Recently in pollution Category

When the so-called swine flu threatened Egypt (land of the Pharaohs), the government decreed that all pigs would be destroyed. Of course there was no epidemiological basis for this. It was really just a convenient ploy for further marginalizing an already degraded group of tribal Coptic Christians living in the mountains above Cairo.

It turns out these pig-herders, known as zabaleen (“garbage collectors”), are the recyclers of Cairo—perhaps the noisiest city on earth, now also one of the most putrid. Many of the zabaleen are descendents of poor farmers, displaced from their land for a combination of environmental and political factors, who came to Cairo in the 1950s. They turned to garbage collection because Muslims consider it unclean. By hand-sorting, the zabaleen have successfully recycled up to 85 percent of the garbage they collect.[1] Until recently, the organic waste was fed to their pigs.

But without their pigs to feed, the zabaleen don’t have much incentive to remove food waste from the ubiquitous street-corner piles of it. Without a functioning alternative strategy, the food waste rots in the streets.[2] There seems to be a lot of it.

Everybody loses: the pigs are dead, the zabaleen deprived of a crucial part of their livelihood, the streets of Cairo stink. Of course there’s no impact on the spread of H1N1 or any other infectious disease, except perhaps to worsen conditions that increase their impact and spread them further—so perhaps there is a winner after all, if you consider the pathogens. With respect to the delicate and severely stressed ecology of a human settlement such as Cairo, it seems all of this demands a more rational sort of attention.



[1] “From Cairo's trash, a model of recycling,” Jack Epstein, SF Chronicle, 6/3/06.

[2] “Garbage piles up in Cairo after swine-flu pig slaughter,” Michael Slackman, NY Times, 9/19/09.

An article in the NY Times about builder Dan Phillips ("One Man's Trash ...") cuts to one of the core issues of green architecture and sustainability: if we can't afford it, it won't be sustainable. Isn't this obvious? So in the midst of all sorts of companies producing and marketing innovative products that might even be useful, here's someone using salvaged materials for practically every aspect of the houses he builds. Beyond that, he will only work for people who work on the houses themselves--the sort of investment that keeps people connected to their places, and perhaps provides an experience of the place with an inkling of the sacred. (Here's a direct link to his website The Phoenix Commotion.)

Reuse of building materials has a venerable history. For many centuries, Sardinian builders have appropriated stones from the Neolithic nuraghe structures that dot the countryside. The boomtowns of San Francisco, Sacramento, Benecia and assorted other Gold Rush settlements began with dismantled ships that more often than not had simply been abandoned on arrival. In many parts of the world, the process is simply a given: you use what's accessible. Beyond convenience, it's a matter of necessity. But even where it's not an economic or logistical necessity, at a certain point, it's also a matter of integrity, to use what's at hand instead of generating so much waste.

Let's not forget Gandhi and Laurie Baker. Among Gandhi's dictums was the suggestion to only use materials found within a five-mile radius. (Compare that with the LEED criteria for "local sources"--their certification process recognizes a 500-mile radius as close enough. Of course, we're talking about vastly different infrastructures between India of the mid-1900s and, say, California in the early 2000s. But still, is Winnemucca, Nevada, reasonably local to San Francisco?) The British-born architect Laurie Baker accepted an invitation from Gandhi in the mid-1940s and spent the rest of his life in India designing and building structures that emphasized simplicity, beauty, affordability, appropriateness to local conditions and use of salvaged and local (in Gandhi's sense) materials. He left a legacy of devotion to Right Livelihood that deserves serious consideration.

Azazel


The so-called scapegoat was originally never actually blamed for causing any problem. In fact the source ritual brings forward a pair of equally unblemished goats and selects, at random (by lottery), one of them to be sacrificed on the temple altar. The other goat is the "scape" goat, given a transmission by the high priest, who lays his hands on the goat's head in a sort of magical act of transferring the sins of the nation, to carry the pollution away ... to Azazel, the desert, wilderness, wasteland. 


The goat is simply a messenger--again, he's never considered responsible for committing the transgressions of the nation (or of anyone, really--he's just a goat, after all, capable of capricious mischief but nothing comparable to what humans can do). He carries his burden away from the community, out to the harsh, uninhabitable zone, where he's set loose to wander and survive as well as he can (or, according to some accounts, pushed off a cliff--but even then, goats are excellent climbers...). 


The desert, for this culture, was a demonic realm--people forced out into it go crazy, wandering lost and alone, have nightmarish visions, uncertain if they are alive or dead. As such it's entirely receptive to the gift the goat conveys, especially considering that the "sins" of the people probably originated in the demonic realms in the first place. And considering that the proportion of wilderness to habitable land is heavily weighted to the wild, there's little danger of the sins returning within the first day or so (though of course demons travel quickly, not necessarily confined to the rocky path).


The removal of the collective sins (if effective at all) is temporary--just because you washed the floor, in no way is it protected from the crap you track in the following day, though you may be inspired to be a bit more careful for a brief moment. It's an annual attempt to clear a ritual space for a specific purpose, to enter a direct unification with divine reality without being dangerously distracted. 


It's also worth remembering that the displacement of the collective pollution does not absolve individuals of their responsibility for wrongdoing. It's still necessary to correct one's own misdeeds in the usual tiresome ways, such as paying fines and seeking forgiveness from the person you were rude to. Whether it's successful in clearing the collective is another question entirely. It may constitute a sacrifice, but the goat gets the worst end of the deal.


Gateway

The holy of holies was considered a portal, a conduit unifying heaven and earth, a very potent spot where matter and energy are actively interchangeable. Attempting to enter the without attending to every preparatory detail would not only defile the space, but would make the the people susceptible to immolation, insanity, plague. That's the sort of danger they were worried about. Not simply whether they had been disproportionately grumpy that morning, but whether they would be competent to withstand the enormity of their lapses.


Without veering too far into superstitions about the dangers of psychic pollution, I'll just mention that, though metaphorical, there's also reasonable evidence suggesting that people are susceptible to physical (as well as emotional, social, psychological) ailments as a result of psychic toxins. And certainly, to be effective in one's endeavors, it's important to have clarity of purpose, but also to not be bogged down by too much unresolved trauma, grief guilt and other distracting, soul-clogging flotsam. So even from a purely practical standpoint, finding ways to clear up the debris--at least once a year--would seem important. A goat's life might depend on it.

Right livelihood

As a practice and as an attitude, sustainability can be considered a rough translation of certain quietist tendencies that have always run parallel to the noisier pursuits of most times and places. Simply stated, these perspectives give primary status to nature (while perhaps recognizing that humans are not separate from nature) and secondary status to the ambitions of kings and conquerors, considering the latter to be (full of) so much ... wind. Nature is the source of virtue and beauty, though it may be rough or rustic. Dense aggregations of humans are the source of corruption, pollution, degradation. And yet somehow the festering population centers continue to seduce with their questionable enticements, dominating the argument through sheer bluster. The rejectionist/renunciate factions may generate a sizable following in their own time or afterward, but so far have rarely been able to tip the balance.

These rejectionists see the sloppy excesses of civilization as the basis of an eventual (some say imminent) collapse--the empire overextends itself, the resources cannot meet the demand, habitats are destroyed, living beings can't adapt--and voluntarily submit to material deprivation (more or less) as a modest corrective, as an example, or simply to remove themselves from the filth. Perhaps it's an effective pressure-release for the culture as a whole. Perhaps no more than a personal escape. Either way, it originates in a perception of scarcity--there's not enough food to go around, a situation that will only get worse--but also out of empathy, which shouldn't be dismissed as a motive. 

The Taoists are famous for "non-action"--which doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do anything. More accurately, non-action recommends studying the patterns of nature and acting appropriately according to the conditions of each changing moment, as if you were nature. Buddhists will say "yes, you are nature, but don't be selfish"--in other words, dhamma (nature, law of nature, practice according to the law of nature) gives us the opportunity and obligation to train in a way that relieves the suffering of all beings.

A utopian aspiration to be sure, but nothing really foreign to any sensible child. Without empathy for the suffering of others, humans would never have developed viable groups. In fact, animals of any sort wouldn't bother protecting their offspring. Empathy is the basis of social morality: the Golden Rule, the Hippocratic Oath, the Bodhisattva Vow. If something is distasteful to you, don't impose it on someone else. First do no harm. May I attain wakefulness (consciousness, understanding) for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Ethics is a Branch of Aesthetics

When we talk about ecological sustainability, we're saying exactly this: we want a healthy world, a living planet of interconnected, alive places, populated by beings who are able to at least discover ways to not destroy ourselves, each other or our home. Crucial in this is the health and happiness of the inhabitants, who otherwise, when subjected to misery of any flavor, tend to neglect anything but the most immediate demands of survival. 

When we see or hear something that bothers us, it bothers us for a couple of intertwined reasons: 1. we can relate, 2. it's ugly. 

Pollution is ugly. Torture is ugly. Pain and misery are ugly. I don't mean this lightly, as if calling something ugly diminishes the tragic reality of any of these things. To put it another way: toxic sludge tastes bad. It smells bad. It makes us ill. We want it gone. Not only that, but if we hear about it oozing out in someone else's kitchen, we might experience empathic revulsion. We might want to avoid complicity in its occurrence. We might be inspired to help clean it up, even if (or perhaps particularly if) we bear no direct personal responsibility for the mess. (Psychopaths and autists lack empathy, so might not be bothered in the usual way, but if we can avoid putting such persons in positions of power we'll at least have a hope of reducing the stink.)


About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the pollution category.

permaculture is the previous category.

right livelihood is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID