Paralyzed by choice

I've been having a bit of an identity crisis lately. Not a Who am I and why am I here? sort of crisis, but a what the hell do I want to do with my life? kind of crisis. I know absolutely that I need to do something environmental, but beyond that, there are so many thing that sound appealing.

Here's a list of a few things I've realized in the last few weeks, which I feel are important. And I don't mean that these are all objective truths, they're just what I've realized I feel about systems and fields of study.


-I will always have the opportunity to pay attention to politics and study political theory, but I won't be able to teach myself biology or chemistry nearly as effectively, due to my lack of a high-tech lab in my basement, among other things.

-I no longer believe that change on the scale we need it is possible through our political system.

-Social sciences study human-created systems, and largely exist because we've screwed up those systems. Politics is a study of how to change the nation or world through our political system. Sociology is almost always a study of failed aspects of society--prisons, public schools, prejudices and systematically oppressive systems. Economics pretends to be objective and on par with real science, but is generally about justifying practices which further harm the earth and economically disadvantaged individuals. Even environmental economics is about fixing our economic system so that we value things other than profit and growth.

-Science is about research and creation. Even if we eliminate oppression and have a perfect government and dismantle industrial capitalism, we will always need scientists.

-When I think about science, it seems like promise and a bright future. In contrast, politics seems like fighting a series of battles, most of which you will lose. Furthermore, any victories you do achieve will be small in scale, temporary in nature and completely insufficient to address the larger problem that motivated you to get involved in the first place.

-I really, really like science. And I'm pretty good at it.

-I don't think you can really separate politics and biology when you're talking about the environmental side of both.

-I can't major in environmental studies-biology or environmental studies-chemistry without skipping study abroad or going crazy taking 3+ science classes with lab per semester.

-I wouldn't like being an environmental lawyer as much as some other things I could do, but I think as an activist, understanding how environmental law works is crucial. I don't know a better place to learn about environmental law than an environmental law school.

-I really really want to do the Wilderness Awareness School Anake Outdoor School program after I graduate from Whitman. It's a 9 month naturalist field course that teaches you tracking and primitive skills and things like that.

-I think green chemistry (designing materials to be environmentally benign and reuseable/recycleable/biodegradeable and nontoxic and not pervasive) is one of the coolest things I've ever heard of.

-If I didn't think our environment was in the middle of imminent catastrophe and I didn't need to make a lot of money at work, my dream job would be running and leading trips for an outdoor program that focuses on late elementary and middle school-aged girls. Self-esteem and social skills via rock climbing and plant identification, bitches!

-I want to travel a lot, especially in developing countries, and I'd like a job where I get to do that.

-I'm really interested in food supply issues, and sustainable agriculture.

-I'm increasingly realizing that it's not just our lifestyle and consumption patterns that are unsustainable. It's our entire civilization and culture.

So there you have it. I'm flirting with a double major in biology-environmental studies and politics-environmental studies, but I don't think even I can pull that off. I'd like to at least minor in biology, since it's only 16 credits. I'd like to take another semester of chemistry, and I'm hoping I can pull some strings to get into advanced intro chemistry, even though my placement test scores weren't quite there. Mostly, I just want to do something lasting, whether I'm remembered for it specifically or not. Maybe it'll be an investigative report about pollution. Maybe I'll synthesize a compound to replace plastic. Maybe I'll do a groundbreaking study of biological relationships in the American West. Maybe I'll get some land set aside as a nature preserve. I just really, really hope I can learn enough in the three years I have left to go out and do something.

Oil and responsibility

The Deepwater Horizon spill has many people looking for blood.Obama has BP agreeing to set aside $20 billion to compensate people whose jobs are effected by the spill, independent of any money they might have to pay for violating environmental laws. Even Facebook asked me, via paid advertisement, to join a group demanding that BP's CEO resign.

And while holding them accountable is definitely a good thing, it's missing the point.

Oil drilling has a long list of associated environmental disasters. Few, besides the Exxon-Valdez spill, have garnered this much public attention, and none have been this big and this visible for such a long time. But the history of oil drilling shows that such problems are not anomalies, nor are they preventable in the broadest sense of the word. And while companies have always cut corners and ignored environmental and safety regulation to turn a profit, eliminating these abuses would not stop all spills. Accidents can and will happen, especially in the dirty business of oil.

The irony of demonizing BP has been shown by consumers wondering if they should boycott BP in favor of other oil companies. Step away from them, and what are your options? Exxon-Mobil funded fake science reports denying climate change was occurring, then, when they couldn't pretend it wasn't, saying it wasn't human caused. They're responsible for what was the largest oil spill in US history until last month, and the actual cause of the spill had much less to do with a drunk skipper and much more to do with them turning off safety radar that was too expensive to operate than they'd like you to believe. Exxon and Shell both operate in the Niger Delta, where spills have been happening consistently for fifty years, completely removing people's ability to live off the land and politically destabilizing the region to the point where even peaceful activists have been executed. Chevron is there too, and they've left toxic oil byproducts and waste all over Ecuador, making it nearly impossible for locals to find clean drinking water. So, that ethical oil company you were talking about...?

The uncomfortable truth of the Deepwater Horizon is that the problem lies in our use of oil. We can fine BP billions (and we should), call for their CEO to be fired (and he should) and even pressure the British government to revoke their corporate charter (which we also probably should, but obviously won't). But ultimately, responsibility for the spill lies with us, the people of the developed world, and our governments, who have encouraged our total dependency on fossil fuels for the better part of a century. And obviously, business and government are intertwined to the point of being virtually indistinguishable, and individuals can only do so much to change the system. But what we can do, we should. Energy that doesn't use fossil fuels makes economic sense, and business sense when done right. It doesn't have to be a partisan issue, and we've got enough politicians paying lip service to it that if we push hard enough, they might have to actually do something.

We need a national calling, a scientific re-purposing. We need Kennedy all over again calling for the US to put a man on the moon. Only this time, we need to save our climate, we needed to do it yesterday and there's no USSR to bring out our competitive masculine streak. There's just us, and the rest of the world and a ticking clock. And I know science alone won't solve our problems and government probably won't solve any of our problems. But I want to see us try. I want us to take a tiny fraction of our defense budget and put it towards encouraging science and engineering students. I want FDR-scale public works projects to bring this country better mass transit and more wind power. I know all the reasons that won't be enough. I know we need to use less energy and reconnect with the land and live more locally and stop driving altogether and look at materials and waste and stop polluting our groundwater. But I think we also need to redesign our entire grid, and that's something we're up to if we get the entire nation behind it.

So call Obama and tell him. Tell him what your version of a better future looks like, tell him we seriously need to stop offshore drilling. His number is 202 456 1111. Call your senators. Cantwell is 202 224 3441 and Murray is 202 224 2621. And while you're at it, stop driving so much.

In defense of capitalism, I think

This year, I've read a lot and tried to pay attention to the news. And everywhere I look, capitalism appears to be responsible for a seemingly endless list of atrocities. It's the economic system that brought us Bhopal, the military industrial complex, Superfund sites, sweatshops, the financial crisis, climate change and the Gulf oil spill.

Right now, we're witnessing what seems like the Last Days of capitalism. Every passing day brings new evidence that this system is unsustainable, exploitative and killing the planet. As our economy crumbles around us, people are taking it as evidence that the entire philosophy of capitalism is wrong. And though it might make me unpopular in some circles, I want to defend the core tenets of capitalism. Not because I don't agree with every single criticism people have made of the way our system operates, and not because I don't think we need radical change. Not because I'm harboring some illusion that our political system is capable of fixing the world's problems, and not because I'm defeatist and think we have to accept the current system and be "realistic". There's nothing realistic about pretending that changing our lightbulbs and waiting for Congress to pass an even more flawed version of Waxman-Markey will stop climate change.

Here's the thing: I think the core idea of capitalism--individuals coordinating their desires and abilities through a market--is actually a really good idea. On its most basic level, capitalism is about matching up someone doing or making something with someone willing to pay them for it. Capitalism encourages research and innovation--for drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, for alternative energy sources, for better water infrastructure in developing countries. Capitalism provides rewards for people who provide goods or services that meet needs. And I don't think there's another economic system that does that.

Where capitalism becomes problematic is when it gets large, global, industrialized and values maximizing profit at the expense of everything else, including human life or ecological health. Some people would argue these problems are inherent in the system, but I disagree. A woman in Ghana running a sewing business which makes traditional West African clothing for customers is still a capitalist enterprise, and one which, I would argue is fundamentally different from the likes of Dow Chemical or Monsanto. We need a system which will preserve those enterprises--the independent bookstores, clothing makers, hippie juice bars, creative dance teachers and farmers--without allowing corporate behemoths to commit state-sanctioned murder.

How do we get there? I'm not sure. I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of our political system to create change, especially on the scale we need in the time we have. I think overturning both Citizens United and its underlying precedent--corporate personhood--would be a good start. Holding corporations legally accountable for their actions would be better. That's a change that won't come from our legislative or executive branches, but a few rogue judges could get us somewhere. And if courts in the US won't hear it, we need to drag Coca-Cola, Nestle, Dow and anyone else we can think of in front of the International Criminal Court.

More than anything, I think we need to break the cycle of materialism and consumption. As Adbusters loves to say--"When you cut off the flow of oxygen to a person's brain, their brain dies. When you cut off the flow of nature to a person's soul, their soul dies. It's as simple as that." We need to get everyone in the developed world outside, starting at a young age. We need to resist media intrusion into our lives. We need to take down billboards, and any other ads that we're forced to look at. We need to remember how to value nature, and how to see ourselves as connected to it. We need to learn to be happy with what we have. We need to remember how to be people.

All of that's going to take a while. And it's not everything we should be doing, by any means. We need people sitting in front of bulldozers. We need people who won't come down from trees. We need anger and outrage and giant posters of people killed by methyl isocyante paraded in front of every single politician in this country. We need to find a way to take our government back, and I'm not talking "helpful tips" like calling your elected officials to tell them what you think. But when we get there, if we get there, and we get to re-write our world, I think capitalism should stick around. I don't mind paying someone to grow my food, as long as I know who they are and how they're growing it.

Privilege and work

I'm lucky with my job. I don't need it to pay rent or buy food. I don't even need it to pay for school. I'm not in debt, I'm not poor, even relatively speaking, and I'm at work because I choose to be.

None of that would be relevant, except that I talk to my coworkers, and a lot of them aren't as lucky as me. One has thousands of dollars in credit card debt. Many are on food stamps. Several would like to go to school, or go back and finish a degree, but they can't afford to. Some don't have health insurance, because they can't afford it or don't work enough hours to be eligible. Many work multiple jobs to cover basic necessities. A lot of them don't want to be there, but they don't have a choice, because they need to eat.

A lot of customers understand where we're coming from. They're young, or they work minimum-wage jobs too, or they're just nice. But they understand, when they come through our lines, that we're people, first and foremost. They understand that working for a major corporation for $8.65 an hour is not first on the list of things we'd be doing with our lives, if all of us could choose.

What's interesting to me is the people who don't get that. I'm not talking about customers who are quiet, or don't want to talk, or upset or a bit standoffish. I understand people might be in a hurry, or having a bad day, or on the phone or whatever. I understand people get mad or confused and I'm used to checking prices or explaining complicated sales to people. And some of that's not fun, but you suck it up, because it's part of the job. What I'm talking about is people who come in acting entitled.

Some people act entitled because they think they own the store and have a right to get whatever they want. They're the ones who storm in demanding to speak to a manager and get incensed when you inform them that it's 10:30pm, and there aren't any managers in the store. They're the ones who believe fervently that it's your fault they read the week's ad wrong and thought something should be cheaper when it doesn't go on sale until the next day. They're the ones who make it very clear that there's a "you all" separate from the "me" that deserves to be served immediately and perfectly. These people, I see a lot at my Queen Anne store, because the store is in a fairly affluent neighborhood in a decent sized city. They bother me, because they don't seem to have any capacity for empathy, not to mention common courtesy. But at the end of the day, I can just forget about them.

What really sticks with me are the people who either judge you or feel uncomfortable interacting with you because of your job. This, I got a few times in Walla Walla, mostly from (presumably) Whitman students. I'd ask people about their finals or comment on profs and they'd be taken aback for a moment, as if going to Whitman and having an off-campus minimum wage job were somehow incompatible. Some of them almost looked like they felt guilty for having me serving them, or uncomfortable because they were reminded of the fact that not everyone can afford to go through four years of college without working.

One incident I remember in particular, I was talking to a young man who either went to Whitman or had graduated in the last few years. I mentioned that I was also a Whitman student, and he said something like, "I bet you have an advantage over the townies--showing up to work on time and everything." He smiled at me, friendly, but conspiratorial, like we belonged to a group that set us apart from my coworkers.

That was a really interesting moment for me. He was right in a way--we did belong to a different group, a privileged group. We have parents who can pay for the $50,000 per year that it costs to attend Whitman. But how did he extrapolate from that to decide that my coworkers must be in some way inferior? Why did he assume I'd automatically be able to get to work on time and my coworkers wouldn't?

Working at a grocery store is not exactly rocket science, so to assume my coworkers were too stupid or incompetent to show up to work on time seems like quite an insult. Besides, even if it did require a significant amount of thought, attending a private liberal arts school doesn't mean you have a monopoly on intelligence. All it means is you're damn lucky compared to a lot of people. And at the end of the day, that's half the reason I like having my job. It forces me to think about that everyday--both to acknowledge that I have privileges and opportunities a lot of people will never get, and to understand that I'm not a better person because of it.