Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Can Ecology and Commerce Coexist?

By Jay Walljasper, Ode. Posted March 8, 2007.


A new movement called "beyond organic" aims to save land and communities. Is it the next ecological and social revolution or just another marketing tactic?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jay Walljasper

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Our small boat bobs along the unimaginably wide Amazon River, then heads up a fast-flowing tributary the colour of tea with cream, and finally turns onto a stream leading into the heart of the rainforest. Monkeys scamper in the trees above us as the motorboat chugs more and more slowly until the stream becomes too narrow to travel. This is where José Luiz de Oliveira and his 17-year-old son Alex live on a small farmstead alive with bird calls. Piglets frolic in the cool mud below their dock while ducks march in formation.

In many ways this boat ride feels like a trip into the past. The forest is largely untouched here except for the sunny clearing around the house (although we did spot an illegal lumber operation downriver). The de Oliveiras live as people have for centuries -- drawing their daily meals and livelihood from the land, the river and the livestock. It's an enchanting place if you can get used to the mosquitoes. Yet beauty and peace do not translate into prosperity. The tiny house has no electricity, no telephone, no fans, no screens in the windows.

The great debates about sustainable development being waged in government assemblies and at environmental institutes, corporate headquarters and street protests around the world are really about this place. Is it possible to bring the de Oliveiras some of the advantages of modern life -- like high school and shoes for Alex -- without destroying other valuable things in the process? Valuable things like the Amazon rainforest itself, which is crucial to everyone on the planet as a source of ecological balance and potential new medicines.

José invites us to sit under the thatched palm shelter at the end of their dock and we pass the time telling stories and spouting opinions. For them it's a welcome break from working in the heat as well as an opportunity to show off baskets of freshly picked açaí, which they gathered from the tops of palm trees surrounding their home.

Açaí -- a fruit slightly larger than a blueberry with a similar colour -- is the reason we have come up the river. It has recently been discovered outside the rainforest as a "superfood" -- a nutritious bundle of amino acids, fibre, essential fatty acids and more of the highly coveted antioxidants than either red wine or blueberries. People often report feeling a surge of energy after eating it -- I certainly did when gobbling some after a long day on the river without lunch. Now that açaí (pronounced ah-sigh-EE) products are beginning to appear in health-food stores around the world, this berry offers new hope that development in the Amazon can become something more than a sad choice between environmental ruin and continuing poverty.

My boat mate, Travis Baumgardner, a 31-year-old Texan who came to Rio to study environmental geography and now runs Brazilian operations for the U.S. company Sambazon, believes açaí will prove to the people of the Amazon, in cold cash, that it's more lucrative to leave the rainforest standing than to chop it down to raise cattle or soybeans. That's why this boat ride is more than a trip into the past -- it's a journey toward a sustainable future.

Sambazon is part of a new wave of entrepreneurial companies seeking to promote ecological restoration and economic justice as an integral part of their business -- a concept known as "market-driven conservation." Together these firms -- which also include Guayakí (maté drinks), Manitoba Harvest (hemp foods), Adina World Beat Beverages (fruit drinks), Jungle Products (oils from tropical plants) and others -- hope to push the natural-foods industry "beyond organic." Rather than simply rejecting dubious practices like chemical pesticides and genetic modification, they are seeking to create products that actually make a positive contribution to the environment and local communities as part of how they are harvested and manufactured.

Launched in 2000, Sambazon sells açaí throughout North America, Europe and Brazil in the form of ready-to-drink smoothies, frozen packets, powder and capsules. The company was honoured last November with an Award for Corporate Excellence for U.S. businesses operating abroad by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The other winners were General Motors and Goldman Sachs. But Sambazon operates by quite a different set of principles than do most corporations. Company executives are proud to declare they purchase açaí from co-ops and growers at higher prices than those paid by the usual brokers and they pay workers at Sambazon's new fruit-processing plant in Macapá, near the mouth of the Amazon, three times the prevailing local wage. The firm also makes special efforts to help small farmers become certified as organic (an expensive and complicated ordeal for poor people unaccustomed to paperwork).

Sambazon founder Ryan Black, 32, a former professional U.S. football player for the Minnesota Vikings who first encountered açaí on an off-season surfing trip to Brazil, sees market-driven conservation as the next logical step for the booming organic industry. "We want to give something back as part of the production process. We want positive change to be engineered in how we do business."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: farming, south america

Jay Walljasper is the executive editor of Ode Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yes, they can coexist, but ..
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 8, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should keep seeking better ways of functioning locally and globally. In the short run, commerce with ecological benefits may appear like a good idea. Till finances are no longer a concern for (almost) all, there will be those who will be willing to resort to commerce for financial benefits even if ecological damage is likely. It is good of people who pursue commerce for financial gain to try to do it in ways that benefits the environment. Ideally, not (unfairly) harming the environment or living beings would be a prerequisite for commerce.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No they can't
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economy requires constant growth while the earth is finite. Therefore, they cannot coexist forever. The drive for profits will lead to the production of products that have deleterious affects and the ecological wellbeing will not be taken into consideration on everything, if it was the economic system that is based on competition would loose its dynamism and end. We must make the economic system subservient to societal needs and ecological restrictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes they can Posted by: bonkers
» RE: Yes they can Posted by: brad
Vikings?
Posted by: Jarmadi on Mar 8, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re Ryan Black, the founder of Sambazon, and "a former professional U.S. football player for the Minnesota Vikings ". There seems to be no record that any Ryan Black ever played for the Vikings.........see Vikings History

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But how?
Posted by: tiellis on Mar 8, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree entirely that the global economy needs to be subservient to social needs and ecological constraints. But how? Nobody controls the Global Market--the rules they make through agencies such as the WTO serve only their own interests in maximizing profits and minimizing losses.

I'm not sure that an economy based on maximization of profits (which are nothing more, ultimately, than an arithmetical measure of the surplus value of commodities) can coexist with a finite planet whose first biological principle is optimization. Rather the market will inevitably seek to transform nature (which cannot be bought or sold) into commodities (which can) as rapidly and efficiently as possible, thereby destroying its own natural support system.

If the price of anything reflected its true ecological costs, nobody would be able to buy it. So instead, ecological costs are externalized--passed on to the public and to future generations--to make commodities affordable. Short term private profits inevitably take precedence over long-term public costs.

So what can we do? Begin with the awareness that every dollar is a vote--that money itself is a transform of information about what we truly value. To the exact extent we each assume responsibility for the ecological consequences of every dollar we spend or invest, we can rechannel the money flow toward more locally produced, energy-conserving, sustainably produced, and socially responsibly produced merchandise. Such consumer activism may not solve the bigger problem of the incompatibility between an endless growth economy and a finite planet, but at least it will buy us the time we need to learn how to grow gardens, grow communities, grow local enterprise, and grow public awareness, in anticipation of the great collapse of Glomart that will occur when fossil fuels peak and decline, and are therefore no longer cheap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But how? Not through makets! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Legalize and allow INDUSTRIAL HEMP to enter the market.

2. Fight to divert subsidization of BIG OIL/COAL/NUCLEAR to alternative renewables such as solar, wind, hemp, etc ...

3. Instead of pissing off consumers and shouting guilty, fight to REWARD conservation in bigger ways and make it more marketable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical DEA parroting BULLSHIT Posted by: maxpayne
Define Commerce
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Peak Oil hits, people in Rhode Island will not be buying very much that is made on the South American continent. I laugh about someone describing a food ingredient shipped halfway around the world being described as sustainable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Define Commerce Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Sugar Posted by: Phenix
Shame the once-funky-companies have sold out to the corporationsac
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 8, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame the once-funky-companies have sold out to the powers that destroy. Why would the Body Shop, Aveda, Tom's of Maine, etc... give up their companies to corporations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Designer brands too expensive for most
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 8, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all well and good to have socially conscious companies like these, but for the most part, when I go to the store, I end up buying the same old store brands for cost. I'm sure most people struggling to stay in the middle class do the same thing, and I make a serious effort to boycott Wal-Mart, which most of them do not.

I keep trying to find ways to cut costs, as things like my health insurance contribution and prescription co-pay keep going up. The real answer to most of these concerns is to redevelope local production and market networks. Most of these socially responsible foreign enterprises still suffer from the need for cheap oil imputs to be cost-effective, something quickly comiing to an end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holy Fucking Shit!
Posted by: Rshaw on Mar 8, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry the swear but, for crying out loud. Have we not learned that corporations are the problem not the solution? Are we giving in to them like we always do. They are not the solution, they are the problem.

We've seen this before with the Corporate social responsibility stuff, look how well that worked! It didn't work at all for the most part, because corporations focus on the bottom line, that means this stuff is generally an externalities, that also means workers labor and our purchases are really about extracting profits from us.

Privileged people always want to think that we don't really need to change the system, if we just push corporations to make small changes all will be well. The changes are not the norm nor will they be, and they are superficial at best.

When will we learn that change must be involve taking away corporate power not creating it.

oh when will we learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I couldn't have said it better. Posted by: tlCampbell
» RE: Holy Fucking Shit! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Kirkpatrick sale in the Ecologist 2003.
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them. Take our crazy energy consumption. For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption – residential, by private car, and so on – is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution. I mean, sure, go ahead and live a responsible environmental life; recycle, compost, ride a push-bike; but do it because it is the right, moral thing to do – not because it’s going to save the planet.

If we really want to understand why this happened we have to ask ourselves another question: ‘Why is it that we seem willing to live with the threat of apocalypse rather than trying to seriously alter a world where consumption, of anything, is seen as unrelieved virtue, production, of anything, is regarded as a social and economic necessity, and more, of anything (like children or cars or chemicals or PhDs or golf courses or recycling centres), is unquestioningly accepted?’

The answer, of course, is that the great majority of people do not want to do away with an economic system (it is called industrial capitalism) that provides them with material riches (sometimes in great abundance), longer lives, and non-stop palliatives like entertainment, alcohol, prescription drugs, sports and television. And the few who would like to do away with it are essentially powerless and ignored, accommodated, intimidated or repressed by the governmental and corporate powers-that-be.

The problem here is that industrial capitalism rests completely on two principles that simply fly in the face of ecological sanity. The first is the imperative of growth – of the market, of the firm, of industry, of first-quarter sales, of scientific knowledge and technological innovations, of population in general and a consuming population in particular. The second is the exploitation of resources, the using up of the earth’s irreplaceable treasures of every kind – from diamonds to oil, and forests to soil – for the benefit of human material comfort; there is only the merest consideration of the effects of this extraction, of what happens when the resources are manufactured into what economists call goods or of what happens when those goods are used, or how they are disposed of.

And it doesn’t matter that the search for techno-fixes is beyond the control of the techno-fixers to the point that Bill Joy – one of the giants of Silicon Valley – was moved just last year to caution against the potentially disastrous consequences of continuing research into genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology.

No these things don’t matter; our belief in the techno-fix is solid and beyond challenge. And that’s why we don’t take seriously those who warn of apocalypse. And that’s why we’re unlikely to realise how we can change the way we live so as to save our planet.

But I would add this: if there is any hope here, if we can convince enough people of the true nature of our economic system and the reality of the threats it poses to the world it will be because of our asking all the relevant questions. Not just the obvious ones: ‘Where does it hurt? Who did it? How long has this been going on?’ But the harder questions, too: ‘Why is this happening? What will it take to stop it? And how can we fashion the elements of an ecological society – one that is modest, attentive to nature’s laws and embraces the values of the living earth – as if that society were the only one available, and prevent a return to previous wrongs?’

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2050 vision, 2020 pitfall
Posted by: eddie torres on Mar 8, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will be a glorious future in 2050 when all the world's people (1 billion) care for the Earth and only consume what can be sustainably replenished.

Sadly, disciples of the US neo-cons will resurface in 2020 to launch wars-of-choice against religious 'undesirables' (7.5 billion) with nuclear weapons.

As long as your descendants can survive the 30 year "Great Contraction," your DNA will proceed to future human endeavours. Ryan Black's stand a pretty good chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love to see a green waste calculation
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 8, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The figure would be compiled from the following indicators:

- all the air miles from all the green-related conferences and such since 1990
- all the paper used for all the reports (agenda 21 etc. etc.)
- all the energy expended to raise millions for Greenpeace etc.
- all the energy being expended in this new green gold rush
- the millions and millions (maybe billions) spent on ineffective green projects around the world

Total it up and your eye balls will pop out of your head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Close, & Yet, So Far... (or, Layers of Choice)
Posted by: grumble-bum on Mar 8, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm glad to see the "beyond organic" concept finally getting some exposure on Alternet, this article does seem to leave some critical issues unexamined.

Like with an onion ("organic" or not), people face a multitude of layers when making socially & environmentally beneficial choices in their consumption.

Some would have us blissfully remove only the outer layer (traditional Corporate/Industrial production models), while not realizing that every layer of the onion is capable of becoming a new protective outer layer. In other words, one need only look to the multiple formerly independent & "green" companies listed in the article who have been "forced" by the Marketplace to sell into the same industrial giants they initially served as alternatives to.

Others, seeing this potential for Corporate corruption of otherwise beneficial products & ideas, insist that we peel away all of the layers, or simply throw away the onion altogether. As appealing as this absolutist stance may be (I often find myself wishing we would just "burn it all down & start again", in my more frustrated moments), a "nothing or nothing" approach will simply never be willingly adopted by Humanity as a whole. The cat's out of the bag, folks. Barring massive catastrophe, we will never return to a money-free Eden. Even if we did, we'd find ourselves in crisis again, eventually. Witness recent discoveries about the rise & fall of the earliest Mayans...

So, consumers must make the best choices they can in attempting to find an onion they can both peel & still eat. Something the article doesn't cover in any real depth is local sustainability networks. It chooses to focus on a handful of companies that do a better/"greener" job at bringing what are essentially luxury products into the North American market while providing the people who produce them with a potentially higher standard of living. This is wonderful, on some levels. I do feel better drinking my Fair-Trade certified coffee or enjoying the healthier option of Yerba Mate drinks & knowing that they are being produced less destructively & literally humanely. But that doesn't address the fact that neither of these products are indigenous to my locale. They must be shipped vast distances to reach my stomach, thus largely negating any positive environmental impact initially felt in their country of origin. The article states that Yerba Mate is grown in a Mass-Ag fashion for domestic consumption in it's home country, yet grown "green" for ours. So, as much as I enjoy the product, wouldn't a better focus of the profiled company be to change the way the localized market gets it's Yerba buzz? That would more closely fit the definition of "beyond organic", as I have come to understand it.

As any visit to Whole Foods (or soon enough - shudder - Wal*Mart!) demonstrates, "organic" is an easily manipulated & negated term. The real change needs to take place in making "smaller" choices, in enclosing the supply chain into tighter loops. The "beyond organic" concept would say that sometimes this means choosing a non-"organic" product over an "organic" one, based on locality & sustainability issues. For instance, when shopping for a bell pepper or grass-fed beef steak, I would want to choose the one that is grown closer to my home (thus reducing transport impact & strengthening my local economy) whether it's certified as "organic" or not. This means that I may have to make a few sacrifices if I wish to really practice it, but if done consistently also gives me a little moral room to "splurge" on products that might not strictly fit the paradigm. Such as this computer I'm typing on.

Whew. Choices, choices, choices...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jay Walljasper? Says enough right there
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 8, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's grain o' salt time whenever Jay writes stuff... especially if it appears in "Ode," that hallmark journal of the well-meaning but woefully insufficient liberal-leaning-entitled-aristocratic thought. The working person can never take the elites' ideas too seriously, except to look out for the usual proclivities and codes in thier speech that tell us, cover-your-ass-the-massa-boss-man-is-comin'-to-wipe-us-out stuff.

It's laudable that there are folks trying to just do what makes sense ecologically, however imperfect their efforts might be to the armchair-perfectionado-generalistas on Alternet's comment forums. It seems to me that only a bioregionally bounded economic system can even hope to be sustainably "beyond organic." In fact, IMM, Jay's use of the classic yuppie phrase "beyond organic" is what sends chills down my spine. These wealthy entitled types who can afford the carbon heavy plane tix to the Amazon (I wonder if he really "worked all day in the heat" without lunch.. hard to imagine a Jay being capable of that--I kept picturing scenes from Heart of Darkness while reading Jay's idyllic-intended "prose") always have a gift for hijacking real people's work with a euphemism that smacks of an Ivy League marketing degree bias. Ick.

I wonder when that Dimitri-sailboat-network-guy is gonna start moving "beyond organic" coffee and Yerba Maté between Central Am and North Am? I wonder what local-globalised economies trading between bioregions would look like... Maybe then my indigenous soap plant harvest excess would get me a cup a coffee now and again. What'd really rock my world is if I could grow my own supply of THC... now there's a sustainable export crop!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Mar 8, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the hell are we going to encourage responsible (meaning very low) birthrates if we're afraid to even speak up?

You might ask "What can we do about it?"

Plenty -- just SPEAKING UP would be a great help. How do we educate people about a critical problem by ignoring it? Seriously, what other problem do we treat like that?

Some people fear dealing with overpopulation leads to genocide. It should be obvious that birth control prevents genocide. Ignoring overpopulation leads to genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

workers of the world
Posted by: edith on Mar 8, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
tens if not hundreds of millions of workers around the world are employed by industries that consume large amounts of carbon based fuels and materials. Agriculture, mining, automotive, electric generation, telecommunications and plastics, to name but a few. As disucssions proceed as to how to make carbon based fuels more costly, through caps or through taxes, someone needs to tell workers the truth. The goods they buy will be more expensive and the jobs they have will be eliminated.

Substitutes for carbon based materials may be in the future, but they are not in the near future. Yet urgent cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are demanded now. Perhaps these are wise demands. But who is looking out for the consumer and for the worker who simply used the form of transportation and power that Big Industry provided.

People's livelihoods are at stake ant the greens, whom I admire, cannot simply focus on elimination of CO2 emissions. Real people in the near term will be badly hurt by sharp cutbacks in CO2. What is to be done?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: workers of the world Posted by: Lincoln fan
» what is the lincoln initiative? Posted by: itsjusterk
NO IT CANNOT...
Posted by: bob t on Mar 9, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...coexist, not in america. Commerce and the corporatists, like Richard Pombo a catholic and a republican(now out of office after the 2006 elections) and the entire republican party of vicious rampant corportism who only care about greed for money and political power and next quarters profits and the end of the american worker cannot coexist. They are all short term thinkers and totally greedy.
I AM the last catholic in america that is not a republican or a papist since the pope sold out his values for political power in america and over america. Wake up america elect a catholic or a republican or any radical right wing religious and there will be no more america just one giant corporatocracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Organic" and "earth friendly" are only a concern of the privileged
Posted by: itsjusterk on Mar 9, 2007 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work at Family Dollar. It is the most awful thing in my life. You may think I'm being over dramatic, but it's not just because I get paid crap.

Family dollars are now like mini wal marts. We sell crap: Awful food, cheap products, and pre paid phones (anything to take poor people's money). And everything comes wrapped in plastic. I feel awful because this is really the only place that my neighbors shop. They praise Wal mart and think it is the mecca of shopping. And would go there if only it was closer.

I do not shop there. Until recently I didn't shop at all. I just took stuff. Mainly from upscale corporate stores.

I and others like me go to those stores for a reason. Well a few reasons.

1) we can rationalize It. Stealing from a mom and pop store would have direct effects, but stealing from a big corporation has little effect. And if you really hate the company, it makes you feel good, like your doing something right. We all know this is bullshit; we just want things we can't afford.

2) The quality. imagine choosing between canned salmon and organic salmon steaks.

3) It's Easy stores in my neighborhood are all about the loss prevention. And if they tackled someone thinking they were stealing, and were wrong. The person would probably never think to sue, and would come back simply because of lack of options. Upper-class stores even if they caught someone stealing would still be too worried about liability to be rude to them.

But most people are not like me. Most people believe stealing is wrong, immoral (I just think of it as capitalism).
And "environmentally safe", "organic" products are just a luxury they cannot even afford to think about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is true!
Posted by: Abi Tucker on Mar 11, 2007 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is true! Our newspapers and news services were once the crowning glory of our society. Is it any wonder that the neocons set out (successfully) to destroy them? If one is to be a sneak thief, he must conceal himself as much as possible.Abi Tucker

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Do We Determine Costs?
Posted by: jeffF on Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order for commerce to coexist with the ecology of the planet would mean that how we determine the value of the product must change—at least understood in new terms. Only renewable resources are sustainable in economic terms and the energy produced (food) in agriculture must be greater than the energy used to produce the produce if production is to be sustainable. Thus if it costs more energy to plant and harvest a crop than we receive then we will discover quickly the truth of entropic doom. Presently that is how we produce. This implies that our present understanding of economics is flawed because how we calculate “the cost” is flawed by metaphysical poppy cock. On average we use 10 times the energy to produce the energy we receive. That is we use 10 units of energy to produce 1 unit of energy. (my favorite example is it cost 3000 calories of energy to produce the 300 calories found in a can of corn.) So if energy were viewed as money then we would be rather retarded because it would mean that our entire system of agriculture is built on metaphysical nonsense. In particular the economic assumption that there is no money illusion when it's obvious that we are delusional. Yet in terms of the laws of the universe that is precisely how we do produce—how we determine our concept of economic value does not agree with the laws of physics which in turn implies we have suffer from fundamentally flawed system of economics. Yet we pride ourselves on claiming that our methods of production are economically “optimal” (that is we say that we minimize costs and maximize profits, but obviously we haven't minimized our costs we've maximized them in terms of entropy)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ecology & commerce
Posted by: pfm on Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Graduating from college in 1966 with a degree in business, marketing major, the notion of ecology did not appear on the curriculum radar screen. Nor do I suspect did it appear on the radar screen of most business schools for decades to come. My own awareness into the world of ecology is direct result of growing up in the arid southwest in Arizona and Nevada to be precise. Faced with the realization from early on that water in particular is to be treasured I found in my early business years an uneasiness in the manner in which we treated water, especially in the arid southwest. Little did I fathom the southwest would experience the explosive growth especially in the last 20 years. In the wake of this unrestricted population growth businesses and politicians have chosen to join at the hip to take advantage of the “opportunities” this mammoth rise in population provides to them. In my heart I want to believe that ecology can at some point have a place of honor in the American business fabric. Contemporary America’s steadfast resolve to 30 second sound bite solutions to all the problems we face, coupled with our insatiable desire for the quick, the immediate, the cheapest, fastest, least painful serves only to acerbate business’ relationship with ecology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stop coorparations to save the world
Posted by: richholland on Mar 17, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 1990 after the collapse of the USSR the state railways and the electricity factories in Germany and Holland till that time non profitcompanies had to change into competition making private companies. Even the Greenparties were happy now we could get green energie and lower prices.
At first the directors doubled their incomes with extreme salaryraises and bonusses of hundreds of thousands of euroos.
Now prices no go LOWER but go up with 100%...

So the result of marketing economie here was no gain for the consumer..
Strange is that FRANCE still has its state controlled electricity.
Before the GREEN parties shouted: Blame on France, the electricity is made in atomic factories......
But in France the price is 50% for the consumer so the Dutch corporations buy it also there
and we still have to pay the high price, because the GREEN party says; it is OK not made from peak oil or coal, it is real nature saving.
And using food to make ethanol to put in your car is a shame.
Remember 1 gallon gasoline now costs here $ 10,= including green house saving taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]