Food Inc

This movie had a huge impact on me. The facts about the food industry were very suprising and astonishing. The treatment of these animals, which will become our food, was what grabbed me the most and is absolutely inhumane. I mean yeah, they're going to die anyway, but that doesn't mean we should treat them like garbage. With these cows and chickens standing and eating in their own feces, it can't be healthy for them, which makes their meat unhealthy for us. And the fact that the industries have to bathe the meat in, I think it was chlorine, makes me wonder about what else goes on behind closed doors.

Also, why not have these cows eat what they're genetically made to eat? GRASS. It grows naturally, their manure fertilizes it, and its healthy for the cow. I mean I get it, corn is cheap and you have to wait for grass to grow back, but isn't it worth the risk of not getting E-coli into the meat? It's crazy how if one cow spreads the bacteria and it gets into the raw meat, then about 25% of the meat distributed to America is bad and dangerous and needs to be recalled. And if that happens then the company can't even be shut down by the FDA. What's the point of such an agency if they have no power over the thing thats most important? Its BS how these companies have so much power and I am totally against them. But what can I do? I can try to eat organically and try to buy from local farmer's markets but I dont think I can afford to do that right now. I've already boycotted fast food (because of this movie), not completely yet though because the food is so cheap and tastes so good! But I'm trying and am looking into ways to influence a change in this multi-million dollar company ran food industry. I never thought MY FOOD would be so controlled by a big shot company that seems to have no moral ethics about the simplest aspect of life, eating.

Consumption (Accidentally posted on main course blog too)

Generally, I try to watch my consumption on things that have an affect on the environment. And I think I do a pretty good job compared to my peers. My biggest thing right now is recycling. I recycle almost everything; mainly plastics, glass, cardboard, and aluminum. Recycling helps the environment because we reuse things instead of putting energy into making new one. I've found that it also saves a lot of trash bags from being used. This in turn saves me money and makes one less thing that I use. Also, I don't have a car, which means I don't drive much at all.

But on the other hand, I do consume quite a bit. I'll admit that even though I don't own a car, I use one whenever I have access. I'm not a big fan a walking places, especially in the cold, early morning. I used to have a bike and used it quite a bit, but now that I don't have one anymore, I drive a lot more often. Also, I own a lot of electronics that probably use a lot of energy. I try to keep my electric use down when I can by turning off lights when I leave a room and things like that. Awhile back I found out that just leaving a charger plugged into the wall without it charging anything uses a lot of energy, so I try to keep that to a minimum.

Materialism is something that I try to stay away from. I think its a huge problem in this country because we have so much access to pretty much anything we want. But in reality, we don't need a majority of these things that supposedly make our lives better. Things like a huge TV's, big trucks, and any luxery that uses electricity. People like nice things, and I get that, but the real question nowadays is do we really need them?

Writing About Readings Assignment

Matt Ackroyd

Writing About Readings

For the two readings I chose What We Talk About When We Talk About Wilderness by Ted Kerasote, and Cultured or Crabbed by Gary Snyder. Both readings discuss briefly the importance of the “wild,” and how society as well as individuals have an effect or understand their effect on wildlife.

Both authors weave politics and human influence into their articles, adding historical background and scope to the question of how human’s have perceived and are perceiving nature. This tactic is successful, but comes across better in Kerasote’s essay. Starting off discussing the founding of America, Kerasote instantly has the reader’s attention by adding informative and intriguing information in regards to how originally Europeans found America to be untamed. He goes on to argue that America was certainly not completely wild at the time of Christopher’s find because aboriginal people had been working, traveling and naming the land for many decades. Instantly, I was fascinated by this claim, as I’m sure his many readers were as well. It was an interesting philosophical argument on what we define as wild. He then goes on noting various examples of what we typically define as wild, where the word wild came from, and what he personally believes is “wild.”

This tactic of using historical evidence as support for an argument is also seen in Snyder’s piece. Although less effective, Snyder has a few references to historical instances to focus on understanding the differences between nature and wild.

Both authors are attempting to define wild and both seem to draw the conclusion that wild is nature that is untouched or not influenced by humans. They seem to use this argument to entice their reader to think and analyze wildlife as something that is out of our control, whereas we use the term “nature” to support our goals of controlling it. It does not become automatically evident that this is the argument until the end of both pieces.

Both writers seem to be targeting the masses. Neither articles seem to be targeted toward historians or environmental enthusiasts, but instead give insightful information so people can understand where we as humans fit into the bigger picture of nature and wildlife.

In Kerasote’s article, he tries to put the reader in context with nature and wildlife. He brings together the description of the founding our country, the influence of people and religion on our diverse wildlife and how we are all apart and are contributing to the destruction of our beautiful wild places. By putting the individual in context to their surroundings using imagery of the beautiful national parks, referencing grizzly bears and mountain lions, Kerasote is successful in drawing parallels between the individual and his or her’s surroundings.

Snyder uses similar approaches when he asks his audience to consider how we know nature and how we know the difference between nature and wild. Instantly the reader is involved with the writer and his work. Using this approach creates and fosters a reader-writer relationship. Snyder goes on to argue that there are two kinds of knowing. He tells the reader that there is what we know which helps us enhance public life and save endangered species by rebuilding wildlife through the process of national parks and planting trees, and then there’s other ways of learning that involve us going out into the world and learning from experience. At first I was a little confused by this description, but it becomes clear in the end that Snyder was setting up his argument. He wanted to connect with the reader, and than toward the end of the article he brings us back to the beginning by saying that nature is not endangered wilderness, and instead is a result of its own natural responses and cycles. Snyder brings the reader into the piece throughout the article by talking directly to his audience. Whether it’s when he is referencing the new Earth First! movement or telling us the critical difference in the meaning between nature and wild nature, Snyder really seems to want to make personal connections between his content and his reader.

Although both authors offer compelling arguments to enhance reader’s understanding of the importance of nature, they have some flaws. Neither really offers a solution to America’s divergence from nature. If they did it was not a concrete solution, nor was it one that really sheds hope on the future of man and nature relationship. I was expecting both authors to offer either drastic solutions such as giving up on industry or protesting with group A or group B, but they failed to do so. Briefly Snyder talks about the progression of green movements, but he doesn’t really advice his readers to take action. Instead it seems as if both authors are simply raising awareness to the issue, and are briefly opening their reader’s eyes to the “bigger picture.” This also complicated my understanding of whom they were talking to. In the descriptions of the authors I found some insight onto whom they typically write for. Kerasote is known for writing for outdoors magazines, and Snyder is considered one of the most important contemporary nature writers whose article was first published in a book titled The Practices of the Wild. It says he is arguing for a deeper understanding of environmental politics. Although the essay could be targeted for politicians or journalists, it is written like Kerasote’s essay where it seems to be targeted for all people. It would make sense that both of these essays are for the general public because they include such basic information regarding environmentalism, and draw on basic comparisons between human and nature. Instead of being overloaded with references to laws, environmental constituents, lobbyists or go into great detail regarding environmental hazards and changes over the course of human history. This leads me to believe that the authors didn’t want to create the article in a way that would confuse the common person, and instead have formed compelling articles to tackle today’s environmental issues.

In a climate that has become more open to environmental issues I feel as if interested individuals who are looking to define their place and outlook in regards to nature would accept both of these articles. Both authors offer inviting and informative information for those who are willing and open to reading it. Neither attack their audience nor demand their audience to think one way or another. Instead, the authors form their arguments beneath detail and rhetoric as to not make their opinions too obvious and instead sound more like a friend speaking about today’s environmental issues to another friend. Such articles are refreshing in today’s media where you see too often brash and invasive arguments that scare people away from thinking one way or the other. It seems as if both authors have a love and appreciation of nature, and are simply trying to speak to the world about what the importance of wild, nature and us is and isn’t.

My View on "Wilderness"

I've always thought of wilderness as a place where it is almost 100% nature, meaning that is a wild, natural place where animals and plants can coincide without human interference. And I've always found it fascinating to be out in the wild, alone and completely surrounded by nature. It comes as an escape from the busy city lifestyle, even if it is small town, because it is just me and nature with no worries or stresses. There's something about being completely isolated in the wild that is very peaceful to me; a place where I can think freely about anything I want with no distractions.

"The Trouble with Wilderness" has not changed my conception of wilderness, but it has instilled some thoughts that I found interesting. For example, how in the earlier days, people thought of wilderness as an evil place where the devil can reach you. I found that to be a completely ignorant thought because, in my opinion, "the devil" has more influence in the dense, human populated places where people and things like the media can pressure someone to go against their will. How can the wilderness pressure someone go against their will? I don't see how it can, in fact, I think it is where you go to think freely and define your own morals without any outside influence.

I also found the statements about the sublime places to be interesting. The places that Cronon mentions, although I've never been personally but seen on TV, are truly amazing features of this Earth that words cannot simply describe. Now I am not very religious, but I find it hard to fathom that a place like the Grand Canyon was formed by a river over millions of years. But I also can't agree that is God's creation. But I do agree that it is a sublime place, because it is so amazing. I find a lot of places to be sublime though. Places like Bong Hill here in Athens continue to amaze me. For those that don't know of Bong Hill, its the hill that overlooks Route 33 across the bike path by the intermural fields. After the long, steep climb up the side of it, you get a spectacular view of Athens. It is quite breath taking at first sight. And when you're up there alone, like I said before, you can think freely, escape from society for a minute, and relax and enjoy the view. And although it is just minutes from town, I still consider it to be part of the wilderness.