Tag: daily life

News vs. Noise (Parts 1 & 2)

blue shadow selfie web copy
‘Blue Shadow Selfie’ Oil on canvas © J.Hart

In October of 2017, I posted a blog about the difficulty of separating news from noise. I was reminded of it this morning (March 18, 2019) when I read the following in the Guardian (a left leaning newspaper out of the UK). It had, under the rubric of  ‘Around the World’ the following leads: Meteor blast over Bering Sea was 10 times size of Hiroshima https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/18/meteor-blast-over-bering-sea-was-10-times-size-of-hiroshima; Cyclone Idai devastates Mozambique port city https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/cyclone-idai-death-toll-climbs-over-120-in-mozambique-and-zimbabwe; Northern Ireland/Three dead after ‘crush’ at St. Patrick’s Day party https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/18/two-people-die-at-st-patricks-day-party-in-northern-ireland; and Hong Kong faces commuter chaos after rare train collision, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/hong-kong-faces-commuter-chaos-after-rare-train-collision.

In the first incident, almost no one even noticed the meteor as it happened in a very remote part of the world. (It was unexpected though Nasa is supposed to be tracking large space objects heading our way.) The cyclone* in Mozambique left 1.5 million people affected, wiping out the town of Beira and killing 215. Three young people were died at the St. Patrick’s day party; and in Hong Kong, 6 million commuters were stranded for the day.

For me, the interesting but difficult part of reading the news is how to prioritize the information; how to sift out the noise; and how to take note of the information that is most important and/or useful. It is a very mixed blessing to get the “news” from all around the globe. But we live now in a globalized economy and how we live impacts people all over the world!

There are a couple of filters I use presently. First there is the idea of scale. Three people killed in a party in Northern Ireland shouldn’t make my radar; one and a half million people suffering after an extremely large cyclone should.

Second, the depth of suffering is a filter for me. Six million Chinese being inconvenienced for a day is noise; over a million and a half Africans (cyclone hit Malawi and Zimbabwe too) whose homes and towns were destroyed is news.

And finally, really global news, that is, news about Earth, interests me. The cyclone in Africa could be connected to the large hurricanes we are experiencing in the Americas due to climate change (the article did not say!); and the meteor is a constant and good reminder how random our safety on this planet actually is!

*A cyclone is the same as a hurricane or typhoon. The name differs depending on where the weather phenomena occurs geographically.

For other ideas about how to negotiate what passes for news today, I am reposting the 2017 ‘News vs. Noise’:

After a break of almost ten years, with the election of Trump I began once again to watch “the news.”  I read two newspapers (The Guardian & The New York Times), check out the headlines of one other (The Washington Post) and visit a couple of online sources: The Rachel Maddow Show (for her historical slant on the news); some online magazines (Treehugger ; Orion; and Facebook (in order to follow Bernie Sanders, Rep. Guiterrez from Chicago, & March for Science).

In the U.S., my news choices are considered left of center politically, but to most of the rest of the industrialized world, they are very much centrist. What becomes apparent after a few weeks of following the news, is how little actual information in presented, and how repetitious the stories and commentaries are. After a news story has peaked, it often disappears even if the event itself is still in play.:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/puerto-rico-hurricane-relief-brown/

The news is also very generalized and homogenized, much like our food, housing, and clothing. During this past horrific hurricane season, all the news outlets carried the same story describing the storms themselves with barely a mention of the global warming that was responsible for their ferocity and size:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-natural-disasters-20170907-htmlstory.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/cyclone-and-extreme-weather-events-intensifying-bom-says/8869042

The other thing about the news is that almost all of it is “noise” not really news. My daughter the other day asked me how to differentiate between news and noise; in other words, with the limited time we have, what subjects should we pay attention to and what should we dismiss?

My answer to this is in the present climate is the following:

1. If the news is about an existential threat, it should be followed and understood.

So the recent information about the demise of flying insects is newsworthy:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/21/insects-giant-ecosystem-collapsing-human-activity-catastrophe

while Trump’s tweets or speeches  (for instance, his inability to make empathetic condolence calls or his dislike of football players’ civil disobedience) are not.

Existential threats include problems with our food supply:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet

And science-based articles on extreme climate change that will in the near future make the earth much less habitable than presently:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people

2. If the news is about action taken, it is worth knowing. This is more difficult to find out about as the government becomes less transparent and more secretive. Rachel Maddow is good about following underreported stories. With the foxes in charge of the henhouse in the present Administration, these stories become more important:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

3. And finally, and most difficult to find (hence this blog!) news about what to do under these difficult circumstances both politically as the federal government is dysfunctional and dangerous:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/climate/epa-climate-change.html?mtrref=www.facebook.com)

and the state governments are very uneven:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3053928/these-states-are-the-most-and-least-at-risk-from-climate-change

In California where the state is helpful:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/ucdavis/protecting-californias-farmworkers-as-temperatures-climb/?hpid=hp_no-name_national-rightrail-brandconnect%3Ahomepage%2Fbrandconnect-sidebar

compared to Texas where it is not:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/23/post-hurricane-cleanup-work-health-safety

And what to do personally:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/smarter-living/how-to-clean-up-after-a-hurricane-or-flood.html?mabReward=ACTM3&recid=61bc0d1a-fc3d-4d34-7023-2695078b3d52&recp=7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&mtrref=undefined&auth=login-email

Better choices, for me, begin with the actions I take including resistance to information, much of which comes under the heading “news,” that is distracting, anxiety-provoking, and/or unhelpful. In this blog, I want to show you how I am deciding on the best actions to take in these hard times, and hopefully it will help you in your planning too!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

When is Profit not profitable?

Apples on green place web
‘Apples on Green Plate’ oil on canvas © J.Hart

The choices we make as individuals, to grow our own food; to curtail our shopping; to live a zero waste life, might seem beside the point, especially when seen against the horrific worldwide rise of abusive authoritarian governments. For me, the question becomes: what is the engine that is driving these disastrous governments; and where is the point at which we can effect the most pressure? As I understand the system, most of the necessities we buy (one of the most basic is food) are provided by giant corporations whose sole reason for being is profit. It is the money from these corporate entities and owners that supports our present politicians.

Once profit becomes the only goal of every action taken, the more humane and real needs of people such as health, safety, and peace are ignored or even actively destroyed! But conversely, if we, as individual consumers, also make our individual profit and comfort the end all and be all of our lives, we collude with the corporations in our own destruction and support our own impoverishment!  The corporations and the billionaires who own them can only exist if we buy what they are selling! (For a concise repeat of this message: http://realfarmacy.com/the-woody-harrelson-video-message-the-mainstream-media-does-not-want-you-to-watch/

Surprisingly, we are not captives to the status quo, especially here in North America; (some other occupied and exploited parts of the world are not so lucky). We can disengage from the corporate stranglehold by refusing to buy what we don’t honestly need, and by creating ourselves what we do need. I feel that the most basic way to disengage from an unhealthy economic system is in the foods we chose to buy, and the foods we take the time to grow.

Our industrial profit-driven economic system views resources (soil, fossil fuel, and, yes, people) as unlimited. ( This link by a car engineer who now “builds” forests, gives a very clear description of the difference between industrial and natural uses of resources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjUsobGWhs8&t=17s) It sees soil*, our most important strategic resource, as merely another material to be used and used up (without any thought being given to replenishing the soil!) to grow massive amounts foods that we can buy very cheaply at home and export abroad.

Because we are all habituated to look for the “biggest bang for our buck” we happily buy the inexpensive wheat, soy, and corn which make up most fast foods and commercial food products. The actual costs of these foods-pollution, government subsidies, and the ruination of the soil- are hidden from us, but their health costs have been directly linked to the obesity and diabetes epidemics in the States!

But how do I convince you that what seems profitable is not; that buying food which saves you a couple of bucks will, in the long run, ruin your health? How do I show you that by buying food that is fast and convenient-ready made, widely advertised, and easily accessible- you are profiting large corporations, wealthy stockholders, and billionaire owners that have neither your health nor your well-being at heart? How do I encourage you to learn to grow your own food and not assume that large farms will do it for you? (The methods that agroecology are utilizing to grow food on farms are the same ones that will allow you to grow food in your backyard! )

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/opinion/farming-organic-nature-movement.html

How do we, who are eating better, choosing organically raised produce, raising our own foods (even if only on windowsills and balconies), convince friends and family that taking the time and money to support local organic farms or grow food themselves will profit us all in ways that cannot be expressed simply as the bottom line? Or perhaps health should be the real bottom line!

*(An important book that explains how soil depletion can destroy whole societies is Dirt by David Montgomery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQACN-XiqHU).

https://www.matthieuricard.org/fr/blog/posts/justice-sociale-societe-de-consommation-et-simplicite-volontaire?fbclid=IwAR0qs2GhqhZCkp2eJy6DJTdpcads93n2LbeDEE-Cc5IBictZVuc1zPRUWr8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maintaining our balance

yarrow shadow selfie web copy
‘Selfie shadow on field of yarrow’ oil on canvas © j.hart

A difficult time…

Ours is the most sophisticated of times…and the crassest. Ninety-nine percent of the world knows, with scientific certainty or through lived experience, that our environment will cease to support us in less than a couple of lifetimes; the other one percent seems unable to care.

The fantasy of money is everyone’s reality. We spend some of our wealth sending robotic vehicles out to explore space and nearby planets, asteroids, and stars (https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/13441/nasa-s-osiris-rex-probe-arrives-safely-asteroid-bennu), but most of our resources go to spectacles (movies, tv, social media, etc.) or to shopping, both created for entertainment, distraction, and self-aggrandizement.

Millions of us live with more comfort, physical safety, and personal freedom than any other humans in history; billions of us suffer with war, famine, disease, exploitation, and forced displacement on a scale also never before experienced.

The continents blend one into another as species (plants, insects, microbes, etc.) spill over their natural boundaries and are carried by our boats and planes around the world to colonize other species’ territories destroying the evolutionary connection between species and their native environment.

Technicians send messages through outer space while, on Earth, they fill each of our personal space with a miasma of image, talk, and noise.  Megalomaniacs and sociopathic narcissists take center stage; we are hypnotized by their ignorance and stupidity, and yet unable to turn our backs on them.

Speed, information, and artificial desire warp our lives and disrupt our serenity. We tremble in our anxiety and lie sleepless in our beds. We are at a loss as to what to do to cure the misery of our disequilibrium and alienation or heal the Earth.

Only Nature seems to offer an antidote to our dysfunction, but the faster we run toward her, the quicker she seems to diminish, disappearing almost completely out of our sight.

An adequate response?

We are awash in advice about how to live at this most strange and frightening moment in history. Most of the advice (mine included!) is well meant: work for an environmentally responsible government, drive an electric car or use public transportation, eat locally produced foods or grow your own, minimize the amount of meat you eat, recycle, reuse, repair, divest fossil fuel stocks, and the list goes on. (See Le Pacte: https://www.lepacte.ca/english.html for a recent example of what passes for convenient environmental action  in a “clicktivism”* format.)

But nowhere is it suggested that the economic (and therefore cultural) system within which we are embedded is to blame for the coming ecological disaster! Nowhere is it demanded that we take a hit to our incomes or our standard of living, even though that standard is way out of proportion to the way the rest of the world lives, and to how we would need to live to save the planet!

The change to a sustainable lifestyle will not be cosmetic: it will be essential and disruptive. The irony is that whether we choose to or are even capable of living simply, in tandem with Nature now, we or our progeny will be forced to live that way in the near future.

So how do we move forward, take the best action, act responsibly and ethically in the dilemma facing all of us? I have been thinking that perhaps it would be good to step back, and think about what each of us needs as emotional support in order to resist the toxic demands of our society, and make the truly profound changes in our personal lives that this moment calls for.

I have some ideas, but I would like to hear what you think! What helps you take the necessary steps, and keep making the difficult choices, to help our dire situation?

*”clicktivism” is described in Micah White’s book, The End of Protest, page 217, as “a false theory of social change that encourages complacency by feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact.”

 

 

 

A Thought Experiment, in response to Marie Kondo’s method.

abstract collage web
© j.hart Paper collage: what my books & files feel like to me sometimes!

Imagine, for a moment, that everything you own at this very point in your life is all that you can or will ever be able to own. Every piece of clothing; all your jewelry, every shoe or pocketbook; every stick of furniture; every bit of makeup; every kitchen utensil, tool, plate, glass, or knife, all the tiny objects that fill the drawers in your house (pens, pencils, notepads, keys, candles, flashlights, etc.); all the cleaning supplies, iron, and ironing board; every sheet, towel, pillow, carpet, curtain, tablecloth; and, of course all the electronic gadgets: computers, phones, printers, televisions, etc. all are irreplaceable!

Imagine that the vast worldwide connections which bring a flood of goods, from factories all over the world, to your local store (or to the local Amazon warehouse) have been disrupted. Perhaps the factories in China, Central America, India, Japan, etc. have all closed and the workers have returned to simpler economies of farming and making products to be sold locally. Maybe the fossil fuel is finished and the global economy is one of luxury items only, transported with great effort and expense.

The question this thought experiment suggests is: now, what would your relationship be to the objects that you own?

It seems to me that Marie Kondo hints at the care and gratitude we should have for the objects that surround us (and that we would have if they were irreplaceable) when she suggests giving thanks to each object that we have decided is not bringing us joy and is on its way out to either the landfill or the thrift store.  But as I mentioned in a previous post, she fails to draw our attention to the more important focus of our gratitude, and that is to the Earth’s resources that were used (and never replenished) to allow the object to be created in the first place, and to the work that people across the globe exerted to make the objects that fill our lives!

Since Netflix started airing Maria Kondo’s series, thrift stores all over the world have been inundated with truckloads of items that people realized that they didn’t actually need (and which weren’t bringing them joy!). However, there is no guarantee that the items given away to second hand shops will not also end up in landfills with the tons of “trash” generated during a Kondo session of tidying up.  https://www.mamamia.com.au/tidying-up-marie-kondo-waste/

Marie Kondo never actually says that her clients should stop shopping, so what her program shows is a type of addiction rehab or detox reality show: the client downsizing with Marie has one brief moment of clarity and relief; but we, the audience, know that tomorrow, when sweet little Marie, her translator, and the film crew leave, the shopping will resume as will the hoarding and the self loathing. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/10/marie-kondo-you-know-what-would-spark-joy-buying-less-crap

Which brings me back to my original question: what is (for the Earth and ourselves) a healthier relationship we should have to stuff? And what is a more responsible way to reduce our stuff?

Some suggestions:

  1. Stop all shopping (except for food) for a period of time. I am two months into an attempt to not shop for a year!
  2. Reduce your possessions responsibly; it is important to feel the consequences of your shopping choices:
    1. clothes can be cut up and recycled as cleaning cloths, or remodeled for longer use, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYjRbwzzDA
    2. take clothes to the thrift store in smaller numbers over a greater length of time, say three or four pieces at a time every week.
    3. if you have room in your place, clean and pack up the extra clothes carefully in see-thru bins according to type or style (e.g. all dress shirts together, all work skirts in one bin, all sport tees, etc.) and use the extra clothes to refresh your wardrobe as older clothes get tired looking or worn out.
    4. it is important to feel that the joy that objects gave you can be transferred to other people by donating bras, reading glasses, good winter coats, shoes, and clean bedding to your local homeless or women’s shelter. And please donate it in as good condition as you would want if you were to use it!
    5. old pillows and blankets can be donated to your local ASPCA.
  3. For tools and small machines (mixers, toasters, microwaves, coffee makers, etc.), consider setting up a tool library in your neighborhood! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_library
  4. And finally books can be donated to your local library, or sold to your local bookstore for cash or, often, for exchange for other books!

It may be clear by now that what I am suggesting to change our way of reducing stuff is a very labor intensive and time consuming process. But that is the point! The hypercapitalist economy we live in disguises the true price of goods by allowing them to be bought quickly, easily, and cheaply: a few minutes online, a call to Amazon, a recording of a credit card number, and the item is yours!

The getting rid of something can never be as hard work or time and energy consuming as the original making of the thing, but at least by taking some time and thought to place the object within the context of our local community; and making the extra effort to meet and see face to face whom will next use this thing that was bought so quickly and thoughtlessly, we can use the difficulty of downsizing to put a brake on careless consumption and make us think more responsibly about our purchases.