How far must we go?

By Brian Khaneyan

When I was a young child I never understood why things didn’t have a simple solution. The problems presented in school as the major problems of the world seemed like incredibly easy problems to fix. World Hunger was a great example of this. People in our school were able to receive free daily lunches if they weren’t able to afford it. To me, this meant that everyone was entitled to food. So why must people suffer and starve? Why couldn’t we just extend the policies that we had to other countries that had to live without food. Another issue that was huge was poverty. However I had a simple solution. I remember hearing that there were more than a billion people on the earth. If everyone on the earth was forced to contribute a dollar then we would have a billion dollars. I wouldn’t mind paying up to 5 dollars a year, surely all that money could go to the poor and help them out. Later in life I realized that things weren’t that simple. Solutions that seem simple and easy often do not work due to an incredible number of reasons. The number one reason that none of these ideas would work is money. Organizing a company that would collect money from every single person in the world would be difficult, and it would take money. That’s completely ignoring the fact that not everyone, even in first world countries, would donate the money needed to help other people. Some people are too greedy, or simply have their own reasons for not wanting to donate money. My solution for food works exactly the same way. Companies work on a basis of making money. Many food companies especially do this, trying to maximize profits through various avenues. Take Nestlé for example. Firstly, they own a heap of the world’s water, and are trying to obtain more. They bottle this water and sell it at 280,000% margins, yes, 280,000%. Nestlé’s CEO also believes that water is not a human right, and should be privatized. The most insidious act that this food company has done was in the 1970’s. Nestlé promoted the use of bottled baby formula in third world countries, stating that it held great benefits over breast milk. They handed out free samples in hopes to get mothers and children used to this much easier method of feeding. However they failed to properly inform these third world mothers that over-diluting the formula would stop the absorption of the nutrition needed to sustain the baby’s life. Thousands of babies died due to this advertising, and Nestlé made multiple attempts to clear its name. This is just one example of how, when given the chance, some companies will exploit their customers and ethics in order to make money. 

Tim DeChristopher didn’t like this type of exploitation. “Bidder 70” highlights the story of how he stopped this exploitation. One of the main threads of the movie is the moral dilemma between choosing what is best for him, and choosing what he thinks is best for the earth. These scenes are highlighted by visuals of nature. He takes a walk through a path while discussing this dilemma with his attorney. This use of visual perhaps indicates to the viewer that Tim sees this dilemma as being greater than himself. They don’t use shots of him inside his house next to the things that belong to him. They show shots of him in open land that belongs to everyone. While the courthouse scenes shows major amounts of emotion, it also serves to show the unity of people. The camera was positioned among the crowd, looking up at Tim. This puts him in a greater position than the viewer, signifying that what he did was truly honorable and courageous. The camera being positioned among the crowd ultimately suggests to the viewer that they should be as grateful as the other people in the crowd, as everyone in the crowd was incredibly proud of him. The viewer should be proud as well, because what he did was a sacrifice for all of us. 

“The East” is an incredibly interesting film highlighting the actions of a rogue environmental extremist group. Once again a moral dilemma is brought up, and is ultimately seen through one of the main characters, Izzy. Izzy’s contempt she held for her father was the same contempt that the entire group held for the companies. It is only when it truly affected her that she was able to see the error in the group’s ways. The moment when her father enters the toxic water is exactly the moment in which the film shows the viewer that everyone is human. No matter what one does, one cannot get away from the fact that even the harshest actions do not deserve the harshest consequences. This message was further solidified once the main character, Sarah, had to make her final decision. Her decision to not have the people on that list essentially killed was one that the viewer may or may not agree with. However the film essentially told the viewer that this was the correct decision through scenes showing progress via newspaper headlines. This is what one should be wary of when watching a film. A person may have gone into this film with their own ideas on how environmental justice should be handled, however a fictional telling and representation of extremist actions showed that those actions weren’t effective. The film is not based on a true story. It pulls almost nothing from reality. In reality the actions taken by The East group may have a positive impact on our environment and our society. The film is portraying the writer, Zal Batmanglij’s, opinion, and this is something that should be noted when watching a movie that can have a great effect on people such as this one. 

One aspect of environmental groups found in chapter 10 of Julia Corbett’s “Communicating Nature” is member communication.  Small groups like that in “The East” rely heavily on member communication. Actions such as the group dinners that The East have are key steps in solidifying the group and making sure that they all have each other’s best interests in mind: “activities and social gatherings for its members… promote group solidarity.” This is something that is incredibly important for all groups to take note of, as it can build an effective group. 

The Year of The Flood is an incredibly interesting novel by Margaret Atwood. One section that illustrates the beauty of the novel is: 

But she went to tell the bees. She felt like an idiot doing it, but she’d promised. She remembered that it wasn’t enough just to think at them: you had to say the words out loud. Bees were the messengers between this world and the other worlds, Pilar had said. Between the living and the dead. They were flying around as usual, coming and going, bringing their leg-loads of pollen, waggling in their figure-eight semaphoric dances. From inside the hives came the humming of wings as they fanned the air, cooling it, ventilating the cells and passageways. One bee is all the bees, Pilar used to say, so what’s good for the hive is good for the bee. Several bees flew around her head, golden in their fur. Three lit on her face, tasting her. “Bees,” she said. “I bring news. You must tell your Queen.” Were they listening? Perhaps. They were nibbling gently at the edges of her dried tears. For the salt, a scientist would say. “Pilar is dead,” she said. “She sends you her greetings, and her thanks for your friendship over many years. When the time comes for you to follow her to where she has gone, she will meet you there.” These were the words Pilar had taught her. She felt like such a dolt, saying them out loud. “Until then, I am your new Eve Six.”

Throughout this entire section Atwood identifies the bees as an incredibly magical creature. They are the only creature that can communicate between the two, vastly different worlds that the gardeners and the general public live. Pilar is able to see this. She along with Adam One and the other gardeners are able to understand this bond with nature. This is shown through their conversations with the bees. They speak, they understand each other, and they understand that they are both incredibly important to each’s existence and survival. This majestic characterization of the bees is shown throughout the novel with Pilar dancing with the bees. However these bees are dying out, by the pesticides used by the Corpse-Corps. This is one of the metaphors used for how corporations are killing our world. The Corpse-Corps is an analogy for corporations today, and the whole situation is a great exaggeration of our society today.

The extremes shown in all of the sources, the world in “The Year of The Flood,” Tim DeChristopher’s decision, and The East group are all examples of why the simple action that I thought we should take when I was a child are not going to be enough. Atwood’s book gives us an idea of what is possible. There may be a world in which we are living in a completely corporate-owned society, and all of our freedom is basically taken away. The actions taken by both Tim and The East are methods to prevent such a thing, but ultimately these are actions and sacrifices that most people aren’t willing to take. There is no simple answer to this moral question, however it can be seen through the actions of corporations such as Nestlé that something needs to be done in order to separate the line between corporations and our earth.