Stop the world, I want to get off!

There are days when I find myself thinking, “Stop the world, I want to get off!” The title of the 1960s Broadway musical keeps running through my head as I listen to the noise and chaos of the current election theatrics.

Those who analyze political campaigns, study polls from all sides, and share their conclusions with the news media, talk shows and Facebook friends only add to the cacophony. Most of the candidates for the job of President seem to be trying to outdo each other in being outrageous. While playing on our fears and prejudices have always been part of swaying our vote, such antics seem to have been taken to a new level.

We are told to be afraid of everyone who is not us. Conservatives should fear liberals. Liberals should be afraid of conservatives. We are told to fear the rich who have taken over our government. We are told to disdain the poor because they are being given what we have worked for and they have done nothing to deserve it. The poor are depicted as drug users and cheats who live simply to scam the welfare system.

We should fear immigrants because they will take our jobs. They might be terrorists or drug dealers or criminals.

Government is said to be the problem or the solution, depending on the argument. Governments solutions to end poverty are not good. Government solutions to end abortions are. Government funded road systems are good. Government run healthcare is good if you’re on Medicare, but not good if you can’t afford to buy your own insurance. Ironically, those who don’t believe in government’s ability to function in our best interests still seek election to governmental positions.

There are “them” and there are “us.” Of course the “us” has the truth and our way is right. “They” are either liars, stupid, misinformed or duped into believing falsehoods.

So much of our fear comes from our feeling that there simply is not enough for us all. We need to compete for everything and there is a scarcity of all that is good in the world. We need to save up for rainy days and take care of our own. Compromise is weakness and winning is everything.

There are things for which we do need to compete. Only one candidate can win an election. Businesses need to compete for market share, but probably not to the monopoly positions many corporations seem bent on achieving. Students compete for grades. Musicians compete for awards. Athletes strive to be winners.

To the contrary, there are so many things in this world in abundance. We should not have to compete for learning. One person’s knowledge does not diminish the wisdom available to everyone else. Shouldn’t it be the goal of education that all students learn what is necessary for them regardless of their abilities? There should be no winners and losers in learning. Education should not be scarce but available abundantly and to everyone. Our democracy depends on it.
We have enough food. We throw away more food in this country than is needed to feed everyone more than enough. Food should not be used to punish those who don’t work hard enough or were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents. Malnutrition is not discipline.

We have enough resources in this country not only to feed everyone,  but to house everyone, to care for the sick and to welcome the stranger in our midst. We have abundance. We don’t have to decide if we take care of veterans instead of welcoming refugees. We can and should do both.

Jesus fed the multitudes abundantly. He did not tell his disciples to check the lunch bags, wallets, green cards or tax forms of those who were hungry. He didn’t ask if those being fed really deserved his generosity. He didn’t eat first and share what was left over. He didn’t hold back a couple of loaves and a fish for himself and his friends just in case there wasn’t enough to go around. He did not have an auction selling the loaves and the fishes to the highest bidder to finance his ministry. There was no contest to see who was the fastest, smartest, or who could remember the most Bible trivia. He simply fed everyone. He didn’t say, “Love only those who look like you.” He said to love God first and our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.

That means we have to listen to each other, compromise when we can’t agree, admit we can be wrong, and not to be afraid. There is enough. We don’t need to make decisions based on fear or hate. Rather we should support leaders who seek the common good, who act out of love of neighbor and lead with a sense of abundance and grace.

Copyright © 2016 Janet Jacobson and Sustaining the Northern Plains

The myth of scarcity

The Wisconsin legislature last week debated a bill that would limit the foods available to recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamps. The very limited list of allowable foods are the same foods allowed under the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. That’s where the similarity between WIC and Wisconsin’s proposed legislation ends.

The WIC program allows for very specific foods which are geared toward a healthy diet for pregnant women, nursing mothers, babies and toddlers.The foods are not meant to be a participant’s entire diet, but healthy supplemental foods selected to avoid or counteract specific nutritional needs and insufficiencies. One of the most important parts of the WIC program is the support and education mothers receive about good nutrition.

The Wisconsin legislators who introduced the bill claimed to have the nutritional well-being of SNAP or FoodShare recipients at heart. Obviously the poor are more likely to eat bad food by choice than the rest of us. When the list of allowable foods did not include cranberries, potatoes and other major Wisconsin agricultural products, the list was expanded just a bit. The food stamp program, after all, needs to support Wisconsin’s farmers. Unlike WIC, there was no education component to the proposed changes to Wisconsin FoodShare.

The same legislative body also introduced legislation that would require applicants for unemployment benefits and other assistance programs to undergo drug testing as part of the application process.

Analysts of both bills indicate that implementation would cost more than what would be saved by disqualifying drug using applicants or restricting the foods available to FoodShare recipients. States that have implemented drug testing of welfare recipients found that the poor are no more likely to use drugs than society as a whole. In spite of the frequently used example of the surfer dude who used his SNAP benefits to buy lobster, most SNAP benefits barely provide enough food for a month. SNAP benefits overwhelmingly go to families of the elderly, disabled, and children. More than half of all recipients work.

The question of who is helped and how our social safety net should be administered has long been the topic of political debate. Ronald Reagan is famous for making the “welfare queen” a focal point in his campaign for President. Contrast that debate with the current political posturing about the growing economic inequality in our country. The rich keep getting richer while the people on the bottom and middle of the economic ladder keep slipping. The middle feels the ladder crumbling under them. Often we look down at those below us and fear that it is they who are responsible for sawing through the rungs we stand on.  We are afraid there will not be enough for us to maintain our lifestyle, so we share the stories we hear about those lazy welfare mothers who refuse to work and just procreate to get more welfare for their growing families. We fear our well being will be eroded if those with less are lifted up. We are jealous that they are helped and we are not, even though we, too, struggle to get by.

So much of how we approach our lives is based on the fear of scarcity. There will not be enough of everything so we need to be sure to get our share and take care of ourselves first. We lose track of the abundance around us and are sold on the sales pitches which tell us that we will always need more to be happy.

I reread an essay by one of the greatest Old Testament theologians of our time, Walter Brueggemann, entitled, “The Liturgy of Abundance, the Myth of Scarcity: Consumerism and Religious Life.” Brueggemann traces the principle of scarcity to the Egyptian pharaoh who put Joseph in charge of the country’s harvest. When the famine came, the pharaoh took control of all the resources and made the Israelites slaves. He did not trust that Joseph had stored enough for everyone during the years of abundance.

In contrast to the hoarding and meanness of Egypt, when the Israelites wandered in the desert, they were provided with enough bread for everyone. Everyday, manna appeared on the ground, free for everyone. On Saturday, there was enough for that day and the Sabbath, the day of rest. If, however, anyone tried to rake up a little insurance for a possible shortage, the manna spoiled before the next day. There was enough for everyone’s need, but not for hoarding or greed. There was abundance even in the desert.

Brueggemann says we in this country have an abundance of many things, but we have bought into the principle of scarcity, consumerism and unneighborliness. Since we are afraid we won’t have enough for our needs, we become mean, stingy, and less than good neighbors. We take care of ourselves and expect others to do the same. We buy the idea that accumulating stuff will make us happy, even if others around us go without basic food and shelter. We deserve what we have and it is ours to do with as we wish without thinking about how our decisions affect others.

According to Brueggemann, “This story ends in despair. It gives us a present tense of anxiety, fear, greed, and brutality. It produces child and wife abuse, indifference to the poor, the buildup of armaments, divisions between people, and environmental racism. It tells us not to care about anyone but ourselves—and it is the prevailing creed of American society.”

Surely, we can do better.

Copyright © 2015 Janet Jacobson and Sustaining the Northern Plains

Science and more

In 2001, when I served as the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society’s board president, several of us attended a Shared Leadership Workshop sponsored by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology at the Asilomar conference center in California. Also in attendance at this workshop were other sustainable agriculture proponents and a group of soil scientists.

The event’s purpose was to enhance participants’ leadership and communication skills. The workshops were informative and helpful. It was after the formal schedule for the day, however, that the principles of improved communication were practiced. In less formal settings, real conversations between the farmers and scientists took place.

The scientists talked about their research and the positive possibilities of putting science to work with modern technology, i.e., genetics and genetic modification. The farmers raised questions of safety, monopolization of seed ownership, property rights, ethics and who ultimately will benefit. We listened, and they listened. Eventually several of the scientists told us that they, as scientists, were almost never invited to engage in discussions of philosophy, ethics and morality. They were, according to them, discouraged from asking those kinds of question because they were not “scientifically relevant.”

It is no surprise, then, that Stephen M. Druker’s new book, “Altered Genes, Twisted Truths: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public” has met with negative reviews from the biotech industry. Druker, a lawyer, is criticized for writing a book about science without having a degree in science.

I just got a copy of the Druker’s book and have read the first chapter. The first chapter is interesting and I plan to keep reading. (Lest I be accused of being a Luddite, the book is an electronic version on my iPad.) The first chapter is less about science than it is about politics, something Druker is well qualified to write about.

Often opposition to biotechnology or genetic modification is discredited because it is supposedly based on “bad science.” Sometimes we have even allowed ourselves to fall into the trap of science-only arguments. Science and understanding genetics is an important part of the discussion, but biotechnology and genetically modification of seeds and animals is no longer just science. It is applied science. It is now technology which is used in commerce, has been released into the environment and is consumed by the public. While there are indeed many scientific questions which need to be answered, the discussion cannot be limited to those questions.

The science of inserting genetic material from bacteria into plants, from animals into plants, or from one species to another must be questioned from a scientific point of view. These kinds of genetic exchanges are not possible with normal crossbreeding and hybridization. On one hand, many of the resulting products are deemed safe by the scientifically questionable principle of “substantial equivalence,” meaning they are not significantly different from their safe naturally occurring forms. Yet, the companies using this technology, claim that the modified organisms are unique enough to be patented. Something cannot, by definition, be both the same as something else and unique. Obviously, Bt corn is not the same as non-gmo corn. Without genetic modification, corn is not toxic to root worms. In spite of it’s obvious differences, Bt corn’s safety is assumed because neither corn nor Bacillus thuringiensis is usually toxic to people, therefore substantial equivalence infers that Bt corn is ok.  In spite of what the industry tells us, there are scientists who do not agree that all biotechnology is safe.

When we discuss the regulatory approval of any technology, we cannot limit ourselves to the scientific pros and cons. Too often opponents of GMO’s are stifled by accusations that their arguments are not scientific. Just as a healthy ecosystem is only possible when many parts are in balance, healthy discussion and debate can only happen when there is a balance between all disciplines. We must be able to weigh decisions about the use of modern technologies by using science in balance with economics, ethics, morality, aesthetics, and philosophy. Democracy will not be well-served by elevating the validity of one kind of knowledge over others. The application of science in all cases must evaluated on the interests of the common good. Who will be hurt by it? Who will benefit? What will be the long term effects on the environment, on health, on economic well-being? Will the use of this knowledge enhance the quality of our lives?

I look forward to reading the rest of Druker’s book.

Copyright © 2015 Janet Jacobson and Sustaining the Northern Plains