Over the past few weeks, there has been a fair amount of attention given to the concepts of backyard farming and "victory gardening". Undoubtedly, this focus has a direct correlation to the failure of the American hyper-capitalist system, the rise in unemployment and the normally unassociated costs of purchasing food from a commercial source.
In many urban communities, residents not only grow organic vegetables, but they raise "small flock" chickens, generally numbering less than 10 hens that produce an average of 2 eggs per day per hen. In addition to providing homeowners with fresh, locally produced eggs, the urban chicken proponents use the flocks as educational tools for children.
Recently, there has been significant attention given to the notion that a portion of the White House grounds should be used to grow organic crops, presumably in an effort to promote what has been called the "sustainable food movement".
Here is where the problem with these concepts lies (and I am sure that many people will accuse the author of merely obsessing over semantics while the overall concept is what is more important). Converting your lawn into a victory garden, raising your own chickens and cracking your own eggs is a fine way to save money, but it is not necessarily a sustainable practice.
Is it organic? Yes.
Does it reduce fossil fuel consumption? Yes.
Does it provide educational opportunities for young Americans? Yes.
Does it help support the local economy? No.
Does it address the needs of American farmers who have been run out of business by their government and now by their neighbors? No.
Do a few fragmented patches of organic gardens, chicken coops and rain barrels make for a fully sustainable local and global community? No.
The same phenomenon which threatens to obliterate forests throughout the world is now threatening to derail the entire sustainability movement; fragmentation. When a forest ecosystem is divided into patches, the inhabitants of the forest may find it more difficult to migrate through the ecosystem, thereby reducing their access to food and potential mates (note: this a fairly broad stroke introduction to the concept of complimentary and connected uses, which we will explore in great detail in the coming weeks).
Because of the lack of a comprehensive, complimentary and cohesive sustainable development regulatory structure, the efforts of those involved in the movement are inadvertently creating "patches" of organic and sustainable elements within their local (and eventually global) community.
A prime example which has been receiving a fair amount of national press is the redevelopment of New Orleans. As many of you know, Global Green has been constructing 8 LEEDs certified, "green" architecture homes in a ward of the city. As many of you may not know is that the city government and redevelopment authority do not have a comprehensive plan that allows for the creation of a truly sustainable city. In other words, the only sustainable project occurring in New Orleans are 8 homes built by Global Green and visited by Brad Pitt.
Let us recall the Brundtland definition of sustainable development; "...development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In layman's terms, we are putting the cart before the horse.
Without comprehensive planning, we are threatening to derail the purpose and potential of sustainable development and organic production methods.
Without comprehensive planning we, as a local and global community, are threatening to create communities which will become fragmented, thereby derailing our social and cultural development.
And when we fail to evolve and adapt as a society, we threaten our entire existence.
We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody. -R. Buckminster Fuller
Posts
