the errors of pollution in general. However, the pollution problem mainly stems from Western greed, in one way or another. Western greed has led to a massive number of new power plants and factories, putting out waste that has resulted in greenhouse gas pollution. Western greed has turned rainforests into banana plantations, logging land, and cattle farms, resulting in more greenhouse gas pollution. Through this, we have gotten rich, at least some people have, and these rich people are now trying to pass international laws to make sure that others don't follow their example. However, they have already reaped the benefits of this, and they are not willing to share any of the wealth that they have earned at great environmental costs. It seems like, and is indeed, a double standard.
FOOD
The Chicago food pamphlet highlighted that many neighborhoods, particularly the poor and minority communities, have unequal access to local grocery stores and non-fast-food restaurants. These people are at an extreme disadvantage, and suffer negative health consequences. In fact, these people, through obesity, diabetes and other diseases, can even have their life shortened. In the US, 6 in 10 people are overweight, and 1 in 3 are obese. In addition, an average American consumes half of their meals outside their home (i.e. in restaurants). Finally, race, education level and income are the biggest indicators of future health. These statements alone define how much class distinction really effects America. As I told my students while discussing Hinduism, the US has a far more stringent class system than most Americans realize, particularly those privileged enough to attend the U of I as an undergrad.
Pollan discussed the changing food culture of our world, particularly the change from hunter-gatherer society, where food was an integral part of life and we had to work and care for each meal, to one where food is a by-product, something that is disposable, we take for granted, and never see the origin of. The closest we get to gathering and hunting food is shopping for food in one of the supermarkets in town. These establishments provide many different food options, regardless of the season, all in one location. We no longer have a relationship with wild animals and plants, instead we crave McDonalds french fries and TV dinners. Through this, most Americans have distanced themselves even from the raw ingredients through which their food emerges. Finally, corn plays too important a role in the US food economy. We have basically become a monocropped society, where everything from flour to animal feed to syrup and starch comes from corn.
No comments:
Post a Comment