We’ve had our second major multi-day storm since I arrived
at Navdanya. While I enjoy the power of the storms, I’m glad it’s not monsoon
season. The field work stops on rainy days (although there’s always
grain-sorting to do), and frequently the power is out other than around meal
times, when they turn on the generator. The storms I’ve experienced are incredibly
unseasonable, especially in their near-monsoon-like fervor. Some of the crops
that survived the first round of storms had barely started to recover before
the second round hit. When we met with some farmers who attended a farmers’
workshop, one of them said that climate change is the biggest challenge he has
to face in farming. The changes to the climate and weather patterns have been noticeable
and harmful for him, and these storms are just one example.
The physical structures at Navdanya, combined with the importance of weather and climate to the work to be done, force us to live in a way very much more in tune with the natural world around us. No two rooms are connected indoors, forcing us to walk outside to get from one place to another. There is no central heating, so we just have to dress warmly – although the entire time I’ve been here it’s been warm and sunny enough during the day to make dealing with the cold evenings and nights worthwhile. We frequently eat lunch outside, and most of our internal spaces have big windows. All of these factors connect us to the natural world around us.
As Richard Louv writes in Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, access to nature can help to alleviate symptoms of depression and attention deficit disorder. I’m a little concerned about how well I’ll adapt to less nature exposure when I return home. I’m lucky in that respect – I have some nature in my backyard, and I work on a farm. Many don’t have those experiences of nature on a daily basis. One fellow intern commented about her experience growing up in New York City, that she had some really negative experiences that she felt could be attributed to the environment around her.
In urban environments, it’s much harder to find that level of exposure to nature. It’s worse in India than in the United States because the air quality makes you not even want to walk outside (although it’s not much better inside). Yet it seems quite likely that the future of the world will be increasingly urban.
Urban environments certainly offer many advantages: the concentration of people can make social interactions more easily accessible; the high population densities make public transit and walking better options than individual automobiles, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making people healthier; and cities can serve as diverse cultural centers, with art galleries, concerts, and theatre much more common.
For most people, the question is not one of urban versus rural – it seems quite clear that urbanization will continue to increase in most of the world, ideal or not. The question is, instead, how we are going to create urban environments that are at a human scale and fulfill our biophilic natures. Can we achieve this without sacrificing the density that makes cities what they are? Are community parks and community gardens detrimental enough to density that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits that they offer?
Yet the environmental benefits that cities offer are only benefits in comparison to suburbia and the rural modes of living after the introduction of the automobile. In many communities, rural living is more environmentally friendly than urban living. In an increasingly globalized, specialized world, however, is it even possible to live more sustainably in a rural environment? A case comparison between India and the United States reveals that the answer to this depends significantly on the physical environments and infrastructure available. Most cities in India have limited public transit options, so auto-rickshaws frequently taxi people around, spewing significant amounts of particulate matter into the air and leading to the horrible local air quality that makes you not even want to step outside.
The physical structures at Navdanya, combined with the importance of weather and climate to the work to be done, force us to live in a way very much more in tune with the natural world around us. No two rooms are connected indoors, forcing us to walk outside to get from one place to another. There is no central heating, so we just have to dress warmly – although the entire time I’ve been here it’s been warm and sunny enough during the day to make dealing with the cold evenings and nights worthwhile. We frequently eat lunch outside, and most of our internal spaces have big windows. All of these factors connect us to the natural world around us.
As Richard Louv writes in Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, access to nature can help to alleviate symptoms of depression and attention deficit disorder. I’m a little concerned about how well I’ll adapt to less nature exposure when I return home. I’m lucky in that respect – I have some nature in my backyard, and I work on a farm. Many don’t have those experiences of nature on a daily basis. One fellow intern commented about her experience growing up in New York City, that she had some really negative experiences that she felt could be attributed to the environment around her.
In urban environments, it’s much harder to find that level of exposure to nature. It’s worse in India than in the United States because the air quality makes you not even want to walk outside (although it’s not much better inside). Yet it seems quite likely that the future of the world will be increasingly urban.
Urban environments certainly offer many advantages: the concentration of people can make social interactions more easily accessible; the high population densities make public transit and walking better options than individual automobiles, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making people healthier; and cities can serve as diverse cultural centers, with art galleries, concerts, and theatre much more common.
For most people, the question is not one of urban versus rural – it seems quite clear that urbanization will continue to increase in most of the world, ideal or not. The question is, instead, how we are going to create urban environments that are at a human scale and fulfill our biophilic natures. Can we achieve this without sacrificing the density that makes cities what they are? Are community parks and community gardens detrimental enough to density that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits that they offer?
Yet the environmental benefits that cities offer are only benefits in comparison to suburbia and the rural modes of living after the introduction of the automobile. In many communities, rural living is more environmentally friendly than urban living. In an increasingly globalized, specialized world, however, is it even possible to live more sustainably in a rural environment? A case comparison between India and the United States reveals that the answer to this depends significantly on the physical environments and infrastructure available. Most cities in India have limited public transit options, so auto-rickshaws frequently taxi people around, spewing significant amounts of particulate matter into the air and leading to the horrible local air quality that makes you not even want to step outside.
In the villages I’ve been to, people have great social
connections, and busses drive through frequently, allowing for decent access to
cities when necessary. In fact, in some villages, the introduction of external
markets led to many of the social problems they now experience; previously,
they met all their needs successfully themselves. People also rely much more
significantly on human- and animal-powered transportation than in the U.S. Certainly,
however, villages cannot offer everything that cities can. I know that I would
be unwilling to give up the access to education, knowledge, communication, and
culture beyond one’s local culture that comes from connections to global (or at
least broader) markets and communities.
I’m not convinced that it’s possible to have this same experience in rural United States. I would suggest that rural living in the U.S. is either less sustainable than or equally sustainable to suburban living. Many factors are at play in my perception of this: the fact that farmers don’t grow their own food anymore, so still need to go to the store, and the breakdown of communities across the country (see Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone), which has become more pronounced in farming communities as and people have begun to rely on mechanized labor rather than labor-trading between neighbors and the farms have gotten bigger and thus more spread out, thus requiring automobiles to get to the store, school, church, or a neighbor’s house.
The reality is that the ideal living situations of individuals vary vastly. The type of living environment that I would prefer might be vastly different than your ideal living environment. I might even need to make a tough decision between multiple choices that all offer distinct advantages and disadvantages. What we need is the infrastructure in place to make all of these options more ecologically sound choices for people to make.
I’m not convinced that it’s possible to have this same experience in rural United States. I would suggest that rural living in the U.S. is either less sustainable than or equally sustainable to suburban living. Many factors are at play in my perception of this: the fact that farmers don’t grow their own food anymore, so still need to go to the store, and the breakdown of communities across the country (see Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone), which has become more pronounced in farming communities as and people have begun to rely on mechanized labor rather than labor-trading between neighbors and the farms have gotten bigger and thus more spread out, thus requiring automobiles to get to the store, school, church, or a neighbor’s house.
The reality is that the ideal living situations of individuals vary vastly. The type of living environment that I would prefer might be vastly different than your ideal living environment. I might even need to make a tough decision between multiple choices that all offer distinct advantages and disadvantages. What we need is the infrastructure in place to make all of these options more ecologically sound choices for people to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment