A couple of great articles that might help the idea of growing one's own food spread.
First an article about how the Obama's are setting up a garden at the White House. No better advertisement for gardening than The First Family of Cool taking this on.
And then, how to enact one's sudden urge to get in on the game:
Here's an article describing Sharing Backyards, a small effort to help connect yard owners with people who want to garden. And then, in some areas there are even innovative new sustainable businesses trying out the same concept. See Your Backyard Farmer for an example.
So, get out there and start gardening--your land or someone's elses. The spring is here!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
One kid? Or Voluntary Human Extinction?
Wow, I thought the Living Earth Ethical Principle on family size was challenging--since it encourages all families to give birth to just one child (though families should adopt as many additional children as they have the means and interest to raise). Then I learned today about the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement." These are individuals who have not only agreed to stop reproducing but actually want the human species to go extinct (though not through violent means, just through choosing not to continue).
While I understand the impulse, really, once we can bring down the human population to a sustainable level--perhaps 1 billion with high-income lifestyles or 6 billion with middle-income lifestyles, then we can live in balance with the planet (though these estimates decrease each year we live beyond the biocapacity of the planet as ecological capital continues to be degraded or depleted). So while I find the movement thought provoking and funny, I hope people in the movement will consider a new focus: The Voluntary Human Reduction Movement, where members are encouraged to give birth to no more than one child per couple (with twins the accidental exception). That's a message that might resonate better, spread further, and still have significant benefits.
While I understand the impulse, really, once we can bring down the human population to a sustainable level--perhaps 1 billion with high-income lifestyles or 6 billion with middle-income lifestyles, then we can live in balance with the planet (though these estimates decrease each year we live beyond the biocapacity of the planet as ecological capital continues to be degraded or depleted). So while I find the movement thought provoking and funny, I hope people in the movement will consider a new focus: The Voluntary Human Reduction Movement, where members are encouraged to give birth to no more than one child per couple (with twins the accidental exception). That's a message that might resonate better, spread further, and still have significant benefits.
Video that makes a painful comparison
You've heard the old comparison between the human species and a cancer. But have you heard cancer's side? Watch this video to hear its defense:
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Exercise or Eat a Big Mac?
On February 12th, the BBC posted a new article about how exercise reduces colon cancer and a video about how during the recession, more people are eating at McDonald's and other fast food joints, which will, when done in excess, lead to obesity and many nutrition-based diseases, cancers included. This certainly makes an interesting juxtaposition. In the first article, Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, explained that "around half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle." And that "maintaining a healthy bodyweight is one of the best ways to lower the risk of bowel and other cancers - potentially helping to avoid an estimated 13,000 cases each year." In other words, skip the MickieD's.
There are many paths I could take with this blog, but let's jump straight to the most important one: in this moment of economic uncertainty you can eat very healthy on little money if you're willing to prepare the food yourself. Yes, it takes more time, but then again, perhaps we'll start having more of that as unemployment leads people to scale back their spending and live with smaller incomes. Learning to cook would be a good way to eat healthier while saving money (and would even give you a bit more exercise than waiting at the drive thru). Dried beans, rice, fresh veggies and spices can be made into an exquisite meal for little 'dough.' And you'll be much better off than eating $1 burgers.
Combine that with exercise--as simple as walking to the grocery store or doing a little gardening (saving a bit of money on food that way too)--and you'll be a lot healthier. Spring is coming, which makes this a perfect moment to find a plot you can start cultivating. Or if you live in an apartment, why not try setting up a little balcony (or indoor) garden. You can tend that year round. Watch the below video to see one guy quite inspired by his balcony garden. Feel free to use less exotic plants than he does! Even some basil, tomato plants and a few other herbs would be a good start.
There are many paths I could take with this blog, but let's jump straight to the most important one: in this moment of economic uncertainty you can eat very healthy on little money if you're willing to prepare the food yourself. Yes, it takes more time, but then again, perhaps we'll start having more of that as unemployment leads people to scale back their spending and live with smaller incomes. Learning to cook would be a good way to eat healthier while saving money (and would even give you a bit more exercise than waiting at the drive thru). Dried beans, rice, fresh veggies and spices can be made into an exquisite meal for little 'dough.' And you'll be much better off than eating $1 burgers.
Combine that with exercise--as simple as walking to the grocery store or doing a little gardening (saving a bit of money on food that way too)--and you'll be a lot healthier. Spring is coming, which makes this a perfect moment to find a plot you can start cultivating. Or if you live in an apartment, why not try setting up a little balcony (or indoor) garden. You can tend that year round. Watch the below video to see one guy quite inspired by his balcony garden. Feel free to use less exotic plants than he does! Even some basil, tomato plants and a few other herbs would be a good start.
Friday, February 6, 2009
More on the Climate Impacts of Meat
I don't think I have to belabor this point, but eating factory farmed hamburgers and steaks has a much larger ecological impact than lentil soup or a nice veggie stir-fry. Here's a Scientific American article that provides some concrete statistics. A half pound of conventional veggies shipped all the way from Peru? 4.4 ounces of co2 equivalent.
A half pound of hamburger? The equivalent of 3.6 to 6.8 POUNDS not ounces of co2 equivalent. (It's actually a small amount of methane but that has 23 times the climate changing potential of co2.)
So, point is: eat very little meat, and what you eat should be raised naturally, and ideally low on the food chain, like chicken not beef. But an occasional grass-fed hamburger on very special occasions can be ok--as long as special occasions don't include all days that end with the number 3, every Sunday, or days that start with T or S. More like: 3 or 4 birthdays and a few holidays--leading to meat and fish consumption on the order of two pounds a month. (Or just make Sunday your meat night and have one big 1/2 pound of meat then.) The Earth could sustain that level of meat consumption. In fact, it would welcome it: right now we eat about 435 million tons of meat and fish each year (275 and 160 million tons respectively). If everyone pulled back to a kilo (or 2.2 pounds) per month we'd only be eating 41 million tons per year--just 9% of current meat and fish levels. Even at a population of 9 billion, this number would only rise to 54 million or 12% of current consumption levels.
Along with being healthier, our oceans would heal, greenhouse gas emissions would fall, we could go back to raising animals more naturally, and grow more vegetable and grain crops for human consumption leading to less hunger (if better distributed, which would mean that total farming jobs wouldn't have to fall). I know, it's a dream, but cut your own meat consumption--that's a starting point and then encourage others to follow suit. And I've found that it's definitely easier to encourage people to make meat a smaller part of their diet than abstain altogether. Good luck!
A half pound of hamburger? The equivalent of 3.6 to 6.8 POUNDS not ounces of co2 equivalent. (It's actually a small amount of methane but that has 23 times the climate changing potential of co2.)
So, point is: eat very little meat, and what you eat should be raised naturally, and ideally low on the food chain, like chicken not beef. But an occasional grass-fed hamburger on very special occasions can be ok--as long as special occasions don't include all days that end with the number 3, every Sunday, or days that start with T or S. More like: 3 or 4 birthdays and a few holidays--leading to meat and fish consumption on the order of two pounds a month. (Or just make Sunday your meat night and have one big 1/2 pound of meat then.) The Earth could sustain that level of meat consumption. In fact, it would welcome it: right now we eat about 435 million tons of meat and fish each year (275 and 160 million tons respectively). If everyone pulled back to a kilo (or 2.2 pounds) per month we'd only be eating 41 million tons per year--just 9% of current meat and fish levels. Even at a population of 9 billion, this number would only rise to 54 million or 12% of current consumption levels.
Along with being healthier, our oceans would heal, greenhouse gas emissions would fall, we could go back to raising animals more naturally, and grow more vegetable and grain crops for human consumption leading to less hunger (if better distributed, which would mean that total farming jobs wouldn't have to fall). I know, it's a dream, but cut your own meat consumption--that's a starting point and then encourage others to follow suit. And I've found that it's definitely easier to encourage people to make meat a smaller part of their diet than abstain altogether. Good luck!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
High Blood Sugar = Umm, I forgot
One more study that suggests that having high blood sugar leads to lower quality of life as one ages--in this case, in the form of reduced cognitive functioning.
As Columbia University neuropsychologist Adam Brickman notes in the article, “there is now converging literature that implicates uncontrolled blood glucose levels with poor cognitive aging. While the mechanisms underlying that are still unclear, there have been enough … studies now to really raise our eyebrows.”
Type-2 Diabetes--caused by poor diet, too many processed foods, not enough physical activity--cuts the average lifespan by about 10 years, reduces sexual function, leads to blindness, now cognitive dysfunction. There's a clear benefit of maintaining a healthy diet: for ourselves, our families and the planet.
As Columbia University neuropsychologist Adam Brickman notes in the article, “there is now converging literature that implicates uncontrolled blood glucose levels with poor cognitive aging. While the mechanisms underlying that are still unclear, there have been enough … studies now to really raise our eyebrows.”
Type-2 Diabetes--caused by poor diet, too many processed foods, not enough physical activity--cuts the average lifespan by about 10 years, reduces sexual function, leads to blindness, now cognitive dysfunction. There's a clear benefit of maintaining a healthy diet: for ourselves, our families and the planet.
The Goldilocks Story of Parenthood
Here's some new evidence that it's not just a mother's age but a father's that can affect the health of a baby.
The bottom line: after a father turns 40 chances of autism increase significantly.
Take home conclusion: it's good for the Earth if you don't have a child too early (see earlier post), but for your own child's sake, you don't want to have the child too late.
In other words, nature has taken a cue from Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This mother is too young, this father is too old, this one is just right! It appears that the best window of time to have a child is in the 30's--for both mother and father, not just the mother as is commonly believed.
New studies, however, are always coming out and research might find that with so much exposure to chemicals, maybe the reproductive system weakens earlier and so for safety sake a child in the late 20s might be best. Anyone know of studies investigating that question? Comparing birth defects in places with high chemical exposure at different ages and against populations with lower chemical exposures? Comment if so.
The bottom line: after a father turns 40 chances of autism increase significantly.
Take home conclusion: it's good for the Earth if you don't have a child too early (see earlier post), but for your own child's sake, you don't want to have the child too late.
In other words, nature has taken a cue from Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This mother is too young, this father is too old, this one is just right! It appears that the best window of time to have a child is in the 30's--for both mother and father, not just the mother as is commonly believed.
New studies, however, are always coming out and research might find that with so much exposure to chemicals, maybe the reproductive system weakens earlier and so for safety sake a child in the late 20s might be best. Anyone know of studies investigating that question? Comparing birth defects in places with high chemical exposure at different ages and against populations with lower chemical exposures? Comment if so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
