Ty Webb wrote:floog wrote:Cranius wrote:Thanks that was really thought provoking...
Well, in some ways, but in other ways I just roll my eyes and sigh "oh for fuck's sake".
That Michael Pollan article is nothing radical. I find it astonishing that we have been utterly overtaken by all the nonsense that surrounds us that our grandparent's principles have been obliterated within a couple of generations. If any of our grandparents were to read any of the above posts, they would piss themselves laughing (and not because of their incontinence).
Let's not fool ourselves that our grandparents lived in a Golden Age of spartan values and closeness to the land. It was our grandparents, and their parents, who spent their entire lives trying to invent the labor-saving devices that not only freed them from back-breaking work, but also gave them the leisure time to eventually turn into passive consumers.
I'm not viewing anything through rose-tinted spectacles, big fella. It may not have been a Golden Age, but it was certainly closer than we currently are. And I fully understand it was more through necessity and lack of options rather than a choice.
Look, I don't mean to be negative or offensive, but when people earn their living from simply raiding their grandparents' memories reminding us of things that we really should already know, and then begin to label it "ecosophy" or ""avant-gardening", staking claim to a radical movement, then I lose all heart. Rubbish saying alert: Necessity is the mother of invention goes the old saying, and when our grandparents had needs they also had the wherewithal and knowledge to get on and do something about it. I guess that necessity has been sucked out of us.
Ty Webb wrote:See above. What they did about it was think of and invent new ways to save themselves the trouble. And reducing Pollan's accomplishments and thinking to some kind retro vampirism only reveals your lack of familiarity with his work. (And be fair to the article. Pollan isn't insisting it's radical. Just important and overlooked.)
I realise he's trying to square the very complex circle - of course I'm unfamiliar with his work, just as I'm unfamiliar with many things on these forums - I'm relying on the paraphrasing and analysis here. The radicalism may be more to do with the importance that others attach to it, irrespective of what he intends. And if it's not retro vampirism, how would you describe his take on things? (That's a genuine inquiry, not some barbed provocation)
I agree it is a positive action to be commited to - for the record, my yard is the size of a shoebox and I know I wouldn't have time for an allotment (don't know what that's called in America - it's a small patch of land in a communal area that you rent from the local council to grow flowers or veg on), so I don't do fuck all. I've got friends who grow their own fruit and veg, and I am insanely jealous.
Ty Webb wrote:So you're one of the Western world's ever-growing number of citizens who are increasingly urban/suburban, have no tradition of living from the land, and a busy life that leaves little time for simple, sustaining activities like gardening? And you wonder why gardening (and let's be accurate, not just gardening, but gardening-as-public-statement-of-purpose) could be considered a new and different approach to environmentalism?
Your first assertion is quite correct - it would be hard to deny my urban transition over the past 10 years, for education and work. After that, don't be so presumptious.
As for the busy life and simple activities, my three very young children provide all the simple activities I need - we got home today following an afternoon flying kites on the common. And they've just finished watering their cress - how sweet!