In this our final week of reading Deep Economy, Bill McKibben also directs our gaze abroad.  He celebrates the European model of high economic productivity combined with a high quality of life.  He cites statistics on happiness, energy use, government foreign aid and environmental concern that show western European nations well out in front of the United States, despite the higher average incomes and possessions enjoyed by Americans.

What can these comparisons teach us?  For some readers McKibben’s praise for Europe is tantamount to preferring French fries to freedom fries.  However, McKibben notes what is common between the European and U.S. economic systems.  “In the twentieth century, two completely different models of how to run an economy battled for supremacy.  Ours won, not only because it produced more goods.  It also produced far more freedom, far less horror.” (225)  The defeated system was collectivist state planning not the capitalist welfare states of Europe, the U.S. and other nations including Canada and Japan.  Given all that we share with Europe, it is eye-opening to learn that “Europeans use half as much energy as we do.” (222)  Partly this has to do with the smaller geography of Europe, but it also reflects their technological lead at time when building a greener economy is the next big business and industrial opportunity.  And that’s before we consider the technological development that is taking place in China, India, Japan and other nations all around the globe.

Of course an open marketplace of innovators rapidly developing new technologies for a greener future is a good thing.  Economic development in other countries is a key piece of sustainability because effective infrastructure is needed to reduce resource use.  The real danger is that the U.S. will start far back in the pack or may not even compete in the race.  As McKibben notes, markets work; they have a way of stimulating innovation and entrepreneurialism.

McKibben’s larger message, however, is that building an economy and society of more is no longer sufficient.  The urgent task is deciding what we really want more of and deepening our investment in those forms of wealth, both economic wealth and the wealth of communities.  Answering these questions will take creative and candid conversation.  IUPUI’s Common Theme is all about conversation, and next year we will continue to discuss “Consuming Well for the Wealth of Communities, from IUPUI to the World.”  Be sure to join us as we read Colin Beavan’s No Impact the Man, our shared campus book for the 2010-2011 academic year.

Happy summer everyone!

David Craig

Religious Studies

Development to me always meant your typical subdivision sprouting up overnight, or the new strip mall growing like a nightmare out of a former corn field.  McKibben presents a new way of thinking about development.  A three-pronged approach that is more a process than an end result-  Team Building with a Social Purpose to promote Community-centered behavior.  Quite a unique approach to an old problem of how to deal with expanding growth.  I like it.  It is simplistic and people-focused. Something that tends to get forgotten in the rush to build, build, build!

People make up a community, not the buildings.  Buildings are where we congregate  (no people = no need for buildings).  Somewhere along the way we equated buildings with the development of a community and not the other way around.  We need to realize that community is where we are, the people we are with, and how these are all interconnected to each other.Once we understand how our definition of development got so skewed,we can take steps to correct it (as McKibben has done). 

When you are contemplating development of any kind, first ask yourself these questions: Will it connect me to others in my community with a similar interest to help? Will this development help our community or fulfill a specific need or purpose? Will this benefit growth in our community more than it will harm it?  If so, then you will be on your way to creating a genuine lasting development within your community.   Development which is community invested and owned, allowing it to be sustained and adapted throughout any subsequent needed growth.  So instead of worrying about how growth will affect us negatively, we should be more concerned about the negative growth of our developing communities. 

Get out of your house and talk to your neighbors regarding your local issues and consider what may help.  Raise your head while walking on campus and check out the organizations and events you are interested in. Eat lunch with a stranger you don’t talk to very often.  Join the PTO.  Become a Boy/Girl Scout leader.  Join a local church.  Become involved in a social issue about which you are passionate. Talk to others that are interested in the same (or different) things you are while at school, work, campus.   Join, become involved, participate, become a community and let things develop from there.  It works!

Teresa Tackett

M.A. Organizational Communications

In Deep Economy Bill McKibben describes the dangers of industrialized agriculture. Industrial agriculture is the largest single threat to the earth’s biodiversity. Fence-row-to-fence-row plowing, planting, and harvesting techniques decimate wildlife habitats, while massive chemical use poisons the soil and water, and kills off countless plant and animal communities.

Since industrial agriculture has led to some severe environmental consequences, including loss of topsoil, decrease in soil fertility, surface and ground water contamination, and loss of genetic diversity. We should be looking for solutions that are based on ecological and biological principles and have significantly fewer environmental costs. McKibben suggests, “Often clever ideas can begin to repair some of the damage caused by the industrialized agriculture.”

Some of us already know of the alternative that has been pioneered by organic farmers. In contrast to the industrial/monoculture approach advocated by the biotech industry, organic agriculture is described by the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) as “a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.”

Organic farming is done by utilizing more natural methods of farming, such as composting, green manure, crop rotation, and several other environmentally sound methods. By using organic farming methods, organic produce not only has less chemical and pesticide residue than traditionally farmed produce, but the land and ecosystems located in outlying areas around the organic farm have been proven time and time again to be much healthier and free of farm-related contaminants.

McKibben shows numerous examples of communities, like the Nayakrishi Andolon farm in Bangladesh, that have managed to revitalize their soils and their lives by planting a variety of crops without pesticides and fertilizer. In Deep Economy the use of traditional farming is described, “If you have a cow, you can shovel its manure into a cement tank, where it ferments, giving off enough gas to heat your shower and fire your wok.  The residue from the fermentation is ideally suited to fertilizer, so the process is a closed loop, which contributes to dignified lives without contributing much to the GNP.”

 In addition, this organic farm has enhanced the lives of the villagers. They feel a deeper and more substantial relationship with one another. What is more, it has made a monetary profit as well.  Another advantage as stated by one of the villages, “Food from Nayakrishi is much better.  No longer do I eat the poisons.  Why should I eat life-destroying stuff?  If you use organic fertilizer, the almighty will be behind you, and you’ll be having no gastric problems.

 Small farms produce far more per acre than large farms, which is contrary to the widely held belief that industrial agriculture is more efficient and productive. Furthermore, organic management practices promote soil health, water conservation and can reverse environmental degradation, thus; the emphasis should be on small-scale family farms which may have the potential to revitalize rural areas and their economies.

 -Dina David

Have you ever wondered how stores can have “clearance sales” that have 90% discounted goods?  If you examine the tags the goods are probably made in China’s factory.  This focus of China’s Factory Heart, has provided an economic base that has brought China to the center stage of the global economy in terms of manufacturing.  This however has not come without an environmental degradation of landscape and water supplies, which China is trying to cope with.  Bill McKibben recounts some of his visits to China and poses the question “Is this Chinese Model durable or sustainable for the long haul?”

He introduces the reader to the Chinese city of Yiwu. “If you want to see the spiritual center of the cult of More- its Vatican, its Mecca, its Potala Palace- you should visit the Chinese city of Yiwu..”  It has been branded, the International Trade City (“A Sea of Commodities, A Paradise for Purchaser”).  The sheer size of this trade center and volume of goods – “demonstrate the almost unavoidable truth that anything that can be easily made by human beings can be easily and cheaply made in China.”  To mention a few from toys to tools, crafts, decorations, bags, household goods, cameras, crafts….you name it you can find it in all shapes, sizes, prices and quality.  The following link will provide you with a glimpse of Yiwu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjM80dbZgE

McKibben says “This flood of stuff represents the future of poor nations, at least according to prevailing economic wisdom.  Nor is this a hard or cruel wisdom, but a tender one- Wrongheaded, in his view, but tender nonetheless.” The argument advanced in recent years goes like this….  First you industrialize agriculture.  As farmers become more productive, they need fewer farmers.  Those displaced move to the city… “..drawn by higher wages that in turn reflect the higher productivity of work in densely settled urban areas. What follows is a progression of development that moves from subsistence agriculture toward light manufacturing and urbanization and on to high-tech services.”

The New York Times articulated in capsule form as follows, “The better off China is, the better off the rest of the world is- poor countries because they will get a shot at the jobs that leave China; rich countries because many more people all over China will finally be able to afford the expensive goods that are made in America.”  All sorts of good-hearted people have rallied to this banner.  These economists argue that the only way to relieve the planet’s grim poverty is to speed up the cycle of economic expansion. For proof they point to China which in the last decade has seen growth like no nation in history… with annual rate of 10 percent year after year.  Individuals like Cao Zhong-Long who moved to the city to escape the desperate poverty in his home village in Jiangxi province, has now achieved a measure of success now to own his own business and build himself a financial base able to support his family.  Drawn by successes of the likes of Zhong-Long, Chinese in staggering numbers pour out of the countryside and into cities.  It’s the biggest migration in the world’s history: perhaps 30 million people a year join it, although in the city they are treated as hicks and worse.

“BUT can this Chinese model, however admirable, really work for the Chinese, or for anyone else?” McKibben asks. “Let’s concede, for sake of discussion, that the good-hearted economist was right when she said that there’s no reason that the Indians or Chinese couldn’t be as rich as Americans in a few decades, if they follow our economic model” For starters if China alone were to match America in extent of car ownership, there would be 1.1 billion more vehicles on the road. They would also produce more carbon dioxide annually that the whole rest of the world’s transportation systems.

“The planet is already buckling under the weight of one America – we’ve seen the rising temperatures, the erratic extreme weather, and the melting ice caps. Each American uses 6 times as much energy as the average Mexican, 38 times as much as the average Indian, 531 times as much as the man in the Ethiopian street”  That gives you some rough idea of what it would mean if most of the rest of the world even approached the American level of consumption.  We’d need extra planets, several of them. “The fossil-fuel based, auto-centered throwaway economy is not going to work for China… it will not work for India which has a population projected to surpass China’s in 2030.”  The environmental impact on the earth would be unthinkable and tragic. 

McKibben has taken on a tall order of impacting the perception of a nation or generation by presenting an alternative…it is in the book “Deep Economy” read it.

Peter O. Orono

School of Engineering and Technology

This is my observation after meeting McKibben when he came to IUPUI last November, and I’m telling you this because Deep Economy is not a bit humorous. But McKibben couldn’t help but show his wry side when he introduced the concept of local currency. He grinned on paper: “…I had in my wallet, next to my federal greenbacks, a wad of ‘Burlington Bread’…” He also brings up “politically committed masseuses…[accepting ‘complementary currency’] mostly useful for backrubs in college towns” (160). So in the midst of Deep Economy’s dire possibilities and the gargantuan challenge of motivating Americans to make quick, civilization-changing choices, a tad of humor makes McKibben human. He’s real. He’s on a life mission. But he’s cool.

McKibben does, in fact, makes an interesting case for city governments coining their own currency—that it could be used to pay city employees, back taxes, utilities, even welfare. This ties into rebuilding communities via more localized economies.

I asked my students to come up with names for a possible Indianapolis-based currency. They thought of INDYCash, Indibucks, DOLLAPOLIS, colt (one colt for a Coke, two colts for a candy bar), Cheddar, and bobby. Some students suggested a card, like a gift card; you’d load it up with city currency.

In these pages, McKibben also proposes that the local economies concept he applied to food, radio and energy, can translate to “almost any commodity” (158), such as forests for logging. He talks about the Vermont Family Forests project that advocates strict ecological guidelines, eliminates some of the middlemen to create higher returns for landowners, and looks to, in the future, “…return some of the state’s forest land to local people [via shares], instead of the second-home owners and big corporations who own it now” (159-60).

And that led to the discussion question on this website that asks, “Is land the same type of commodity as houses, cars, shoes, etc.”?

Student Zen Hess said, “Land is much more than just a commodity like cars or shoes. In the days of old, land was power; and now, owning a plot of land may not mean power, but it can mean complete privacy.” 

Kyle Burkholder wrote, “It [land] is something to be bought and sold and therefore appears to be a commodity. People shouldn’t be restricted from how much land they own because it is a commodity, but at the same time it shouldn’t be acceptable to completely destroy a landscape…”

And Perry Ninness commented, “Buying into a share can start out as a fair deal; however, it could very easily become corrupted by the owners if they were to decide to stop taking the best care that they could. It all would be based on the owner actually doing the best he could, but with money involved it would surely become unstable.”

This semester and last, I’ve witnessed the good brainwork McKibben has inspired, and also the frustration caused by the patient case he builds expert by expert, study by study, example by example. When he writes, McKibben isn’t a sound bite type of guy—as we’re used to in today’s media—and he assumes the intelligence of the reader.

When he spoke here at IUPUI, his admiration for young people was clear. I’d bet all of my local currency you’d enjoy having a local brew with him (that meaning coffee if you are not of a certain age). And that’s a good thing to know about an author who makes you think. He’s a real guy.  It’s just that in Deep Economy, he doesn’t have the luxury of kidding around.                                            

Have you ever met an author, and did that make a difference in how you viewed his/her book?

Sarah  Harrell 

English Instructor,  IUPUI

McKibben exclaimed that it’s three times more dangerous here for bicyclists than in the Netherlands, where people see cycling as eco-friendly and a way to decrease both the isolation and cost of using individual cars.

Further, he mentioned that a U.S. community which engages in more shared transportation – Boulder, CO – has adapted so well to the convenience of busses that the passengers can expect to share music by bringing CDs on for the driver to play for everyone.

As for the reduced kitchen cleaning, he identified shared housing as a way to interact and support community more with the benefit of sharing facilities like kitchens – hence the opportunity to split kitchen duties.

This section showcases several admirable stories in which such habits transform communities positively and shift cultural values from individualism to collectivism; in one example, a Brazilian mayor veritably beamed because community trumps individualism. That mayor’s community supported a mass transit system that gave priority to public transport versus individual commuters.

There are two themes in this section (transportation and housing), and coincidentally it made me think about two things. First, I found a bright, encouraging note when McKibben talked not about the importance of overcoming individualism as the priority for minimizing automobile use but instead for other reasons – and he mentioned that shared transportation in the U.S. was implemented practically and broadly from 1890 to 1920 (he referred to a network from Boston to Wisconsin). It’s true: this country has many roots involving reliable, convenient public transportation; sadly, we don’t always experience that locally and can forget the practicality of it – though in other parts of our country (and in many other countries) it is preferred.

The other item I want to bring up is frustration with the ‘all or nothing’ views I sometimes see people espouse – and occasionally felt when reading these pages. McKibben is such an enthusiast for change that he voraciously eschewed individualism herein, essentially citing both how Americans’ fondness for “bigger and more” influences the worldview of the demanding “ugly American” reputation and sometimes negatively permeates other cultures (McKibben mentions other cultures adopting greedy characters from the television show Dallas as role models at the expense of more modest cultural values and traditions). Reviewing McKibben’s endorsements, I cherish his passion but implore readers to put his advocacy in perspective. We’re reading a book with some good ideas and examples which can influence our choices. As a country, however, I believe one of our greatest values is having choices and making decisions based on multiple factors. That, to me, means we can see beyond some extreme changes he advocates that might implore blending and appreciate how a mix of changes can help up all – whether for us it’s in community housing or taking a train to Chicago. Cheers to positive change, even if it’s not extreme; consider the Japanese approach to change through baby steps (kaizen).

 What are your thoughts?    

  - Angela J. Sisson, Department of Communication Studies

 In this week’s reading, McKibben writes about Powell, Wyoming, a town where the citizens financed their own general clothing store to compete with a new Wal-Mart twenty miles away. The people in Powell preferred to have a choice about shopping. Wal-Mart is not evil; the store sells lots of good stuff.  But the only way to tell one Wal-Mart from another is if the NFL sweatshirt features the Colts or the Bengals.  And I don’t know about you, but when I go into Wal-Mart to buy a few things, sometimes I come out with more stuff than I intended, stuff that will sit in my house with all my other stuff.

Given the choice, if I think about it instead of operating on auto-pilot, I would rather shop in an old downtown section of a small town than in a Wal-Mart any day.  First of all, it’s more enjoyable to chat with a friend in a small setting than in a vast store.  Secondly, main streets in small towns have more character, therefore making the entire shopping experience more pleasant. Thirdly, maybe I won’t pick up that extra stuff to clutter my home.

Before I read Deep Economy I often visualized our civilization as a giant snowball, heading downhill, picking up speed, traveling to certain annihilation. I doubted that we could stop hurtling through space toward an unknown goal.  But McKibben has offered me hope. He details citizens who are working to re-establish their communities, to make them sustainable, through mercantiles, radio stations, farmers’ markets. McKibben writes, “What we need is a new trajectory, toward the smaller and more local” (141). What if our goal was something nearby, familiar?

Reading, and re-reading, Deep Economy, I have found hope. I think it may be possible to stop the downhill path of the snowball.  We can make choices about our individual lives, our communities, our goals.

Leslie Weaver

Associate Faculty IUPUI

English

In this week’s reading we learn about the impact that the world’s largest retailer has had on our individual and community environment. The mighty giant Wal-Mart or as Bill McKibben refers to them “The Temple of More,” is a reflection of our economic desire for more at the lowest cost. Now we all know that the lower everything cost, the more things we can buy. The late comedian George Carlin wrote a routine about the impact of all the things we purchase titled “Stuff.” In his comedy routine he states, “Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That’s all, a little place for my stuff. That’s all I want, that’s all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table; everybody’s got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that’s your stuff, that’ll be his stuff over there. That’s all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That’s all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn’t have so much stuff, you wouldn’t need a house. You could just walk around all the time.”

Wal-Mart is a place to buy “stuff” but are “more” things, what we really need? That is the question that you must reflect on in this week’s reading. What price do we really pay for cheaper goods in our society? In the quest for our individual “Temple of More”, are we paying the ultimate price by aiding in the elimination of that endangered thing called community? Maybe the lack of community is the real problem that we must solve. This will require us to look inward and reflect on this Culture of ME, that we have created and decide if we can afford cheaper stuff.  

Steve Overbey

Associate Faculty

Department of Communication Studies

McKibben, in this week’s reading, tells how, over the course of the last five hundred years, we have successfully liberated ourselves from innumerable oppressions.  We have created “hyper-individualism,” an environment in which we have become isolated from our communities and neighbors by our need to be self-sufficient and, in the eyes of the world, successful and happy.  In the process we have “surrendered a fixed identity” our sense of connectivity to community, our relationship to deep roots.  I agree with his observation:  the excesses of suburbanization have focused us on keeping up with the Jones’ rather than tuning in to the Jones’.  We can lead lives that allow us to open the attached garage, pull out in our individual cars, and return home and put the door down behind us without ever engaging our neighbors. 

Recent studies have shown that true happiness lies not in what we accumulate or achieve over the course of our lives but rather in the experiences we collect that connect us to our fellow human beings. Religious philosopher Martin Buber writes,  “When two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them.”   In recent weeks we have seen an abundant resurgence in volunteerism.  One only has to look as far as our struggling economy, a ten percent unemployment rate, as well as the devastation of the earthquake in Haiti as opportunities to connect.  It used to be that only a small handful of Peace Corps like non-profit agencies provided opportunities for volunteering around the world.  Today, there are more than 200 nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies helping volunteers fan out around the globe (Sherrill, 2008).   Why the sudden change?  Do we really need to see massive devastation and human suffering to prompt us in to action?

Consider the world’s response to recent events.  Do you feel more motivated to spiritually connect and/or volunteer during times of trouble?  Considering IUPUI has such a commitment to service learning educational opportunities, what are the societal benefits of civic engagement?  What are the personal benefits?  Do you think there is a recommitment to connectivity and service in today’s society?  Why or why not?

Mary Beth Googasian

Department of Communication Studies

 This question is posed after a discussion of the middle Twentieth Century experiences with communism in Cuba and leads to the introduction of the community based “agricultural laboratory” experiment in Burlington, Vermont called “The Intervale.”  McKibben provides us with an historical account of how mechanization and technology sustained the island of Cuba for many years.  The collapse of the economic system of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that sustained Cuba, challenged the politically isolated island nation to stand alone and develop the means to sustain itself, by means of community based government supported agriculture.

McKibben introduces his readers to “The Intervale,” “a gritty spot, literally on the other side of the tracks”, and tells us that “It is a kind of agricultural laboratory.”  The Intervale is a reclamation project that has turned a landfill into productive agricultural land.  In many respects it appears to be similar to the community farming encouraged in Cuba.  We are told two things about The Intervale.  First, the 200 acres constituting The Intervale supply seven to eight percent of all the fresh food consumed in Burlington, Vermont.  Second, there are plenty of people who want to farm.  The Intervale might be exceptional in some ways, but in other ways it is no big exception.  If one examines community farming in the United States it would become apparent that such experiments have been in place, in various forms, for many years.  In Indianapolis, for example, citizens were given small plots at Southeastway Park to grow vegetables and as use of the park increased the small plots were moved to the former Julietta Home, the Marion County poorhouse, on Brookville Road.  All of this took place in the 1980s and was eventually eliminated because of lack of interest and support.  Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN news has reported on and interviewed individuals in the United States who are growing their own produce in inner cities, like Chicago.  Concern for better nutrition and a lack of grocers and fresh produce dealers in some of America’s inner-cities is creating an interest in sustaining communities through these small scale organic agricultural projects.

What these projects lack is government support and funding on any major scale.  Our government is in the business of subsidizing large corporate farms instead of community farming initiatives.  The projects in Cuba, as described by McKibben are supported by educated agronomists who provide support for the challenges of organic food production.  It is not as if there is no infrastructure in place for community farming.  Consider the size of Future Farmers of America (FFA), the prevalence of farming co-ops, Four H programs, the agricultural emphasis of land grant colleges, and county extension agents especially in agricultural states.  All of this adds up to a history and foundation in community agricultural production that has over the years become big business.

The Intervale in Burlington, Vermont provides an example of the reclamation of land and returning that land to good use by allowing interested individuals to become a part of their community.  As this nation’s cities seek ways to utilize property that has been abandoned and neglected support from the States and the Federal government could provide not only monetary assistance, but also the knowledge necessary to efficiently feed citizens in a sustainable manner.   So, I would say there is indeed a “wealth of possibilities in our communities.”

Jack Price, Ph.D.
Associate Faculty
IUPUI Communication Studies