Chapter 1 – After Growth
Discussion Questions
1) McKibben states on page 7 that “religious belief and economic expansion were soon firmly intertwined.” He goes further to citing the claims of Benjamin Friedman who argues that “‘economic effort, and the material progress that it brought, were central to the vision of moral progress’” and that “‘more stuff...makes us better people: more open, more tolerant, more confident’” (p10). What sort of moral thinking informs our economic behavior in the United States? For example, is the “good man” the wealthy man? Is it a common to perceive the poor as somehow morally impoverished and therefore responsible for their own poverty?
2) On page 17, McKibben makes the strong claim that “[w]ars are fought over oil, not over milk, not over semiconductors, not over timber.” Is this necessarily true? Are “energy wars” inevitable in an industrial and manufacturing world?
3) McKibben repeatedly references a growing need for something akin to a “green national product”; “an index of sustainable economic welfare” and/or an “index of well-being” (p. 28). Given the often incompatible variety of individual, community and national tastes and preferences, are these objective measures of sustainability and well-being feasible? How would a common agreement on what is satisfying or what amount of a given commodity is enough come about?
4) McKibben states on page 29 that “to most of us the health of the economy seems far more palatable, far more real, than the health of the planet. Think of the terms we use – the economy...is ‘ailing’ or ‘on the mend’ [it’s] ‘slumping’ or ‘in recovery.’” Is this true in your experience? How important are the words we use to our mind-sets? How much does language contribute to the way we define and conceptualize ideas?
5) In trying to find reasons why increases in material goods have not increased the level of happiness in the developed world, McKibben concludes that “perhaps the act of acquiring so much stuff has turned us ever more into individuals...less into members of a community, isolating us...” (p. 37). Do we rely on consumer products more than we rely on people? Is this relationship – that consumerism makes us individuals and not individualism makes us consumers – valid?
Chapter 2 – The Year of Eating Locally
Discussion Questions
1) Buying food in the summer and canning or freezing it for the winter is, in part, McKibben’s strategy for preserving food in a local economy. He notes interesting and inventive ways that local farmers have come up with (such as pumping nitrogen into warehouses) to conserve the freshness of produce stored over the winter (p. 92). Would this increase our reliance on electricity to power our freezers over the winter? If so, would this increase in electricity consumption during the colder months have a substantial impact in our total energy use? Is the cost of this increased electricity cancelled out by the decreasing cost of transporting food across the nation (p. 49)?
2) Steve Blank (University of California, Davis) “predicts that America may soon ‘get out of the food business’” entirely as it is more profitable to invest in other areas (p. 57). If this prediction comes to true, what would this do to our national identity? Though few people may be connected with farming or farming families, the vital concept of America as a fertile nation is imbedded within the very fabric of our society. What do you make of the potential loss of all our “amber waves of grain”?
3) On pages 58-59, McKibben discusses global workers’ rights violations in agriculture and livestock. One of his examples is that of Brazilian “slaveholders”, who grow produce and raise livestock from the enforced labor of others. McKibben reports that food giants like Cargill and ConAgra, who purchase these Brazilian products, declare they are not to blame; they state that they are not responsible for the actions of their sub-contractors. Other corporations, however, such as Nike, have been publicly held responsible for the conditions in their sub-contractor’s sweatshops. Are the actions of ConAgra and Cargill qualitatively different? Should they be held responsible in the same way consumer goods corporations have? What factors have influenced the lack of reporting on this issue?
4) In light of the current “housing bubble” collapse and economic crisis, what do you make of McKibben stating that we’re in a “food bubble economy” (p. 63)?
5) In quoting the sentiments of Jack Lazor, owner and farmer at Butterworks Farm in Vermont, McKibben states that “we have such a take mentality...it’s part of our psyche, because we came to this verdant land as Europeans and were able to exploit for so long” (p. 93). What does Lazor mean by a “take mentality”? Does this mindset apply to any other areas outside of using natural resources like agricultural and oil? If this perception of the American mindset is true, how does it inform our foreign policy? Our domestic programs? Our social structure?
Chapter 3 – All for One, Or One for All
Discussion Questions
1) Please describe what you think this means: “‘All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air’” (Marx and Engels qtd. in McKibben p. 96).
2) On page 97, McKibben talks about floor plans for new suburban houses that are “good for the dysfunctional family.” What do you make of this description of suburban houses? Is this a healthy way for families to organize their space? Should we make provisions for dysfunctional families, or should we encourage unhealthy families to reconnect with one another? Should some privacy be sacrificed for this reconnection?
3) On page 102-103, McKibben states that “[w]e have the highest percent of our population in prison” in relation to all other developed nations. Two percent of the adult male workforce is currently in prison. The overwhelming majority of these men are minorities. Why do you think this is? What is the effect of these men’s absences on their families? On our economy? On the unemployment rate?
4) McKibben calls advertisers “storytellers.” He shows how modern advertisers manipulate us into believing that buying their products will give us satisfaction (p. 113). How does advertising affect your purchasing choices? Are you looking for satisfaction or usefulness when you buy something? What stories about society, gender, individualism and the “good life” has advertising created?
5) McKibben tells us that “older people ‘have become the fastest-growing portion of the work force’” due to losses of health care, pensions and retirement benefits (p. 119). How has this changed our society? What are your personal feelings about this phenomenon? Should this trend continue or should greater security for the elderly be reinstated? If so, explain how this security would be structured.
Chapter 4 – The Wealth of Communities
Discussion Questions
1) McKibben contrasts local radio vs. commercial radio broadcasting. He claims that local “radio served a place, and stations could get their licenses renewed every three years only if they served that place well” (p. 131). What local radio stations are available in Indianapolis? What do you think the purpose of local radio should be? Do you agree that radio stations should only be “in the business of selling...customers products” like music or advertising? (p. 132)
2) McKibben spends pages explaining how local energy production could work. He wants to stress that, not only is this good for the environment, it is also good for communities. Unlike our current energy system, local energy “becomes something you help make and distribute to your neighbors” (p. 148). He states that this kind of energy would help us understand “what it really cost[s], instead of the out-of-sight, out-of-mind relationship” (p. 150). How many of your neighbors’ lives are you involved in? How do you think local energy production would change your community? What else do you think the “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” mentality applies to?
3) McKibben’s example of the Vermont Family Forests gives us one idea of how local timber production could work. By their model, the VFF buys the forested land and then sells shares to local people who are interested, even those “below the poverty line” (p. 160). In this way, forests remain healthy and access is provided to “community members who might not otherwise be able to afford to own anything” (p. 161). What are the implications of this type of ownership? What does it mean for land to be owned? Is land the same type of commodity as houses, cars, shoes, etc.?
4) On pages 162–164, McKibben brings up the idea of local currency, stating that it enhances community involvement and community wealth. What is your reaction to alternative forms of money? Would you use a local currency if it was available? How would this change your purchasing choices? What do you think the reaction would be among the Indianapolis business community to the addition of a local currency?
5) Education is another major commodity that McKibben examines. He endorses the idea that our schools’ sizes should be reduced, like everything else, to ensure that children get quality attention and education. He uses the examples of charter schools and magnet schools that specialize in particular areas of study (p. 167, 168). If you’ve attended an Indianapolis or surrounding area school, what has your experience been? Do you think specialization in schools – like Spanish immersion schools or math and science magnets – provides for a better quality education? In keeping with the idea of community involvement, should we concentrate our efforts to raise the quality of the schools in our immediate neighborhoods? Does community mean neighborhood? City? State?
Chapter 5 – The Durable Future
Discussion Questions
1) In discussing the life of Cao Zhong-Long, McKibben is trying to explain the reasons why so many Chinese have migrated to cities. The city becomes an attractive option because, in the countryside, “they weren’t poor, they were poor, the kind of poor that doesn’t have enough to eat and that works so hard you just wear out” (p. 181). Do you think it is possible that we have this sort of poverty in the United States? Why or why not?
2) On page 189, McKibben discusses the effects of global economics on Mexico. After the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990’s, Mexico saw a boom in manufacturing and farming jobs as American companies crossed the border. These companies have since moved their businesses to nations like China and India, where the cost of labor and supplies are cheaper. As a result, some former Mexican farmers and factory workers decide to cross the border (legally or illegally) to find a better life in the U.S. In light of all the talk about immigration reform during the presidential race last year, does this understanding change your view on illegal immigration? Should the U.S. continue to deport illegal immigrants or make provisions for them to stay here and work? Does the U.S. have a moral obligation to re-invest in Mexico? Do U.S. consumers have a moral obligation to ensure fair work and pay for undocumented workers who harvest crops? If so, how would this impact illegal immigration?
3) McKibben discusses the idea of “the tragedy of the commons” coined by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin. This idea implies that, “if a community held a piece of land where everyone could graze,” individual greed would corrupt the system (p. 199). In other words, some people would game the system to their advantage, putting too many of their livestock on the pasture. This would result in less food for other people’s animals. McKibben points out that the system of communal lands worked well for years. In our hyper-individualized world, however, this kind of system isn’t possible. Do you think individual greed is an inevitable part of human nature? Is there anything comparable to common pastures that we still share? If we again institute something like “the commons” – for examples, Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) - would individual greed be an issue?
4) McKibben discusses the radical redefinition of wealth in countries like Bhutan, who’ve devised a “happiness index” to replace traditional wealth measures like GNP (p. 217). The point of this new index is to reiterate that our highest goals are not production and consumption, but well-being and happiness. While this index by no means implies that goods and monetary wealth aren’t constructive, they do force us to “think of human well-being in broader terms” (p. 217). McKibben has previously acknowledged that more money and goods do greatly improve the quality of life for people in developing nations. He adds here, however, that “those of us watching from the outside would do well to remember that there are many kinds of paternalism, including the assumption that for poor people only material things matter” (p. 217-218). What does he mean by paternalism? Do we have this same regard for poor people in the U.S.? If our aid to the poor were to involve more than financial assistance, what other things could be offered?
5) Please read pages 227-230 in the Afterword and describe what you think your part has been in producing these types of climate change. How could your personal activities be amended to limit your individual impact on the environment? How does this knowledge of the changing face of our planet affect you?
