Journal 4--Amy Scarborough

In Berry’s first essay, Thoughts in the Presence of Fear, his fourth thought (IV) spoke to me the most. It reads: “The ‘developed’ nations have given to the ‘free market’ the status of a god, and were sacrificing it to farmers, farmlands, and rural communities, their forests, wetlands, and prairies, their ecosystems and watersheds. They had accepted universal pollution and global warming as normal costs of doing business” (2).

I agree with Mr. Berry, in my opinion capitalism is often a more debatable topic then religion. Our own government is often split on the economic system that is best for our country.  The thought is if you don’t agree with capitalism, you must be a socialist—which in some cases is viewed worse than someone who worships the devil himself. The United States has put the free market as top priority of our nation regardless of the consequences that follow. Which as Berry points out are our ecosystems; pollution and global warming. But we know this as “normal costs of doing business”.

Being anti-capitalism is not a popular opinion to have in our country. It is often viewed as un-American. But with the costs that it inevitably comes with I would argue that supporting something that is no good for our country and the future generation is less satisfying to me. The free-market is so deeply embedded in our culture that I chose to believe that many people do not realize that this system does come with consequences; it is simply what they know. My hope for the future is people will dig deeper in the ideals in which they have accepted and think outside of the box to come up with solutions for a better more peaceful world. As Maya Angelou says, “I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.”

In Berry’s second essay, The Idea of a Local Economy, he argues that the power of change rest in the hands of every individual, not in huge entities like corporations or government. The problems that have been created can not simply be solved by the people with whom we have given our “political and economic proxies”, (13). In other words, the world cannot change simply by the way you vote or the way you feel. Action has to be taken by the individuals.

Take the problem of crowded landfills, plastics filling our oceans. Does this bother you? If yes, what as an individual can you do? You can complain about it to your friends, you can decide to vote for someone in the next election that shares the same views for the ecosystem as you. Wendell would argue that nothing will change.

Instead, one solution would be to recycle, or chose to grow a garden and eat your own food when you can, you could give up drinking bottled water, buy products with less packaging etc. In general, you have to make changes locally, and in your own household, and collectively change would happen with that mindset.

            One term that I looked up to gain a better understanding was “oversimplification” which Berry talked a lot about. It seems rather simple when you read it, but when defined oversimplification is assuming there is a singular cause for an outcome. Many people like to think that the reason a happens is because of b, when in reality it is not that simple because problem b, c, and d also contributed to the problem. Understanding this term is important to understand the points that Mr. Berry argues. He states that there is danger with oversimplification (11). Berry argues that oversimplifying our households has made us complicit consumers with our behaviors influenced heavily by corporations (12).

Although I agree almost entirely with Mr. Berry, one question that arises would be paying for healthcare services. I work at a hospital and see new technology save the lives of many people who without these advances would not be here today. Mr. Berry has a very different approach to health and technology, and states, “ I am not "against technology" so much as I am for community. When the choice is between the health of a community and technological innovation, I choose the health of the community I would unhesitatingly destroy a machine before I would allow the machine to destroy my community.” I can’t say that I don’t agree with him but it is a very radical thought. In other words he would rather the community as a whole be healthy then to make a machine to save a life, when that machine had other unhealthy or unfortunate consequences for the community. This speech can be found here and is a very good read.

http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berryhealth.html