The topic of discussion this past week in ENVS 160 was sustainability and its position as a “big word” in the world of environmental studies. In doing the weekly readings, one of the papers struck me, and I would like to spend more time on it here. The article in question was “Strawberry Fields Forever? When Soil Muddies Sustainability” by Julie Guthman, 2018. Two things in this paper really caught my attention, both which relate to my niche interest in aquaponics; first being whether or not foods grown without soil should be able to be classified as “organic”, and the subject of the ever switching importance of the “Quality” of the product versus its impact on the environment.
Now I don’t want to go and dunk on this article, because it’s useful and well-written and makes some excellent points. However, I disagree with the author’s opinion that soilless agriculture should automatically be illegible for the label of “organic.” The common definition of organic food is food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers, which is the case for many soilless systems. I would argue that aquaponics could be seen as more “organic” than traditional growing, as this paper lays out all the complicated and expensive ways farmers try to game nature into bigger harvests and more extended soil longevity. There comes the point at which an area of land has been continuously farmed for so long where the original microfauna of the soil- much of which we don’t fully understand- cannot be restored. This process happens over and over again, and yet we continue to focus on how to do the impossible, for real estate reasons.
There is a second mention of soilless agriculture, albeit brief, which references attempts made by farmers to move to hydroponics, but was quickly abandoned due to compromises in sweetness and texture.
I find it hilarious that no one is willing to compromise on the quality of strawberries to do less damage to the environment, but everyone was okay with seedless watermelon. When we started growing seedless watermelon, there were stark differences in taste, texture, and sweetness from the seeded variety, and yet everyone was able to overlook this fact because you didn’t have to spit out the seeds anymore. The same thing happened to bananas! We created a monoculture that was susceptible to disease, and when the banana plague took place, we had to switch to different bananas. And we were okay with that also because we must hate seeds.
What I’m trying to say is, soilless farming is the future, and apparently, people don’t care that much about fruit quality, or at least not as much as we hate seeds.
The first time I read the Tragedy of the Commons I was taking my first semester of AP environmental science. From today’s perspective of looking over a ridge into highly possible ecological collapse, the tragedy of the commons seems like a fairly obvious concept, but when Garrett Hardin presented the idea in 1968, it entered a thriving conversation about natural capital and land use, as the Wilderness Act had been enacted just 4 years prior.
The tragedy involves some math and often has to do with cows or fish, and in the interest of time, I’m going to use this fun little dinosaur comic to illustrate the concept:
Addressing the actual complexity of humans interacting with the environment sometimes makes me wish I was also extinct.
What I didn’t read in high school, however, was Elinor Ostrom’s argument for the “non-tragedy of the commons.” Elinor Ostrom was the only woman so far to receive a Nobel prize in economics, and she argued that Hardin’s argument wasn’t right 100% of the time and that there were often times where commons had been managed between multiple groups sustainably for generations. And though Hardin does have a point that commons are often abused, his overgeneralization of attitude and culture makes me more inclined to agree with Ostrom.
I believe Hardin was approaching this concept from the views of a man living in a western capitalist society, something that is often misconstrued as “average.” I do not blame him for this approach, he was a man of the 1960’s after all, deep in the ideas of classic environmental thought. But if you look elsewhere in the world, communities that live close together, and close to their commons, can communicate with each other to preserve their natural capital. The problem is when those who are from outside of said community wish to exploit the commons for their gain, without concern for the community that depends on it. Capitalism, am I right ladies?
When entering my first environmental class in college, I was pleasantly surprised being posed the question of “What are the boundaries of ENVS?” One of the reasons for my interest in the field was the fact that it was so intertwined with other disciplines and aspects of society and science. So what are the boundaries of environmental science? Heres my guy Mr. Anderson with a graphic from one of his videos:
Mr. Anderson has saved my life many times and deserves undying respect.
So you might think, gosh that’s so many things to worry about! And you are right, it is, and I am anxious. However, each of these subjects holds an essential role in environmental studies, and each must be considered in relationship with each other.
A commonly discussed example of the breadth of environmental studies is the issue of coal burning and mining in the US. Coal is a widely known source of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as the mining processes themselves contributing to pollution from chemical runoff and the degradation of natural landscapes. Already this scenario includes ecology, chemistry, and geology. However, environmental studies reach beyond that, accounting for the economic effects of not using coal, as well as the social and political impact of having a sizeable unemployed working class.
All in all, the span of environmental studies is something I am very attracted to, and I feel it works well with the idea of a liberal arts education. I hope college doesn’t kill me!