There are a few things that have been heavy on my mind since I began this project.
First, politics. My goal with this project is not to stay away from politics, per se, but to stick to the facts and stay on topic. Ultimately, everything is political. This project is about a lifestyle and a set of values and morals, rooted in nature. And there is certainly legislation that hinders this venture, or clashes with those values.
I find it odd that conservation and regulation are often seen as “liberal” causes. I became curious about why. I imagine the answer is very complex, but here is some important background and context.
- The bible. I remember being shocked when I read this passage from the bible, Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’.” While at the time of its writing it may not have been so stark, today it reflects a fundamental problem — many of us see nature as separate from ourselves, and something to conquer. Would God be pleased? We have certainly gotten close to achieving this will…
But we fail to see the systemic problems that are caused from humans believing we can do what we will with the rest of the natural world. For some, conservation efforts hinder the advancement of humans — whether in jobs or our right to drive huge cars or whatever it may be (sorry, my snark slipped out for a moment there). And while there are plenty of left-leaning Christians, those more invested in the authority of the bible (such as Evangelicals) tend to be right-leaning. - Preservation vs. Conservation. A debate that began with John Muir in the late 1800s has only gotten more intense in the last century. When John Muir co-founded Sierra Club and helped to establish Yosemite National Park, he was fighting for the lands from a spiritual and transcendental place, and at the time his primary grievance was allowing domesticated livestock into pristine areas.
One of his contemporaries, Gifford Pinchot (who was the first head of the U.S. Forest Service) shared Muir’s love for conservation, but from a different vantage point. Pinchot’s motivation for protecting lands was to ensure they were available for long-term commercial use by humans. As a forester, he advocated for sustainable forestry and called it “tree farming.” But when Pinchot wrote an article endorsing sheep grazing in forest reserves, Muir ended their friendship. Soon, Muir’s camp would be called “Preservationism,” and Pinchot’s “Conservationism.” The meanings of these terms still differ depending on who you talk to.
To think back on this battle and the problem of livestock, it’s almost quaint. Through clear-cutting, dam-building, and resource exploitation, Sierra Club has maintained Muir’s Preservationist vision. But whether for religious reasons or a belief in Ayn Rand-style egoism, there are many who still believe the betterment of the human race justifies the unregulated exploitation of natural resources.
So, all this is to say, I land squarely in the Preservationist camp, and believe that as humans, our intellect comes with a huge responsibility to be almost parental stewards of the natural world, and to understand the systems perspective. Only we can grasp the consequences of altering a large part of a system, and only we can figure out how to repair it once it’s been done. Unfortunately, we are at that point — and when we as a society aren’t proactive to heal our home, then regulation must come into play. Carrot, meet stick. More thoughts to come on regulation vs. incentives as I explore the options available to farmers who choose regenerative agriculture.
Now, social media. I just watched the popular documentary The Social Dilemma. I respect this director a lot (I highly recommend Chasing Ice if you have not seen it), and while I could have done without the dramatizations and the sanctimonious rich ex-tech execs, the message of the film hit me hard.
While in a previous job, my role relied heavily on social media, and on Facebook in particular. To skip years of context, I’ll just say that I ended that period of work completely exhausted by the pay-for-impressions paradigm, and the manufacturing of peoples’ opinions, even if the causes I was pushing were “good.” I recently abandoned my Facebook account, and I believe my life is better for it. I have never used Twitter in any big way. I no longer engage in any commenting online (unless encouraging or consoling). And my personal Instagram is private.
So, as I explore having a farm- and art-based business in the future, it is not lost on me that social media will be an important tool in its success. I am still working on accepting this.
For now, here is what I have promised myself. This project is an investigation into purpose and joy. Nowhere in this process is there tolerance for hate, mean-spiritedness, or even aggressive requests that I post about (or don’t post about) something. I do not want my life to be about responding to comments and messages, though I recognize some of this will be necessary and even (hopefully) fun. I will leave comments open on this blog and on Instagram, and will engage in a way that is healthy for me, with the full right to turn comments off at any time if the scourge of the internet seeps in.
So, that’s where I’m at right now. Let’s get to the fun stuff!