What caught my attention the most in this reading was that the leading cause of environmental damage is consumption. Also, population and technology we use factors the extent by which the environment is harmed. It makes me feel guilty as an American that in production of energy alone, we lead all other countries by a vast margin. There is not enough land to keep up with our consumption level and it will catch up to us in the future. The most interesting thing in chapter 2 was the definition of capitalism. The source of income or capital earned does not generally belong to the people who make it through their labor. Items such as sneakers are produced overseas because we do not have to pay them as much to make them. In turn, it costs much less to produce and there is a much larger prophet earned.
In the reading this week, I was most struck by the statistics on world consumption. The quote that really hit me hard was on page 184, "...the average American child will do twice the environmental damage of the Swedish child, three times that of an Italian child, thirteen times that of a Brazilian child, thirty-five times that of an Indian child, and 280 times that of a Chadian or Haitian child". That's insane! Especially because I grew up in an average middle class family with two other siblings and two parents....can you imagine how much we've consumed with just our family?! And then what about when you add all of my extended family which includes numerous cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents and even great-grandparents?!
Its hard to think about our planet running out of resources. Everyone believes in the invincibility myth, that is that they are exempt from the idea that the Earth will run out of sustainability for our generation. We talk about changing our consumption rates and doing our part to halt global warming for the children of our future, but not many people can actually think that far into the future.
The other really surprising (and frightening) statistic I discovered in the reading was the graph that shows how many Earth's we need according to each country's consumption rate. If the billions of people in the world today consumed the planet's resources like American's do, we'd need 5 Earth's to keep everyone comfortable!!!!! And that's compared to the half of an Earth that it would take if we all lived like the Indian people. Its hard to believe that India's population is so much greater in comparison to our own, yet they are able to reuse and control the rate of how much they consume.
I think the scariest fact I learned was that, while the U.S. uses the most of the world's resources, we are the most resistant to signing to the Kyoto Accord to help reduce global carbon emissions.
Robbins is spot-on in claiming that as long as governments answer to corporations, nothing will be done to enact the radical environmental protection policies necessary to sustain life on this planet (p. 204). The current scientific consensus is that the activities of large corporations (and the consumer culture they've engineered) is killing the planet (pp. 205-206). After objectively looking at the available evidence, any rational person will come to the conclusion that the planet is dying, and that we are going to die with it if we don't radically alter the way we live, quickly.
However, there is no indication that the people in control of these corporations have any intention of changing their behavior, in spite of the obvious consequences -- they are completely insane (literally insane: they are delusional, megalomaniacal, suicidal sociopaths). As long as large corporations exist in their current form, they will dominate politics, due to their domination of the economy. And as long as they dominate politics, they will continue to use governments for their own selfish purposes. They will go down in a blaze of flames and gamma radiation, but they'll be damned if they won't be eating crab cakes and blowing cocaine at the yacht club as they watch the world burn.
The only way to deal with this organized group of psychopaths, is as Foster states (p. 206) through "radical change", rather than groveling at the feet of the corporate government in search of petty reformist changes -- always too little, too late, and always overwhelmed by the rapid-fire enactment of much more significant regressive policies. The only viable solution is a worldwide revolution which replaces corporate capitalist fascism with various forms of libertarian socialism. They must be forced them to stop, since they won't stop voluntarily. I can't say whether such a revolution will ultimately succeed, or will be crushed by the increasingly powerful military-surveillance-propaganda apparatus; but I do know that if it doesn't succeed, then the human species is ultimately going to go extinct -- starving and miserable in a barren wasteland of concrete and toxic sludge.
Free trade zones are in theory a good idea. A non-industrialized nation gets the benefit of industry and some added infrastructure, and marginalized groups of people have a chance to become wage earners. But as these multi-national corporations move in, they change the culture and social hierarchy of the country as well.
As many women enter the workforce for the first time, they may well be subjected to harsh discipline and harassment by male supervisors in the workplace who see them as devalued workers when compared with men. In areas in the global south that adhere to more traditional values, a woman may be subject to abuse at home just by breaking out of her assumed role, even though her added income is a benefit to the family. Add to that the stress of a “second shift” by taking care of the needs of the family before and after work.
In Robbin’s pages 52-63 it discusses the development of the organization of capital from around the year 1400 to the present, the ongoing division of the world into poor nations and wealthy nations, the role of the state in these processes, and the historical interaction of capitalist, laborer, and consumer. In chapter three it talks about the understanding of how capital came to be strong and how the world came to be divided into rich and poor. There were certainly rich people and poor people in 1400, but today’s vast global difference between middle and upper did not exist then. Next it discussed the changes in business organizations and the organization of capital, which began by most business enterprises who were small, generally family owned businesses. Capital was controlled by these groups and state organizations. Today we are in a world where most people’s wealth is richer than most countries. From 1400 to now, it amazes me the transformation of change in the nations capital and business organizations. Just imagine what can take place in this world in the next 600 years. Global currency “refers to a currency in which the vast majority of international transactions take place and which serves as the world's primary reserve currency.” This is meaning the choice to employ who you want and to pay the lowest possible wage all to your advantage where you can have few or no government rules concerning the cost of your business activities. When I looked up the definition and understanding to global currency, which was talked about quite frequently in this chapter, it showed me the meaning of a dollar and how far it can get in some countries and how little it goes internationally. It is an ongoing division of the world into poor and wealthy nations.
In response to Danielle Porter's post: I agree that it is very scary to think that the US has the most consumption and that if everyone else in the world lived like we did it would take 5 Earth's. The real question should be now why do people in our country continue to consume so much resources, and why are we so against changing our habits in order to leave the world a better place for the future? Growing up our society teachers us about the white picket fence and having the perfect family and getting educated in order to make money for our families and so our kids can go to school and do the same. In all of that teaching why don't we start teaching kids how to reduces our carbon footprint? Clearly we don't NEED all the products we consume because India, Italy and Sweden can consume way less and still be comfortable. Where did all this begin with the United States?
So it is just incredible HOW MUCH the people in the US consume.. compared to everybody else we really are very over the top in our consumption and are just generally bad for the environment. It seems like a fantastic idea to have some sort of education in place to help people understand what their consumption has an effect on exactly. I mean I didn't realize that it had such a broad effect on things! Honestly didn't realize that just eating meat was so environmentally unfriendly. Although I do think the US has made some efforts to limit some of our excessive behavior I definitely think we have a long way to go. Having a required reading like this in High school would have been extremely helpful. There are so many other countries getting by on a fraction of what we do. Not to say that we need to starve ourselves of luxuries, but just take it easy a bit. Every person cutting back just a little in the US would help so much in the broader aspect of things.
In this week’s reading the section about sugar caught my interest. Whenever I eat foods containing sugar I never stop to think about how it’s made, where it’s from, or the history behind it. Yet after reading Robbins text, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, that will most likely change.
In 1000 AD sugar was mostly used as medicine; it cleaned the blood and strengthened the chest, lungs, and throat. Ironically in today’s society, sugar is causing so many problems such as obesity, tooth decay, and etc. This goes to show that moderation is important. Earlier when sugar was only taken in small doses, I’m sure it had its benefits. But like all things taken in large doses, sugar can become harmful. Also, I learned that the production of sugar helped encourage slavery in the 1500s. Obviously, someone has to cut the sugar cane down and collect it for sugar making; and unfortunately, those people were slaves and children. Sugar didn’t necessarily cause slavery, but it definitely sparked the need for more slaves in the West Indies and elsewhere.
Sadly, I don’t know whether to feel guilty or not the next time I eat that candy bar, not only because of its calories, but now because of its history.
Kevin Merkle In chapter 7 reading i was mostly focused on how, America is using 20 percent of the worlds energy. Also, it talks about us making 20 percent of the worlds carbon emissions. However, America consumes a lot of goods and produces a lot of resources, but "Only by producing and selling things and services does capitalism in its present form work, and the more that is produced and the more that is purchased the more we have progress and prosperity" (Robbins 184). Also, talking about how much the average American loves meat. That America has a lot of meat houses and fast food just makes it worse. How, now all Americans have a fast food menu in front of them while they are in there car almost every night, this does not help either.
I surprisingly enjoyed chapter two, "The laborer in the culture of Capitalism". This chapter really gave me a sense of understanding on capitalism and the elements of capitalism. For example; the commodities and how there are two commodities, money, labor power means of production and production. It was pretty insightful on how they talked about big companies such as Nike to illustrate examples of production and to relate to companies we now and love. I do agree however, on " the consumer may drive the culture of capitalism,but without the laborers, there would be no commodities to consume", this makes perfect sense and puts things into perspective. This was exactly right, without people working things will not be made, and therefore there will be nothing to sell. Chapter two also touched bases on types of workers, and how they were divided. The laborers' were divided by race, gender, ethnicity and age. After reading how the laborers were divided, sounded like how slaves and racism began. It also sated in chapter two that a white man would not work with a black man, and how a white man would do a white man's job, and how a black man would do a black man's job. This I do not agree on because everyone should be created equal and be given an equal opportunity to work, no matter what race, gender or ethnicity they are. I also do not agree with cheap labor, which chapter two also touches base on.
I was really surprised by the history of sugar and how it was originally for the rich and powerful. Now sugar can be found in everything, especially cheap processed foods which are primarily targeted towards those who have very little money and need to stretch their food dollars as much as possible. With a little bit of sugar you can make a lot of Kool-Aid which costs less than 30 cents a pack or you can spend 3-4 dollars on a jug of 100% apple juice for your kids. I read an article once which spoke about how people in poverty were the least healthy because of this very thing. And when you throw in the convenience factor of time - it takes a lot longer to cook something healthy at home then it does to drive through McDonald's.
And on a side note - does anyone remember when Oprah caused the beef industry to decline for awhile? It was around the time of mad cow disease and even though I was younger I remember how big of a deal it was. A lot of people were upset with her because it was hurting the ranchers. It just made me realize it is ingrained into our psyches because the idea of a ranch/er is so "American". It would be un-american to not eat meat.
The reading this week focused alot on capitalism and trading. I found it very interesting when Robbins started talking about the ways in which people all around the world were resisting capitalism. He stated that, "Columbian peasents who see capital accumulation represented in the baptism of money as the loss of a child's soul." He then goes on to give an example of Malaysia workers, i found it interesting that they believed in magic and spirits, becuase its not too often that you hear about people really reasoning with such things as magic and spirits these days. The portion of the reading that i didnt really understand and that was a bit shocking to me was the part when Robbins says "free labor has been created by removing people from the land or destroying the small-scale industry that allowed them to support themselves." I kind of wonder what it would have been like if free labor hadnt been created.
Josh Murphy
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention the most in this reading was that the leading cause of environmental damage is consumption. Also, population and technology we use factors the extent by which the environment is harmed. It makes me feel guilty as an American that in production of energy alone, we lead all other countries by a vast margin. There is not enough land to keep up with our consumption level and it will catch up to us in the future. The most interesting thing in chapter 2 was the definition of capitalism. The source of income or capital earned does not generally belong to the people who make it through their labor. Items such as sneakers are produced overseas because we do not have to pay them as much to make them. In turn, it costs much less to produce and there is a much larger prophet earned.
In the reading this week, I was most struck by the statistics on world consumption. The quote that really hit me hard was on page 184, "...the average American child will do twice the environmental damage of the Swedish child, three times that of an Italian child, thirteen times that of a Brazilian child, thirty-five times that of an Indian child, and 280 times that of a Chadian or Haitian child". That's insane! Especially because I grew up in an average middle class family with two other siblings and two parents....can you imagine how much we've consumed with just our family?! And then what about when you add all of my extended family which includes numerous cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents and even great-grandparents?!
ReplyDeleteIts hard to think about our planet running out of resources. Everyone believes in the invincibility myth, that is that they are exempt from the idea that the Earth will run out of sustainability for our generation. We talk about changing our consumption rates and doing our part to halt global warming for the children of our future, but not many people can actually think that far into the future.
The other really surprising (and frightening) statistic I discovered in the reading was the graph that shows how many Earth's we need according to each country's consumption rate. If the billions of people in the world today consumed the planet's resources like American's do, we'd need 5 Earth's to keep everyone comfortable!!!!! And that's compared to the half of an Earth that it would take if we all lived like the Indian people. Its hard to believe that India's population is so much greater in comparison to our own, yet they are able to reuse and control the rate of how much they consume.
I think the scariest fact I learned was that, while the U.S. uses the most of the world's resources, we are the most resistant to signing to the Kyoto Accord to help reduce global carbon emissions.
Robbins is spot-on in claiming that as long as governments answer to corporations, nothing will be done to enact the radical environmental protection policies necessary to sustain life on this planet (p. 204). The current scientific consensus is that the activities of large corporations (and the consumer culture they've engineered) is killing the planet (pp. 205-206). After objectively looking at the available evidence, any rational person will come to the conclusion that the planet is dying, and that we are going to die with it if we don't radically alter the way we live, quickly.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is no indication that the people in control of these corporations have any intention of changing their behavior, in spite of the obvious consequences -- they are completely insane (literally insane: they are delusional, megalomaniacal, suicidal sociopaths). As long as large corporations exist in their current form, they will dominate politics, due to their domination of the economy. And as long as they dominate politics, they will continue to use governments for their own selfish purposes. They will go down in a blaze of flames and gamma radiation, but they'll be damned if they won't be eating crab cakes and blowing cocaine at the yacht club as they watch the world burn.
The only way to deal with this organized group of psychopaths, is as Foster states (p. 206) through "radical change", rather than groveling at the feet of the corporate government in search of petty reformist changes -- always too little, too late, and always overwhelmed by the rapid-fire enactment of much more significant regressive policies. The only viable solution is a worldwide revolution which replaces corporate capitalist fascism with various forms of libertarian socialism. They must be forced them to stop, since they won't stop voluntarily. I can't say whether such a revolution will ultimately succeed, or will be crushed by the increasingly powerful military-surveillance-propaganda apparatus; but I do know that if it doesn't succeed, then the human species is ultimately going to go extinct -- starving and miserable in a barren wasteland of concrete and toxic sludge.
Free trade zones are in theory a good idea. A non-industrialized nation gets the benefit of industry and some added infrastructure, and marginalized groups of people have a chance to become wage earners. But as these multi-national corporations move in, they change the culture and social hierarchy of the country as well.
ReplyDeleteAs many women enter the workforce for the first time, they may well be subjected to harsh discipline and harassment by male supervisors in the workplace who see them as devalued workers when compared with men. In areas in the global south that adhere to more traditional values, a woman may be subject to abuse at home just by breaking out of her assumed role, even though her added income is a benefit to the family.
Add to that the stress of a “second shift” by taking care of the needs of the family before and after work.
Sure, jobs are created but at what price?
Name: Lauryn Gallagher
ReplyDeleteClass: Anth. 366 10am.
In Robbin’s pages 52-63 it discusses the development of the organization of capital from around the year 1400 to the present, the ongoing division of the world into poor nations and wealthy nations, the role of the state in these processes, and the historical interaction of capitalist, laborer, and consumer. In chapter three it talks about the understanding of how capital came to be strong and how the world came to be divided into rich and poor. There were certainly rich people and poor people in 1400, but today’s vast global difference between middle and upper did not exist then.
Next it discussed the changes in business organizations and the organization of capital, which began by most business enterprises who were small, generally family owned businesses. Capital was controlled by these groups and state organizations. Today we are in a world where most people’s wealth is richer than most countries. From 1400 to now, it amazes me the transformation of change in the nations capital and business organizations. Just imagine what can take place in this world in the next 600 years.
Global currency “refers to a currency in which the vast majority of international transactions take place and which serves as the world's primary reserve currency.” This is meaning the choice to employ who you want and to pay the lowest possible wage all to your advantage where you can have few or no government rules concerning the cost of your business activities. When I looked up the definition and understanding to global currency, which was talked about quite frequently in this chapter, it showed me the meaning of a dollar and how far it can get in some countries and how little it goes internationally. It is an ongoing division of the world into poor and wealthy nations.
In response to Danielle Porter's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is very scary to think that the US has the most consumption and that if everyone else in the world lived like we did it would take 5 Earth's. The real question should be now why do people in our country continue to consume so much resources, and why are we so against changing our habits in order to leave the world a better place for the future? Growing up our society teachers us about the white picket fence and having the perfect family and getting educated in order to make money for our families and so our kids can go to school and do the same. In all of that teaching why don't we start teaching kids how to reduces our carbon footprint? Clearly we don't NEED all the products we consume because India, Italy and Sweden can consume way less and still be comfortable. Where did all this begin with the United States?
Name: Chandra Millbauer
ReplyDeleteClass: Anth 366 10:00 am
So it is just incredible HOW MUCH the people in the US consume.. compared to everybody else we really are very over the top in our consumption and are just generally bad for the environment. It seems like a fantastic idea to have some sort of education in place to help people understand what their consumption has an effect on exactly. I mean I didn't realize that it had such a broad effect on things! Honestly didn't realize that just eating meat was so environmentally unfriendly. Although I do think the US has made some efforts to limit some of our excessive behavior I definitely think we have a long way to go. Having a required reading like this in High school would have been extremely helpful. There are so many other countries getting by on a fraction of what we do. Not to say that we need to starve ourselves of luxuries, but just take it easy a bit. Every person cutting back just a little in the US would help so much in the broader aspect of things.
In this week’s reading the section about sugar caught my interest. Whenever I eat foods containing sugar I never stop to think about how it’s made, where it’s from, or the history behind it. Yet after reading Robbins text, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, that will most likely change.
ReplyDeleteIn 1000 AD sugar was mostly used as medicine; it cleaned the blood and strengthened the chest, lungs, and throat. Ironically in today’s society, sugar is causing so many problems such as obesity, tooth decay, and etc. This goes to show that moderation is important. Earlier when sugar was only taken in small doses, I’m sure it had its benefits. But like all things taken in large doses, sugar can become harmful. Also, I learned that the production of sugar helped encourage slavery in the 1500s. Obviously, someone has to cut the sugar cane down and collect it for sugar making; and unfortunately, those people were slaves and children. Sugar didn’t necessarily cause slavery, but it definitely sparked the need for more slaves in the West Indies and elsewhere.
Sadly, I don’t know whether to feel guilty or not the next time I eat that candy bar, not only because of its calories, but now because of its history.
Kevin Merkle
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 7 reading i was mostly focused on how, America is using 20 percent of the worlds energy. Also, it talks about us making 20 percent of the worlds carbon emissions. However, America consumes a lot of goods and produces a lot of resources, but "Only by producing and selling things and services does capitalism in its present form work, and the more that is produced and the more that is purchased the more we have progress and prosperity" (Robbins 184). Also, talking about how much the average American loves meat. That America has a lot of meat houses and fast food just makes it worse. How, now all Americans have a fast food menu in front of them while they are in there car almost every night, this does not help either.
Christina Almquist
ReplyDelete1000am class
I surprisingly enjoyed chapter two, "The laborer in the culture of Capitalism". This chapter really gave me a sense of understanding on capitalism and the elements of capitalism. For example; the commodities and how there are two commodities, money, labor power means of production and production. It was pretty insightful on how they talked about big companies such as Nike to illustrate examples of production and to relate to companies we now and love. I do agree however, on " the consumer may drive the culture of capitalism,but without the laborers, there would be no commodities to consume", this makes perfect sense and puts things into perspective. This was exactly right, without people working things will not be made, and therefore there will be nothing to sell. Chapter two also touched bases on types of workers, and how they were divided. The laborers' were divided by race, gender, ethnicity and age. After reading how the laborers were divided, sounded like how slaves and racism began. It also sated in chapter two that a white man would not work with a black man, and how a white man would do a white man's job, and how a black man would do a black man's job. This I do not agree on because everyone should be created equal and be given an equal opportunity to work, no matter what race, gender or ethnicity they are. I also do not agree with cheap labor, which chapter two also touches base on.
I was really surprised by the history of sugar and how it was originally for the rich and powerful. Now sugar can be found in everything, especially cheap processed foods which are primarily targeted towards those who have very little money and need to stretch their food dollars as much as possible. With a little bit of sugar you can make a lot of Kool-Aid which costs less than 30 cents a pack or you can spend 3-4 dollars on a jug of 100% apple juice for your kids. I read an article once which spoke about how people in poverty were the least healthy because of this very thing. And when you throw in the convenience factor of time - it takes a lot longer to cook something healthy at home then it does to drive through McDonald's.
ReplyDeleteAnd on a side note - does anyone remember when Oprah caused the beef industry to decline for awhile? It was around the time of mad cow disease and even though I was younger I remember how big of a deal it was. A lot of people were upset with her because it was hurting the ranchers. It just made me realize it is ingrained into our psyches because the idea of a ranch/er is so "American". It would be un-american to not eat meat.
The reading this week focused alot on capitalism and trading. I found it very interesting when Robbins started talking about the ways in which people all around the world were resisting capitalism. He stated that, "Columbian peasents who see capital accumulation represented in the baptism of money as the loss of a child's soul." He then goes on to give an example of Malaysia workers, i found it interesting that they believed in magic and spirits, becuase its not too often that you hear about people really reasoning with such things as magic and spirits these days. The portion of the reading that i didnt really understand and that was a bit shocking to me was the part when Robbins says "free labor has been created by removing people from the land or destroying the small-scale industry that allowed them to support themselves." I kind of wonder what it would have been like if free labor hadnt been created.
ReplyDeleteCorrection, the posting above was for AMY HART!
ReplyDelete