When discussing the issue of deforestation, I tend to believe more of the populist discourse, that it is a serious global issue. Though, rather than the small farmers and land managers being the problem, with slash and burn uses of the land, the force causing the issue is likely transnational interests and logging companies that finance and fuel their operation.

Indigenous forest dwellers are forced to abandon their environment or possibly in a vicious massacre, they do not. "There are over 300 million indigenous people in about 5000 groups in more than 70 countries"(http://www.fao.org/docrep/w1033e/w1033e09.htm). Very interesting how they are able to get what they need from the forest, without, or with very little impact to their surroundings.


I wanted to mention that the dissertation was very interesting. I did not have very much knowledge about how the people in Mongolia adapted to the weather there. The zud sounds like a scary time of year, not only for the animals, but also for the people. I wonder in the future, maybe 20 years, if cattle will be as important as it is now or if something new will develop in this area? It was really sad to see the animals all huddled together, especially when it is clear they did not survive. I also wanted to also agree that the Jon Stewart clip was really funny!

I feel very fortunate to have grown up in a community where great effort was taken to balance the natural aspects with the needs of the surrounding city. For example, Nike built their headquarters in the Pacific Northwest by relocating trees, not cutting them down. For Arizona, it would mean saving all the cactus to build, not bulldozing them.

Growing up, almost every weekend included a day trip to a river, forest, beach or mountain and summers always included camping for several days. The author of "The Trouble with Wilderness" may have considered me a part of the group that idealizes nature. However, I disagree that visiting the "wild" encourages irresponsible environmental behavior because I find quite the opposite. When I find myself surrounded by nature, I feel more connected, more inspired to make sure these places are spared development for human use. I leave a campsite cleaner than when I got there, and try my best not to change the wild areas that I visit.

The author also implied that anyone who "works the land for a living" could never really enjoy nature, and I disagree. It can be so very humbling to stand at the top of a mountain, or be swallowed by standing in the mountain's shadow, any person could appreciate the feeling. Whether people choose to explore is their decision, though, there is a difference between a picture and being present.

Capitalism drives consumerism because the very idea is to accumulate more. For the laborers, they want more money for their work, and the consumers do their part by consuming. It is not that one causes the other, more that it is a vicious cycle.

America has become a culture of capitalism over the last century. In the Robbin's article, it mentioned several things that were common before 1870:
no washing machines, no electricity, vast majority lived on farms and sustained their needs, made their own clothes (functional), no cars, and no prepackaged goods with company labels.

What a simpler time in history when thinking about money, work and leisure time!

I think companies do market to children to "believe a product would contribute to the buyer's psychological, physical or social well being and teaching them their personality can be expressed through things".