“The economic localization movement is growing. Locavores have become widespread, with the “100 mile diet” representing the new eco-conscious food trend. Author Helena Norberg-Hodge begins her TEDx talk, The Economics of Happiness, with this impassioned plea: ‘For all of us around the world the highest priority, the most urgent issue, is fundamental change to the economy,’ and goes on to say, ‘The change that we need to make is shifting away from globalizing to localizing economic activity.’ This, she suggests, is the economics of happiness. Even in my own town, a yoga studio has a sign on the wall urging yoga practitioners to shop locally.

As a humane educator who teaches about the interconnected issues of human rights, environmental preservation and animal protection, I am uncomfortable with the fervor surrounding localization. While the farmer’s market and local food movements have certainly been beneficial – helping farmers, communities, and individuals alike – it’s not realistic, desirable, or responsible to reject global trade out of hand or to advocate localization as the urgent answer for our times.”

Read the complete essay.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

As she went on to argue that 99% of us don’t benefit from globalization, I found myself thinking of the vast majority of us who have certainly benefited from many aspects of globalization. While the farmers’ market and local food movements have surely done good, helping farmers, communities, and individuals alike, I could only imagine the 99% of coffee drinkers I know here in New England, and all those who eat bananas, drink orange juice, enjoy black and green teas, consume avocados, lemons and wine, eat rice, and wear cotton foregoing it all for apples, potatoes, wheat, blueberries, mint and chamomile tea, mussels and clams, and linen clothing and deer hides. Further, I thought of the people in temperate climates who’ve been saved by medicines derived from tropical plants, and the people in the tropics saved by the medicines discovered by scientists working in New England laboratories.

Imagine what would happen to the Ethiopian coffee farmers depicted in the film Black Gold whose organic, fair trade coffee would no longer have a market outside their communities, or to the sustainable and fair trade collectives producing goods and clothes for a living wage that are lifting individuals out of poverty as these products are sold beyond their borders. I wondered what would happen to all these people were we to all choose to buy locally.

The choice between localization and globalization is a false one. There are more nuanced choices we can and should make. If the primary problems lie in monoculture farms, poisonous chemicals, fuel-guzzling animal agriculture, exploitation of farm workers, cruelty to animals, and reduction in biological diversity of crops, we can address these problems directly. Fair trade, organic, sustainable, diverse, plant-based farming will help solve these challenges without closing markets between north and south, east and west, or in the U.S. between the fertile heartland, citrus-bearing Florida, and California (where just about everything grows). I’m happy that my state of Maine provides blueberries and lumber to people across the country (although I would like it to do so without toxic pesticides and clear-cutting), and I’m also happy that I can live in Maine and still occasionally eat dates and drink red wine.

What I see as the bigger challenge with globalization is the fuel necessary to transport crops and products across the globe, but as Michael Berners-Lee reveals in his carbon footprinting assessment of hundreds of products and foods in his book, How Bad Are Bananas?, local doesn’t necessarily mean less carbon intensive. Bananas from equatorial regions, he points out, use a fraction of the fuel of hothouse tomatoes grown next door to him in England. These are complex problems that are going to require innovative solutions, and we’re going to have to find clean energy sources no matter what we do, whether we buy locally or globally, assuming we want to live without returning to a fuel-less life.

I don’t know many people – even local food advocates – who really want to give up everything produced outside of 100 miles or whatever constitutes “local.” It’s great that we’re witnessing a revival of local, sustainably-produced food, and I for one enjoy producing much of my family’s food in our 900 square food organic garden, but localization is not a panacea. My hope is that in the process of coming up with solutions to our very complex global challenges, we will not resort to simple answers that may fail to harness the creativity and brilliance we really need to build a just, healthy, and happy world for all.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.  

Apparently, we’re willing to go along with this selling frenzy even though it means long lines in crowded stores. We go along because we’ve been told to. It’s Black Friday after all.

Adbusters Magazine launched Buy Nothing Day in response to Black Friday. It’s a campaign to get us to reexamine our shopping habits, and it has gained some traction. Lots of people respond to Black Friday by buying nothing in honor of Buy Nothing Day.

My own shopping habits have never been any different on the Friday following Thanksgiving than any other day of the year, and I personally reject both the call to shop and the call to buy nothing. Both feel like gimmicks to make me change my behavior for a day. What I want is for people to examine their shopping 365 days of the year.

What we buy matters. In the most democratic manner of all, it is a vote. When you spend money you are voting for the things you buy. Money is a reward that says to the recipient, “Good job, do it again!” So what do you want to vote for? That’s a tough question. Most economists, politicians, and employees in stores will tell you to vote with your money as much as possible. The more you spend, the better the economy, the more people will be employed, the sooner we’ll be able to pay off the deficit, the brighter the future will be. But it’s not so simple. Most environmentalists will remind you that the more you drive to malls and spend your money in stores the more carbon is released into the atmosphere, the more resources are depleted, and the faster we trash our planet. Most human rights advocates will want you to realize that the more you spend on cheap chain store products produced overseas the more you’ll be contributing to sweatshop and slave labor. Most animal advocates will wish that you would reconsider the fur, down, wool, and leather you buy in clothing stores and the myriad personal care products tested on animals in the cruelest of ways.

We need to consider what is worth voting for, which foods, which clothes, which electronics, which toys, and so on. I would be happy to attend a local crafts fair on Black Friday and support the many cottage industries in my county by buying homemade jams, artwork, pottery, and so on. I would do so consciously and enthusiastically, choosing holiday gifts with care and love, helping my community while choosing special gifts for loved ones.

What you buy matters. Today, on Black Friday/Buy Nothing Day, I hope people will commit to shopping consciously and conscientiously.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principal for a Better World and Meaningful Life

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Essentially, though, Legrain argues that consumerism – albeit a healthier version than most of us think of when we hear the word – is a primary key to a happier and more just and peaceful world. One of the pull out quotes in the article reads: “Localism, not globalization, is the true enemy of the planet.”

Legrain’s is a fairly unpopular view among progressives of various sorts who are promoting local economies, food independence, and voluntary simplicity as keys to a sustainable, just, and healthy world. And it is one I appreciate. I have found myself grappling with the complexities and sometimes the contradictions of local vs. global, and of consumerism vs. simplicity, for many years. I’ve written about this in my book, Most Good, Least Harm, because it is not always clear what and to whom actually does the most good and the least harm from our choices, especially if we are trying to do the most good and the least harm to ourselves, other people, animals, and the environmental all at the same time.

If I were to choose to eat only foods that are grown locally, as opposed to the criteria that I have chosen (vegan, organic, fair trade), then those organic and fair trade banana growers in Central and South America, from whom I purchase bananas at our local food co-op, would lose a loyal customer. I care about those growers as much as I care about the organic wheat growers in Northern Maine, whose crop I buy whenever I purchase bread or flour. True, the ecological footprint of the bananas is significant, shipped as they are using fossil fuels, but when I imagine a post-fossil fuel world that relies upon sustainable, non-polluting energy, that world has an abundance of global trade. My only reason now for limiting my purchases of distantly-produced products is environmental. I have never been swayed by “localism” for localism’s sake, that is, to “support my local economy.” It feels insular to me. In the same way, I have never understood when the news reports the number of Americans killed in a battle or natural disaster and fails to report the number of non-Americans killed. Personally, I don’t care about Americans more that I care about Iraqis. I care about people.

And so I was glad to read Legrain’s ideas and grateful to Ode Magazine for publishing an unpopular view. Yet, I hope that when I read his actual book (instead of excerpts) it will be more nuanced, and there won’t be either/or scenarios as presented in the quote “Localism, not globalization, is the true enemy of the planet.”

In a complex world, with challenging conundrums and solutions still eluding us, we must think beyond either/ors and attempt to continually ask and seek to answer what does the most good and the least harm in the countless choices that make up our lives. In this way, we can hone our critical thinking skills and harness our creativity to find new ideas that don’t simply refute other positions but which bring us further toward a peaceful, sustainable, and humane world for all people, animals, and the environment.

Zoe Weil

Image courtesy of Sheila’s via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Whenever I have seen or heard this position put forth as a viable solution to the situation in which we find ourselves in the 21st century, I’ve thought it both ludicrous and misanthropic: ludicrous because it simply will not happen that billions of people will willingly return to a pre-technological era, and misanthropic because such a return would necessitate the death of much of humanity.

But until I read the current issue of The Sun magazine and the interview with “environmental optimist” and founder of Worldchanging.com, Alex Steffen, I’d never seen a critique of such a position so well articulated. Steffen argues that the return to a Stone Age way of life would cause catastrophic human suffering, saying:

“We know that way of life can’t support a population in the billions, so trying to go back to it would require the death of most of the world’s people. Beyond that, I think it’s obvious that nature is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Humanity, Inc. We have the capacity to take it down with us if we choose, and people are put into desperate situations will do just that. There’s this sort of college-town anarchist idea that if we let it all fall apart, out of the ruins will come something clean and noncommercial and egalitarian and more in touch with nature, but that’s just crazy. Hungry people don’t think about the future. As my colleague Allan AtKisson says, a world of starving people will be a world without panda bears, dolphins, or rain forests. By the time we got back to the Stone Age, we wouldn’t have the same world we had during the Stone Age. We can’t go back; there’s no ‘back’ to go back to.”

Steffen insists that it’s equally deluded to believe that technology will “magically find a way to let us continue living wasteful, suburban lives based on throwaway consumption.” To me, this means we need to find a way to move forward, and that will happen when we don’t romanticize the past as a perfect template for a viable future and we don’t cling to the present as an ideal to spread across the globe, but rather begin to envision a world in which we are all able to live joyful, healthy, meaningful lives which meet our physical and emotional needs peaceably and sustainably. Yes, this is indeed hard to imagine. For some, it may seem unimaginable. But what else should we do than make the effort to imagine such a world and put legs on our vision?

In the same interview, Steffen is asked, “How do you look at all these problems and stay optimistic?” He responds:

“Optimism is a political act. Those who benefit from the status quo are perfectly happy for us to think nothing is going to get any better. In fact, these days, cynicism is obedience. What’s really radical is being willing to look right at the problems we face and still insist that we can solve them.”

I don’t pretend to know how to solve all our problems or how to change the many systems (economic, political, energy, agricultural, legal, commercial, etc.) that perpetuate them. I do know, however, that there is one system whose transformation will lead to changes in all the other systems. That system is education. If we as a society redefine the purpose of schooling and provide all students with the knowledge, tools, and inspiration to themselves envision a sustainable and peaceful world, then these young people will bring that knowledge, those tools, and their enthusiasm into all the professions they enter, transforming each in turn.

While we don’t need to know all the answers, we need to believe that those answers are obtainable, both by us today, and by our children tomorrow. We must not abdicate our responsibility to harness our own creativity and critical thinking skills and to insist that our children’s curiosity, creativity and critical thinking capacities be cultivated and encouraged with the goal of a peaceful, sustainable world as their grail. This is the way forward.

Zoe Weil
Author of Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times and Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life

Image courtesy of sardinelly via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has just issued its blueprint to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act.

At the Institute for Humane Education, we believe that we need to reconsider the very purpose of schooling and educate a generation with the knowledge, tools, and motivation to address pressing challenges with practical and visionary ideas in a rapidly changing world.

What do you think as you consider these different perspectives? Please share your thoughts, especially if you are a teacher, school administrator or educational reformer.

Zoe Weil, President of the Institute for Humane Education
Author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Van Jones, a lawyer, civil rights activist, author of The Green Collar Economy, and environmental/social justice changemaker, was the perfect pick as a green jobs advisor to President Obama. Jones has been promoting a green collar economy that will simultaneously put people to work in well-paying green jobs while solving environmental challenges. The environmental movement has been blessed with a brilliant, forward-thinking solutionary whose ideas have the power to speed a lasting economic recovery while at the same time preventing further environmental degradation and creating a shift toward sustainable systems. Jones has been promoting one of the most important, reasonable, practical win-win answers of our time.

But because Jones signed a petition five years ago calling upon Congress to look into the possibility that members of the Bush administration had prior knowledge about 9/11 that they withheld, and because he has criticized Republicans, and because he has committed other “liberal faux pas,” Jones has been effectively castrated in his role. Although he apologized for signing the petition and making some past statements, in the end, he was ostensibly bullied into resigning, or else weaken the potential effectiveness he has worked so hard to realize.

I don’t believe there was any U.S. conspiracy behind 9/11, and I don’t believe that the Bush administration allowed the terrorist attacks to occur to justify a war against Iraq, and I was surprised that Van Jones signed the petition that he did (although I have probably signed many petitions that, on the surface, seemed aligned with my values — doing so while I was rushing and not thorough in reading the petition carefully). But so what? What does his signing such a petition or criticizing Republicans have to do with advising the current administration on his area of expertise which could, if enacted, put U.S. citizens back to work in stable, well-paying jobs that bring about a healthier, cleaner, more sustainable, restored world?

Just as I couldn’t see a reasonable connection between John Mackey’s opinion on health care reform and a boycott of a grocery chain that offers healthier, more sustainable, and more humane foods and products, I cannot see a meaningful connection between Van Jones’ past and possibly flippant comments about Republicans and his signing of a misguided petition with his work to create green jobs and better environmental systems.

It was a very sad day in this country when Van Jones resigned. We lost a rare advisor in politics: someone with remarkable vision who knows how to put that vision into practice in ways that help everyone and hurt no one. I am appalled by those who brought Jones down. They, we, and the environment all lose because of such silliness.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy Creative Commons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edlabordems/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

“Socialism collapsed because it did not allow the market to tell the economic truth and capitalism may collapse because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth.”

Robert Shetterly (activist and artist who has created the Americans Who Tell the Truth portrait series) and I gave a talk recently on the purpose of education. During the presentation I asked the audience to analyze a fast food cheeseburger to determine its effects — both positive and negative — on ourselves, other people, animals and the environment. After this analysis, I asked the audience what systems are in place that perpetuate this kind of food, and we explored agribusiness, politicians funded by lobbyists and industry, the school lunch program, advertising, and so on.

One woman said capitalism was the system to blame for the cheeseburger, and I asked her to say more. On the one hand it appears that capitalism perpetuates such unhealthy food systems because the market supports their success, but the truth is that we don’t have a capitalist system when it comes to food production, and fast food isn’t really a result of free market capitalism.

Without the massive subsidies, paid for with tax dollars, for water, grazing land, and dairy production; without the subsidies for escalating health care as people become obese and succumb to diabetes, heart disease, cancers, and other illnesses related to unhealthy diets; without the cheap labor of illegal immigrants in our slaughterhouses and on our farms; without the tax-payer-funded costs of our military protection of oil sources which are necessary for such food production, and much more, those fast food cheeseburgers would be prohibitively expensive. It is because we’ve socialized many of our systems that we don’t actually pay the true costs of a fast food cheeseburger at the register.

Socialism, in this case, tells neither the economic nor the ecological truth.

There are economists, activists, thinkers and solutionaries who are working to develop and promulgate systems that do tell the truth. Peter Barnes, for example, author of Capitalism 3.0, puts forth a system that protects the commons while maintaining the healthy and positive aspects of capitalist economies.

Rob’s and my presentation addressed the purpose of education. We believe that education should engage youth in the restoration and success of democracy and produce citizens who pursue the truth so that they may become solutionaries themselves.

~ Zoe

It’s not surprising that there is some controversy associated with the film being shown in schools. Just as the economic historian I mentioned in my previous post countered a call to non-consumerist living with the statement that our economic system is based on consumerism, some are calling The Story of Stuff anti-capitalist (and hence anti-American).

Name calling. It doesn’t achieve much. It doesn’t solve our problems or imagine new ideas that could create greater happiness, prosperity, healthy, and peace. We need The Story of Stuff and so many other alternative views in our schools. Without them, we trudge on the status quo path that threatens all of us – even if we personally fail to see the likely consequences of our actions. But when we introduce new ideas to the next generation, pose questions that invite curiosity, critical thinking, and creative ideas, we can get beyond the name calling and “the controversy” and build new systems that work for all.

~ Zoe

Recently, on my book tours for Most Good, Least Harm, I’ve met people who want to read my book, but don’t want to buy it because they don’t want to consume more (more paper, more trees, more ink, more fossil fuels – all of which go into the production of my book). And I agree with them! I want my book to be a bestseller that millions read, and I want each of us to consume less and use our resources with more care. When asked about this dilemma, I often suggest they get a copy of the book and donate it to their local library when they’re done. Since the last page in the book provides a place for people to write down their names and email addresses so that they can connect with others who want to explore the issues involved inMOGO living, the perfect home for Most Good, Least Harm is a library. But the quandary remains.

What kind of society and world do we envision? Is it consumption-based or something else? What else?

In some of my future posts I’ll explore these issues of consumption further.

~ Zoe