Three different types of subsistence and production that we have discussed are foraging,
slash and burn agriculture, and industrial agriculture. Foragers, also known as hunter-gatherers,
extract resources from the environment through hunting and gathering without modifying the
environment in a significant way. Examples of these people are the Kung Bushmen, Hadza, and
Montagnais peoples; all of which were discussed in Sahlins’s piece on the “original affluent
society”. An absence of hierarchy, which facilitates sharing, is a condition of their sustainability.
Their resources can be unstable and unreliable, so sharing is key to the survival of the whole
group. A limitation of foraging societies is that the environment can only support foraging
groups of about 50-100 people. So, the population growing larger than about 100 people would
be a circumstance that might change foraging peoples mode of subsistence.
The Central American Amazonian people profiled in the film “Slash and Burn
Agriculture” are an example of people who practice slash and burn agriculture. Slash and burn
agriculture is a type of shifting agriculture. This mode of subsistence is sustainable when the
knowledge and practice is passed on to the next generation. A limitation is that plots must be left
alone for many years before the process can be repeated and thus a society needs many plots and
lots of land to support a large population. If the knowledge and practice are not passed down,
plots might be forgotten or harvested and burned at the wrong times, which would result in
damage to the land. Circumstances that would make people move away from slash and burn
agriculture might be outside pressures to industrialize and modernize, and concerns about
deforestation and erosion.
The American food system described in Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation is an example of
industrial agriculture. This type of production is sustainable with limitless supply of exploitable
laborers, water, fertilizer, farmland, and fossil fuels f[1]or machinery and transport. Its limitations
are that the earth does not have a limitless supply of water, fertilizer, farmland, fossil fuels, or
exploitable laborers. Industrial agriculture produces incredible amounts of food, but also requires
an incredible amount of inputs. This mode of production might change when those resources
become scarcer, the consumers demand a different system, the environmental damage caused
becomes too great, or the laborers are no longer exploitable.
Excellent. Not only well-organized and well-written, but also subtly witty.
20
!
Marshall!Sahlins!describes!the!hunter1gatherer!structure!as!the!“Original!Affluent!
Society”!in!his!commentary!of!the!same!name.!In!it!he!claims!that!the!most!affluent!society!
is!the!one!where!the!people!have!as!much!as!they!want.!
!
After!these!last!three!weeks,!I!have!seen!how!agriculture!has!intensified!from!a!
simple!nomadic!life!to!large1scale!industrial!agriculture.!While!production!has!skyrocketed,!
so!has!our!greed!for!material!possessions[1].!!
!
Joyce!Mastenbrook!came!to!our!class!to!show!us!how!life!began!for!Native1
Americans!in!the!Pacific!Northwest.!In!these!societies,!those!who!could!give!the!most!were!
the!wealthiest.!The!upper1class!threw!large!potlatches!to!express!their!wealth.!These!native!
people!greatly!valued!the!idea!of!sharing!with!one!another,!a!concept!that!was!drilled!into!
us!during!Kindergarten.[2]!
!
We!also!watched!a!documentary!on!the!“Eskimo”!people!of!the!Arctic.!While!the!life!
of!an!Eskimo!is!hard!work,!the!video!also!showed!us!a!softer!side!to!these!people.!There!
were!long!scenes!where!the!women!would!sit!and!socialize!with!one!other!and!men!would!
play!games.!These!native!people!spend!less!time!working!than!we!do.!They!work!efficiently,!
a!skill!we!learned!by!necessity!in!high!school.[3]!
!
Lastly,!we!read!Niazzi’s!article!on!the!Green!Revolution!in!Pakistan.!This!is!where!
society!currently!stands.!We!face!hunger,!and!call!for!a!biological/mechanical!solution:!
genetically!engineered!crops!and!an!increase!in!mechanization!to!grow!more!food!for!
cheap.!In!this!process!many!have!lost!jobs!and!many!have!gained!profits.!This!increase!in!
social!inequality!reflects!the!people!we!have!become,!a!people!consumed!by!greed.!This!is!
something!we!learn!about!in!Sunday!school!
!
I!agree!that!hunter1gatherer!societies!were!the!original!affluent!society!because!we!
have!only!become!less!affluent.!We!constantly!want!more!than!we!can!produce!and!have!
not!reached!a!balance!between!want!and!need!since!the!time!of!the!Native1Americans!and!
the!Eskimos.!Now!that!we!have!created!such!a!high!standard!of!living,!it!is!hard!to!be!
content!with!anything!less.!The!society!that!can!share!with!one!another!and!spend!less!time!
working!and!more!time!socializing!is!the!most!affluent!society!of!all.!Sahlins!is!right!
because!our!current!agricultural!system!doesn’t!seem!so!affluent!at!all.!
OK,!kindergarten,!high!school,!and!Sunday!school.!!I!hope!you’re!learning!something!at!the!
UW,!as!well.!!!
!
By!the!way,!outstanding!essay.!!!
!
20!
!
!
Question2:Food;A/
Thinking/ about/ if/ our/ system/ of/ industrial/ agriculture/ affects/ my/ diet/ raises/ some/
interesting/points./I’d/argue/that/it/does/in/fact/have/an/impact/on/my/diet,/and/not/a/
good/one./A/lot/of/society/isn’t/aware/of/all/the/chemicals/that/go/into/our/food./Who/
even/ knows/ what/ goes/ into/ foods/ to/ preserve,/ or/ even/ grow/ them?/ According/ to/
Miguel/ Altieri/ in/ Review& of& Agroecosystems,/ biological/ determinants/ influence/
agriculture/ in/ every/ region./ In/ our/ region,/ there/ are/ many/ negative/ determinants/
that/we/deal/with./Because/of/these/elements,/there/are/various/additives/that/go/into/
our/ food/ as/ it’s/ being/ produced./ One/ example/ is/ pesticides/ and/ weed/ control/
products./Altieri/mentions/a/handful/of/biological/factors/that/affect/agroecosystems,/
and/ two/ that/ really/ popped/ out/ were/ insect/ pests/natural/ enemies/ and/ weed/
communities./ To/ deal/ with/ these/ natural/ causes,/ producers/ have/ to/ intensify/ and/
make/solutions/such/as/pesticides/and/weed/control,/which/consequently/go/into/the/
foods/that/I/as/a/consumer/will/eventually/eat./As/mentioned/in/the/article/Nutrient&
Imbalances& in& Agriculture& Development,& rapidly/ growing/ economies/ are/ also/
damaging/ to/ the/ environment/ and/ foods/ we/ eat./ More/ nutrients/ are/ being/
replenished/ than/ are/ actually/ necessary/ for/ the/ crops,/ and/ these/ excess/ nutrients/
affect/the/soil/(directly),/air/(through/nitrous/oxide),/and/water/(downstream/water)./
This/hurts/our/environment/and&diet./One/way/we/could/change/the/food/production/
system,/as/pointed/out/by/Vitovsek/and/his/colleagues,/is/to/have/policies/supporting/
nutrientNconserving/ practices./ A/ focus/ needs/ to/ be/ put/ on/ the/ effects/ agricultural/
systems/have/on/our/wellNbeing,/because/the/methods/we/use/today/are/more/hurtful/
than/ helpful/ in/ the/ long/ run./ Realistically,/ although/ I/ am/ completely/ in/ agreement/
with/these/ideas,/I/personally/am/skeptical/of/trying/to/reduce/these/influences./The/
system/we/have/today/makes/it/hard/to/avoid/eating/foods/that/have/been/processed/
unless/ you’re/ wealthy/ (or/ poor/ for/ that/ matter),/ and/ there’s/ not/ much/ of/ a/ middle/
ground./It’s/impractical/in/this/day/and/age/to/try/and/change/my/diet/when/there/are/
no/means/for/me/to/produce/all/my/own/food./The/easiest/solution/to/try/and/reduce/
the/influence/if/I/did/want/to/would/be/by/buying/organic/foods./If/I/was/feeling/really/
adventurous,/I/could/grow/some/produce./If/society/changed/however,/I/would/be/all/
for/it!/
/
Question 2 Part B:
The food culture I identify with is that of an adjusting college student. What I
experienced growing up is a primary influence on my current eating choices, but in the
last three weeks I have been doing my own meal planning. My family influences are from
my mom, who is a vegetarian, and my dad, who rarely eats a meal that doesn’t include
meat. My food identity falls among these factors.
Though, never an avid eater of fast food, especially McDonalds; one weakness I
cannot deny, one I share with my dad, is my love for french fries. In the article “Fast
Food Nation,” Eric Schlosser talks about french fries and how the average American eats
over thirty pounds of french fries per year. (115). If I order a burger at a sit down
restaurant, it is not complete without a side of fries. The “fry” mindset is a part of my
food culture and, indeed, feeds into the mega-business of french fries, as described in
“Fast Food Nation.” But there are cultural constructs. Fast food companies buy french
fries for thirty cents per pound from farmers and sell them for six dollars per pound; the
farmers are the ones who suffer (Schlosser 117). And the consumer demand, like mine,
drives this unfair economic cycle.
The interview with Alice Waters gave me the idea to learn how to make french
fries. Carefully preparing any meal from natural ingredients increases health and supports
organic farmers, according to Waters. Being a college student, time and energy are
always factors in meal choices. Without a dining plan like many other college students, I
go to Safeway and buy food. Although, I do not have the time to prepare an elaborate
meal, I enjoy making, for example, homemade Fettuccini Alfredo, for friends. But, there
are times when it is easier to pick up a prepared meal at the dining hall; this is an example
of how this food system forces us to make the unhealthy choice because it encompasses
America’s core values: convenience and time efficiency.
Instead of blaming the food system, however, advice from Alice Waters to spend
an extra hour everyday preparing healthy meals, and appreciate where our food comes
from, is a good one. For preparing a healthy meal in the kitchen with friends can be more
socially fulfilling than sharing fries at McDonald’s.
!
3A.
Sustainability is the ability to maintain resilience in a socio-ecological system so that the
future has the capacity to be as well off as we are. It is the ability of systems, to withstand
disturbances caused by mankind and the ability to bounce back from these disturbances
so that we leave choices for the future generations.
After reading many definitions, the one described above is the definition that I created to
unite the key ideas of each already existing definition into one more accurate definition.
The beginning definitions were too simple. Sustainability is too complex to be defined as
“bearable.” The Oxford Dictionary did not do the definition justice either. By defining
sustainability as “forms of human activity that do not lead to environmental degradation,”
the dictionary is singling degradation as the only sign of becoming unsustainable. This is
not true since one can also be unsustainable in systems such as economics. Similarly,
Robert Solow also gave a definition that was closer, but still limited. Defining it as “an
obligation to conduct ourselves so that we leave the future the capacity to be as well off
as we are,” is definitely a key point to sustainability. If we do not live within our means,
future generations will suffer from our actions. Solow, however, does not mention
anything about the importance of durability through shocks and hardships. In order to
thrive and continue, one must be able to withstand a catastrophic event. Through
combining ideas from these definitions, I was able to create my own definition.
Although none of these definitions are universally accepted as the true definition of
sustainability, they can still influence people’s thoughts and actions. The idea of
bouncing back can give people hope and strength to resolve the current situation of
mankind and the environment. It encourages people to reflect on their own lifestyles and
act on these reflections to change the current environmental crisis. Furthermore, the
definition calls on emotions. It is encouraging people to think about their kids and
grandkids. It sways people to act to prevent suffering for the future generations. By
appealing to emotions in both of these parts of the definition, people will be persuaded to
reflect and act. It will spark a desire to want to change how they live and how they impact
the environment. It will inspire people to live in accordance with what it means to live
sustainably.
3B.
Though the Green Revolution greatly increased food production capabilities,
socioeconomic and environmental stability and sustainability were reduced. Though
sustainability can be broadly defined, in this answer I will use Altieri’s definition of
sustainability as the “the ability of an agroecosystem to maintain production through
time, in the face of long-term ecological constraints and socioeconomic pressures”
(Altieri 58). I choose this definition because it specifically mentions agricultural systems
and also includes the idea of both ecological and socioeconomic considerations.
The Green Revolution was marked by critical technological improvements to increase
agricultural intensification. Agricultural intensification refers to increasing input of
energy to increase productivity in a crop area. Generally, the current system of intensified
agriculture requires high inputs of any resource that plants need to grow: water, pest
control, nutrients, and so forth. Uninhibited extraction of these resources leads to severe
ecological consequences. For example, harvested crops remove essential macronutrients
from the soil and limit future productivity if not replaced (Harrell, 1/16). Fertilizer input,
revolutionized by the Haber-Bosch process, replaces these depleted nutrients in soil and
then some (Harrell, 1/21); fertilizer input has “more than doubled the quantities of new
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the terrestrial biosphere” (Vitousek). Increased nitrogen
and phosphorous has been credited with increasing eutrophication, decreasing air quality,
increased smog, and a host of other problems (Vitousek). Essentially, a system of high
inputs is inherently unsustainable because of its high dependency on human intervention
and quickly vanishing resources, as mismanagement can lead to disaster.
The Green Revolution also reduced socioeconomic stability, particularly in Pakistan, as
Tarique Niazi explains. Wealthy landowners were able to access new Green Revolution
technology over the lower peasant class; this consolidated already existing social
inequality by unequally distributing resources in rural areas (Niazi 254). Despite
Pakistan’s overall economic boost, income inequality worsened as the poor were unable
to keep up with the increasing cost of farm production and land. Until action is taken to
lessen socioeconomic quality in agriculturally dominated communities around the world,
these agroeconomies are unsustainable as they do not fairly promote the wellbeing of
those involved.
The Green Revolution is credited for feeding millions of hungry mouths, yet has
changed the way we feed ourselves in an unprecedented way. The toll on both ecological
and economic systems has been widely apparent; time will tell what further ramifications
may follow.