This wasn’t the worst book or the best. Vandemeer presents equations and explanations throughout the book. Agreeing with Mark the demand for bananas causes long term cycles of forest destruction as workers immigrate into banana production areas and eventually are forced out of plantation work with the only option of clearing additional forest for their own survival. Vandemeer also make a clear presentation of the problems of small pristine tropical park reserves in a sea of agriculture showing reduction of biodiversity as compared to landscapes that may be less pristine from mild to moderate farming and logging having more sustainable biodiversity. Here the argument is presented that less intensive agriculture (shade coffee,small plot farming) may both diminish poverty and loss of biodiversity.
In this book Vandermeer discusses the many problems that have gone on in the rain forests. The author analyzes the rain forest by conducting case studies in many countries such as Central America, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. He points out that there has been a movement towards deforestation. Also, he talks about the “web of casualty” which explains the reasons why farmers clear the rain forest. They do this mainly for agricultural purposes so they can grow more food as well as use the food grown to trade and make money. Vandermeer goes on discussing the reasons why farmers should not do this. Not only that but talks about how the rain forests need to be left alone and are not to be messed with in order to survive. Not only that but political action needs to be taken place in order to keep the rain forests safe.
I thought this book was fairly easy to get through and I liked how the subject is relevant to pretty much everyone in America. Never before had I given any thought to how just simply taking care of ones yard by killing weeds could have such a detrimental effect on the environment. Lawn people is a term that describes people that will do anything to have the best lawn on the street even if it means poisoning the underground water system. I also liked how Paul Robbins found out that even though middle to upper class families understand how important recycling and protecting our environment is they rarely do so and most of the time they are the ones who are using the most chemicals because they can afford it and it seems like a class thing. I know after reading this book I’m going to thing twice about putting harmful chemicals on my lawn when I grow up.
For many years in my youth, I would mow our acre of grass with a push mower. It would seem to take hours, which, I suppose it did. At the beginning of the summer when the grass would grow so rapidly, I would be mowing once a week. Eventually we realized that we didn’t even really use the back half of the lawn for anything that required neatly manicured grass and gave up on cutting it. However, after letting it go for a number of years, my mother discovered the beauty of our sourcing labor and hired a landscaping company with superior economies of scale to talk care of the job in about a half an how. I have to ask myself, what is the point of keeping it neat and cut? We rarely go out on that part of the property – long or short grass.
In Lawn People, Paul Robbins analyzes dominant urban ecology: the common neighborhood lawn. His perspective is that of a political ecologist, combining natural science with economics as well as sociological considerations. I enjoyed his writing style of including more detailed tidbits on a subject, such as the chemical names of fertilizers, when warranted. Since the late ’80’s the use of lawn chemicals has increased dramatically, causing harm to the water table that is difficult to curtail or control, due to its delocalized nature. In the introduction, Robbins makes an interesting reference to a survey that showed the people who use lawn chemicals are more likely to believe that they are in fact harmful, an interesting paradox.
Perhaps the most astounding thing about reading this book was realizing how the “lawn culture” has altered Americans’ perception of the outdoors. Nature is chaotic; but at the same time, harmonious. What looks like a tangled mess of weeds and rotting logs on the bottom of the forest is actually a precisely balanced ecosystem. As the author shows, especially in Chapter 3, is that “lawn people” desire a product that is the exact opposite: an area that appears uniform but is in fact dangerously out of balance. It is incredibly fortunate that a “perfect” lawn grass does not exist – such a plant would quickly propogate throughout the continent and destory all other plant life. Plants and animals keep other in check through competition for resources. The particular balance that arises depends on the starting conditions: the terrain, soil quality, weather, etc. However, humans have complete disregard for this natural process: we like to have what we want, regardless of what is there already.
Chapter 4 was particularly interesting to me as a chemistry major, and frightening. My logic goes like this: if we are taking an action that is possibly harmful to the Earth and ourselves, and definitely not good for either, why do we need proof to stop? (I use the same argument with emissions and global warming). Lawn chemicals, are, at the very best, merely not harmful to humans or the environment. If the best possible result from using something is not doing harm, does it really make sense to keep using it?!? I think in the end this flawed reasoning is the result of group psychology, something I am not particularly well-versed in. Robbins points this out in Chapter 6 – “intensive lawn management tends to cluster.” Stop being a sheep!!