With The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan has become the evangelist for the ‘beyond organic’ movement. Although not preachy or pedagogic, this book is now a bible for people seeking to improve their health through the improvement of the health of our soils, animals, plants and of the planet as a whole. The ‘Beyond Organic’ movement not only questions industrial food productions systems, it also takes a hard look at what has become of the organic movement. And it is clear after reading Pollan’s brilliant, incredibly well-researched and so eloquently written book, that the essence of what made organic organic in the 70s has pretty much fully disappeared in today’s society. Instead, organic has become a marketing device, a method ignorant of its own carbon footprint that has succeeded (at least in the US) in applying many traditional industrial production techniques to a variety of new foods, under a new name, ideology and, of course, under a new price range. While still a better alternative than its traditional industrial counterpart (and Pollan has enough stories to tell about the rise and deceit of the industrial food production system to make one never want to eat industrial food again), organic today has little left of the ideals that once brought farmers and consumers together in an effort to return to a healthier and simpler way of obtaining and eating food.

However, this does not necessarily imply that a dismissal of all things organic is in order. There continues to be clear benefits to eating organic and to reject most so-called foods that are issued from the big industrial food machine: anything that comes in a shape or form that clearly can not be found in nature as well as anything that comes in a container or package as this is an indication of a highly processed food. Eating organic ensures with a relatively high degree of certainty that no chemical fertilizer and pesticides were used and that no hormones were injected into the meat you buy. Finally, it means probably more vitamins and minerals than the average non-organic food. But even more importantly than all of this, buying organic also means a commitment to a lifestyle and to a way of approaching the world that is badly needed today. And if organic is not the final destination, at least it is a step in the right direction.

This destination is the beyond organic movement with its slow food, permacultures, sustainable agriculture, farmers’s markets, and community supported agriculture. It is a return to the eating of whole foods and to a renewed kinship with our planet. Pollan demonstrates clearly the link that exists between the various elements of a food chain, from the soils from which we grow our food to the insects that play a role in the growth (or not) of a plant which will be eaten by an animal which we will in turn eat (for those who still believe in the eating of animals). Humans are active at every level of this food chain, and whatever decisions we decide to make can have a negative or positive impact on this chain, and thus, on our own health. It is a symbiotic loop that is reminiscent of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory, showing once again that human beings can not take the liberty of assuming that they are independent of the world they inhabit. Everything we do, the many ways we impact our planet and our ecological systems, the decisions we make regarding the plants and animals that surround us, all impact us and our health (mental and physical) directly.

While Pollan has become a bit of an activist, speaking against Monsanto and genetically modified foods, The Omnivore’s Dilemma set out initially to simply show a history of food and of our relationship to it. By placing the rise of industrial production firmly into the greater context of our evolution and of our historical relationship to food, Pollan is able to show how we have become deceived and brainwashed by the promises and cheap and instantaneous rewards of industrial food, a food that unfortunately has little left in common with the food that we human beings evolved to eat and assimilate.

As I have posted several times before, I believe in the benefits of technology in the long run. I believe that we will, at some point in the future, master enough knowledge to create artificial foods that taste good, that are beneficial to us and that are manufactured in a way which is at peace with the environment. However, we have not reached that stage. We are still living in a world in which corporations are pushing sugar and unhealthy processed foods down our throats, making false claims about the health benefits of their products, bribing government officials to get clearance for substances that are clearly toxic, abusing our environment in dangerous ways, using unimaginable cruelty towards the animals that are part of our food chain, and all in the name of profit. While the long term future of food lies clearly with the scientists and the nutritionists (hopefully without the pressure of corporations), the immediate and short term future on the other hand must imply a return to a more natural way of eating, one which is at peace with the planet and in harmony with the way evolution transformed us over millions of years.

I am often asked whether a belief in progress and in the future is incompatible with environmental consciousness.
My reply is that I am always surprised at how easy it is for people to equate environmentalism with neo-Luddism and with a refusal to embrace growth, technology and development. Just as one can find conservatives who are against technology, many green liberals, a circle to which I loosely belong, embrace technology and have positive visions of a clean, coal and oil-free future where man will have learned to live in peace with his environment and in harmony with all fellow entities, biological or not.
It is naturally naïve to look at technology as the saviour of all of our current problems. After all, man’s decisions and use of past and existing technology is what started many of these problems in the first place. A double edge sword, technology has been both detrimental and beneficial to the human race.

Yet, a reasonable dose of realism tells us that there is no going back, that the only way to tackle these issues is to move forward, not backwards. Add a dash of optimism, and one can begin to argue that the detrimental aspects of technology are only part of a temporary period of adjustment during which Man has had to learn to live (after all, technology has been with us for only a very short time) with an ever-increasing rate of progress in a rapidly changing world. The Futurists and Extropists, although not all environmentalists, believe in a future where technology will have solved many of society’s problems, social and environmental, and will have allowed us to transcend our limitations as human beings.

To assume and make the statement that environmentalists tend to favour nature and animals over human beings and over growth and development is erroneous and is, unfortunately, conveniently used and abused these days as a means to counter the green wave that is sweeping across the globe. The favourite anti-environmentalist marketing strategy seems to be to depict environmentalists as either young, naïve, trapped in a 1970’s vision of the world and thus unable to face today’s harsh realities, or as middle-class bio-fools who seem more interested in following trends than in making a real difference. While we cannot deny the existence of these groups of people, they represent only a part, more or less independent, of an overall movement whose ideology is in fact consistent with a new type of acceptance and embrace of the possibilities offered by the merging of technology, progress and environmentalism.

www.worldchanging.com (and www.wired.com, to a lesser extent) is one of the best websites on the Internet in terms of quality of content, design and user experience, and it provides a perfect example of this desire to aim for a new global consciousness based on Bright Green, Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism, Techno-Progressivism and Technogaianism.

A sometimes poorly structured and organized documentary with a moderator whose voice would put you to sleep if the topic wasn’t so interesting, The Future of Food nonetheless provides an interesting look into the dangers of genetically modified foods and is a good companion piece to the better We Feed the World (2005).As people across the globe slowly become accustomed to hearing about genetically modified corn, canola or soybeans and fail to fully understand how it impacts them, corporations such as Monsanto are busy patenting seeds (and thus life; a horrifying thought to ponder. Big pharma is now beginning to patent genes), developing and planting new genetically modified crops, unbeknownst to most, and suing farmers in an effort to pressure them to use these corporations’ seeds. These corporations are also consolidating the food supply, thereby reducing the diversity of our crops and produces and driving many farming communities out of business, both in the Western and Third Worlds. In a word, everything awful that you have ever heard about what motivates corporations is unfortunately also applicable to the world of agriculture and genetically modified foods.

But this is not new. Monsanto’s main pesticide and herbicide, which has been used widely for decades in numerous countries, is based on military technology from World War Two, particularly on nerve gas and on the famous Agent Orange. Has Monsanto ever bothered to try to really understand what this means in the long term for the people eating crops or eating the animals that eat the crops sprayed with this stuff? Probably not. As one Monsanto executive stated about genetically modified foods, their only responsibility is to sell their product and to make money, not to ensure their safety, which they regard as the responsibility of the government. Unfortunately for all of us, most of the individuals with the real power in the three branches of the government that are supposedly looking after our safety (Federal Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture, ….) are ex-Monsanto employees or are directly affiliated with the corporate world, in a manner reminiscent of the Bush’s administration’s various ties to many corporations that benefited from the war in Iraq. We live at a time when compassion and empathy are badly needed, but these are clearly not a corporation’s forte.

Therefore, it is up to us to ensure the safety of our food by living an organic lifestyle, by informing ourselves and by putting pressure on these corporations to increase the safety of their products and to provide us with more transparency on their actions and on which foods contain GMOs. The most naïve thing people can do is to assume that their voice or actions do not count. In the same way that something as simple and easy as replacing the light bulbs in your house can make a difference and reduce your energy consumption, buying organic produces, supporting your local farmers and encouraging sustainable farming can have an impact on the system, as well as on your health.

As I have stated before, we live at what I consider to be the most important and interesting time in our history. Our mastery of science is increasingly enabling us to consider new horizons and to change our destiny in ways that would have seemed impossible not so long ago. I believe in technology and I believe that it can have a positive impact on society. As a futurist, I also believe in the inevitability of progress and that whatever we fear today, we will accept tomorrow. For this reason, I am not opposed to genetically modified foods in the long run, in the same way that I am not opposed to genetic engineering in general. Yet, I believe that we are at the early stages of these developments and that they are currently not safe. Consequently, it is out duty to ensure their safety by pressuring the system. A year ago, driving back from the G8 demonstrations in Northern Germany, a friend asked me why I resisted GMO’s if I loved technology. I answered that I fight it to ensure its safety as quickly as possible, before it does too much damage, rather than to try to ensure that it never happens. I also do it because corporations are out of control and are ruling too many aspects of our lives. Their power must be reduced and their greed controlled. It is our choice to decide if we want to try to make a difference.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

http://www.thecampaign.org/

http://www.monsantowatch.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

I once submitted several questions to the online discussion platform for social and environmental change www.droppingknowledge.org (a platform which I helped build). One of these questions raised the issue of whether it makes sense to spend so much money on space exploration when so much needs to be done on earth. I asked the question because this theme is of interest to me, although I have never believed that reducing our investment in space programs would directly and positively affect problems such as poverty or pollution. It is not more money that we need to overcome these problems. It is commitment and sacrifices of another type. Nonetheless, I have encountered many social thinkers and environmentalists who see no purpose in space exploration and regard it as a waste of resources and while I can see their point to a certain extent, I remain fully convinced in the beauty and mystery of space exploration. I also believe that man’s destiny lies in the stars and that it will not be long before some of us begin to leave the blue planet behind.In the Shadow of the Moon is a outstanding documentary film on the Apollo Space Program (the Mercury Program is briefly mentioned, referencing The Right Stuff, the book by Tom Wolf, which was turned into an excellent film by Philip Kaufman in 1983), narrated by the small group of men who had the privilege, and courage, to be the first humans to step on an alien world. The film is remarkably well put together and adroitly combines the fascinating tales and emotional insights of the astronauts with some amazing footage from NASA. It all feels so real that one immediately forgets that the film is an assemblage of original footage taken 35 years ago by cameras in cockpits or attached to spacecrafts and lunar modules. This footage is so skilfully intertwined with the narrative that one could be forgiven for thinking that the film crew shot additional footage to serve the storyline. What can not be forgiven however, after watching this brilliant and intensely touching film, is to continue thinking that the moon landings were a creation of the US government and that they in fact never took place. I believe there is plenty of proof in In the Shadow of the Moon to dispel any such absurd notions.

But what stands out the most for me after watching this film is the spirituality that these men developed after experiencing not only the beauty of the cosmos but also the serenity and fragility of our planet as seen from space. Some of the shots of Earth taken by the astronauts during the various Apollo flights have become omnipresent in our media over the past 30 years and, more importantly, have become synonymous in certain circles with a visualization of our planet as the self-regulating homeostatic organism named Gaia. First proposed by Dr. James Lovelock (who incidentally started developing his theory while working for NASA) in the early 70s, but already hinted at by Vladimir Vernadsky in the 20s in his seminal book The Biosphere, the Gaia theory has been embraced by most people who feel empathy towards our planet and who regard it as a connected and living organism that deserves our respect and attention. And while Gaianism has been around for a while, and has even regained some of its momentum in the past few years in connection with the increased number of environmental issues facing our planet, a new belief has emerged, one that merges a deep respect for the Earth and all of its living creatures with a conviction in the powers of technology to help us overcome these issues and to, in the process, achieve a deeper spirituality and a global consciousness. Drawing, among others, on the work of the French monk Teilhard de Chardin who believed that technology would help us reach The Omega Point which is a higher state of global consciousness, these believers, and i am one of them, in TechnoGaianism tend to also be transhumanists with a social agenda and a democratic slant (James Hughes’ Citizen Cyborg is a particularly good reference on this latter subject).

Perhaps we do need Space and to get closer to the stars to remind us not to forget our duties towards Earth. Where some people might detect an irony or even an incompatibility between space exploration and the preservation and love of our planet, I see an interconnectedness following its logical progress and taking the human race to its next step in evolution, clearly driven for the first time in history by Man itself and in agreement with a desire to see all living and non living creatures existing in perfect harmony with this or any other planet and thus, with the cosmos as a whole.

Watching a film by Werner Herzog is never an easy task. It is the antithesis of the traditional Hollywood entertainment-driven movie. Herzog’s films make you work and think, they force you to participate by investing your strength, your intelligence and your entire emotional being into the experience. Through his subject matters, his startling use of imagery and his haunting scores, Herzog demands constant involvement from his audience. An unfortunately too-rare form of cinema, his films continue to raise pertinent questions about some of the most interesting issues today.

Lessons of Darkness captures the devastation of Kuwait in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. More specifically, it is a portray of a wounded earth that is left shedding tears of fire due to the greed and savagery of Man. Not content to decimate and to ruin, Man also turns his bestiality towards other men and engages in horrible crimes which for any reasonably sane person are impossible to comprehend.

As i watched Herzog turning ugliness into beauty with his camera, music and editing, i could not help but weep at a world gone terribly wrong. 10 years before Edward Burtynsky made his Manufactured Landscapes (2006), Herzog used stunning visualization to show only one of the myriad of ways in which Man is impacting this Earth and is redefining the landscape and the entire ecosystem to his liking. Unfortunately for all of us, this redesigning comes without a plan and is driven by selfish motives rather than by a desire to develop a system where Man’s constant desire for progress can co-exist harmoniously with Nature.

While a Technogaianist myself, and thus a believer in technology as a means to achieve this harmony, Lessons of Darkness made me long at times for some of the scenarios that Alan Weisman so eloquently depicted in his seminal book The World Without Us (2007). It is comforting to know that Nature would eventually reclaim what is rightfully hers. But wishing it all away won’t make it go away and we must move forward and attempt to reconcile our innate propensity for greed and egoism with the need for ecological health and stability.

What kind of invention is the newspaper today? I suppose that looking back, there was a time when newspapers made complete sense. Speaking of making sense actually probably even misses the point. Newspapers had a revolutionary impact on society the way the Internet does today. Before the invention of print technology, news only travelled by word of mouth or via letters. For centuries, the newspaper served its purpose and spread information and increased knowledge throughout society, in an exponential manner linked to levels of consumerism and capitalism in various countries. But today? Does it continue to make as much sense as it did in the 17th century or even 20 years ago? Our thirst for knowledge and information continues to increase, but so does our ability to receive and read news in alternate formats. Consider what I see as the shortcomings of newspapers.
Read more »