GrassRoots organizations

Grass roots organizations have an important job in bringing about change and providing for a sustainable future for all.Grass roots organizers and advocates usually distribute flyers,write articles, hold town meetings, go door to door, call friends and family for support and aid and can also lobby the government or local parties but this is rare.Grassroots organizations can raise issues at either the local, state or national levels depending on the severity of the issue. Many grassroots organizations usually react to what is happening in their own communities and try to garner public support.  Grassroots ultimately means that people are working together towards a common goal and they are "rooted" in what they believe in. 
Grassroots organizations are becoming increasingly successful because they are less in the political sphere and more in place to influence normal citizens that just want to have a voice in the face of adversity. Grassroots organizations such as AARP, the NRA, the Sierra Club, Americans for Tax Reform,National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense council and veteran organizations such as the VFW are making strides. 
Grass Roots organizations bring about a sustainable future because sustainability starts with the people. People have to make sustainable efforts not because they have to ,as set out by the government, but because they want to. Grass roots organizations are good at mobilizing people to be proactive and speak up for issues that will directly affect them such as oil pipelines being built, landfills polluting the water, climate change and natural resource degradation.   
The Ocmulgee River Initiative is an example of a grassroots organization that is right in our backyard. It arose in Macon to "establish a comprehensive water quality monitoring program for the entire 222 river miles of the Ocmulgee river". The ORI brings together concerned citizens from around the Macon area to test the water using certain techniques. The ORI also uses methods such as educational outreach to local school and community groups, community service activities involving clean- ups twice a year and a video documentary to further promote its message. ORI is a great example of how grass roots organizations put the work in the hands of vital citizens not money- hungry politicians or the media.Through ORI, citizens of Macon are able to see the cleanliness of the water they drink and bath with. They are also able to make sure the quality of the water will be sustained for years to come by cleaning it up while also bringing down human health risks for disease caused by contaminated water.ORI is not some elite organization but it thrives off community involvement and trains people with the necessary skills to make a change, which makes it unique. 

Waste

Most of my own waste comes from fast food bags and containers, paper towels, plastic utensils, and bath products.

In the course of a full day on Thursday April 17:

A paper bag from McDonalds
A paper cup from McDonalds
A cardboard sandwich container from McDonalds
A paper cup from Subway
A plastic bag from subway                      So, in a full year, I will probably waste 1,464 plastic bags                                                                          assuming that I waste about 4 plastic bags a day. In a full year,                                                                  I will probably waste more than 3,650 paper products                                                                                assuming that I throw away 10 paper products a day.             A empty bottle of bath wash        
5 or 6 sheets of paper towels
Paper flyers for events on campus
Miscellaneous plastic bags
A gum wrapper
A styrofoam cup
A plastic water bottle
A aluminum pineapple can


So, as you can see I eat out alot especially fast food and I generate most of my waste from throwing away containers, cups and bags from fast food restaurants. I also use a good amount of paper towels every day to clean my room or wipe my hands. I do not have extensive waste as far as throwing away aluminum, glass, or plastics but I do have alot of paper waste.

As compared to other Americans, my waste is pretty minimal simply by the fact that I live alone and I live on a college campus.
I think that I have pretty good habits of reusing things or buying products that I do not have to throw away. Instead of buying alot of plastic bottles, I have a water bottle that I refill. I also only drink water to stay healthy, so I have no need to buy drinks in plastic bottles such as gatorade or fruity juices. Also, instead of buying plastic utensils and using them once, I try to wash them and reuse them over and over again.
However, I think that if I tried to recycle the bags I get from restaurants or stores instead of just throwing them away, I will be making a difference because these bags can get into the waters and hurt the animals. I think buying a reusable shopping bag for when I buy groceries or go to Walmart would be a good option to make a small difference in curbing plastic waste as plastics have the most detrimental effects to the environment and wildlife.  

What is the value of money?

Money has value. This fact cannot be disputed. But what specific type of value does money have? Money has a socially determined value. Money in its physical form does not have any weight but money in social terms carries high value. In its physical form, money has become devalued. Also, as supply and demand rises, the purchasing power of the dollar goes down. Expanding the money supply or creating money out of thin air has also contributed to the loss of the value of money. In addition, the amount of money owed to banks in interest will always exceed the money in circulation and thereby defaults and bankruptcies are literally built into the system.The movie Zeitegeist:Addendum actually characterizes this economic system that we live in today "as a mere mask designed to conceal one of the most socially paralyzing structures humanity has ever endured"(Zeitegeist). So, the value of physical money has become moot and has lead to fractures in the economic system.

However, people around the world still value money in terms of how money can provide for them. Even though money has almost no physical value aside from dollar amounts put on each dollar bill; money as a social phenomenon is undeniable.  Money affects society in many ways than one. The money that we hold so dear, in order to buy our clothes, our houses, our cars, pay for daycare and other social services and privileges that we have grown so accustomed to, is actually paralyzing us.

Socially, we have become slaves to money as "there is two ways to conquer and enslave a nation, one is by the sword and the other is by debt"(Zeitegeist). Money is essentially created out of debt that has to be payed back.We do not realize this fact when we deposit a check in a bank or take out a loan. So, over time this debt rises and people are put at a disadvantage. As the movie shows, 1 percent of the population owns 40 percent of the nations wealth. Furthermore, 50 percent of the worlds population lives on less than 2 dollars a day. Even more saddening, 34, 000 children die every day due to preventable diseases because of lack of money to go towards healthcare or basic doctors.

So, money benefits some people and not others. Money has value to those who are in direct cooperation with the banks, lenders, CEO's and businesses, who drive the money supply. Money has a low intrinsic value to those who are not in this 1 percent of the population.To continue, the population that does not sit at the top of wealth is subjected to the abuse of money. The "Economic Hitmen" as the movie describes are those corporations, who want countries to sell their oil, to embrace foreign military aid, privatize everything. accept economic liberalization and sell their industries to international companies. These economic hitman make up a type of "corporatecracy", where individuals who run the biggest corporations essentially control the flow of money throughout the world. Money has a high value to these people because their sole mission is to "maximize profits regardless of the social and environmental cost"(Zeitegeist).

Those people, who are not in direct allegiance to the economic hitmen do not benefit from the money flow. This class of people are subjected to the corruption and inflation in the money supply. Money is thereby of low value because they do not have access to it. Corruption causes for the money to be put in the hands of the greedy. Inflation causes the prices of food, drugs and other products to go up leaving the poor people destitute.

To conclude, money is socially determined. The people, who are socially disadvantaged, do not benefit from the economic system while those who are the top earners benefit heavily from the money supply. The wealthiest people or at least the people making more than 2 dollars a day are in direct cooperation with money. These people see the high value of money is sustaining their lifestyle and livelihood. Nevertheless, the population that suffers most greatly from the fractures in the economic system cannot realize the value of money because they only see the corruption and greed that money brings. But no matter how you look at it, money is in its paper form is essentially devalued whereas money in a social context is of great significance.        

Life Cycle Analysis Factsheet

South Africa and its Rich History of Change

People have inhabited Southern Africa for thousands of years.The earliest peoples' in South Africa were the San and Khoekhoe peoples known as the Bushmen and Hottentots or Khoikhoi or collectively called the Khoisan. These people saw hope in the land beacause they were located right by water and the land was thereby very fertile. These early people were mostly hunter- gatherers and the Khoisan lived in well- watered areas, chiefly in the soutrthern and western coastal strips, where there was adequate grazing.They were very sustainable and found ways to use the land in a good way. After the Khoisan, a new group of people arose, who were the Bantu- speaking people. They moved to the north eastern and eastern regions of South Africa coming from the central part of Africa. They arrived hundreds of years before the Europeans but they are still an important group living in South Africa today. These people were actually agro- pastoralists, who had a culture based off of iron and sophisticated socio- politcal systems. After groups such as the Khoisan and the Bantu- speaking people started to call South Africa home, European settlers began to arrive. So, there was a huge assimilation of culture between the South Africans and the Euopean seafarers. In 1488,the Portuguese were the first Europeans to reach the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.In the coming years, white settlement began to increase, when the Dutch East India Company established a provisioning station on the Cape. In the following decades, French Huguenot refugees, the Dutch, and Germans began to settle in South Africa and this caused social and political effects on the original people. The Europeans eventually took complete conrol of South Africa, in the 18th century, by winning the Frontier War. Beginning in 1836, to escape British rule and cultural hegemony, many Afrikaner farmers (Boers) made a migration to the north that became known as the "Great Trek." This movement brought them into contact and conflict with African groups such as the Zulus. The Zulus conquered most of the territory between the Drakensberg Mountains and the sea during their time before they were defeated. The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1870 and the discovery of large gold deposits in the Witwatersrand region of the Transvaal in 1886 caused an influx of European (mainly British) immigration and investment. In addition, many blacks from neighboring countries also moved into the area to work in the mines. In 1948, the National Party (NP) took complete dominion and began passing legislation and enforcing an even stricter policy of white domination and racial separation known as "apartheid". The Apartheid was fought by people like Nelson Mandela through guerilla warfare and sabotage and South Africans were finally able to get their freedom on February 1990, when State President F.W. de Klerk came into power.He announced the unbanning of the ANC, the PAC, and all other anti-apartheid groups. This also created a domino effect with Nelson Madela being released from prison, "pillars of apartheid" were abolished, nonracial elections were held and Nelson Madela become president in 1994. During Nelson Mandela's 5-year term as President of South Africa, the government committed itself to reforming the country through improving unemployment, housing shortages, and crime. Mandela also began to reintroduce South Africa into the global economy by implementing the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR).Also, in order to move away from the scars of apartheid, the government created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). So, during this time period, the country became very sustainable and rebuilding was of upmost concern. The Europenas exploited the land in their rule and Nelson Mandela's administration wanted to fix this. So, there is a long history of South Africa starting with the Khoisan people, to the Bantu- speaking people, to the Afrikaners,Europens, Zulu's and Whites. Originally,the people moved to South Africa for pastoralism and agriculture. South Africa was a rich land area especially the Cape of Good Hope.Known for the stormy weather and rough seas, the Cape is situated at the convergence of the warm Mozambique-Agulhas current from the Indian Ocean and the cool Benguela current from Antarctic waters. Grass and low shrub vegetation is characteristic of it.It has rich flora and fauna and this is what attracted people to the area and what still attracts people.The Cape plays an important role in South African history as a stopping point for trading ships sailing between Europe and European colonies in the east. It was a huge trading center in Africa and that is why people started to migrate and live there.The Europeans, specifically, were in search of wealth and had political interests there.The Europeans found wealth in the vast gold and diamond deposits, so they stayed. Many Blacks also moved to South Africa to work in the mines for the Europeans. So, transportation was mostly through ships with Europeans traveling to and from their country while also bringing along slaves. Boats were the only way these slaves and trading peoples could get to South Africa. However, many of the ancient people did not stay in South Africa because of the "Great Trek", conflicts with people such as the Zulus,and the Apartheid that caused many South Africans to leave the area. Therefore,there is a huge white population in South Africa today because many of the original South Africans moved away during the Apartheid or were killed.

Sustainability with Gifford and Muir

Gifford Pinchot was America's first professional forester and founder of the U.S. Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot was born in 1865 in Simsbury, Connecticut.Pinchot was an early advocate of wildlife and forestry in the United States. He set the standard for other foresters and environmentalists such as John Muir, who he met in New York in 1893. However, John Muir and Pinchot saw a clash in their different beliefs.Pinchot was the leader of the utilitarian wing of the early conservation movement,under President Theodore Roosevelt. Muir took the opposing side.On one hand, Muir crusaded for the preservation of wilderness, while Pinchot campaigned for utilitarian use of public lands. Their major battle came with the protection of the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Their conflict ultimately saw a split between the preservation wing and the utilitarian wing of the conservation movement.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley was a small land area in Yosemite National Park. The City of San Francisco wanted a dam to be built in Hetch Hetchy Valley, which would supply much needed water to the city.The Preservationists, led by John Muir, were hugely opposed to the building of this dam. They felt that building a dam would destroy the natural beauty of the area. The Conservationists,led by Gifford Pinchot, felt that a dam would benefit the people greatly. In America, every newspaper jumped at the chance to follow the story and it even captured the nations' attention.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley battle was the first controversy about environmental and sustainability issues that garnered the whole country's attention. So, Gifford, in turn, is seen as an important catalyst for environmentalism. Gifford, however, is not seen as a big proponent of sustainability. He viewed sustainability as a barrier to progress. He basically thought that man trumped nature and being sustainable does not always benefit man. So, building a dam in Hetch Hetchy Valley was not a problem for him because it was necessary to supply water to the people. He did not take into account how the dam would hurt the land. So, Muir would definently be a greater backer of sustainability. He saw himself as one with nature while Gifford wanted nature for the taking. Though, Gifford and Muir are both good people to study in regards to sustainability because they both show the disadvantages and advantages of being sustainable. 

Gifford Pinchot and Hetch Hetchy Valley

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Capitalism and socialism are two different economic systems that help to structure our society. However, capitalism seems to be the one that fosters sustainability the least. Capitalism shows our commitment to unlimited accumulation of capital and to an order that places artificially generated private wants over individual and social needs. Capitalism is a system that knows no boundaries and environmental exploitation is just an inevitable consequence of it. In Chapter 1 of the Dresner book, Dresner recounts Malthus stance on population and how the influx of population would "always outstrip the growth in food supply"(11).So, capitalism would say that since the population size will steadily increase, we need to make sure we have enough food to feed the beast. However, in order to have more food, more land and resources will have to be destroyed and claimed for human use. Capitalism would say that this is warranted. Capitalism does not care about preserving but rather about manipulating the environment to be in its favor.

On the other hand, socialists tended to disagree with Malthus theory by saying that the "solution is in improved social and economic organization, more advanced technology and a consequent rise in the standard of living"(12). A socialist that backed this claim was Fourier. Fourier believed that a socialist regime would increase the wealth of the British and limit the population. Although his view was flawed, as living standards rose and urbanization grew in European countries in the 20th century, the population started to level out. So, as you can see, a socialist regime would be friendlier towards sustainability.

Engels and Marx were two critics of Malthus. Engels says in Chapter one of the Dresner book that "only a third of the Earth’s land surface was cultivated and the application of agricultural improvements already known could raise the production of this third six fold"(14). Therefore, Engels along with Marx saw no natural limits to outstripping the land and proposed that increased mechanization and agricultural productivity would only make this proposition more real.

Therefore, capitalism seems to be the main culprit in stagnating the sustainability movement. Capitalism sees that the more we develop the land, the less misery and poverty we will have. Socialists see that the more we develop the land and the less we conserve resources, than the population cannot be sustained for a long period of time.