Dumping in Dixie

I feel that the author takes a very partially minded point of view to his book. He seems to be determined to label the black community as a victim and the government or dumping companies or whatever the racist perpetrator of environmental injustice. Sure in the South African-Americans tend to live in lower class neighborhoods, and sure the lower-class neighborhoods are where the majority of the dumpsites probably are in the South, but that does not necessarily suggest that there must be a connection there that would suggest that those responsible for dealing with our waste are prejudice against the black community.

He notes that the companies that are responsible for this injustice often deposit their waste in areas of least resistance. I would say that although this may be true, that does not necessarily imply that his cry of racism is founded. It is much more probable that the people who decide where to dump do so with the intent of finding the least resistance to their project, as he suggested. But they more likely choose the areas they do because of their lower financial means, not directly their race.

Black Nature Writing

Chiara and I just wanted to draw this symposium to your attention:

Black Nature

It's being held right here at Berkeley this week (March 4, 5), courtesy of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment (BIE), Berkeley's English Department and Doreen B. Townsend Center for the Humanities, and San Francisco State University.  Please let us know if you attend.

In "Dumping in Dixie," Robert Bullard's main focus is the hazardous living environment and how blacks face racial injustice because those hazardous wastes are dumped where they live. Bullard also point out that other factors, such as class, also affect where the wastes end up since it follows the path of least resistance. However, I feel that he trivializes those factors in comparison with race. Bullard points out that "poor whites along with their more affluent counterparts have more options and leverage mechanisms at their disposal than blacks of equal status" implying that while class is a factor, it is not as important compared to the racial factor. I do agree with him that race is a big issue, however I don't agree with him that class has little significance compared to race.

Class and race are intertwined when talking about environmental issues. It's because of their lower class that blacks end up in those horrid living conditions; they don't have the monetary means to move to a better location. I feel that while race is one of the biggest factors, class is also another big factor that shouldn't be dismissed easily. It's not like these hazardous wastes are also dumped into the middle class blacks backyard; these wastes are generally in the poor living conditions of the lower class.

Sea World news recalls Cronon's nature as avenging angel

I was eating lunch today when CNN started a news report on the killing of a Sea World trainer by one of the park's orcas (see this L.A. Times article).

This report also followed a goofy look at a dog that learned to surf.

Given that we've read a lot of Haraway, who in other writing stresses that the relationship between a trainer and his/her animals is one of the closest and most deeply respectful relationships we can have with our "companion species," what do we make of an event like this (and if you watch the press briefings, you'll see that this was not the first time this particular orca killed a human, and not the first time someone has died to the orcas at Sea World).  I actually found the press conference fairly interesting, because the Sea World spokesperson was standing in front of the tank, and the orcas were swimming back and forth behind him with obvious curiosity about what was going on!

Perhaps we should read Susan Davis's essay in Uncommon Ground that talks about Sea World's old advertising campaign, "Touch the Magic."

Not an Environmentalist, Nor Do I Work for a Living

Richard White challenges the a common view that environmentalism and human industry cannot coincide in his essay "Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living?" It's true, by the commonly accepted definition of nature, as that unaltered by man, there is no way the world can uphold the environmentalist creed. Human civilization demands progress, which demands constantly altering of the face of the earth through industry, expansion, or exploitation of natural resources. In opposition to this, environmentalists must oppose work and therefore human progress, while supporting the recreational enjoyment of nature and making sure the relatively untouched continues to be untouched. But there is no way to live in the world without making an imprint upon it, one that naturally comes with living - of food intake and waste output. Nature is shaped by its components, the living and nonliving things. As beaver chop trees to build lodges and dams, so do humans construct and modify nature to facilitate their lives. If beaver lodges are acceptable to environmentalists, why isn't human architecture? As White points out, humans are a part of nature such that there is no area on earth not affected by humans. Even environments that are assumed to be formed by nature are not. Many deserts in the Middle East and Africa are product of cities, which deplete the soil. This is the sort of thing environmentalists want humans avoid, and usually the spotlight shines on whoever visibly "attacks" nature - miners, loggers, fishers, ranchers, laborers in short. White points out that white collar workers make footprints, too, by using the resources made readily available by the blue collar workers. Seeing as how work is fundamentally connected with life (working to live or working to make a living), working should not be seen in opposition to the environment. Nor should environmentalists shun work, but rather work in the most environmentally friendly manner - minimalizing their waste, remaining aware of where their resources come from - and encourage others to do the same. It is the most the environmental movement can hope for, because nothing but a compromise is possible in human civilization or nature. Thus, the real enemy of environmentalists becomes those who are not environmentalists and do not work for a living.

Man Vs. Environment

Robert Bullard in “Dumping Dixie” explains the importance of environmental justice. Throughout these chapters he examines the role of race and income on such justice, or lack thereof. He presents evidence that only those within the upper or middle classes and/or Caucasians participate in environmental movements. Bullard explains that the existence of a racial divide and income differences create injustice for those less fortunate and more importantly, Bullard argues, those of color.

I found it interesting to compare the environment that Bullard writes about to other ideas of nature that we have touched on in class. As Bullard stated in an interview, “the environment is everything: where we live, work, play, go to school, as well as the physical and natural world.” Bullard strongly argues that the environment is all around us and therefore man is a part of the environment. In previous readings, such as Jack London’s “To Build a Fire,” man was among nature or the environment, but was very much so a separate entity merely living among it. He was disconnected from nature and eventually did not survive the environment in the story. This suggestion of mans disconnect from nature interested me because Bullard seems to argue there is a disconnect between man and nature but only in terms of rights and justice. As he states, the environment is nature and it is where we live. It should be important and therefore there should be justice for all to obtain a good, livable environment.

I also enjoyed comparing the visual images from Amy Stein’s photography album to the ideas of environment illustrated by Bullard. As previously stated, Bullard argues that the environment is where we live rather than just some place we envision as nature. Amy Stein often highlighted humans and their environment, such as fenced off areas with a house and a girl in them, and contrasted those areas with “nature” images of trees and containing wild animals. I thought it would be very intriguing to have such visual images that represented Bullard’s ideas of man against environment. For example, a black man photographed in his backyard with a power plant in the background or something of the sort.

Interview: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/bullard.html

Domesticating Wild

In Amy Stein's Domesticated series, I had trouble figuring out whether the photographed animals were taxidermied or not, though I figured they must be, as they were acting so tame around humans and being still enough to be photographed. I found this confusion that I felt interesting, but I saw it as representative of the confusion that humans feel with animals and the natural world. It is confusing that we as humans fear wild animals, yet still feel dominant over them. The Domesticated series shows a human interaction with "wild" animals as one with out fear. The irony of these wild animals is that they too have been domesticated but in an unseen way to the viewer of the photograph. Like myself, viewers of the Domesticated series probably feel iffy in deciding if the animals are alive or not because it is unnatural for wild animals to come in contact with humans without fearing them as well, though they look so realistic. The fear that both feel is gone when animals are domesticated, but so is a the relationship with the "natural" world that people seem to strive for.

I also found it interesting that neither the humans or the animals are perceived as completely "wild" in any of the pictures, though the "wildness" of each can be debated. The series shows human confrontation with the "wild" today, and how drastically it has changed due to the far reach of domestication and also technology. My personal favorite photo was the last, with the wolf howling at the streetlight, not only for its beauty in symmetry and contrast, but also the content. This photo, like many of the others in the series, shows the same confusion that animals have in this day and age in their own perception of what is natural. The human influence over nature has greatly affected animals everywhere, as they have to adapt to the situations that we inflect on their own habitats.

I really loved Amy Stein's Domesticated series, as not only was each photo interesting in the natural sense, it was also an amusing way to see how much our natural world as humans intertwines with the world of animals. I was slightly puzzled by the photos that didn't include any animals though, like 8, 13, and 21. Are these photos simply representing our influence on the natural habitats of these animals? Is it a more powerful statement that animals weren't included in the photos? And are the birds in photo 6 really taxidermied? Is the fact that these animals are taxidermied that prevalent to the overall meaning of the series?

To Clone, or not to Clone- That is the question.

Sarah Franklin explains in Dolly Mixtures how Dolly is the first mammal cloned by taking a somatic cell from an adult sheep using nuclear transfer. The importance of Dolly is the discovery of mature cells to be reversed to a younger stage where they are able to expand their knowledge of what duties to do. This knowledge has led humans to biological control that presents limitless possibilities. But this knowledge of the ability to create organic beings holds great ethical issues as the abuse of power comes into play. What should be the requirements to clone and what are the boundaries?

Many argue that cloning should be used just for scientific purposes to seek knowledge of how to cure diseases and to help animals in the brink of extinction. But it is simple to see the ethical issues regarding the treatment of the proposed cloned animals that would help us gain knowledge of certain diseases and end their extinction. Animals are being engineered to have certain diseases and then placed in experiments. Are cloned animals subject to animal protection laws? If extinct animals were to be cloned, what would be the impact on the environment and those animals that had to adapt to live? The process for cloning extinct animals would have to be a strenuous one as questions of which extinct animals are worthy of revival and what purpose would they serve in today’s world.

The most troubling aspect of cloning would have to be its relation to humans. Should we be allowed to experiment with the human genome? We have certainly used science to help us combat diseases with medicines and treatments that aim at cellular level like Chemotherapy. How different would it be if cloning is used to genetically engineer humans to not have deathly, terminal diseases? To fight the failure of organs, cloning could perhaps be used to generate healthy organs for such people. All of this would be ideal, but it would only be a result of countless of human experiments and even then such usage of cloning would not be restricted to life or death situations. To attain the ideal level of cloning much human experimentation would be needed, just as in the cloning of animals. There would be many failures at the expense of human beings. Supplementary, many would argue that humans should not be allowed to play the role of “God” and decided who can live. If cloning were to be perfected, what would be the boundaries to the level of control we have to engineer a human being? Should we be able to pick and choose how we want a human being to look?

Biological control will continue to be subject of wonder and scrutiny. Its proposition of endless possibilities creates a vast horizon of knowledge and improvement, but also a question of whether we should even try to find out what the horizon is. Cloning and biological control is surely a door we cannot easily cross or close.

PLAYgreen Festival 2/26

Taking place right here on our campus:
http://www.playgreenfestival.com/

I'll be there for at least a bit, to recycle some old T-shirts!

The Hypocripsy of Taxidermy

The "art" of taxidermy and the people that produce it are endlessly fascinating. There is a simultaneous passion for nature and destruction of it. The taxidermist wishes to preserve life forever, bringing the wild into their own living room and looking into a deer's marble eyes every day. Carl Akeley is considered the father of taxidermy and the creator of the Akeley Hall of African Mammals in the Museum of Natural History. Akeley's approach to nature is contradictory, startling, and disturbing. Although he is known for being an avid conservationist and believed that the dioramas of animals in their "natural" setting was a just and moral cause, his actions did not conform to his naturalist ideologies.
Akeley's appreciation of nature is evident in his writing. He admires the elephant for its "sagacity, his versatility, and a certain comradeship" and refers to it as a "friend" (48). However, by murdering his friend, the elephant, he negates the supposed respect he has for nature. Murdering an animal for "art"'s sake or for the enjoyment of recreating a jungle scene in a civilized world is inherently unnatural and disregards the rights of the animal. It places more importance on humanity's need to connect to wildlife in an urban setting than the wildlife itself.
Akeley would argue that his hunting expeditions were in the name of science and helped to raise awareness of jungle life and educate people about wildlife. However, by looking at Akeley's hunting experiences, it is clear that there is more to his taxidermy than pure love of science. He often looked for animals that were not only beautiful but also with "character". He wanted an equal match when he went in for a hunt. He seemed to have some sort of attachment to the challenge it took to kill an animal and then preserve it, an ultimate representation of his mastery over nature. He was also reported to have "chocked the wounded infuriated leopard to death with his naked hands as it attacked him with intent to kill" (47). This image of Akeley conflicts with his own self-concept of an "advocate for nature in which man is the enemy, the intruder, the dealer of death." If Akeley truly wished to be an "advocate for nature" and desired the conservation and appreciation of nature, he should have chosen a different course of action. His words make him out to be an avid nature lover but his actions prove that he did little more than dominate nature in his own quest for art and beauty, harming what he loved most in the process.

Carl Akeley was a man considered to be the father of taxidermy and is well known for his contributions to the American Museum of Natural History. Though Akeley was considered to be a conservationist and a lover of nature, after reading through the “Teddy Bear Patriarchy” one’s view of his stance towards nature might be seen in a different light. Many of the animals that Akeley preserved and provided to the museums were animals that he personally hunted and collected in the wild. Though used for the purposes of education and allowing those who would not get the chance to see one of these creatures up close to fulfill that desire, killing and stuffing these animals does not seem to fit Akeley’s supposed view towards nature. In this text, it is stated that Akeley’s justification for his hunting was his “quest to embody” the vision of “jungle peace”. One could argue that the idea of “jungle peace” is one that does not exist except in the museums in which these creatures remain frozen in a pre-planned surrounding environment. In the animals’ natural environment, peace is rarely obtained due to their necessity to survive in a hostile environment. Akeley’s depiction of nature through his suspended and false display is merely a snapshot of nature, which does not accurately describe the always moving and nearly chaotic jungle life.

Killing, stuffing, and putting these animals in a museum is doing nothing more than creating a real life snapshot of a scene that could occur in nature. If it is necessary to murder these animals in order to create this still shot of them in nature, why not just take a picture of them in their actual natural environment? In the text it states “Akeley believed that the highest expression of sportsmanship was hunting with the camera.” Though Akeley did take many pictures while on his hunts and though he may have believed this, it did not prevent him from killing countless numbers of gorillas, elephants, and other creatures of the like. Akeley seems to be placing himself above the rest of human society by seeing himself as “an advocate for ‘nature’ in which ‘man’ is the enemy, the intruder, the dealer of death.” Akeley himself frequently “deals death” to countless numbers of creatures and not always for educational purposes. Akeley once shot an elephant in order to settle his question of his morale after being viciously attacked by an elephant. To me, it would seem that someone who is portrayed as being so close and so loving of nature would never want to intentionally harm or destroy it.

This week we also got the chance to look at Amy Stein’s series Domesticated. In this series, Stein’s photographs show natural elements of nature intertwined with human’s “natural” environment. This series is very interesting for it is able to show our effect and interference with what was once a natural environment. These animals now must adjust and live with our creations, whether it is a bear trapped inside of a plastic bag or a wolf howling at a false moon. Through these photographs, one does not just have to merely imagine what kind of impact we are having on our natural world, it can be seen and will hopefully inspire change.

-Justin Japinga

Response to Michel Callon's "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation"

Michel Callon's "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation" outlines the process of translation as shown by the study of scallops in St. Brieuc Bay. He describes the process of domesticating scallops by introducing four separate entities and their goals. The article creates and supports a theory where each of these entities must overcome obstacles known as obligatory passage points in order to ultimately achieve their goals. After a thorough description on the scientific side of this process, Callon casts a sociological eye upon the study of the scallops. He exposes to the reader the importance of representation not only in research, but also in the larger picture of life. Only a few trusted experts from each entity served as the voice of their whole community throughout this project. This occurrence proves to complicate the research, for certainly few voices cannot always portray the general will of all of an entity's members. Callon parallels this act to the scallops themselves, for different species are being represented by others, causing confusion for all entities.

Callon's juxtaposition of scientific jargon and sociological analysis is surprisingly easy to follow and enjoyable. His article causes readers to question the way they (or others) are represented in any scenario. Callon also highlights the animals themselves, showing that they, too, need a stronger representation. As humans, we cannot ignorantly assume that they are the same as another similar to themselves. It seems comparable to when siblings are assumed to be carbon copies of their relatives; they are not given a voice of their own. Humans should be less blind; they should be intelligent enough to acknowledge all species and give each species their own rights. Callon's study of scallops can, ironically, be a representation for other research, for it exposes the structure of any study. Whether in science or the real world, Callon's readers can evaluate how the actors in any entity are representative of others, and how at times that can cause confusion.

A Response to Donna Haraway's "Sharing Suffering"

In reading Haraway's "Sharing Suffering," I was most struck by the process of the article: her search for what would constitute humane treatment of animals in the lab. What can humans possibly do to share or lessen the impact of suffering and trials upon animals used in the lab? We see the use of animals as a necessity, as they might lessen human suffering. Is there a way for us to put ourselves on equal footing with the animals that we experiment on in the lab? Haraway maintains that we cannot imitate the animals or place ourselves directly in their position, but that we must adopt an attitude of caring and responsibility for our actions towards the animals. She uses an example towards the end of the text, on page 83 (or on page 49 of the reader) of dogs used for hemophilia research, and poses questions and actions that might be taken in order to lessen the suffering of the dogs. "...What sorts of lab arrangements would minimize the number of dogs needed?" she asks. "Make the dogs' lives as full as possible? Engage them as mindful bodies, in relationships of response?"

I was a little skeptical of this section of Haraway's writing. Though taking these types of precautions and asking these sorts of questions can minimize the suffering of the animals involved, I find it hard to accept that there is any recourse to make a lab animal's life "as full as possible." A dog bred to have hemophilia and sent to a lab for the express purpose of dying under experimentation does not have a "full life." It is a predetermined destiny, a specific purpose that humans have bred him for. He is a tool for the lab. Though Haraway, I think, is trying to suggest that we need to abandon the idea that the animals are tools, there still is the sticky problem (which she addresses through a letter at the end of the text) that the animals are bred expressly for being killed, and we are the ones that kill them. How do we deal with the fact that we kill them? What is there to say to that?

I do like the point that Haraway makes in the essay, however, that we need to abandon the differentiation between "murder" and "killing." She suggests that we have adopted a mindset where only humans can be mudered and animals can be merely "killed." Our sense of responsibility for our actions changes drastically if we either drop the notion of murder or apply it to all species.

At the end of the reading, I was still left with the question of how we can share in the suffering of animals, though a little more skeptical that it was possible.

Response to Michel Callon- "Some Elements of a Sociology of Tranlation"

Through the story of the domestication of scallops, Michel Callon defines the process of translation, which involves the formation and breakage of bonds between society and nature. He reasons that before “translators” can establish themselves as spokesmen, they first silence those who they speak for. There’s an entire hierarchy constructed for this purpose. In the case of Callon’s study, even though the scientific community and the fishermen were represented by their elected members, they were ultimately represented by the three researchers who initiated the research. Callon questions whether a few chosen individuals can speak accurately for the groups to which they belong, and whether the masses are willing to follow the few. If these questions are not considered, then all actions taken to solve the problem will have to be based on mere conjecture, which tends to lead to failure.

Callon is attempting to change not only the way we generally conduct research, but more importantly, the way we view animals (or other subjects of research) and other people involved. It’s never safe to simply assume that the behavior of a few members reflects that of the entire species. We can’t ignore the fact that there are always variations. Acknowledging that each animal can be unique individuals may also affect how we treat them.

Overall, I find his argument persuasive and the structure logically appealing. It was a really enjoyable read.

A Response to Callon's "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation"

In his piece on the scallops of St. Brieuc Bay, Callon details the attempt of three researchers who are seeking to save the overfished scallops of France. According to Callon, the researchers attempted to install themselves in a position between the fisherman and the scallops. They were the "passage point" that were supposed to prevent overfishing while their research was conducted. In doing this, the scientists were supposed to discover a method of essentially domesticating the scallops by trapping the larvae, assuming that they anchored at birth, and placing them in a location where they would be protected from predators and other dangers. The scallops would then be allowed to develop and repopulate the bay.

However, despite the scientist's efforts to save the scallops, the fisherman, who sought only to benefit themselves in the short term, dredged the bay for scallops effectively destroying the research and repopulation efforts. Despite the effectiveness of the researcher's plan on paper, in practice, the their plans and efforts were not viable. Faced with the prospect of a large return, the fisherman abandoned the efforts to create a long term sustainable solution. Even though the main issue, whether the larvae would anchor themselves, had been solved, the fisherman chose to obtain a short term gain rather than years of continued fishing. Callon's essay on the scallops of St. Brieuc Bay shows that the humanity's selfishness can destroy efforts to protect the voiceless animals if immediate gain is possible.

Responding to Haraway's "Sharing Suffering"

I found Haraway's argument to be very delicate; however that is not to say that it is a weak argument. When I say "delicate", I mean that she takes two different opinions and carefully weaves them in to her own argument. She does trend more towards the argument that animal testing is awful, instead of the argument that it is justified by the advancements; nevertheless, she does recognize that there are times when animal testing can be used to make great advancements. I think that she lays out a large part of her argument on page 75. "To me that does not mean people cannot ever engage in experimental animal lab practices, including causing pain and killing. It does mean that these practices should never leave their practitioners in moral comfort, sure of their righteousness." In other words, though the scientist may make a great advancement s/he should not forget that s/he inflicted pain on and killed animals. Later on, she says, on page 81, that "human beings must learn to kill responsibly." Again, she acknowledges that killing of animals may, at times, necessitate itself; however, this does not mean that we can do this whenever we want.

I largely agree with her argument. I think that it is important to remember that many advancements that have been made in the scientific and medical fields were due, in part, to animals. We cannot place ourselves supremely over the world without remembering the cost. If we are to kill animals for our food, we should do so in a humane manner. There are times when it is justifiable to kill, or use, animals; however, as Haraway says, we must not feel righteous, and we must remember the cost.

-Andy Albright

The Ontology of the Photographic Image

In his essay The Ontology of the Photographic Image, Andre Bazin argues that photography surpasses other forms of visual art because of its ability to capture reality. I agree with Bazin in that in a technical sense photography does surpass other forms of visual art. Photography is able to capture something exactly the way we see it. Photographs are more realistic than paintings because the images produced are exact copies of what was photographed. Bazin writes, "The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it." Painting on the other hand, is a direct reflection of the painter. The image produced isn't the "object itself", it becomes what the painter wants the object to be.

Sadly, the photographic image has become less and less realistic. With things like Photoshop becoming so common, one must think twice whether the image he/she is looking at is in fact real. Recently, there was media buzz about a Ralph Lauren ad that was Photoshopped so that the model looked thinner than she actually was. Just like in paintings the image produced has become what the photographer wants the object to be and not how it really is.

Response to Haraway--Week 3

I'll be honest: Haraway's "Sharing Suffering" just seems way too extremist to me. I know that she's trying to convince her readers that we should treat laboratory animals with the same respect we would humans. However, her argument falls short when she tries to equate animal rights with human rights. For many people, including myself, animals will never share the same rights as humans, nor should they. Don't get me wrong--the last thing I want to do here is to start a debate over animal rights. I'm just saying that Haraway tries to support her argument with a controversial view on animal rights.

The clearest example of Haraway's flaw in her essay is her comparison of eating meat to the Holocaust; she writes, "Meat eating is like the Holocaust; meat eating is the Holocaust" (81). My response: are you kidding me? Meat eating is nothing at all like the Holocaust; the only similarity is that both involve taking away life on a large scale. By the same token, harvesting cornstalks is the Holocaust. Stem cell research is the Holocaust. The big differences between eating meat and the Holocaust include, but are not limited to, the following: meat eating serves a human purpose, whereas the Holocaust does not; meat eating doesn't murder six million people over the span of a decade; the Holocaust does. Again, whether animals and humans share the same rights or not is not the subject of this post. All I'm saying is that it's a debatable topic, and if Haraway wishes to use that concept as part of her argument, then she's got a pretty weak argument.

Now if no one agrees with my opinions, so be it. If you'd like to flame me for it, I'd welcome that gladly. But if you agree with me on any point--well, I guess I'd be ok with that, too.

~Tim Yu

A response to "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative"

I remember watching nature videos in elementary school class about the colorful diversity of the rainforest and the threat humans posed to its survival. I didn't know anything about the story of Eden back then, but the video portrayal gave the name "rainforest" the similar connotation of "Eden" in my mind. It also inspired a group of my classmates to make a "Save the Rainforest" petition to the president, to which I speedily added my signature. The media encouraged the idea that it was our responsibility to protect and care for the gifts of Earth, especially the rainforest, a most amazing kind of forest. I especially felt the pressure when I saw maps of the dwindling rainforests of the world, endangered by the civilians who cut down trees to make a living. Now when reading Slater's "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative," I pay particular attention her observations of the ideas carried by the term "rainforest." Slater proposes that "the region's biodiversity, for instance, may foster a quasi-Edenic vision of a new garden to which the entire human race lays claim" (116). The color, noises, and activities of the deciduous biome pale in comparison variety of colors, noises, and activities attributed to the tropical rainforest. The fact that North America has no tropical rainforest for real-life experience increases the southerly glow of Amazon's Edenic aura. And there certainly is international interest in saving the rainforest. Not too long ago I noticed a "Rescue the Rainforest" label on a carton of Tropicana orange juice I was drinking. For every carton code entered on their site, Tropicana would protect 100 square feet of endangered rainforest for at least three years. Of course, I entered in the number and felt good about myself for the rest of the day. I realize, however, after reading Slater's essay, that if Tropicana had used the word "jungle" instead of "rainforest" there would probably have been less eager participation. Though jungles and rainforests are the same thing, the word "jungle" does not work. The word "jungle" would clash against the the clean, simple design of the Tropicana carton and "Rescue the Jungle" doesn't have the alliterative appeal of "Rescue the Rainforest." If even just the name makes a difference, I wonder how environmental campaigns for less Edenic places have managed. I have never seen a "Save the Swamps" campaign brought into such proximity as my refrigerator. If my OJ carton had promoted a "Save the Swamps," instead, I may have just put down my cup because swamps are muddy, and mud shouldn't associate with my "Lots of Pulp" OJ carton. I imagine the same difficulty obstructs the rescue of ugly endangered animals.

Another point Slater made was the general attitude towards natives. As Slater says, the article does sound like a debate over protecting an endangered species because 1. it is assumed that, as natives, the Yanomami are most at home among the flora and fauna, and don't want to partake in human civilization nor its publications. Therefore, modern civilization organizes the Yanomami's affairs without the Yanomami's input, as is done with endangered animals. And 2. the Yanomami are "untouched by modern civilization" (Brooke "Brazil Creates Reserve for Imperiled Amazon Tribe") so to preserve their rare culture (which goes without description, Slater notes) Brazil must allot land on which the Yanomami can freely go about their eco-friendly traditional activities. An endangered species is not the same as an endangered people, however. People are people as the Kayapo tribe proves with their more monetary oriented activities. It was intended that nobody should sell the resources of the tribal land for profit, but the people living on the land were considered the least likely culprits. Environmentalists who champion a nature untouched by humans forget that any human interaction with nature is human interaction with nature, even by people who traditionally have a smaller carbon footprint. Like Cronon said before, the idea that the best nature is one untouched by mankind implies that we should either commit suicide or continue guiltily living our sordid lives in the polluted cities. It seems best to just accept that all humans, like animals, are residents of the biosphere, and as members of the community of nature, everyone affects nature whether as hunter-gatherers, farmers, capitalists, communists, etc.

Are We Even Ready for Eden?

Biblical Eden is the perfect place. There is no need to work, the inhabitants are carefree, and everyone is apparently naked and doesn't care. In this version of Eden, according to Slater, we are the fallen masters. In another version brought up by Slater, we feel the need to return to a natural world uncorrupted by our presence and find a way to ally our technology with the remains of the environment. If these situations represent the best future for the planet and the human race, then why is everyone so quick to criticize an attempt at forging Eden? Probably because we can't agree which Eden is best for the planet.

First, the only way to return to a naturally perfect world is to ditch our technology or be wiped out by it. And I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Modern technology has become too integrated into our lives that its abandonment would most likely mean our extinction. Not that this would necessarily be bad for the environment, but it's just not plausible without nuclear war. But then let us examine the version where we hold "dominion", or "potential mastery" over nature. In this version, we can use nature for whatever we want. When Cronon writes his essay on Nature as Eden, he mentions that both environmentalists and developers will invoke Eden to appear that their own cause is more just. As Slater puts it, "Edenic images are both powerful and useful." But why can't both sides be right in presenting Eden? We will either be finding a way to master nature or to preserve it as it was meant to be, but in both cases, we will be fulfilling one type of Edenic narrative.

The Kayapo, an Amazonian tribe, are criticized by many romantics and environmentalists as screwing up nature by allowing modern technology to become a part of their lives. Slater asserts that many cases within the Amazon disprove how it acts as a sort of Eden our culture holds it to be, at least by the conventional narratives she displays it against. However, does not hesitate to counter the people who assert that the Kapayo are abandoning Eden by utilizing technology. While from my view she seems to be contradicting herself, I do agree with her latter point, but perhaps for a different reason. She claims that the Kapayo have not abandoned their Edenic association to the land in spite of the new technology, but I think that this new technology blended with the tribe is the perfect embodiment of the second Edenic narrative, not something that detracts from Eden. In contrast, the other much more primitive tribe, the Yanomami, are much more like the "savages" Teddy Roosevelt describes as similar to "Adam and Eve before the Fall", drawing on the first type of Edenic interpretation. Clearly, everyone can have a piece of Eden, even in the Amazon. It just depends how you want to translate it.

In the end, I think anything, even nuclear war, can be twisted to make a case for finding Eden. But the simple fact is that until we can agree on an interpretation of what Eden should be, it should not be used for anything short of Biblical studies. In today's societies Eden has lost the perfection we associate with it because we want to use it to justify anything we do. Suicide bombers use Paradise, a variety of Eden, as an excuse for their actions, so do ecoterrorists who fight in defense of the environment. Essentially, Edenic narratives and imagery can be used to defend anything (depending on whether we master it, replace it, ally ourselves with it, or rediscover it) and if this search for Eden ends up destroying the human race, should we be in such a race to rediscover it, especially if we are just going to Fall again?

"Eden" in a Corporate Context

What happens when a society living under a capitalist economy combines with the concept of the Amazon as an Edenic environment? In her piece “Amazonia as Edenic Narrative”, Slater clearly views the application of the term “Eden” to describe the Amazon as an example of how integrated this expression has become into Western thinking. I believe that Slater correctly identifies the hypocrisy present in our culture because the application of the word “Eden” has caused us to give it a sort of Disneyesque quality that glazes over the true reality of this region. Rather than seeing the native people and land for what they truly are, we are fed a sort of utopian portrayal of “Amazon tribes” that have yet to be impacted by civilization and the American corporate environment, especially through the use of advertisements.

The main case study that Slater uses to exemplify this viewpoint is the McDonald’s campaign about rain forest preservation in 1990. The deliberate use of images that were not even taken in the rain forest shows how far corporations will go to advance their cause, even if it means manipulating the public. Not only does this spread misinformation, but it hurts the native people who may be desperately struggling to survive. Their lives may have been altered to a much greater degree by modern development than the general public is led to suspect.

Another example that is used is Californian Indian casinos. One American corporation took advantage of the fact that casino games may be played on tribal land, and proceeded to put “illegal gambling devices” in their establishment. This led to the tribe being cheated out of millions of dollars. Slater undoubtedly includes this example to foreshadow what could happen in the Amazon if these native peoples are not protected from outside interests that could take advantage of them. With vast reserves of minerals and timber, they are a likely target of firms trying to make a quick buck.

Slater’s view that corporations have done a disservice to natives by highlighting the “Edenic nature” in which they live is largely confirmed by her numerous examples of this behavior. Even if this image does not accurately portray the Amazon environment, corporations will likely push this message as long as it continues to produce profits.