More Subjects
Katherine Thu Nguyen
Professor Name
March 06, 2019
Argument
Jedediah Purdy’s makes a strong argument that it is possible to establish a system of equality by removing capitalism and imperialism. The social life and the natural world are interlinked and responsible for shaping one another. I agree with Purdy that it is important to identify how one can shape the world. There is a need for suggesting ways that may emerge from Anthropocene insights. I accept the criticism made by Purdy on Anthropocene because he explains that their ideology is based on Marx's term. The central argument claims that the extinction of plants and animal species is due to the negative role of human-kind. Exploitation of natural resources has caused the extinction of species that raises concerns for future generations. It is thus important to form a new philosophy that will be used for saving nature and planet earth.
I agree that the Anthropocene stresses on building “kind of world in 500 years: greener, more egalitarian and cooperative, more peaceful at every level, from the geopolitical to the psychological to relations among species” CITATION Jed16 \l 1033 (Purdy). This means to make earth an ideal place changes must be incorporated in the social, political and environmental aspects. We are also uncertain about the political and intellectual strategies that will take to a practical solution. I think the author managed to justify his point by building relevance with stoicism and Montaigne’s skepticism. Imperialism has caused damage to the society as explained by Du Bois by reflecting on the problem of the color line. The destructions are the result of too many human influences that also poses risks of diminishing human control. Purdy criticizes the system by providing insights into the unjust political system. This also reflects the devastating role of capitalism that resulted in a power of few and sufferings for the remaining. Imperialism and capitalism are apparent in every aspect of life that caused inequality and injustice.
Although Purdy in his post makes many strong claims regarding Anthropocene he did not propose practical solutions for saving the planet. I agree with Robert Paarlberg's criticism on Purdy's post because a food movement may not be adequate for making the world an ideal place. The agricultural arrangements and solutions presented by Purdy may be effective at small levels but does not address larger issues. Removing capitalism could not be the only solution because farmer markets and farm-to-table organizations provide limited solutions. I agree with Paarlberg's that due to population rise we face the challenge of feeding them. So, in such situations, any step for feeding a tiny part outside society will cause serious damages. This will be devastating for the environment and democracy. Purdy did not consider the facts that farmers markets have already been functional in America for the last two decades, but it failed to provide long-term solutions. There are thirteen thousand farms as pointed by Paarlberg that are working for promoting community agriculture. However, America has not been able to overcome the problem of extinction. Facts reveal that “yet the share of our nation’s total fresh produce moving through these local channels is still tiny, just 1.6 percent” CITATION Rob16 \l 1033 (Paarlberg). I agree that irrespective of huge farms America failed to find a practical solution.
I agree with Purdy's idea of switching to nature agricultural methods rather than the artificial ones. The vegetables and crops are produced from fossil fuels that contribute to carbon emission and greenhouse gases. I think Purdy’s suggestions are unrealistic as he mentions, “if the country’s interest in food systems is more than narrowly utilitarian, then it makes sense to ask what kinds of landscapes, work, and experiences our systems foster, as well as their input-output ratios” CITATION Jed16 \l 1033 (Purdy). He explains that this could be an effective solution but does not provide practical methods of attaining them. Food movement does not settle everything because if that were the solution, America would have been resolved the issue. Purdy doesn't provide adequate justification because artificial methods are essential to the point that they fulfill the needs of a growing population. Natural agricultural methods will not be adequate for providing food to the entire population of America. Intimating the model of Serbia Club for food conservation also involve challenges, but the author didn't pay much attention to that. I disagree with the suggestion of increasing the cost of food because in doing this the society will suffer more. Although the purpose of this discussion is to promote social equality but Purdy ignores the consequences of rising food prices.
Purdy did not consider the ramifications of increasing agriculture such as by plowing golf courses the wildlife will continue to suffer. Although the author highlighted the need for managing greenhouse gases but the claims of eliminating carbon footprint are invalid. Paarlberg provides a deeper analysis by highlighting the reality of greenhouse gases. The demand increase in winter so it would not be possible to end reliance on vehicles. Transport decline will not be sufficient for controlling carbon-emission because localized food systems are limited. This means that society will need transport for carrying food.
Purdy has made a strong point, “the capacity to set and bind ourselves to a distinctly artificial body of principles that forms the architecture of our interdependence and shapes a common world” CITATION Jed16 \l 1033 (Purdy). However, he does not provide any practical strategy that would be sufficient for attaining the goals of food conservation. I agree with Paarlberg's argument that diversified farms will put social values at risk. Purdy has ignored the facts that this would demand more human labor in the agricultural lands than the mechanized systems. The example quotes by the author are of Serbia Club that was an old story. At that time over 40 percent of Americans were living on the farm systems while today only 2 percent are living on farms. The society has changed now, and the ways are also different that means 120 years old model will not work today. Purdy also ignore the facts that at that time children also had to work on farms due to increased demand for labor CITATION Jos134 \l 1033 (Stromberg).
I also disagree with Purdy’s recommendation of switching to vegetarian food. Around 97 percent of the Americans consume meat so it would be impractical to force them to rely on vegetables. I think that Paarlberg provides a better solution for commercial farms. Facts depict, "America's large and specialized commercial farms are better at conserving soil, water, and wildlife habitat that are the small, diversified, local farms favored by the new food movement" CITATION Rob16 \l 1033 (Paarlberg). This is a practical solution because it demands less labor and uses upgraded technology CITATION Ben17 \l 1033 (Bentolli).
The overall analysis of Purdy's argument depicts that he emphasizes addressing the issue of land conservation. I believe that he did highlight many issues that America is going through but fails to provide any practical methods that could contribute to conservation. Switching to the diversified small farms is not appropriate for fulfilling the food requirements of the masses. I think that commercial farms can be transformed into energy efficient methods. Returning to old methods of farming is impractical approach and will have negative impacts on social, environmental and economic aspects.
Work Cited
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bentolli. COMMERCIAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY: A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN. 2017. 05 03 2019 <https://www.bentoli.com/commercial-farming-agriculture/>.
Purdy, Jedediah. New Nature. 2016. 05 03 2019 < http://bostonreview.net/forum/new-nature/jedediah-purdy-jedediah-purdy-response-new-nature>.
Paarlberg, Robert. New Nature. 2016. 05 03 2019 <http://bostonreview.net/forum/new-nature/robert-paarlberg-robert-paarlberg-response-new-nature>.
Stromberg, Joseph. What is Anthropocene and Are We in It? 2013. 05 03 2019 <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/>.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024