Simple Living and Higher Thinking

[jarofthoughts]

Well, kinda. Part of the "grow locally/eat locally" movement is to take into account which crops grow well in each area. This usually means adjusting one's diet accordingly.

Here in southern Ontario, for instance, this would mean only having fresh strawberries for a few weeks a year. If we want strawberries the rest of the time, they'd have to be in the form of preserves like jams.

In Norway, locally grown food wouldn't normally mean growing oranges in greenhouses; it would mean choosing other foods instead of oranges.

Sure, but since people have grown used to eating strawberries and oranges, they are often unwilling to make that change.
I have more confidence in methods that does not force people to give up the things they love, while at the same time providing safe food that is environmentally defensible.
The answer, as with so many things, is more science, for instance through genetically modified crops, cleaner sources of energy and more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but since people have grown used to eating strawberries and oranges, they are often unwilling to make that change.

True, but I don't think it has to be an all-or-nothing thing. For instance, I'll try to avoid buying corn from the US because I know that corn's grown locally, and I'll at least try to be conscious that it makes sense to be buying produce when it's in its local season. For instance, I know that locally, strawberries are an early summer crop and raspberries are late summer. If I'm making some sort of dessert, I don't consider it a sacrifice at all to make something in August with local raspberries instead of something with flown-in strawberries.

But at the same time, I refuse to give up coffee. I don't care that it's grown thousands of miles away - I'm keeping it.

I have more confidence in methods that does not force people to give up the things they love, while at the same time providing safe food that is environmentally defensible.

As I touched on before, I don't think that even substantial change necessarily means that much of a sacrifice. For instance, it's not that big a deal to recognize that the lettuce I see in the grocery store in January wasn't grown locally, and to choose to have some sort of root vegetable instead. I like turnip and carrots. A lot of it is just a matter of putting thought into our decisions.

 

[painted wolf]

the grow local/eat local movement also makes room for eating oranges in Norway... but as luxuries not staples.

I still eat chocolate and drink coffee... but I try to do so responsibly and be mindful of the impact such choices have globally. We live a life where luxury that is taken for granted and the consequences are dismissed.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the grow local/eat local movement also makes room for eating oranges in Norway... but as luxuries not staples.

I still eat chocolate and drink coffee... but I try to do so responsibly and be mindful of the impact such choices have globally. We live a life where luxury that is taken for granted and the consequences are dismissed.

I think it's also worth noting that different types of products have different types of impacts when grown far away.

Things like fresh seafood or fruit need to be shipped at high speed by air, potentially with quite a large environmental footprint. OTOH, non-perishables like roasted coffee can be shipped by the most economical or "green" mode available without much concern about how long it takes to get to market.

 

[painted wolf]

What is really cool about such factoring... it is more ecologically sound for me living in New Hampshire to drink French wine than it is Californian wine. Shipping by boat is much more ecologically friendly due to economies of scale and the nature of fuel consumption between trucks and boats. Unless that wine is shipped via rail, then it's California.

The coffee/oranges issue also brings up the methods used to grow the product. Coffee can be grown without severely damaging or disrupting the surrounding ecosystem if it is "shade" or "forest" grown. It doesn't produce as much as orchard grown, but the additional cost is worthwhile if being ecologically and socially responsible.

Oranges tend to be orchard produced and have the additional cost of keeping the trees warm in the winter.... in Florida a lot of petroleum is burned in the winter to keep the trees warm and productive. A highly wasteful practice.

Again, the biggest problem IMHO comes with farmers being trapped into monoculture. This treating foods as commodities at the whim of markets is IMHO a major flaw in our system.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is really cool about such factoring... it is more ecologically sound for me living in New Hampshire to drink French wine than it is Californian wine. Shipping by boat is much more ecologically friendly due to economies of scale and the nature of fuel consumption between trucks and boats. Unless that wine is shipped via rail, then it's California.

But both are probably less ecologically friendly than drinking Ontario wine.

We have very nice winemaking regions on the Niagara Peninsula and out near Point Pelee on Lake Erie.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Hi Jarofthoughts!

You're right - oranges don't grow well in Norway, and it would be crazy to try and grow them in greenhouses in any quantity. But aren't there local fruits and vegetables that are fond of your climate that are also high in Vitamin C? I guess unless someone really likes their oranges just for the taste, you wouldn't have to spend the resources transporting or growing them - you could get the same nutritional benefits from a native plant.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

Nutritional value isn't everything.
People have gotten used to having access to everything all the time, and I fear this is a luxury they are rather unwilling to give up.
Thus, I have more confidence in solutions that allow most if not all of the luxuries people are used to having to remain while continually working towards better and better environmentally friendly ways of making that happen.
For instance, there are lots of things we can do to decrease our dependency on oil through taking advantage of various alternative sources of energy, and there are currently numerous projects around the globe working on just that.

 

[painted wolf]

But both are probably less ecologically friendly than drinking Ontario wine.

We have very nice winemaking regions on the Niagara Peninsula and out near Point Pelee on Lake Erie.

LoL... absolutely.

wa:do

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

The coffee/oranges issue also brings up the methods used to grow the product. Coffee can be grown without severely damaging or disrupting the surrounding ecosystem if it is "shade" or "forest" grown. It doesn't produce as much as orchard grown, but the additional cost is worthwhile if being ecologically and socially responsible.

Hi Painted Wolf!
Thank you for mentioning forest grown coffee - I knew that I could make a positive impact with fair trade coffee, but I wasn't aware there was an ecologically better choice as well.

Oranges tend to be orchard produced and have the additional cost of keeping the trees warm in the winter.... in Florida a lot of petroleum is burned in the winter to keep the trees warm and productive. A highly wasteful practice.

Thank you again for bringing this up - another good reason to buy local!

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Quagmire]

I think that human society would much happier spiritually and materially if we were to go back to living a more simple agrarian God-conscious lifestyle.

I don't think that technology has offered any significant benefit to human society. In fact it is destroying the planet.

On a more practical note I think that adopting this lifestyle is a matter of survival for human society since we are completely dependent on oil at every level and when it runs out this current society will collapse.

Problem is, this is what got us all into this mess (civilization) in the first place. If we'd never settled down and established sedentary, agrarian communities in the first place...

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

I have more confidence in solutions that allow most if not all of the luxuries people are used to having to remain while continually working towards better and better environmentally friendly ways of making that happen.

Hi Jarofthoughts!

I agree that we shouldn't restrict anything. I would prefer that as people become aware of the impact of their food choices that the demand for luxury items dwindle naturally. Of course, as you proposed, if there is a way to grow and distribute items like oranges that is environmentally friendly, then there would be no reason not to indulge, even in these cold northern places like Canada, Norway and the Northeastern US (which it sounds like where all the participants in this discussion are from).

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[painted wolf]

Hi Painted Wolf!
Thank you for mentioning forest grown coffee - I knew that I could make a positive impact with fair trade coffee, but I wasn't aware there was an ecologically better choice as well.

Anytime.

[

Thank you again for bringing this up - another good reason to buy local!

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

Or limit yourself to buying during warmer months when it's not a problem.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

So...are any particiopants of this thread....'living off the grid'....?

Got money?

 

[painted wolf]

So...are any particiopants of this thread....'living off the grid'....?

Got money?

To be honest, I'm not... but I'm a renter.

I have friends who are using alternate energy such as solar and wind to at least reduce their dependance on outside power and our local power plant is a biomass plant reducing our use of oil.

My previous town had it's own hydroelectric power plant. So at that time I was essentially "off grid" despite the fact that the system was grid tied to sell the excess power to the utilities.

wa:do

 

[methylatedghosts]

So...are any particiopants of this thread....'living off the grid'....?

Got money?

Find some information on Earthships.

Houses that are entirely off the grid, except perhaps for phone. The house essentially is build out of recycled materials and provides everything you need to live in it, without being connected to anything. Warmth, food, water, electricity - it's all created and provided by the house itself.

 

[Thief]

Find some information on Earthships.

Houses that are entirely off the grid, except perhaps for phone. The house essentially is build out of recycled materials and provides everything you need to live in it, without being connected to anything. Warmth, food, water, electricity - it's all created and provided by the house itself.

yeah...I know....see post#94.

 

[otokage007]

Hi Otokage007!

I had to leave your smilie in the quote because that one always makes me - well, smile...
Anyway, what I wanted to ask is - do you totally disagree with I-Ching about technology? I think that everyone must think that technology is beneficial in some way, or they wouldn't be typing away on a computer, but there seems to me to be a lot to support the argument that technology is hurting the earth - at least as far as it is habitable for us. When I think of global warming, the ozone layer, the amount of pollution in the oceans, deforestation, desertification, oil spills, etc. - it seems that a lot of our technology does have a negative impact on our environment. Do you think so?

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

Indeed, technology and almost everything humanity do, has a rather strong impact in the world. However, to call it a "damage" is a rather relative point of view. Every creature on Earth do impact the environment where it lives, and consecuently "damages" the world somehow, in the sense that it changes the original conditions to a new ones, usually advantegous for the specie itself, and disvantageous for other species.

Technology damages the environment, but to say that because of this we should erase it, is absurd, and that's why I answered with that short response to the maker of this thread. To put you an example of how ridiculous it is:

The automobile, the printing, the phone, the electricity, the eletronics, the computer, the laser and the medicine... Are just a very FEW things that depends directly of technology. Without those things, we would return inmediatly to the age of Homo neanderthalensis where life was savage, very dificult, and the maximum aging was 30 years old.

 

[PeaceLoveJoy]

Ummm ok first we have had a time in the is world where we did not have technology and in that time we had war, famine, disease, young death, and no indoor plumbing. Yes we still have these problems, but with technology these numbers are decreasing. Think mmmm would I really wanna go back in time and live in a time where I was probably nothing more then a slave, some war was always going on, and die at the age of 14 during childbirth, or from a common cold.

Because of technology we have the means to fight disease, and because technology will continue to grow and will one day cure cancer. We have phones and transportation so I don't have to live right near my family for me to see them. We have computers which have helped this world to grow in knowledge and unite us no matter where we are.

Also we are not dependent on oil we do have other reasons, but because of politics and partly because we don't know a good way to change everything over yet we haven't changed.

Yes technology brings bad along with the good, but what doesn't. To shun technology is to shun progress and if we ever stop reaching and striving for progress our society will collapse and our world will end.

 

[ryanam]

I agree with a life of simple living. We need to start pulling away from the use of oil and other non-sustainable energy sources and start focusing on how to actually survive.

I don't believe the an old-style (or any style) belief in god would have any benefit whatsoever.

The wars that have been started in the name of religion and the level of hatred towards certain groups would just happen all over again.

 

[PeaceLoveJoy]

Technology is about finding a way to survive.