Archive for the 'Environmentalism' Category

The Best and the Good Enough: Abolitionists, Welfarists and the agonizing quarrel over the Humane Farms Initiative

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 23, 2008
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, Politics and Veganism
. 8 Comments

The initial polling looks good for Proposition 2 here in California, the Humane Farms Initiative. Backed by a coalition of animal welfare, veterinary, and family farming groups, the proposition is modeled on initiatives already successfully passed in New Jersey, Florida, Colorado, and Arizona. It’s just about the simplest initiative in town, requiring that every farm animal in California be allowed the freedom to stand up, turn around, and spread its wings (or other limbs.) Implementation will not be required for nearly seven years, until 2015. The proposition is endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, most of the leading veterinary groups in the state, and a variety of small family farms that struggle to compete with the heavily mechanized agricultural behemoths (the ones, of course, who use the harshest confinement practices.)

The proposition has attracted bi-partisan support. No one would call congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-Ventura) and John Campbell (R-Orange County) liberals; both have written to their colleagues asking for congressional backing for Proposition 2. (See PDF here). Gallegly in particular represents a district with a heavy agricultural presence, making his support all the more noteworthy. The primary public opposition comes, of course, from the biggest of the agricultural producers, along with a loud minority of veterinarians who insist that current confinement practices (in which veal calves cannot stand up, and chickens in battery cages cannot spread their wings) are humane. But there are others, normally on the opposite side of the issue from Big Ag, who are also strongly against Prop 2. Continue reading ‘The Best and the Good Enough: Abolitionists, Welfarists and the agonizing quarrel over the Humane Farms Initiative’

Primates on limits

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 28, 2008
in Anglican Communion, Christianity and Environmentalism
. 0 Comments

The 2008 Lambeth Conference in England enters its final week, and it is still unclear whether the worldwide Anglican Communion will hold together. I blogged my thoughts ten days ago. Many sites are covering the conference; check out Episcopal Life, the Guardian, Integrity USA’s, or Kendall Harmon’s.

Fights over women bishops and same-sex marriage are getting most of the coverage, but I’m relieved that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is still willing to focus on other, perhaps even more vital issues. In Saturday’s Guardian, Rowan Williams offers a terrific reflection: A New Spiritual Politics of Limits. The archbishop writes:

We live in a world of finite space and finite resource. Endless trajectories of growth are not realistic; and our own rising “oceans” of food and fuel prices are a stark reminder that scarcity is not someone else’s problem in today’s and tomorrow’s world.

Somehow, conventional political discourse has not dealt with this very successfully. Time was when part of the wisdom of conservative politics was about limits, realism, adjusting to certain givens in the social and material environment, and moderating expectations. Unfortunately, this proved all too often to be a way of recommending the disadvantaged to accept their fate; and progressive politics was thus frequently allied to a passionate belief in endless possibilities of self-improvement and more sophisticated control of the environment. You have only to think of the utopian aspirations of the French Revolution or of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

And when a drained and abused environment takes its revenge, we seem often very confused. Rather bizarrely, the environmental family of issues is seen in some quarters as a sort of liberal conspiracy, another turn of the screw for liberal guilt, and therefore to be treated with the same robust scorn as all other fashionable and self-indulgent moralising. But at the same time, a progressive politics still finds it very hard to let go of its legacy. If emancipation and the advance of human capacity don’t simply mean economic growth without limit, what do they mean?

Excellent question, and I appreciate the dig at so-called “conservatives” who are, in practice and in theory, anything but when it comes to their attitude towards conservation for the good of our planet and all the life upon it.

The Archbishop wrote in response to something raised by the Bishop of Polynesia: rising ocean levels are, within a short time, going to make much of his island-chain diocese uninhabitable. In that light, some of the quarreling over pelvic morality seems, well, self-indulgent at best and shamelessly irresponsible at worst. The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA raised this same issue in her Easter Sermon this year. Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote:

We are beginning to be aware of the ways in which our lack of concern for the rest of creation results in death and destruction for our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors unless we care for the creation that supports all our earthly lives. We are not respecting the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space. When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?

And all God’s creatures said, Amen!

Christians are fond of saying things like “God will provide.” And yes, as a believer, I trust that God will provide. But we make a huge theological error when we confuse divine provision with carte blanche to exploit the earth and its creatures. Scripture grants humans dominion over the earth — but to exercise dominion is to be, literally, like the Lord. When God gave Adam and Eve stewardship over all of creation, it was in order that they might love and cherish it with the same intensity and care that He showed and shows for His creatures. And when we fail to exercise “just dominion”, we fail to honor the God who commended this earth and all of its creatures to our care.

Archbishop Williams concludes:

Contrary to what some would say, religious belief is in significant measure a way of acknowledging limits that are shared by all human beings – the limits involved in bodily dependence on a friendly environment, and in the fact of death. Faith proposes that finding your way within these limits (including awareness of death) is how we lead lives that have some claim to rationality and – to use the religious word – grace.

That’s a message desperately needed.

Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 27, 2008
in Books, Christianity, Environmentalism, Ethnicity, Globalism and Traveling
. 5 Comments

I normally like the perspective that L.A. Times’ columnist Gregory Rodriguez takes. But he wrote an op-ed eleven days ago that really irked me: Rootless to a Fault. Here’s a portion of it:

Here in the U.S., highly skilled workers and wealthy entrepreneurs from around the globe contribute mightily to this nation’s productivity and creativity. Their presence in our cities, and ours in theirs, has fostered a greater appreciation of global cultural diversity. It has spawned a vibrant cosmopolitanism that broadens our collective concern for people who live beyond our borders.

But this cosmopolitanism is not without its dark side. Increasingly, many of our big cities’ creative elites — both native and foreign-born — see themselves as citizens of the world. Our intellectuals are exploring the declining significance of place in the new globalized world order. And this brave new world cries out for an answer to the question: Does a person who swears loyalty to all cities and nations have any loyalties at all? I’ve always been struck by the fact that the same people who rightly criticize multinational corporations for having no sense of responsibility to place never seem to express the same concern about the equally “unplaced” creative elite.

A few years ago, I was at a fancy dinner party and found myself the only one at the table who held only one passport.

Rodriguez goes on to make a jarringly wrong premise: those who see themselves as “citizens of the world” are somehow dramatically less engaged in civic activity than those whose horizons are smaller and whose loyalties more narrowly defined. He opines:

Without denying the benefits of globalization, we should remember the beauty and strength of parochialism.

It’s all well and good to love the world, but real social solidarity is generally found on a smaller scale. And it’s not just the unskilled immigrants we should be concerned about. We need to find ways to encourage the highly skilled ones to form a sense of attachment and commitment to their new homes. On top of that, we natives must remember that there is no honor in escaping engagement by becoming a citizen of the world.

First off — and I could be wrong — I smell a tiny whiff in Rodriguez’s piece of an old anti-Semitic canard: the notion that the “wandering Jew”, cosmopolitan to a fault, undermines the stability of whatever society in which he finds himself, because his loyalties are eternally elsewhere. Though that is surely not Rodriguez’s intent, there’s no denying that jeremiads against “jet-setting elitists” who have no commitment to place are not new, and that in the past, many of those attacks have been aimed quite explicitly at Jews. Gregory ought to have known that.

But what I resent about the piece is the notion that loyalty to the world and all of its creatures is somehow incompatible with deep concern for the well-being of particular places. Rodriguez posits what is frankly a monstrously false dichotomy: parochial and engaged or cosmopolitan and unconcerned. Indeed, I assure Greg that there are those among his readers who are devoted to Los Angeles and its well-being without feeling any need to elevate the needs of L.A. above those of the entire planet!

I am a dual citizen, holding UK and US citizenship. My brother, his wife, and children hold a serious array of passports: Mexican, Austrian, British, and American. I have many friends who also have two nationalities, and I have a few acquaintances who have three. And no, we are not all part of some transnational global elite. I’ll be waiting a long time for my invite to rub elbows with the super-rich at the Davos Economic Forum. Of course, my dual citizenship is not without significance to me: it not only gives me and my family options about where to work and live, it reminds me that I do indeed have multiple loyalties and multiple commitments. But my devotion to any one place is not less because of a devotion to many. I have been fortunate to have been able to see much of the world, and am fortunate to have friends and family scattered across many continents. But that sense of belonging to the globe rather than to a country doesn’t mean I am any less passionately devoted to the well-being of Pasadena, or to my students, many of whom have never been on an airplane much less outside of the Western Hemisphere. Continue reading ‘Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas’

Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 24, 2008
in Christianity, Environmentalism and Youth
. 13 Comments

Fuller President Richard Mouw is perhaps the one modern theologian who can make Five Point Calvinism seem not only winsome, but reasonable.

The first “point” of Calvinism is the doctrine of total depravity, the notion that wickedness extends to our deepest self. It doesn’t mean, of course, that each of us is incapable of doing good. Total depravity, the way most Calvinists explain it, is the idea that there is no aspect of our person that is not touched by sin. None of us can, in this life, escape from the influence of wickedness by our own efforts; grace alone is the one thing that keeps us from being totally consumed by depravity.

In a post this month, President Mouw shares how depravity manifested itself in his own childhood:

Recently I went through some old family photos and saw a picture of myself riding a tricycle in the backyard of the first home that I can remember. I know I could not have been older than four years old at the time—probably closer to three—because we moved away from that home (actually an upstairs apartment) not long after my fourth birthday. My mother planted a small garden plot in that yard, and one day she worked with me to plant some seeds. She showed me how to dig holes and do the planting, and she instructed me about regularly watering the ground. She also helped me to block off that area with sticks and string, so that no one would walk on the planted area. And she warned me: “Do not ever step on this ground where you have planted the seeds, or the plants will not grow!”

One day when I was playing in that yard, I looked to make sure my parents were not watching, and then I stepped over the stretched string, and I deliberately stomped on the ground where I had planted the seeds. I can still remember the spirit of rebellion that motivated me. I was stomping on the ground precisely because I knew it was an act of disobedience. I also remember often lying awake in my bed in the weeks after I did that, fearful that the plants would not grow and worried that my rebellion would be revealed. I even prayed some childish prayers for deliverance, although I do not think they included any elements of confession and repentance—just something like, “God, please, please, make those plants grow!” I was greatly relieved when one day the green shoots suddenly appeared in the place where I had stomped my feet.

I tell that story to say that while I did not go from a wicked lifestyle to a pattern of holy living in my youth, I did need to be redeemed from a rebellious spirit that was grounded in my sinful nature. And it was not a rebellion that was motivated by any particular angry feeling I had toward my parents. It was a spirit of rebellion against authority as such, one that was grounded in a very basic desire simply to do something that was wrong.

It’s a similar story to the one St. Augustine, writing 1600 years ago, tells about his famous pears:

There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night–having prolonged our games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was–a group of young scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart, O God, such was my heart–which thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold, now let my heart confess to thee what it was seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error–not that for which I erred but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself.

Bold emphases are mine.

My mother is a retired professor of philosophy, and was a good friend of the Mouws in the early 1960s. Year after year, she taught Augustine to her students — and though she didn’t always do so publicly, she regularly expressed exasperation with the way in which the bishop of Hippo (and now, her old friend the president of Fuller) interpreted childish rebelliousness as so inherently depraved. My mother, an atheist from adolescence on, found Augustine’s self-flagellation wildly unnecessary at best. As she pointed out, if he condemns pear-stealing with such venom and self-loathing, what vocabulary will he have left for greater sins? What words are left for murder, for rape, for acts of genuine cruelty against sentient creatures, when the strongest possible language has already been employed to describe a puerile act of third-rate vandalism? Continue reading ‘Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw’

Schwarzenegger gets it right on oil: another reason to praise the recall

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 19, 2008
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 15 Comments

For all his many faults, I want to say again that five years on, Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned out to be a much better governor than many of us feared. In some not intangible ways, the former movie star has helped move California farther to the left than would Gray Davis had the latter stayed in office rather than suffer the indignity of the October 2003 recall election. I certainly have a great deal of schadenfreude when I contemplate how frustrated many right-wingers in the state are with Schwarzenegger’s bi-partisanship!

The governor is on record as opposing the November initiative to overturn gay marriages, and he came out forcefully this week against any oil drilling off our coast.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain’s presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. A federal moratorium has been in place for 27 years.

“We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement that referred only to Bush’s call for the ban and did not mention McCain. “The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers.”

He said that is how fuel costs ultimately will be reduced.

I was born in Santa Barbara. When I was still a toddler in that town, a Unocal rig off the coast of my birthplace leaked 200,000 gallons of oil, wreaking environmental catastrophe. Every Santa Barbaran over 45 remembers that terrible winter, and the scenes of devastation. The oil companies claim that their drilling techniques have improved substantially since then, but spills still happen even in first world sites. The safety improvements seem over-sold, and our coastline is not worth the risk.

Fortunately, with the exception of Santa Barbara County there are few other areas of off-shore drilling in the Golden State these days. After we left Santa Barbara, I grew up in Carmel by-the-Sea, one of the most beautiful spots in the world. I’d rather pay $25 a gallon than see a rig in Monterey bay.

And whatever his myriad shortcomings, our good governor agrees with me.

A run aborted, a rabbit cradled

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 19, 2008
in Environmentalism
. 19 Comments

It’s 6:30AM, but I’ve already been up for over two hours. I went out early to do an eleven-mile loop through the hills of Pasadena and La Canada. While running near the Rose Bowl, before dawn, I came across a small wild rabbit that had just been hit by a car. She had one broken leg (with obvious massive fractures) and was sitting quietly in the road, helpless.

It was one of those “Oh God, why me?” moments. I’m ashamed to say that I stood there for a second, trying to decide what to do, fighting the impulse to continue my run and let another car — or a dog — finish the little creature’s life. But of course that isn’t what I could do. I sat in the road with her, talked to her for a while, and then gently stroked her. She tried to escape, ineffectually, and I could see she still had some life (as well as pain and shock) in her eyes. So I gently scooped up her broken body and carried her home. It was a mile and a half back home, and on that walk, I waited for the little one to die. So many wild creatures die quickly in these situations; prey animals usually relax into death quickly after major trauma, part of their defense mechanisms against enduring pain. But the little grey girl, so much like my chinchillas, nestled against me, still blinking, heart still beating, whiskers still moving.

With the Humane Society closed, I drove her down to my 24-hour vet in South Pasadena, wrapped in a towel. The after-hours receptionist started giving me a spiel about the office’s institutional reluctance to treat wild animals; I’ve heard that speech before. We had what in diplomatic circles is called a “frank exchange of views”, which involved my repeated requests to see the doctor on call while waving my Amex card with my free hand, insisting that I would happily pay all charges. The doctor did examine the little girl, and gave me the news I was fairly certain I would hear — the massive compound fractures were very serious, and though she still showed signs of energy, her chances of making a decent recovery from such a rear-leg injury were rare. Dogs and cats can do three legs; rabbits and chinchillas have a much tougher time when they lose a rear limb. The vet and I agreed to euthanize the rabbit, and that was done just minutes ago.

I’m still in my sweat-soaked, blood and tear-stained singlet. I’ve got to jump in the shower and go off and teach three classes, have coffee with friends after school, hit the gym for a make-up treadmill run in the early evening, dinner with other friends in the later evening, and chinchilla “out time” before bed. It will be a busy day.

I could not save this little creature’s life. But I did all that I could, all that I should have done. Death is part of nature, but cars aren’t. Had I come across an injured rabbit in the wild, I might have gritted my teeth and moved on, knowing that its little body would be food for a hungry predator soon enough. But where a human has inflicted the injury, a human must do the rescuing to the best of his or her ability. I could not save this rabbit’s life, but I know she died a gentler death than she would have otherwise. And though I know the terror that we people strike into small wild mammals, I am convinced that on our walk home, as I sang softly to the little broken girl in my arms, she found some tiny degree of comfort in the warmth of my body and the softness of my voice and the stroking of my trembling fingers.

I’m not sorry I missed my run today. I’m grateful I got the chance to be there for this creature to the best of my ultimately insufficient ability. In the end, all we can do is all we can do. I will have the feel of her weight in my arms with me for the rest of the day.

Note: I have now opened comments on this entry, but anyone who makes light of the death of an animal, or even hints at misplaced priorities, will find themselves banned.

A small profile in courage: $4.50 gasoline, and McCain still stands for the wild places

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 12, 2008
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 7 Comments

I joined Republicans for Environmental Protection at the same time that I re-registered as a Republican last year. I was explicit about my goal: to do my part to move the GOP back towards the political center, and to help break the ideological stranglehold on the party held by Christian conservatives on the one hand and the Wall Street Journal editorial page on the other. Quixotic, yes, but not impossible.

Less than a year ago, the pundits had given up on the chances of John McCain winning the GOP nomination. Some progrnosticators started a “McCain deathwatch”, and trusted voices in the conservative world predicted he would drop out by Labor Day 2007. McCain, they said, was too unreliable on issues that mattered most to conservatives. And while right-wingers despised him for McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance reform act) and his opposition to water-boarding, their greatest ire often seemed directed at his environmental positions. For over a decade, McCain has been among a small band of Republicans opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opposed to increased drilling on the continental shelf (at least without the consent of the nearest state), and in favor of increased fuel economy standards for American vehicles. Most importantly and heretically, he has stated time and again that he is convinced that global warming is “anthropogenic”: caused in large part if not entirely by human activity.

REP endorsed McCain and worked hard for him when other GOP groups were looking elsewhere, flirting with the Romneys and Giulianis and Thompsons of the world. There aren’t many in the Republican party who see “green issues” as vital, but REP does, and they saw McCain as the first Republican in forty years with a commitment to at least some environmental protection. McCain is an imperfect environmentalist of course, but he has been a firm opponent of new drilling and a strong supporter of conservation and the development of alternative fuel sources. Time and again, he broke from the pack of pro-business candidates to articulate a message more in keeping with that espoused by Democrats. And thus I voted for McCain in the California primary, not out of tremendous enthusiasm for him, but out of the hope that he would represent a move away from the rigid pro-development position held by most in his party. Continue reading ‘A small profile in courage: $4.50 gasoline, and McCain still stands for the wild places’

$138 a barrel, and mixed feelings

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 6, 2008
in Environmentalism and Money
. 49 Comments

I’ve got the business channel on; oil has risen more than 10 bucks today, and is at $138 a barrel. At the Chevron near campus, I filled up the Volvo (which likes premium gas) for $4.74; regular was 20 cents lower.

I have mixed feelings about the rise in oil prices. On the one hand, I like the fact that more people are using public transportation. I like disincentives to environmentally destructive behavior, and I like incentives for conservation. That sales of large trucks and SUVs are plummeting, and sales of hybrids and smaller cars are rising, strikes me as a very pleasant and helpful consequence of skyrocketing fuel prices. The real hope, of course, is that the high cost of gas will lead to more rapid development of alternative, renewable, environmentally sensitive fuel sources. (I have mixed feelings about biofuels, both because I’m worried about the conversion of more undeveloped land for agriculture and because of the impact on food prices for the poor.)

On the other hand, I have no interest in seeing oil company profits skyrocket, and certainly little enthusiasm about seeing the likes of the house of Saud and Vladimir Putin get richer and richer. I worry too that some folks will draw exactly the wrong lesson, and use the rising price of gasoline as an excuse to advocate for driiling in ANWAR or off the coast of California. Conservation and the development of sustainable alternatives, not increased petroleum production, is the only viable long-term answer. Fortunately, all of the major candidates for president, including the unreliable and mercurial John McCain, oppose drilling in the Arctic. With the likelihood that the Democrats will continue to control Congress after the fall election, the chances are good that we can restrain the desires of the oil companies to expand drilling.

I am also keenly aware that the rising cost of gas has a direct and deleterious impact on the lives of my students. Public transportation networks in the San Gabriel Valley are poor at best, and many of those in my classes have little choice but to drive to and from school and work. The cost of filling up hurts them. It’s deeply insensitive for me to wax eloquent about “price disincentives” when those who consume the least and live closest to the margins are the ones being most powerfully affected.

So as I see the prices rise — 50 cents a gallon in the past four weeks alone — I have mixed feelings. I’m excited and enthusiastic when I see the numbers go up, because I’m thrilled about the increased reliance on public transportation. I’m pleased that the American love affair with big cars is showing signs of fading, perhaps for good. And I’m delighted that the often-ignored voices that counsel conservation and alternative energy sources are at last being heard. But rising prices — and rising oil company profits — are blunt and ineffective instruments for lasting social change.

Oprah, veganism, and the real inconvenient truth

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 22, 2008
in Environmentalism, Food and Veganism
. 15 Comments

It’s been a happy birthday so far. I admit I really appreciate Facebook, which I didn’t have for my last birthday — all the kind notes showing up on my “wall” make me very happy.

The vegan world has been abuzz with the news that Oprah Winfrey is on a 21-day cleanse, using only plant-based foods. The queen of all media is blogging about her experience here. I love what she says in her first entry:

Wow, wow, wow! I never imagined meatless meals could be so satisfying. I had been focused on what I had to give up—sugar, gluten, alcohol, meat, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese. “What’s left?” I thought. Apparently a lot. I can honestly say every meal was a surprise and a delight, beginning with breakfast—strawberry rhubarb wheat-free crepes.

Now, most vegans don’t go as far as Oprah’s going. I eat wheat and sugar everyday, and my wife likes a nice glass of wine quite regularly. Those of us in the animal rights community respect Oprah’s enormous cultural power; we know what she can do for books and presidential candidates. We also know that she’s been very candid about her many years of struggle with body image issues; the world has watched her weight fluctuate for two decades. Though veganism is much more than a weight-loss regimen (and indeed, there are plenty of plump vegans), I’m confident Oprah will be amazed by how much energy and “bounce” she has over the next seventeen days or so. Continue reading ‘Oprah, veganism, and the real inconvenient truth’

Ecofutures and big, green houses

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 28, 2008
in Environmentalism and Family
. 0 Comments

My second cousin Eric Doub lives in Boulder and is the principal behind Ecofutures Building. He just got a very nice write-up in the New York Times yesterday. Cousin Eric shares some interesting tidbits, including the little-known fact that it is harder to have a “zero net-energy” small house than a big one.

Entirely coincidentally, I just spent a few minutes chatting with one of the WAM work-study employees, an MIT undergraduate majoring in civil engineering. She’s also interested in “green building.” I may have to do some email exchanging.

Anyhow, hurrah for Eric, and hurrah for Ecofutures.

Against sociopathic vandalism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 10, 2008
in Environmentalism
. 2 Comments

Chris Clarke writes about the threat to the Desert Cahuilla Prehistoric Area. He links to this piece posted by the Desert Protective Council.

Check out the links for more explanation, but bottom line, the threat comes from recreational off-road vehicle use. Chris says:

I regard off-road vehicle driving as a socially sanctioned form of sociopathic vandalism, especially in the fragile desert. In southern California especially, the ranks of OHV enthusiasts contain a disturbing proportion of actual thugs. Expanding their access to irreplaceable and fragile desert lands would be an atrocity.

Chris, as usual, is absolutely right, both about the connection between off-roading and vandalism and about the very real threat these folks and their awful machines pose to the wild. (The only people who infuriate me more than off-highway vehicle enthusiasts are those in the fur industry. A repeated willingness to waste fossil fuels while tearing up nature in your ATV is grounds for the termination of friendship in my book.)

In any event, go here and take action.

Against “Bambi environmentalism”: a long post on hunting, veganism, cruelty, and the commitment to pleasure

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 10, 2007
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, Favorite posts 2007 and Veganism
. 19 Comments

The latest issue of Sierra, the magazine for Sierra Club members, showed up in our mailbox on Saturday. One article in particular stood out: “Life Itself Is a Risky Process” , an interview with Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of religon and women’s studies at Skidmore College. Stange is a feminist, an environmentalist …and an avid hunter. When she’s not teaching at Skidmore, she and her husband run a bison ranch in Montana.

It’s an interesting interview. Take Stange’s views on women and hunting:

Sierra: How do you explain the differences between men’s and women’s approaches to hunting?

Stange: Even before I became a hunter, I was fascinated by the Greek goddess Artemis, whom the Romans called Diana. One thing that struck me was that the goddess of hunting is also the goddess of childbirth. What do taking life and giving birth have to do with each other? They put you immediately in touch with the fact that everything that lives does so because other things die. Life itself is a risky process. Certainly one of those moments is childbirth. Another is the decision to take the life of a big, beautiful, sentient animal so that you can feed yourself and your family.

Stange gets point for candor, and of course, that last sentence (bold emphasis mine) left me indignant. It’s true that death and life are woven together, and that the survival of many creatures is contingent on their ability to kill and consume other living beings. But the fact that death is inevitable and, in some instances in the animal world, crucial for the survival of species, doesn’t mean that those creatures who have free will and have the means to exercise it shouldn’t do all in their power to struggle to minimize death. Stange and her family don’t need to live off the flesh of another sentient creature. For a 21st century middle-class American, the killing of living beings isn’t a survival imperative — it’s a decision to which there are legitimate alternatives. To pretend otherwise is foolish and cruel. Continue reading ‘Against “Bambi environmentalism”: a long post on hunting, veganism, cruelty, and the commitment to pleasure’

Why Hugo is a registered Republican these days

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 3, 2007
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 19 Comments

At this stage in the presidential election process, I cannot see a single Republican candidate for whom I am even remotely likely to vote. My endorsement of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination stands.

But I’ve changed my voter registration to Republican, Continue reading ‘Why Hugo is a registered Republican these days’

A no-doubt dull report on this morning’s run, and a note on why I hate fishing

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 24, 2007
in Athletics and Fitness and Environmentalism
. 6 Comments

If there’s one paved run I enjoy more than any other, it’s the run up to Cogswell Dam along the West Fork of the San Gabriel River.

This morning, the alarm went off at 4:40AM, and I was at the trailhead out on state route 39 above Azusa by 5:55. After putting on the sunscreen and the body glide and triple checking my gear, I headed up the road.

It’s about eight miles of paved road up to Cogswell, so a round trip is sixteen miles. I needed more miles today, so I ran about two miles up, turned around, came back to the car, and started over again.

Though it was very early on a Sunday morning, there were already a number of folks with fishing poles — some of whom had clearly camped over night — along the West Fork. The river is stocked with Rainbow trout, Speckled Dace, and something called the “Arroyo Chub.” I like the name, and when I’m in a self-deprecating mood, I apply the monicker to myself. (When you run with folks who are truly rail-thin most of the time, even a few extra pounds leaves one inclined to pick such a label.)

Even before I became vegan, I had no interest in fishing. I can’t imagine an outdoor activity I would like less, frankly. My second wife loved the outdoors, and was an avid fan of camping and fly-fishing. We honeymooned at a remote lodge on the Mackenzie River in Oregon, about thirty miles east of Eugene. We fly-fished every day. I found the waiting around tedious beyond words, and the actual catching of the fish (something I never succeeded in doing, but something she was really good at) to be ghastly. I wanted to be running, or at the least hiking through the woods, keeping my heart rate happy in the triple digits. My ex-wife wanted to stand in the water in waders like something out of “The River Runs Through It” (which, incidentally, was her favorite film). I ought to have known that marriage was doomed.

So today I made my way past the fisherfolk, and eventually hit Cogswell dam itself. Cogswell is a glorious example of 1930s WPA engineering. The last time I was at Cogswell was nearly two years ago, after our record rainfall of the previous year. I was heartsick to see how low the water level was today behind the dam, lower than I’d ever seen it before. It’s only June, and it’s six more months until we can begin to hope for some good rain. I’m so anxious about fires, and anxious about the impact of this drought on the ecosystem. (Of course, my first thought is for the small mammals who are my special loves, but I know the whole danged food chain is suffering right now.)

I was feeling good, so I decided to go over my scheduled miles, and I ran the trail behind the dam for a bit; the fire road continues for about a mile and a half past Cogswell until it comes to an abrupt end. It was only at that dead end that I turned around and headed back. My goal was to cover the distance home at “marathon pace”. I covered the nine miles back in an hour and fifteen minutes, which is right about the 8:20 per mile pace I want to try and run in San Francisco next month. It’s a far cry from what I used to be able to do, but it’s a reasonable goal to have for where I am these days.

Counting the four miles I did as a warmup, that gave me twenty-two miles of running for the day. I was done by 9:25AM, exhilarated and happy beyond words. I drove back down the 39 into Azusa, where I stopped to have Inge the Solara washed by the Azusa High girl’s volleyball team. They did an enthusiastic if spotty job, and while they were hosing and washing and rubbing the car, I ducked into a store and bought myself 24 ounces of coffee. Endorphins last longer, folks, if you add caffeine on top.

So now it’s off to the gym, and then home to some quiet time with the paper. Our son Dudley might get some extra afternoon out time today.

Serious blogging will return this coming week.

A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 16, 2007
in Animal Rights, Body, Environmentalism, Food, Science, Traveling and Veganism
. 23 Comments

My prayers this morning go out to all those affected by the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. I have a few Hokie alumni in my family (though far more who went to UVA), and I know a couple of folks still closely associated with the Blacksburg campus. I know that several of my readers are Hokies, and my thoughts and prayers are especially directed towards them.

It’s spring break (Pasadena City College has what must be America’s latest spring break), and I’m in our little study at home. I was in Virginia yesterday, if driving from the District to Dulles in a downpour can be considered being “in Virginia”. (We did find some great vegan Ethiopian food in a little strip mall in Ballston.) My wife and I spent the weekend in Washington attending the Art of Compassion gala to raise money for and celebrate the accomplishments of one of our very favorite charities, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

What I love about PCRM is that more than any other animal rights outfit, they adopt a holistic approach to personal and global transformation. PCRM is one of the leading organizations advocating vegan diets for all. Backed by a growing network of hundreds of doctors and nutritionists across the USA and Canada, PCRM is reaching out to millions through increasingly savvy media campaigns. (My wife and I are particularly pleased with — and particularly interested in supporting — PCRM’s brand-spankin’ new Spanish-language campaign.) PCRM also campaigns against the use of animals in medical research, and has played a leading role in developing alternatives. (PCRM helped create “Digital Frog” to help end school dissections; they’ve helped popularize TraumaMan to replace the use of live animals in emergency medical education.)

Most animal rights organizations — and Lord knows, they all do fabulous work — want to save animals. The folks who run PCRM, led by the remarkably energetic and charismatic Dr. Neal Barnard, want to do the same. But saving animals is about more than stopping a seal hunt, or shutting down a few fur farms or puppy mills. (All very worthy causes, mind.) PCRM’s point is that what is good for animals is also good for us and for our planet. A balanced vegan regimen requires far fewer natural resources to produce than a meat-and-dairy laden one. And the health benefits of veganism (or even its softer form, lacto-ovo vegetarianism) are sufficiently well-demonstrated as to be nigh on undeniable.

The world says: “Children need milk to build strong bones”. The world says “Beef is the best source of iron and protein, especially for women.” The world says “Without animal research, we can’t make necessary medical breakthroughs.” The world says “A vegetarian or vegan diet is too boring, too miserable, and too time-consuming for the average modern person.” And carefully, with painstakingly documented research, PCRM works to disprove all of these deeply-held myths. (PCRM helped expose the roots of the Vioxx tragedy: what had proved safe in animals turned out deadly for humans. Animal testing too often makes animals suffer and tells us nothing about what works for people.)

Sigh. This post is turning into an infomercial. That’s not what this blog is supposed to be about, and I apologize. This is how I feel after retreat weekends with my youth group, or after a men- against-rape training. I feel inspired and invigorated, and more than usually evangelical!

Last month, Stentor at Debitage put up this post: Moral Relativist Anti-Vegetarianism. Stentor, a trained amateur philosopher, has pointed out more than once that I have an exasperating habit of making sweeping moral statements — and promptly disavowing the idea that I am actually proselytizing, claiming at times that “this is just me.” He’s right. The truth is that a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle almost always is about making a universal moral claim. Stentor writes:

So what makes vegetarianism especially threatening whereas diversity in other parts of life evokes less hostility? One inescapable part of the picture — which unfortunately vegetarians spend a lot of time disclaiming in a usually futile effort to avoid the proselytizing charge — is that vegetarianism is a moral position. Aside from the small number of people who are vegetarians purely for health or henotheistic religious reasons, to become a vegetarian is to implicitly endorse a non-relativistic moral code*. Second, vegetarianism is threatening – becoming a vegetarian involves a significant change in a fairly fundamental part of one’s lifestyle. Third, vegetarianism is realistic. For all the joking about how life wouldn’t be worth living without bacon, vegetarianism is within reach of the majority of developed world adults. (It’s not without hardships for some, and I’m not endorsing a purely personal-lifestyle-change-based policy, but the fact remains that most North Americans could drastically reduce their meat consumption if they really put their minds to it.) Adding to the realism is the surface plausibility of the vegetarian position — it’s comparatively easy for even a committed omnivore to understand what makes vegetarians think they’re right. Bold emphasis is mine.

Stentor is frequently right, and here, he’s dead on. I realize that on this blog, I write about many things: diet, feminism, faith, exercise. As a progressive evangelical writing for a general audience, I’ve deliberately disavowed Christian proselytizing in this space. Do I wish more people would pursue a personal, transforming relationship with Christ? Yes. Do I believe that no one can be saved without consciously forming that relationship? No, I don’t. Do I wish more people — especially men — would embrace feminist principles of egalitarianism in every aspect of their public and private lives? Yes. Do I want every man (and woman) to stop using porn, to stop objectifying women, to stop the economic, sexual, and physical exploitation of their sisters? Yes.

So the question I’m wrestling with is this: does my veganism correlate more closely with my feminism or my Christianity? If it’s like my Christian faith, it’s a “personal choice” — one among many. I do believe that my Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, animist, and atheist friends will be saved (though how, exactly, is not something I can always articulate.) I do believe that I am called to follow Christ, but I also believe that others follow Him even as they call Him by other names. What would make the world a far better place isn’t necessarily everyone becoming Christian; what would make the world a far better place is if everyone actually lived out the principles of their faiths and creeds. But if every man and woman on this planet saw women as equally worthy of dignity and respect, as equally entitled to share in resources and in decision-making, as equally prepared to lead, as equally deserving of being seen as a whole person — then heck yes, the planet would be better off. Feminism is, in that sense, essential.


And I’m prepared to start arguing that vegetarianism (or better yet, veganism) has the power to bring about tremendous change. It will improve the health of the individual and of the planet, and it will exponentially reduce the unnecessary suffering of sentient, conscious creatures. So yes, I’m going to risk alienating still more readers with a more explicit commitment to veganism here on this blog.

In the end, I’m trying to follow ever more closely Forster’s maxim: “only connect.” What I wear matters. What I eat matters. Everything we do connects us to other living creatures. Every darned thing I do every day matters. And my brothers and sisters, the same does go for you too. Every dollar you spend is a vote. The food you buy, the clothes you wear, the words you speak: these impact the world. And I’m asking you to consider making the best possible choices in your public, private, educational, familial, sexual, and economic lives.

My commitment to full veganism is relatively recent (I’ve been a vegetarian for longer.) It’s been a slow evolution rather than an instant decision. Like most lasting conversions, it has come gradually rather than in a flash of light. But you’re gonna be hearing more on this blog about animal rights, veganism, and how they connect to faith and feminism.

More about my PCRM weekend below the fold. Continue reading ‘A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical’