Photo from happier times before the hurricane at the co-op
From Orlando Sentinal
TRUJILLO ALTO, Puerto Rico — It’s 10 minutes to noon, and Alexandra Rodriguez Rios has already cooked and delivered more than 60 lunch plates to residents in her co-op living community.
She’s had a different menu every day since Hurricane Maria. It’s nothing fancy, she says. It’s what they call the “hurricane diet:” canned sausages, Spam, white rice, canned vegetables, beans.
But it is “guiso,” meaning it’s flavorful and well seasoned. And there’s always enough for anyone who might walk through the glass doors of the activity center at the Cooperativa de Vivienda Ciudad Universitaria.
Rodriguez Rios, 37, heads the cooking committee — one of six committees residents in the community have organized to make sure all of their own needs are met.
It’s been more than two weeks since the hurricane hit the island, but the cooking, maintenance, administrative and security committees are still going. They recently added an unofficial FEMA representative, who travels 30 minutes into San Juan to access government computers so she can sign people up for federal aid.
“I like cooking, so it’s no problem. I get here at 7:30 a.m. and I get everything done. I have no problem with it. Plus, there are so many elderly people here who live alone,” Rodriguez Rios said.
From Our Archives
WILLIAM EDELEN (1922 – 2015)
The Contrary Minister
We are perched on a precipice in the history of our Democracy when it comes to the role of the Supreme Court today. I contemplate OFTEN nowadays… how my old friend Justice William O. Douglas would interpret these current maneuverings.
If Douglas was alive and on the court TODAY, he would be appalled at the very notion of the “Citizens United” opinion narrowing the definition of “corruption” to “quid-pro-quo” (money for political favors) AND giving the rights of “person-hood” to “corporations.” As stated so emphatically by Mitt Romney during the 2010 Presidential Campaign, “Corporations are people, my friend!”
WHAT ??? OH MY… how we NEED DOUGLAS NOW!
“The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to keep the government off the backs of the people,” Douglas wrote. Further he wrote: “The New York Stock Exchange is a cross between a casino and a private club, filled with termites.” President Franklin Roosevelt was a good friend of many on the Stock Exchange, and yet he told Douglas, “Go ahead and charge them.” Douglas went ahead full speed and charged Richard Whitney, the President of the Exchange, who was indicted for the embezzlement of his clients’ securities. Whitney was convicted and sent to prison. Douglas zeroed in on the other members of the Exchange to make reforms that would be totally and truly responsive to security holders.
From the author of The Making of Donald Trump…
From George Monbiot
[See response in next article below]
The suffering inherent in mass meat production can’t be justified. And as the artificial meat industry grows, the last argument for farming animals has now collapsed
What will future generations, looking back on our age, see as its monstrosities? We think of slavery, the subjugation of women, judicial torture, the murder of heretics, imperial conquest and genocide, the first world war and the rise of fascism, and ask ourselves how people could have failed to see the horror of what they did. What madness of our times will revolt our descendants?
There are plenty to choose from. But one of them, I believe, will be the mass incarceration of animals, to enable us to eat their flesh or eggs or drink their milk. While we call ourselves animal lovers, and lavish kindness on our dogs and cats, we inflict brutal deprivations on billions of animals that are just as capable of suffering. The hypocrisy is so rank that future generations will marvel at how we could have failed to see it.
The shift will occur with the advent of cheap artificial meat. Technological change has often helped to catalyse ethical change. The $300m deal China signed last month to buy lab-grown meat marks the beginning of the end of livestock farming. But it won’t happen quickly: the great suffering is likely to continue for many years.
The answer, we are told by celebrity chefs and food writers, is to keep livestock outdoors: eat free-range beef or lamb, not battery pork. But all this does is to swap one disaster – mass cruelty – for another: mass destruction. Almost all forms of animal farming cause environmental damage, but none more so than keeping them outdoors. The reason is inefficiency. Grazing is not just slightly inefficient, it is stupendously wasteful. Roughly twice as much of the world’s surface is used for grazing as for growing crops, yet animals fed entirely on pasture produce just one gram out of the 81g of protein consumed per person per day.
From Small Farm Future
Since I’m (almost) halfway through my ‘history of the world’ blog cycle, I thought I’d take a halftime break and write about something else this week. Especially since an urgent task has suddenly presented itself to me – the need to save George Monbiot from becoming an ecomodernist. Now, let me start by saying that, week in week out for more years than I care to remember, George has been almost a lone voice in the mainstream British media putting the case thoughtfully and iconoclastically for radical, egalitarian and environmental alternatives to a status quo that’s so fawningly celebrated by the majority of his journalistic colleagues. He’s even publicly endorsed my critiques of ecomodernism. So as far as I’m concerned he has a lot of credibility in the bank, and I’m not one to fulminate against him too much just because I disagree with him over this or that issue. But when it comes to his recent article enthusing about the advent of artificial meat as the welcome death knell for livestock farming…George, you’re scaring me, man.
Actually, I agree with most of the premises in George’s article – the present global livestock industry involves barbarous cruelty to farm animals, is a grossly inefficient way of producing protein and is not, contrary to ‘carbon farming’ claims, a good way of mitigating climate change. However, I don’t agree with his conclusion that we should stop farming animals, for reasons that I’ll set out below and that will also hopefully illuminate some wider themes – including those implicit in a brief Twitter exchange I had with Marc Brazeau, another antsy online ecomodernist, who was effectively challenging advocates of ‘alternative’ farming to put up some quantitative metrics by which to judge their approach or else clear the way for the ecomodernist onslaught represented by intensive conventional arable farming on the grounds of its superior sustainability. Which is pretty much the same as George’s argument.
So to summarise so far, rather than the Spielberg reference of my title, perhaps the strapline for this piece should paraphrase a famous quote from another old film – Flash Gordon, that marvellous bit of 1980s schlock: “George, George, I love you – but I only have fourteen paragraphs to save you from the ecomodernists”. And here they are:
1. If you’re standing in the supermarket aisle, weighing up whether it’s environmentally sounder to buy a vegetarian dinner or that big juicy steak, the answer in that context is almost always going to be the vegetarian dinner. I say “in that context” because the choice is already framed by numerous background assumptions, which I’d summarise as the ‘ethics of the shopping aisle’. The ethics of the shopping aisle basically accepts that the consumer is the endpoint of a vast global corporate food system that relies on copious fossil fuel inputs across the entire production chain, and it also basically accepts that this system will continue in the long-term. If you don’t accept those propositions, you might imagine yourself instead living in a farm society in which people are producing their food from a few acres with minimal exogenous energy sources available to them. In these circumstances, you would probably grow crops in a rotation that included ruminant-grazed legume-rich grass leys and make use of the milk, meat, traction and fibre provided by the ruminants. You would probably also keep some poultry and pigs near the house or in the woodlands, to turn waste food, weeds and invertebrate pests into useful food. Almost certainly, you’d produce and eat less meat than we presently do in the UK. But, almost certainly too, you’d produce and eat some meat. I take the view that this omnivorous lifestyle is a better, and more sustainable, one than the vegan lifestyle commended by the ethics of the shopping aisle. Whether it’s better or not, I suspect it may be the best option available to us in a likely low-energy future – a future we’ll land in more easily if we prepare for it now. So I’d be willing to trade off a fair amount of ‘inefficient’ mixed organic agriculture in the present as a lead-in to a likely unavoidable mixed organic agriculture of the future.