Oil Spill


Much of my family lives in the Gulf and wild foods from the ocean are a big part of their diet. In many poor areas of the Gulf Coast these are the last remaining healthy traditional foods that people eat. Because of this oil spill, more and more people will lose their food traditions and become dependent on unhealthy processed food.

That's my gumbo you are ruining BP...


Aside from the countless

Aside from the countless ecosystems and animals that have been wiped out, or will be, because of this.

It's terrible. I guess we

It's terrible. I guess we valued the oil more than we valued the ecosystem.

(Wanted to thank Marc up there for pointing out Tom Freidman's post. "The Obama End To Oil Addiction Act." Loved that.)

Deregulate banking and you

Deregulate banking and you get the Great Recession. Deregulate oil drilling and you get mile-deep blowout preventers that aren't up to snuff. Surprise, surprise.

It truly is a terrible loss,

It truly is a terrible loss, in terms of food and so much else. I try to imagine an uncontainable toxic substance spreading across my local landscape (and foodscape)--the rivers and hillsides of Vermont--and I shudder at the thought.

Hi Melissa, Glad you posted

Hi Melissa,
Glad you posted it. It's a disaster!!
I live right by the beach in SW Florida....and we're watching it closely. And to think they are still considering off shore drilling here......

Did you see Thomas Friedman's recent post? Very poignant.

Have a good one.

Why are you so interested in

Why are you so interested in the free market? That is not a paleo economy. Hunter-gatherer societies do not have "free markets." They operate on forms of social organization that have been described as "primitive communism." The state only emerges when private property comes into existence and individuals need to appeal to a monopoly on violence to prevent others from accessing what belonged to the earth in the first place.

"Why are you so interested in

"Why are you so interested in the free market?"

You mean I'm not allowed to be interested in a concept that's widely bandied around in all manner of arguments?

It's interesting the interpretation of this post in the comments. Half the commenter seem to think I'm against the sacred free market and the other half thinks I might as well be teh!evil capitalist.

I'm rather, neither. Though I once considered myself a fan of this "primitive communism", I now realize that such societies varied in their treatment of people and saying that it's good is like saying food is good. There are foraging societies where women are treated as equals, but others where they are beaten and raped. Anaracho-primativists blame such behaviors on exposure to civilization, but they have no proof either way, so it becomes slightly unconvincing.

As for things belonging to the Earth, the idea of belonging is a human one and I would think a ball of ecosystems, water, and dirt wouldn't have much interest in such an idea.

You're allowed to be

You're allowed to be interested in anything you like; I just posed a question. I saw a reference to libertarianism earlier on your blog, and I am confused by the attraction of this highly industrial mode of thinking for paleo types. You say you aren't oriented in any particular direction, so now I know; thanks for clearing it up.

You are quite right that "Earth" is heterogeneous and it is inappropriate to anthropomorphize it as some kind of total entity called "nature" or whatever else. In spite of my hasty touchy-feely language, I was just trying to argue that the idea of private property is something of a rupture in thinking, since earlier egalitarian societies would have trouble seeing land, for example, as the property of an individual.

Hunter-gatherer societies, as you imply, are also irreducible to any single homogeneous form, and it makes no sense to derive some kind of moral code from them. However, it makes equally little sense to derive a moral code from "evolution," yet another highly disparate and anti-teleological phenomenon. But without collapsing into strange and illogical anarcho-primitivist rhetoric, I think we can simply learn from hunter-gatherer societies that egalitarianism is not somehow unnatural, or incompatible with evolution, or against the "paleo" spirit; and actually, when we see the violence done today to the human body and the ecology by entities guided only by the profit motive, we might conclude that egalitarian forms of social organization are worth exploring.

I certainly will side as a

I certainly will side as a libertarian when it comes to food issues such as slaughterhouse regulations or the leafy greens marketing agreement, but I am also confused by the idea of profit for the sake of profit and I see many weaknesses with it in terms of wholesale political system.

What distresses me is the unfortunate reduction of people to political systems (as if they are actual systems in the first place). I try not to associate myself with one "system," but I frequently post things sympathetic to food freedom in particular. But really don't want to to be pigeonholed, particularly as "right wing" or something .

You are definitely right

You are definitely right about the importance of food freedom. But why do these regulations, which limit small farmers and consumers of those products, exist in the first place? The same question can be asked about grain subsidies. It is not because the government is trying sadistically to poison us with lectins. It is because this is the best way of ensuring that large agribusinesses can continue to exist in spite of their irrationality, and that consumers will continue to rely on them for food in spite of their damage to human health. As we all know, pasture-raised beef is about a million times safer than feedlot beef; safety regulations that make life so difficult for small farmers serve to protect the profits of the major meat corporations and reinforce the erroneous public perception of industrial meat as safe.

Libertarians will argue that the government is interfering with the market. But we have to consult history (that's where we learned the truth about food and nutrition); then we will see that the market only comes into existence because of the state! In feudal societies peasants pay a tithe to the landowner. There is not universally a market, but there is a class relation founded on the possession of private property by the landlords, and the protection of this private property by state violence. When the owning class accumulates more capital, through colonialism, usury, etc., it can expand and accelerate its production; it dispossesses the peasants and removes them from the land. Now, finally, they can enter the "free market." What do they have to exchange on the market? Nothing but their bodies, their ability to work. Factories are built on the land, and laws are introduced by the state to prevent people from doing anything but working in those factories if they want to eat (in 18th century England for example, the Inclosure Acts). And the former lords and landowners, now industrial capitalists, can freely exchange the wealth produced by the dispossessed peasants.

(David Harvey of CUNY giving a the short course on this history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vTS9T81b0o)

An analysis that places this important political history next to an accurate history of food is yet to be written.

Much of my family is from the

Much of my family is from the Gulf Coast region, too. Many beaches that I love will be spoiled and the economies around those beaches and the lives that depend on them will be ruined. No tourists will swim in the muck, eat the fish, or visit the shopping malls.

The government limits the oil

The government limits the oil companies liability to around $95 million I believe. In a free market BP could have been sued into non-existence by all the land owners from Florida to Mexico. Hence BP would have thought twice about building a shoddy oil well. However since the government "protects" them, they don't have to invest in safety equipment that would have prevented this.

This is not a free market, it's a heavily socialized oligopoly where enough lobbying dollars insulates the fictitious entities known as corporations from the real wrath of the free market. I wholeheartedly agree that this crosses party lines, I'm sure BP is very generous to the two factions of the party.

>> In a free

>> In a free market...

Perhaps. I suspect that even in a free market (not sure what uncapped lawsuits have to do with a free market, but whatever), companies will forget and cut corners in search of profit. I suspect that even if the BP executives are truly remorseful, in 10-15 years the company will be directed by people whose memories aren't as long.

And of course, the problem with lawsuits as a deterrent: no matter how much money BP pays (even if BP as corporate entity is dissolved in the process), it won't undo the damage. The oil is still there, and the ecosystem is still wrecked.

How much gold is the Gulf Coast worth, exactly? How many pieces of paper makes the trade acceptable?