The curse started quietly and informally.  I received no signal that it was affecting my ideals, instead I learned from others and their comments.  I began evaluating small design installations everywhere I went.  Then it grew to more holistic and large scale applications.  I began to explore systems, lifestyle patterns, and politics.  Suddenly an unquenchable thirst was upon me.  I had to understand the “why.”  I call this a curse because when one learns about ideal situations and compares that to the current standards naturally it will drive you a bit nuts.  You seem to ask yourself “how did this become the standard?”  Then as an act of compulsion you do your research and accept a theory or create you own speculation.  From there you ask yourself “why does the current system not change to be more efficient?”  This is where everything gets blurry and the curse takes it’s toll.  From what I can tell when you get to this point you generally come to the agreement that a massive change would have to occur and to make that change a massive, seemingly impossible force would have to cause it.  For me, at this stage I look back in history to determine the scale of influence needed.  Generally some sore of crisis must happen to “per-sway” the people a change is necessary.  To counter act that crisis must be a visionary group or individual which usually comes in the form of a presidential cabinet.  Some examples are: the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, Clean Water Act, and the current economic recession.  That’s not to say there are no accounts of groups or communities going against the grain.  There are matters of evolution which entail a gradual paradigm shift.  This is can be seen in architectural eras, engineering advancements, and social trends just to name a few basic examples.

If you haven’t guessed from reading my other posts my current upset is over America’s present standard of urban development.  This ‘upset’ may have never occurred had I not studied landscape architecture.  Most likely I would have tried to live the proverbial American Dream to the fullest, never understanding the consequences from my actions.  Instead I fight the standard every step of the way.  Perhaps it is a bit overkill, but I feel compelled.  Some battles I win, some I lose.  I never stop fighting.  It makes me wonder “what kind of change we as a society will undergo to achieve better, more efficient urban development and planning.”  Will it take some catastrophic event (maybe not that big, but big) to change like Oil Peak?  Or will it be this quiet evolutionary shift acquiring the ideals of incoming generations?  Out with the old and in with the new.  New planners, developers, politicians, economists, designers and so on.  Will it take a complete generational shift?  Perhaps what it comes down to is which will occur first?

Cast your votes,

Keaton

I went with my class as a study abroad trip.  We went several places visiting many countries, cities, and experiencing different lifestyles.  My idea of touring is trying to understand and possibly “live” the life of a local so to speak.  For many it is visiting popular monuments and places but for many locals this is just a tourist thing.  I try not to buy in to all of that, sometimes I do if I believe it to be meaningful and that I will gain some sort of understanding about the city.  From town to town or city to city, I observed the lifestyles of the different inhabitants.  Although many were very similar each city had its own uniqueness.  Something that made it special.  Be it Germany’s Christmas Markets, or Paris’ appreciation for the Arts, I could sense this sort of pride.  These sort of associations are wonderful.  People feel proud to be a member of the community.  They can identify with it.  While observing this I tried to think about my hometown and things that brought the town together or why I might attach myself pridefully.  None thing really came to mind.  I am from a Dallas suburb that offers a premium selection of strip centers, shopping malls, and an addiction to highway expansion.  There was no central hub where people gathered.  No historic place celebrated.  Just Chili’s and the Northpark Mall.  I know, I know people can come back and say “well, what is wrong with that?”  I always think to myself “everything.”  It is explaining it that is tricky.  People do not like be told what to do, or what to like and not like.  How do you tell somebody at Target that they are irresponsible for buying laundry detergent with harmful chemicals in it when they could spend a dollar more to by the bio degradable, eco-friendly, paraben free (however you spell it) stuff?  You come off as smug, or bossy, or judgmental.  The truth is you can only associate with “your kind.”  I suppose we could get crafty in our information swapping.  I could turn to my friend I am with at Target and say (in a slightly louder than normal so the person buying the harmful detergent could hear me) “hey look at this detergent.  Did you know by using this I am helping the environment?  The toxins in everyday detergent leech from our sewage tanks and never really disappear.  Instead they seep into our soils and contaminate rivers ground water and even oceans.”  People just do not like to be told what to do.  I always explain it using reverse psychology.  I usually do the “you’re better than this” bit.  Not that that is any less smug.  However we are better than the conventional cities we live in.  We are better that the strip centers with window-less facades greeted by a sea of concrete to accommodate the 2,000 cars in the lot.  We deserve better.  We have fallen into this ugly system of development mainly because we didn’t know any better.  Or bad timing if you think about it.  Europe is old.  Much older than the US.  Towns were built around the human.  For the “people.”  America started doing that and at the same time was trying to keep up with the industrial revolution which made things stressful (ie: too many ideas being used and without any planning).  But America’s growth was interrupted.  Things were just starting to look good (yet still wore the appearance of bad to the common person) and then the automobile was made economical.  So we through out humans from the equation and just started designing around the automobile.  That’s right…  Cities do not develop to us first, instead they develop around a machine we are dependent on.  With the humans out of the mix we have no need for walkable downtowns or neighborhoods.  The car needs none of that.  Instead to make it easier on the car we decided to use more infrastructure and more land.  We even took the idea of the assembly line that worked so well for the automobile and applied it to our housing.  A cookie-cutter home is made with the same idea that a car is.  In Europe it was a bit harder for the car to take over, it never did.  Why?  Well…timing.  They were in the right place at the right time.  They were developed and America had a long way to go.  When I toured the countries I saw Europe’s version of a suburb.  It was just as I expected it to be.  Near the central hub of the village or city (or it had it’s own smaller central hub) walkable, beautiful and more peaceful.  The open air markets were also great.  Romantic really.  Why can’t I pursue something like this.  A lifestyle like this.  People (esp in the South and Southwest) have this negative perception of urban lifestyle.  Yet the same people go vacation at these cities with prominent urban or urban village lifestyle.  The cities in America receive this because many really are terrible.  Not to say that they were always terrible, but they grew to be or rather declined to be.  We left that life after WWII and who could blame us with the promise of the American Dream on the horizon.  The cities were just starting to work and we gave up.  We left all of our “problems” back in the city.  It’s no wonder we have this fear of the city.  With the abandonment of people who cared about the downtown, the place crumbled.  The poor bread more poor and the homeless people stuck around.  That is the label now.  We chose “progress” which can really be called digression.  The city I am from stands for nothing more than greed and irresponsibility.  That is the only candidate for my point of pride and my city.  This was all just bad timing. People didn’t know it would come to this.  We do things because society suggests it or because it is how our parents did it. People didn’t know about the energy crisis, or the misery of subdivisions until now.  Is it too late to “restore” our original plans?  Have we gone down the wrong path too long?  To get back on the right path means taking back what we neglected usually unfairly.  It means the subdivisions from hell will rot and nature will gobble them up.  It all seems doable until you throw humans back into the equation.  Like I said you don’t tell people what to do…so how do we change?

There is such a thing as a safe downtown and more efficient neighborhoods.  Probably just can find em in your current city.  You have a choice to live where you like.  You have a choice to make your life a bit more exciting than a subdivision.

Thanks for reading,

Keaton

Prompt: In regards to environmental ethics choose and defend one of the following viewpoints, as well as give its closest competitor: Anthropocentrism, Sentientism, Biocentric individualism, Holism.

“The Main Question

Many different belief systems exist whenever a form of ethics is concerned. These ideals are what have kept the field of ethics and philosophy expanding throughout time. The study of ethics and philosophy has been around as long as written history. While the field of environmental ethics is much younger, it has developed in its short life many different belief systems of its own. Anthropocentrism(humans ultimately matter), sentientism(sentient/conscious beings matter), biocentric individualism(all living things matter), and holism(ecosystems matter) make up the most widely acknowledged and accepted views within this scope of environmental philosophy. All are based on different value systems, each with their own set of rules and beliefs on what counts morally and ethically speaking. In this essay I plan on discussing why I believe anthropocentrism to be the most reasonable of the previously views, and why I believe holism to be its closest competitor.

The Argument for Anthropocentrism

“It is hard to know what to say to someone who would save a mosquito, just because it is rare, rather than a human being if there was a choice.”—Elliot Sober(MR153)

Anthropocentrism is defined as “an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values.” In the scope of environmental ethics it is defined as a view that “only humans have moral standing.”(xviii) One of the big parts of anthropocentrism is the concept of instrumental versus intrinsic value. If something has an instrumental value it is “useful as means to further ends”(xiv) and can be used as a resource or tool for human use. Intrinsic value however is non-instrumental. An object with intrinsic value might not have a direct instrumental value, however has a “value apart from any usefulness it may have as a means for further ends.”(xiv) This is the backbone of anthropocentric thinking; the valuation of the natural world in response to how it affects human life. Anthropocentrism should not be mistaken for the stereotype that if something does not have a sort of instrumental value it is completely worthless and has no value. From an anthropocentric viewpoint one can value the great Redwoods and Sequoias and even a virgin wilderness for not their instrumental but intrinsic value to the human soul.

Outlining Holistic Values

Holism in turn is defined as “the theory that living matter or reality is made up of organic or unified wholes that are greater than the simple sum of their parts.” Ecosystems and species count morally speaking, sometimes more so in practice than the individuals within them. Holism I believe to be the second most reasonable of the main belief systems of environmental ethics. It might seem odd that I pick this view over sentientism or biocentric individualism however in theory especially its argument is much stronger. “A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management and use of these “resources”[soil, water, plants, animals], but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots their continued existence in a natural state.”(TR28) Instead of focusing on individual living things, holism focuses on the bigger overall outcome. One example I can give of this is in the case of elephants in Africa where overpopulation has lead to problems with food supply, resulting in a less healthy herd. Culling individuals within the herd would result in a healthier overall population, preserving the well-being of the species. A biocentric individualist and sentientist would argue that the elephants’ individual rights were violated, despite the fact that the herd became more prosperous. It is this concept where I believe holism is more reasonable.

Between Idea and Practice: A Conclusion

As with all questions dealing with ethics, the question must be asked: Where is the line drawn between our beliefs and what is actually practiced? I mentioned above that I believe anthropocentrism to be the most reasonable belief system but I must add that I believe it’s the most reasonable system in practice not necessarily idea. There is no doubt our environment has been severely affected by human action. Is this enough however to drive society to change its ways and return to a way of life in which we use primitive rock tools and scavenge for our food? To me the answer is clear. Humans throughout time have had the attitude that we are separated from the rest of the natural world by our obvious feats of technology and uncanny intelligence. It is this attitude that continues the concept of anthropocentrism in human action; we will always ultimately do what is best for our own way of life, and in doing so the utilization of the natural world as a larger resource will continue. Do I believe this mindset to be wise? Personally I think that in a perfect utopian type of world humans would coexist with nature as one part of a community of living things, living within an ecosystem in a sort of equilibrium, however I also know that there are many things that are part of my way of life such as a car, red meat as part of my diet, and electricity that I would be very reluctant to give up to achieve this goal. Through practice resulting in ideology, the ultimate outcome always seems to concern how something will benefit our existence and way of life. This is the primary reason I believe the arguments for anthropocentrism becomes more powerful than that of holism. “Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient.”(BR32) Even a proclaimed holist such as Leopold had to acknowedge one of the problems with holism: the cost to human way of life.”

What do you think? Are humans ultimately this dominant and resourceful as to choose to sacrifice all available resources to maintain a certain quality of life? In a debate with a few individuals at land8lounge.com, this to me seemed to be one of the frequent most stated arguments. People use excess electricity because it is inexpensive and they can do so without sacrificing their quality of life. What happens though when we start sacrificing the quality of life of other people? Can you be the one to make that decision for others? Will you choose yourself over them? If you cannot buy into the environmental movement, at least buy into the humanity movement. Eventually those that pay the price on the bottom, will not only have their quality of lives at stake, but their survival as well.

Recently a video was released by Mercy for Animals (MFA), an advocacy group for animal rights, of an undercover investigation of Pennsylvania’s largest pork producer, Country View Family Farms (CVFF). CVFF  is a large corporation, producing hundreds of thousands of hogs for Hatfield packing. The cooperation of CVFF and Hatfield to produce pork products for human consumption is the primary method of production and marketing in the agricultural industry, with the minority exception of beef production. As a result of this common practice, much controversy has erupted over the years. The video released by MFA illustrates many of the problems with mass production of animals, as well as abuse that can occur within these types of facilities. HOWEVER, this video does not account for WHY some of these seemingly horrible practices are permitted in the first place.

I would like to take this small space of public domain to break down the events and environments recorded in this video, in an attempt to differentiate ABUSE from HUSBANDRY.

Please take a short moment to view the video before we proceed (WARNING: this video depicts animal husbandry that is NOT supported by the agricultural industry. Some of the scenes in this video are graphic in nature.)

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/pigs/

Now, to start, I would like to separate the ABUSE from the HUSBANDRY.

ABUSE: throwing, dropping, slamming in to walls, untreated wounds.

HUSBANDRY: picking up animals by their back legs, castration, tagging, tattooing(that one is a bit of a toss up in this case, explanation will come later), farrowing crates, gestation crates, gas chamber, captive bolt gun (’steel rod’ as cited by MFA)

The abuse that occurs in this video is surrounded by the lack of care paid to the animals by the employees, and NOT by standard operating procedures. Throwing an animal like a football, tossing them into a steel cart, or slamming their heads in to a wall is NEVER acceptable, and it never will be acceptable. Piglets do need to be taken care of, and their handling consists of just that, picking up the animal, performing a procedure, grouping them, sorting them, etc. However great care should be taken of how the animal is handled, to ensure that its physical safety and health is maintained, as well as keeping the piglet under as little stress as possible. Piglets are often handled by picking them up and carrying them short distances by their rear legs, this is a method of handling the animal calmly and efficiently. When piglets (or chickens, lambs, calves, foals, kids(goats)) are handled by their legs, or have their legs restrained, it is for their own safety. Their legs are very powerful, and thrashing them about can cause unnecessary injury , and can result in more pain and distress than actually restraining the animal.

Castration at a young age is not only a common practice across every livestock industry, it is very necessary. Piglets are typically castrated within a week of birth. It has been shown that during this time, the piglets body is actually better able to heal itself, as well as feel minimal pain. The castration performed in this video on the piglets is very routine, and no abuse is shown taking place during the ACTUAL castration procedure. The herniated piglet that is shown as a ‘result’ of the castration is not common. As seen in the video, a hernia is when the small intestine escapes through a hole in the body wall, and does occur more commonly in male animals. In this case, it is more the fault of random genetics that causes a few unlucky piglets to suffer this fate.

Tagging and tattooing of animals is necessary for accurate record keeping in these industries. Tagging occurs in many forms in the pork industry, however the most effective methods are ear tagging and ear notching. Ear tagging is the same concept as piercing your ears. Humans WILLINGLY have a dull metal peg shoved through their ears, belly buttons, eyebrows…and many other very sensitive areas…for impractical purposes. Piercing a sow’s ear with a numbered tag for efficient identification can hardly be considered abuse, particularly because it does not hurt for more than a few seconds. Ear notching is a technique that removes portions of the ear in a number/location coded sequence that can be used for identification of the animal. This method is not the most efficient method, as the notches can be difficult to distinguish, and easily misread; however, it also involves minimal pain and remains with the animal for life, making further retagging an option, but not a necessity in most cases. Tattoos are another form of permanent ID for animals, and are often associated with government mandated vaccinations and site identification. Tattoos are typically used in conjunction with tagging, and in most cases, are placed in the ear. The method of tattooing by hammer (for lack of a better term) as seen in this video, I will admit, I have never seen before, and am not completely sure how it works. It does appear to be stressful on the animal, but more that the pigs are startled from the sudden hit, rather than by pain induced from the tattoo prongs.

Farrowing crates and gestation crates are another hot topic, and quite controversial. My person perspective on their use is that they should be a management tool rather than a housing unit. Farrowing crates are necessary to protect the piglets and allow for their efficient growth. A farrowing crate is purposefully constructed to restrict the movement of the sow so that she cannot accidentally roll or flop onto them. Because of a pigs structure, their short legs and heavy bodies (typical sow weighs about 600lbs) they cannot ease themselves gracefully onto the ground. Rather, they start to lower them selves, and then finish the movement by ‘flopping’ their heavy bodies onto the ground. When living in the wild, piglets commonly get laid on by their mothers and are suffocated to death, the farrowing crate is designed to minimize this occurrence, and give the piglets an escape route when mom decides to lay down. Gestation crates are much harder to justify. I have worked in a barn that used gestation crates, and I have worked in a small barn that used open pens. In both cases, the animals seemed comfortable and relatively happy, but, I could not ignore the intense behavioral differences exhibited by the crated sows. When living in gestation crates, these sows do not get out to exercise and are incredibly bored, exhibited by bar biting, facial rubbing, and rooting. Pigs are sedentary animals, and spend most of their time sleeping, however when the need to explore does strike them, it is beneficial for them to be able to move freely about their environment, even if it is just to turn around and see what is behind them. Movement is also good for their general health and physiological condition. A gestation crate can be beneficial in simple management of the animal because of fighting and breeding practices. In my opinion, although it is not abusive, the benefits do NOT out weigh the costs. A number of the untreated wounds (shoulder sores, sore hocks, feet, facial sores..etc) are a result of the crate, HOWEVER there are practices that can be utilized to minimize their occurrence as well as treatments to heal them when they do occur.

Finally, gas chamber and captive bolt gun (’steel rod’, as quoted by MFA) are tools for stunning or euthanasia of animals that are: experiencing extended and unnecessary pain, terminally ill, or otherwise not productive. Both methods are approved as humane methods of euthanasia by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and are effective when utilized correctly. The application of these methods in this video are certainly questionable, however it is a video, and all of the surrounding circumstances are unknown. A full description of proper application of all euthanasia methods can be found in the AVMA Guidelines for Euthanasia:  http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf.

The release of this video, and many like it, are open wounds and doors in the pork industry, and agriculture as a whole. Abuse is not sustainable. Animals DO NOT produce well when they are unnecessarily stressed. Crate sores, untreated wounds, and handling caused injuries all contribute to inefficient production, which is the basis of sustainability. By treating livestock animals with care, we maximize their productive capabilities and increase survivability in an already intense growing environment. Lower mortality rates means less animals need to be produced to meet the demands of the consumers and less meat is wasted because of poor quality (major effect of stressed animals, quality of meat plummets). Proper handling, adequate treatment, and ample attention to animal health, comfort, and care are all steps that need to be taken to avoid abusive situations as well as maintain efficient and sustainable production of pork. The wound of abuse has been opened, and exposed, once again. However this opens the door and encourages all agricultural industries to look more closely, once again, at their procedures, to be sure that all animals are being produced efficiently, sustainably, and within the code of animal welfare.

Please do not hesitate to post questions, I will be happy to answer them. And if I don’t know the answer, please be assured that I will find it for you.

For more information on this video, and steps that were taken by CVFF, please go to: http://www.countryviewfamilyfarms.com/ and follow the links on the homepage.

For more information on MFA: Please go to: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/

There were several reasons why our company made the decision to start working with Vectorworks Landmark. Coming from a AutoCAD and Google Sketchup background, I had been quite used to the traditional work flow with most of the design industry. Typically grading and planting plans would come from a CAD format, and some of the more three dimensional features would be roughly modeled in Sketchup, then typically hand rendered using the models as guides.

While this was often an effective way of communicating our designs, I had always felt that something seemed amiss. The first key issue was the need for redundant drawing lengthening the time spent in the CD/DD phases. Having to use 2-4 programs to create a deliverable package was a relatively tedious process. On top of that, unless you bought specialized versions of AutoCAD software, many of the tools that landscape designers and architects could use were never bundled within the same software package. Yes, programs such as LandFX helped remediate some of the issues but certainly not all. Also, given some of the environmentally sensitive sites that we are accustomed to working on, the ability to model shadows, slopes and drainage as well as create accurate cut and fill calculations were all something that we could use on a regular basis.

After some research we decided to give Nemetschek a call to obtain a trial version of Landmark. While the learning curve was steep mainly due to having to think in different ways than the industry standard work flow, the software seemed to have great potential in our company. SIM and parametric modeling/planning seems to be the current direction that the industry is going. Having complex numerical data associated with all elements within a set of plans or a model (as opposed to Sketchup being primarily graphic with minor abilities to measure area) is an extremely powerful method of control.

I think the biggest ‘wow’ for us was the site modeling capabilities. In Landmark one can create a fully parametric model of the existing site then through the use of special site modifiers, can change elevations, slopes, create terraces, drains etc. Once this is done, you can then compare the changes of volume between the existing site and the proposed one, giving you a theoretically accurate cut/fill ratio. This is extremely useful for creating environmentally sensitive projects and attempting to balance cut and fill creating a net volume change of zero. Another nice feature of the parametric site modeling is the ability to calculate storm water flow directions, as well as color code your site model based on the slope in specific areas (gradient from green to red showing a low slope to a steep one).

Other things that I have come to love is all the data you can associate with your plant symbols. Everything from growth habits, water requirements and even photos can be placed in tables and outputted with your deliverables. Each 2D symbol is also related to the 3D plant models, to make a seamless transition from 2D to 3D model space.

This brings me to the more recent experience with the Vectorworks software. First let me say that Nemetschek has some of the best customer service of any software or technology company that I have ever dealt with. They always seem to be eager to communicate with their customers and help in any way possible. I was recently sent one of their new tutorial books called 3D Modeling in Vectorworks 2009 by Jonathan Pickup to review and give my thoughts. Vectorworks is an extremely versatile VIZ and modeling program, but the learning curve into parametric modeling can be a little daunting. The program allows multiple ways of doing similar things so users can choose which methods they prefer which is very useful, however it can sometimes lead to indecision. Overall I think the new book is a great way to really get into parametric modeling. Pickup outlines various 3D modeling tools, giving tons of screen captures as well as a DVD containing associated videos. After learning some of the basic commands and uses for the tools, the tutorial takes you through a couple of full projects from start to finish. While the methods within the book may not necessarily be the only ways to complete the task, the tutorials will at least give an example and concept of how it is done. For those more experienced with parametrics and 3D modeling (not Sketchup), hopefully a more advanced tutorial will be created in the future to really take advantage of all the features Vectorworks has to offer. Overall I think it would be a valuable resource for anyone interested in creating more complex 3D environments for VIZ or presentation purposes.

It needs to be said I do not work for Nemetschek and I am not on their payroll. Personally I would love to see more companies break out of the traditional work flows and try something that could be both more efficient and worthwhile. More users of Vectorworks means greater user support for the program, which is always invaluable. For any professionals looking at software for their firms, I would strongly suggest at least asking Nemetchek for a copy of Landmark to try out. They seem to be a great group of people with a power product.

http://www.nemetschek.net

-k. vincent

This is one of the foundations for a group in Austin, Texas called ‘The Front Porch Project”. As described by their literature and overview:

‘The Front Porch Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering community, dialogue and art in Austin, Texas. It is a social enterprise bringing diverse people together in coversation, giving new artists a place to show their work, helping new bands with a first gig. We encourage meaningful conversation between friends and strangers, and provide a place visiting professors, priests, philosophers, and assorted experts to share their ideas. We support the Austin community by providing space for local groups to meet in conversation and shared experience, and by networking with other nonprofits and local Great Places to enrich our mutual home.’ (From www.thefrontporchproject.org)

I met recently with one of the founders, Steve Kinney and we had a good conversation regarding various issues such as the environment, our respective projects and the like. Steve is a rather soft spoken but assertive person who seems to genuinely interested in what people have to say. Through our brief talk it seemed as if all of life’s offerings, good and bad, were taken with equal consideration and appreciation. I really liked his perspective on the issues and we casually agreed that a joint event might be planned in the near future (so stay tuned).
The Front Porch Project consists of a diverse group of individuals coming from many different backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. They meet regularly to plan various events and programs through which they hope to achieve their organizational goals. They currently have a headquarters known as “Logia” in the works, a 7000 square feet multi-deciplanary meeting place with a large eating area catered by local chefs and farmers, book and gift store, and event center. Their vision is to have this center serve as a place for people to meet, converse, debate, perform and of course eat in the common goal of communicating their beliefs, emotions, and artistic viewpoints. While a definite deadline for Logia is not known to me, I will be sure to keep everyone informed (or better yet, visit their website and stay updated).

I very much like what The Front Porch Project stand for and will be looking forward to working with them in the future. Also, every other Tuesday or so, there are meetings at various places around Austin (usually Texas French Bread) where different films, presentations and other communications take place. I urge you to check this group out at www.thefrontporchproject.org.

I must first apologize for my delayed response to this article, for it is definitely a matter that no one should ignore, because WE ALL EAT FOOD, and therefore we are all affected by the changes that are made in agriculture and we should all be aware of the TRUTH, and not of trumped up opinions that only make themselves heard by feeding on the ignorance of Americans today. And no, it is not that I feel that the general public is stupid, or that they are deliberately ignoring the facts. It is actually the opposite. I feel that the truth is not presented in a fashion that can be understood. The truth about something so basic as food should be taught starting as a child. We learn our eating habits when we are children. Learn to eat from what is placed in front of us, what is available for our choosing, and what we watch our parents eat.

My excellent example: I don’t eat sweet potatoes (yams) because my father would stand in front of me and everyone of my 3 brothers and tell us that sweet potatoes were ‘gross’ EVERY time mom fed them to us. And to this day I look at sweet potatoes and my automatic thought is ‘gross’. Sad isn’t it? My own father conditioned me to dislike sweet potatoes, when he is the same person that convinced me to try something with a name as un-appealing as pigs feet (or pig knuckle). Neither of these foods are bad, both are actually quite tasty and offer valid nutrients.

But anyway. The point is that too many people are unaware of why we need food, and how the body processes food; let alone where it comes from. To so many, we eat because our body tells us too. It doesn’t tell us what to eat though. Yes, there are such things as cravings (and not the pregnant, peanut butter and pickles kind, there are normal food cravings) but many of those cravings are emotionally based, not physiologically. So, in order for us to know what to eat, we need to be taught; and we need to be taught by experts in food and nutrition, not by a journalist who studied the structure of 3 paragraph essay for 5 years of his life. Going back to the article written by Mr. Walsh, this is an article with no scientific backing. No truth, just uneducated opinion. A statement from Walsh’s article reads:

“…feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population.”

 And while it is truth that obesity is an epidemic in America, it is NOT true that meat is the cause.

We need to accept that humans are omnivores. We were born with the biological need and capability to eat and digest animal based proteins in order for our bodies to grow and to remain healthy. As members of the society that support sustainability, it is vital that we consider all of the possible resources available to meet our biological need for food. We need carbohydrates as our body’s preferred primary source of energy. And we need fruits and vegetables to help meet those requirements, as well as fulfill our need for micro nutrients (vitamins and minerals). We also need protein, and while our crude protein (the nutrition basis for measuring protein content in a food, that is based on nitrogen content) can be met by eating a [relatively] small amount of protein, we have a specific amino acid requirement that can only be met by eating animal proteins.

 ”A food system — from seed to 7‑Eleven — that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America’s obesity epidemic.”

 The cheap food that is causing the obesity epidemic in America are the high calorie, sugary snacks that plague the shelves of every convenience, grocery, or superstore in every town. They are the cookies, breads, muffins, bagels, pudding, soda, punch, alcohol, and candies that are cheap, but FAR from filling, which is why we are fat. The cost nearly equals out because of the amount of sugary snacks it takes to actually feel full (and consume 5x the calories in some cases) is far greater than the amount of protein needed to feel full.

 ”As the developing world grows richer, hundreds of millions of people will want to shift to the same calorie-heavy, protein-rich diet that has made Americans so unhealthy — demand for meat and poultry worldwide is set to rise 25% by 2015 — but the earth can no longer deliver.”

 Those of us who live in the industrialized world cannot understand the needs and the desires of the developing world, because it has been too long since our people have been in their shoes. People will have a change in diet, and who wouldn’t? We enjoy the lowest cost of food in the entire world, and we still want it to be lower. Buying cheaply made, cheaply nutritious, and cheaply marketed food seems to satisfy that capitalist desire to stretch that dollar. And, unknown to most, food is grown as cheaply as possible because you demand it that way. And because or the recent demand for top quality at a low price, the systems for growing animals and produce are changing at a constant rate to find the most effective and efficient method possible for reaching this goal. And the basis of that goal is to find a method that allows continued production. Because we work with the land, we do not want it to fail on us. So it is treated in the best methods we know in order to sustain it for future use to feed the exploding population.

 So with a little reason and education, Mr. Walsh’s article can be torn apart with each sentence. His lack of research and knowledge on this subject should be embarrassing for TIME Magazine, and they should be ashamed of his poor performance as a journalist. It is only further proof that what seems to be most likely is not, and a reminder to educate ourselves before we attempt to pass off our ignorance as fact.

 <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html>

That being said, there is another casualty of large chains beyond restricting competition for smaller companies. A month or two back I started to look for a suitable location to host a VEG parking day event (www.parkingday.org) on September 16th. Typically the park installations are placed in public metered parking spaces in downtown areas, but after some deliberation and discussion we thought it might be best to try to make a PARKing day event more centralized into this specific area of Austin. There were too locations that I thought would be great for the event within close proximity to our office as well as plenty of nearby foot traffic etc. I started by making a couple calls to a Galleria shopping center that is situated more like a downtown street. Overall I think it was planned out relatively well, and thought it to be a local place that we can really promote these ideas of green space and rethink how the areas covered with asphalt could be more enjoyably used for. After being passed to multiple different people within the Galleria office, I was asked to leave a voicemail with a person in charge of managing the Galleria. Considering this was a non-public area, I figured permission was appropriate. After 2 days of waiting for a response, I called the Galleria office again, and yet again, left a voicemail. I called in another 2 days, talked to the secretary, and managed to be connected to another in-box. After about a week and a half of no communication and no calls returned, I determined that apparently, the Galleria management had no interest in the PARKing day event, even after being promised media attention surrounding the event.

After that failed attempt, I contacted the closest Seattle-based coffee shop thinking that given their attempts at being more socially and environmentally conscious, they might be interested in letting me have our PARKing day outside their store. After speaking with a manager, he was surprisingly helpful, informing me that they would probably be interested but I would need to gain permission from the grocery store chain that owns their lease. This is where things became all too familiar. After speaking with two different managers and a regional director, I was patched through to one of the regional managers where after a quite friendly phone call was instructed to send a outline of the event which I did promptly. After 3 days of no response, I called the regional managers office again, where I was told that a message would be sent that day. Two days later without a response, I made another call, and again the same response. After more than a week I received an email asking for clarification on a couple points which I responded to. After another week and a half, and several calls to the company, I gave up.

Now maybe it is just my sense of manners when it comes to these things, but if I tell someone I will respond within a day or two, I generally do. First off its polite, but secondly customer service is extremely important to the success of our company. If it wasn’t for that element of our operation, we probably would not be in business right now. Not returning a correspondence through phone or even email after 3 weeks is simply unacceptable. Even if they were not interested in the event, a courtesy call informing me of such would have been very welcomed so an alternate plan could have been devised.

This is an example of one of the greatest detriments of big business on our every day lives. Yes, a large company can employ many people, and create income. That is surely an important factor for the success of an economy. What it does not create is a sense of bond and responsibility within the community itself. Employees typically compete amongst eachother not to climb the corporate ladder but in many cases today, to stay employed. Typically with large big box retailers, grocery stores, health care centers etc, the job pool can be quickly replaced if needed. In these cases, distrust becomes more common than companionship. Chain restaurants often use labor systems and methods to increase profit by insuring that employees are paid the least amount while maintaining functionality. These large companies work as machines, primarily concerned with the bottom line and profit margins as well as the salaries of the board and executive staff, rarely bothering with creating an actual society. If we do see a large company involved in a public project, it usually has the project named after the company itself so instead of a selfless act of community building or philanthropy, they create a billboard.

In  order for a society to prosper, there needs to be some sort of common bond between people: some sort of connection. Today it seems much more common to look upon a neighbor and treat them as a threat than someone who might be able to improve your life or situation. In my example above, there was so much red tape involved, with so much detachment from management, a simple event taking up one parking spot was too much to ask. What happened to customer service and companies caring about people’s needs being met, rather than simply sales numbers surrounding the products? When people become numbers, the person ceases to exist, and only the numbers remain. A true society is not composed of numbers but rather a diverse group of people working to better the lives of the people around them. Where are the hardware stores where people know you by name? Where are the small markets that don’t only exist in a parking lot on Sunday mornings? Where are the people coming together only to create a tighter and healthier community? I hope we find them.

Travis county and Texas as a whole has seen droughts like this before. In 1956 for instance, the overall weather patterns and daily high temperatures were very similar, creating a scorching environment and causing the destruction of crops and agriculture. While devastating in its own right, the concern surrounding this year’s drought has a slightly different character.

Water availability throughout West Travis county is becoming an issue to many residents. Numerous reports of wells running completely dry and water pressure dropping to inoperable levels have plagued the news sources in the area. The population of Travis county has multiplied nearly 5 times since the mid fifties and as a result the demand on resources has too. In many reports issued lately, the demand on various underground water sources has grown to levels that cannot be sustained, especially in drought conditions. While Austin remains a relatively eco-conscious city, there is no question that the abundance of turfgrass and heavy water consuming landscapes in addition to typical consumption has contributed greatly to the problem.

In response to the drought reaching the ‘Critical’ stage, the City of Austin has begun enforcing a once-per-week mandatory water restrictions on anyone receiving water from the municipal water system. Despite the common understanding that there is indeed a water crises within the area, citizens have been up in arms about the recent legislation. To make matters worse, the city also exempted themselves as well as a main city park (Zilker) from the watering restrictions. This in turn has outraged many Austinites even further, believing that the city should lead by example and follow their own requirements. In rebuttal to these outcries, City of Austin Utilities has released various statements deeming that since the new irrigation system for Zilker park uses water from the nearby lake and not the treated water supply, it is exempt. While possibly a loophole in the statute, the Lower Colorado River Authority has recently announced that they want to start charging people that use rivers as sources for water for irrigation due to the fact that it is causing shortages of water downstream.

I’m not sure that particular argument is working in the city’s favor…

There is no doubt that pulling water from a surface water source is going to impact both environmental systems as well as overall water availability. Water is part of an overall cycle and a change at any point will affect others. Personally, while I know that Texas currently has a “right of capture” in regards to water rights, I do not believe that just because a property backs up to a surface water system that they are no longer accountable for their water usage, just the same as I believe that those that live with a well should be accountable too (tho usually are by force rather than choice).

There is however an argument I could make on the city’s behalf. Zilker park is a public park. There is no required entrance fee of any sort to enjoy the park. Except for special events (trail of lights comes to mind but even that is of no charge) the park is an open place for people to play both organized and pickup games, or just enjoy the sun for an afternoon. In order for these activities to succeed, grass needs to be available to hold the dirt to the ground and avoid the dust bowl present at the Austin City Limits Festival a couple years ago causing respiratory problems in concert-goers. In the case of a public park, the open space is the key to its success and to me, that is where the turf grass belongs. In our backyards many of us believe that naturally, turf grass should be everywhere to create open spaces for ourselves that we can play catch in  or let our pets run freely. In many cases, however, the spaces are typically too small to fully enjoy many of the sports we like to play in them. Coupled with the drastic amount of water and maintenance to keep many of them green, soft and healthy, the actual overall enjoyment seems a little less worth it. We have seen this in a few recent clients that have asked us to eliminate large areas of turf and plant native plants and ground cover in their place.

So why get angry at the city for creating a park for you, and little cost to the individual besides subsequent property taxes for land owners? A public park is meant for everyone to enjoy. The luxury of owning an area of land around your house is a great thing to be sure, but what costs do we accept to merely keep it covered with turf? Look at New York City’s Central Park for example. In the Spring and Summer when outside temperatures climb above freezing you can find thousands of people sunbathing, playing and exercising throughout the park. After my recent experience there, I have a new outlook on the differing perspectives between the urban and suburban dwellers. In Central Park, being in a park is a social and public activity compared to the desire for private and secluded lifestyles that many seem to enjoy in central Texas.

To me the most logical stance on the issue is to let parks be parks, and let garden areas be garden areas. Instead of complaining that Zilker gets to water, and your St. Augustine is brown and dying, ride your bicycle to the nearest city or state park and enjoy what it has to offer. Bond with other park goers and make new relationships with people. To me this is a much more worthwhile experience than fretting over your irrigation controller.

Being healthy is living with all biological processes working as they should. All body systems and processes are included in this….circulation, digestion, excretion, psychological processes, the immune system, I could go on. Now, thinking back to your general high school biology class, all organisms start out at a stage of development that needs to grow. With time and STRESS, the system learns to adapt, and it grows to accommodate, and efficiently handle new stresses. Or at least that is how I see it.

Because I am a factual person, here are two definitions of Health found in the Encarta Dictionary:

1. the general condition of the body or mind, especially in terms of the presence or absence of illnesses, injuries, or impairments
2. the general condition of something in terms of soundness, vitality, and proper functioning

SO, based on the first definition, we are only healthy when our bodies are working perfectly. Can you tell me WHEN…at what stage of life/development…do our bodies work ‘perfectly’? And if there is such a stage, why doesn’t it last? 

Health can be, and should be, considered in a few different ways. It should be considered a process, rather than a state of being. You could look at health from the aspect that it is our body working at its peak state of efficiency at any stage of development. This is probably a little easier to understand, and more main stream. The idea that we can eat different foods at different stages of our lives in order to keep out bodies in working order and to prevent sickness, now and in the future. When the body is not stressed due to its diet it is working at its most efficient state and performing at its best, and there fore fitting the definition of healthy.

Another side of healthy living, is by not manipulating the natural way, and just letting things come as a balance. Yes, stress is going to come in life, from the first steps, through school, and through the aging process. In our world today, we live very stressful lives in that we are always on the move, we are surrounded by thousands…millions..of other people all the time, sharing surfaces, spaces, and…GERMS. We go to the doctors to try and avoid these germs. We try to minimize these stresses by getting our vaccinations, using hand sanitizer, hand washing, bathing, staying inside, taking medications, avoiding that poor unfortunate soul who did happen to get sick.

Sustainability is actually the backbone of a healthy lifestyle. While we are trying to maintain the environment so that future generations can enjoy it, we should be maintaining our selves in that order as well. We should allow a little stress into our lives, as well as utilizing our natural and local resources for food. We should also let a little dirt into our lives, and not try so hard to remove dirt from daily surroundings. Is it really necessary to dust your house EVERYDAY? Probably not. Not to say that you should NEVER dust your house, or allow too much dirt to build up, but everything in moderation. That is what sustainability is all about. A balance of what is naturally occurring, and a few educated steps to minimize risks and increase natural prevention (immunity).

To live healthy life we need to live in a balance of reason, self control, awareness, exposure/experience, and education. We all try to live healthy by eating the best food that we can find, by following what the ‘experts’ say. But have you ever noticed how much these ‘experts’ differ?? The information just doesn’t seem to add up on most days. Healthy living should be a balancing act. The body does not work in extremes, same as the environment. It cannot work perfectly all the time, and nature should not be expected to. And it certainly cannot work properly in total absence of some nutrients, with excess of others. It also cannot work under extreme amounts of stress, and yet it still will not work properly if there is a complete lack of stress. Exercise, education, a balanced diet, proper preventative measures…and believe it or not, a little dirt…will keep you in a healthy balance. Exercise builds muscle and bone strength, education works the mind, diet fuels the body, taking medicine helps keep extreme diseases at bay, and DIRT. By Dirt, I mean that it is important to build the immune system through exposure to everyday organisms. Building a natural immunity helps to reduce the amount of time spent being sick due to common bacteria, and helps the body fight off more intense diseases with little help from pharmaceutical drugs.

A few suggestions (and bonus incentive):

1. Exercise: plant a garden (provides a healthy diet as well), walk/bike to work, maintain a compost pile (reduce your garbage bill), hang clothes outside to dry (reduce energy use), volunteer with an Adopt-a-Highway (cleaner planet).
2. Healthy Diet: buy fresh fruits and vegetables (freshest available at a local food market/grocery store), eat meat!/dairy/eggs (shocking, I know, but eating animal products provides the body with essential enzymes and amino acids for muscle production that are not available in fruits and veggies), balance food intake with exercise level/calorie burn (http://www.mypyramidtracker.gov is an EXCELLENT resource to get you started on the right track)
3. Educate yourself: read the health section of the newspaper (great way to learn whats new), research topics, especially controversial ones ( contacting your local state extension office will have the most up today, current, and credibly researched resources on just about any environmental/life topic that you can think of), keep up with blogs like theveg.com! (or other blogs of your interest, they are a valuble insight to varying opinions, but not necessarily based on facts)
4. Immunity: go play in the dirt! (exposure to daily organisms in low levels builds natural immunity), wash your hands, but dont scrub your skin off (the skin produces oils that help repel organisms from entering through the dermal layer and into the body) get some sleep (bonus of reducing stress…stop being so dang busy!)
5. Finally:: BALANCE: use reason and self control to balance you diet, exercise, rest, and ‘germ’ exposure. And use reason in combination with education to determine what is real and what is just media fluff.

All of these suggestions are a starting point, take 15 minutes and research your favorite topic. You may be surprised on what you can find to help you live a truly sustainable and HEALTHY lifestyle.