Jennifer Baichwal and Edward Burtynsky, "Manufactured Landscapes" (2006).

It was only a few months ago that I was gallery-hopping in Chelsea when I came across an exhibition of photos by Edward Burtynsky. At first the shots simply looked like details of urban ruins. But upon closer inspection I realized that they were mining sites, photographed from a great distance in order to convey the monstrous scale of those operations. Everything around us of human origin is the result of one type of extraction or another, and we rarely stop to contemplate exactly what this process entails. In fact the locations that Burtynsky chooses to portray are situated out-of-sight in inhospitable landscapes apart from mass habitation. Perhaps this is intentional, so that people don't realize the full extent of global consumerism.

If Jennifer Baichwal has anything to say about the subject, more folks will become aware of Burtynsky's project. The director took on a formidable challenge when she decided to transform Burtynsky's stills into a motion picture. The impact of his photo enlargements in a gallery setting is undeniable. It must have been extremely difficult to come up with ways to encapsulate the experience for the larger audiences of theaters. Certainly the widescreen format of the movie house lends itself to the material. In fact, it would be impressive to see a print of Manufactured Landscapes adapted for OMNIMAX. It is likely however that the messages of the film would be too confrontational for prospective funders. This is truly an indictment of modern living in all of its current forms.

The opening shot of Manufactured Landscapes is a seven-minute pan of an assembly plant in China that is almost beyond comprehension. We see row after row of workers in an industrial capacity, putting together small appliances to be shipped throughout the Western world. The sense of a monotonous and bleak workaday existence is made unflinchingly palpable. The scope of the facility is almost literally unbelievable. Next we see the workers, clad almost without exception in yellow uniform tops, mustering on a street between buildings. It is a breath-taking image. We are then transported to a series of industrial sites throughout China that reinforce our awareness of the vast impact of ecological devastation that steadily accompanies that nation's progressing economic development. Invariably the viewer must wonder if the human race can survive such destructive activity.

Baichwal usually lets the imagery speak for itself. The ninety-minute running length of the film mostly consists of a quiet exploration of Burtynsky's subject matter. There is a subtly effective soundtrack of instrumental music that underscores the awe evoked by the presentation of his landscapes. Occasionally Baichwal employs the artist's voice to provide commentary and insight into both his underpinning philosophies and methodology. We learn that Burtynsky's obsessions were born on the occasion of getting lost on the back roads of Pennsylvania. He found himself on the outskirts of the coal mining town of Frackville (in Schuylkill County), and was stricken by the post-industrial surrealism of his surroundings. He decided to follow up with explorations of similarly effected areas in Canada (his birthplace and home). After generating some exposure for his work, he was invited to photograph the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China.

The portions of Manufactured Landscapes that deal with "the largest dam ever built" incorporate information about the human impact of such a momentously-scaled project. These segments, along with the depiction of workers in a boat graveyard in Bangladesh, and of recyclers of computer board components (back again in China), underscore the immediately deleterious effects on the health and lifestyles of those living and toiling in these environments. While the viewer may feel himself fortunate not to share such a plight with these folks, it's not irrational to speculate that we all face a likewise perilous existence in the near future- if we don't adapt new ways of existing within our larger environment. Manufactured Landscapes is a demanding film in several ways. It requires patience and introspection to decode the terrible beauty of the spectacle that we've visited upon the Earth. But it's a worthwhile (and arguably necessary) investment of your time.

California Wildfires.

The most current tragedy to hit the American media is the collection of wildfires burning out of control in Southern California. Reportedly 2300 structures have already been destroyed. In addition, the disaster has claimed 11 lives. I have heard estimates of amounts exceeding $1 billion in damages. If you do the math, it's not difficult to figure out that these were some very expensive houses burning down. Perhaps that's why so much media attention seems to be focused on the event.

I can't help but compare this to the federal response in the Katrina disaster. Bush seems to be falling all over himself to reassure the uber-rich denizens of the red counties of Southern Cal. In fact I have no doubt that the president will promptly deliver the relief he has promised to his political constituents. I also expect the insurance companies to make every effort to protect the interests of their wealthiest clients, and in turn pass the cost on to the masses. What I'm not holding my breath for is calls from the wing-nuts of AM radio to question the wisdom of building elaborate mansions in such a historically disastrous area. Just five years ago the predictable area wildfires were responsible for $2 billion in damages and 18 deaths. No one blamed the victims. Three years later, legions of kool-aid drinkers excused FEMA, Bush and his cronies when they failed to help the poor folks of New Orleans. They pointed out that the unfortunates deserved what they got for not having the wherewithal to evacuate. They criticized the intention to rebuild a city that is notorious for its liberal culture. Perhaps we should let them off the hook for the hypocrisy they are displaying now. After all, can we really expect consistency and rationality from that camp?

No one in the mainstream media is likely to bring up the fact that over-development and uncontrolled construction keeps Southern California in an annual cycle of peril. This is one of the few remaining strengths in the American manufacturing sector- new housing starts. How dare anyone stand in the way of the vicissitudes of the "free market"? Shame on anybody that blames human economic initiative for the destruction brought about by "acts of God". It's un-American not to have sympathy for the highest financial classes of our nation. If we hold them to account for anything, it is surely the result of petty "class envy". So let's all agree that if anyone deserves help from the federal government- it's the super-rich minority. And let's obfuscate the true causes of the wildfires, in the hope that they can be used to some obscure political advantage.

Speculation on right wing radio revolves around the sources of the fires. Firefighters and law enforcement investigators believe that some of the blazes were started by arsonists. What reasons people could have for provoking these conflagrations remains unclear. But the most nutty of conservatives have identified the usual suspects- "terrorists". This article is typical. Reportedly (in 2003) some Arab detainee spoke of plans to set off a series of forest fires in the area. Statements by certain fire-fighting personnel have "fueled the fire" (so to speak). It's been said that whoever started the blazes "knew what they were doing", as the initial flames traveled three miles in less than twenty minutes. No doubt it's the insidious Islamic fundamentalists who alone would have such knowledge of arson strategy. After all, they have a wealth of experience setting fires in the vast forestlands of the Middle East.

What better use could this tragedy present than an opportunity for ratcheting up the suspicions and paranoia of the heartland? Obviously the shadowy enemies have their hands in all sorts of mayhem. After all- wasn't it those sophisticated Islamicists that spread terror throughout the nation by sending anthrax to the mainstream media and Democratic lawmakers in the wake of 9-11? (No, my mistake... it actually turned out to be radical right wing Americans). Yet these "conservatives" have seemed to take a page out of the play-book of the conspiracy nuts- a group that they have never shrunk away from accusing of rampant idiocy when they didn't like the selection of targets. Of course they will be empowered to further their crusade with irresponsible accusations. Other suspects considered include environmentalists and Mexican "illegals" (notice any pattern here?). No matter who turns up to accept the blame, pundits like Boortz and Savage will claim that the American government would never reveal plots that could endanger "homeland security". And so the circle is completed, and the truth obscured.

Rupert Murdoch... Goin' Green?!

You know who Rupert Murdoch is, right? He's an Austrailian-American who owns the News Corporation, a conglomerate based out of New York City. FOX TV, FOX "News" Channel, The Weekly Standard, The New York Post, HarperCollins and MySpace.com are among the properties under his control. He also owns a big chunk of Direct TV. In addition Murdoch recently purchased Dow Jones, and made a bid to buy the Wall Street Journal. Although Murdoch's political affiliations have historically been all over the map, he is associated in the United States with the radical right wing. He's been close to both Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan, and he voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004. All of his worldwide newspapers strongly supported the invasion of Iraq. He's even on the record accusing BBC television of having a left-leaning bias. In any case the media mogul identifies himself as a "libertarian".

Murdoch inherited his trade from his father- who upon his deathbed instructed the newspaper he owned to jump-start his son's career in journalism. Though some observers believed that Rupert had more interest in gambling and making money, he soon warmed to the publishing business. Through an ambitious plan of acquisition he soon built his own empire, with a heavy focus on tabloids. His holdings expanded to England, and he soon ran afoul of the printers union by setting up an expanded process of automation. Despite the ire he garnered for that move, the youthful Murdoch proved to be quite successful as a businessman. He became known as the kind of guy that can (and would) justify doing anything for money. In fact he became a US citizen just to satisfy the requirements for owning an American television station.

Somehow Rupert Murdoch has managed to side-step many onerous regulations, including paying any form of corporate taxes for an unspecified number of years. Apparently News Corp. Investments has used a complex tax structure (involving offshore havens) to avoid paying its due. Yet somehow Murdoch is able to remain more of a cartoon villian than a real-life antogonist. Some credit must go to his own FOX network's The Simpsons, which routinely lampoons the man and his reputation. Whether he is as devious and tyrannical as he is portrayed is an unanswered question. However there is no doubt that he is willing to exploit any advantage (including self-serving political alliances) in order to further the interests of himself and his corporation(s).

So what should we make of the recent series of announcements that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is going "Green"? Not only has he pledged to reduce his comapany's carbon emissions, but he has promised to include pro-environment messages into his media products of. He says that he "wants to inspire people to change their behavior". Huh? Does this include FOX News, home of global warming deniers like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter? What about the Weekly Standard- home of the neo-cons? I would imagine that many of the pundits that represent Murdoch's news empire are aghast and appalled by this decision. On the other hand maybe they know this is all just smoke-and-mirrors. Remember that this is the same guy that supported deposing Saddam Hussein with the rationale that "the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil". Come on now. Do you really think Murdoch has changed that much in four years?

Perhaps it's more appropriate to ask whether or not it makes any difference if Murdoch is sincere in his new campaign against global climate change. If his company really does reduce its carbon footprint, does it matter what the spirit behind the shift is? If viewers of the FOX Channel are exposed to the potential dangers of not changing their destructive behaviors, should we care whether or not Rupert Murdoch makes money as a result? The case could be made that if it's in his self-interest to confront this issue, then it should be understood as a universal concern. Or think about it this way- does whether or not a FOX news anchor truly believes in what he says give his words any more or less credibility? There's going to be an agenda either way. I'd rather see an ecologiocally responsible one.

A Simple Framing of the Situation.

One thing I've identified as my own intellectual flaw is a tendency to be a bit reductionist. Having made that disclosure beforehand, I feel comfortable about proceeding with the following argument. Many folks today have come to believe that we (as a society and as a species) have created a mass of problems for ourselves likely to require large amounts of effort, creativity and resources to resolve. Some have even become so overwhelmed that they are ready to give up and let fate take its course. Part of the difficulty in confronting the mess we are in is an inability to imagine where to start. But I believe that throwing our hands up in hopelessness is no longer a viable option. There seems to me to be an increasing imminence in the nature of our condition.

I'm not going to try to construct an exhaustive list of the challenges facing us. For illustrative purposes I'll simply mention a few- global climate change, diminishing resources, and a growing resentment between the franchised and the powerless. These are indeed multi-faceted problems for which there really is no single solution. However, I'd like to suggest a starting point. I believe we need to face the very real fact of the overpopulation of humans on our planet. Indeed there are some that will flatly refuse to concede this reality. They will point out that with new technology, and more efficient distribution, we can easily sustain an even greater amount of humans. I would respond with a simple question- Toward what end? Is it to the greater benefit of society, non-human life forms, and/or the biosystem? I don't think so. If you do, you might want to skip the rest of this post, because there is nothing here for you.

Is it not self-evident that a radical decrease in the number of our species would make things generally better for the remaining cretaures on Earth? Consulting estimates of the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet can be informative, if not conclusive. Regardless there is no compelling reason we should strive to attain the maximum number possible. From my perspective, resource management on Earth is indeed a zero-sum game. That means that we have a finite amount of the necessities for existence. There is only so much water, oxygen, topsoil, arable land, and fossil fuels available. While many of these resources are recyclable, we cannot expect additional amounts to arrive from without the biosystem. The only life-sustaining force we have a steady supply of outside the system is sunlight. And of the resources mentioned above, fossil fuels are unique in that once they are consumed they are gone forever (or at least within the scope of time meaningful to the human species).

The problem that we should all be aware of is that for more than a century we have been relying on that dwindling store of fossil fuels to produce food surpluses to sustain populations that otherwise would not be perpetuated in their regions of habitation. As these fuels become more scarce, there will be increasing levels of famine in those areas. Starvation will lead to mass civil unrest and regional conflicts. The gap between the haves and the have-nots will be a question of survival, rather than prosperity. What is happening within the political sphere to confront this impending situation? It is simply not part of the mainstream media dialogue. We ignore the issue at our own peril.

Many scientists who have been paying attention to fossil fuel depletion and global climate change predict a mass die-off in the coming century. They believe that a significant population decrease is inevitable. The question is- How will it occur? Will it be a process determined by the chaos of neglect? What amount of suffering will result if we don't take available steps to minimize it? Does it have to happen through national disaster, war, and disease? Or is there another possibility available? Have we developed technology that would allow us to ameliorate the disaster, or allow a rational and proactive approach to the problem? What does the word humane imply? These are questions I hope to explore in future posts.

The Great Scheme: Alcohol-based fuels, Ford, Rockefeller, and Prohibition.

One of the many bits of information I gleaned from my discussions with Tapahpunja yesterday has to do with the prohibition of alcohol. This is a multifaceted issue that concerns spirituality, social control, energy production, and US History. From the standpoint of a Hindu, alcohol consumption is forbidden. This makes sense in the context of social interaction. There is no debate that alcohol abuse contributes to many of our social problems today. Having had ample experience with alcoholics, I know firsthand what addiction can do to relationships. Many domestic incidents and other types of criminal activity involve the use of alcohol. Meanwhile, there is much evidence that alcohol negatively affects more organs of the human body than any other legal or illegal drug. Despite all these possible consequences, I have no plans to stop consuming alcohol. I believe there are some positive social effects that occur with its moderate use, and there is some scientific data that demonstrates that it can be consumed healthily.

But there is an entirely different dimension to alcohol that I wasn't even aware of. Alcohol may be an option in dealing with the impending energy and environmental crises of the Twenty-first Century. It is a little known fact that Brazil is the world leader in the production of bioalcohol fuel. Because of recent concerns of rising gasoline prices, President Bush visited Sao Paulo (on March 7, 2007) to sign agreements on importing alcohol fuel and its technology. Vehicles using this fuel were actually widespread in the late 1970's in Brazil, but gasoline reclaimed its market share in the 1980's. With anxieties about the world oil supply once again in the forefront of many minds, this option has become increasingly attractive.

The advantages of alcohol-based fuels are multi-faceted. They burn completely and efficiently and produce 100% less carbon monoxide emissions because the byproducts of their consumption include only carbon dioxide, water and heat. Interestingly, although alcohol-based fuel produces as much CO2 emission as gasoline, its effect is counterbalanced by the fact that CO2 is actually drawn from the environment in the process of its production. Therefore there is no modern net release. While much of the efforts concerning the manufacture of these types of fuel involve corn... there are much more efficient raw crop materials available. Sugar beets (for example) contain less cellulose, and their waste fibers raise the alcohol yield. So why do so many Americans sing the praises of corn-based biofuel? For that answer you have to research the political and economic ramifications of our corporate farming monoculture. That lies beyond the scope of this post.

But the most fascinating aspect of the connection between alcohol and fuel use concerns a little known (or discussed) aspect of American history. To understand this relationship, one must examine some contextual information of the early Twentieth Century. Most people are not aware that Henry Ford's Model T came in a variation that allowed the driver to switch the carburetor to run the engine on farm-made ethyl acohol. This allowed the operator to stop at local farms (equipped with stills) to refuel his/her car during long trips through the backcountry. After all- the gas station wasn't exactly as ubiquitous in those days, as it is now. The Standard Oil Company and its industrialist-founder John D. Rockefeller wasn't too happy with this arrangement. After all, Rockefeller's company had a virtual monoploly on gasoline at this time in our nation's development.

It should be evident to any serious student of history that John D. Rockefeller was no political progressive. His fights with muckraker Ida Tarbell are legendary. She was ultimately responsible for the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust in 1911. Not that this actually hurt Rockefeller- his wealth actually increased after Standard Oil broke up. Rockefeller held significant interests in the resulting companies, which included the precursors of today's Seven Sisters oil companies. The break-up of Standard Oil actually made him the wealthiest man in the world, as the share values of most of these companies doubled. Yet Rockefeller would find benefit once again within the reform movement that he considered his enemy. Since the late 1800's there had been a growing Alcohol Temperance Movement developing among reformers. Rockefeller saw an opportunity in this. It is well-documented that local efforts to curb alcohol consumption were expanded to the national level when high-profile figures like Rockefeller joined in the anti-alcohol efforts. Was he so concerned with the social problems that abuse of alcohol was said to cause?

No... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family.

These events have had a tremendous development on the American economy, foreign policy direction, and the environment. In fact the consequences are worldwide. It is easy to lose sight of the big picture, and concentrate on the many subplots involving Detroit's supression of alternative fuel technologies. The chapters being written in today's tumultuous climate are indeed the continuation of a story started long ago. We venerate the capitalist captains of industry (like Rockefeller) without any examination of what they have cost the nation and the world. If we don't re-evaluate our contemporary thinking in light of the events of the past, we are headed for times in which alcohol may be our only escape from a harsh reality. Maybe we have been pouring it in the wrong place all along.

Alfonso Cuaron, "Children of Men" (2006)

I'm generally not fond of science fiction movies. Perhaps that's because I have a limited sense of what the genre entails. I've always associated sci-fi films with space ships, aliens, and "gee whiz" technical gadgets. In other words, my mind immediately flashes scenes from Star Trek. No thanks... really, you can keep it. But once in awhile I'll catch a flick which transcends that limited conception. Such is the case with Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. Not only did I enjoy this film, but I think it's one of the best from the year 2006.

Children of Men takes place in the near future- 2027. It begins with the death of the world's youngest human- an 18-year old man named Diego. That's how the viewer learns the underlying premise of the movie. Women have become infertile worldwide. The Earth is rejecting the species, and as a result society is falling apart everywhere. Clive Owen plays Theo (the lead character), who finds himself embroiled in an underground plot to help a band of rebel immigrants operate in England. The nation is besieged by the disenfranchised of the world (referred to as "Fugis"), and much effort is expended keeping them contained to refugee camps. The level of barbarity in every facet of life is striking. We can only speculate on the converging catastrophes that have caused the current level of disorder. But authorities have clearly resigned themselves to curtailing civil rights to protect what's left of the status quo.

Theo finds himself in the role of protector for a woman who has miraculously become pregnant. His job is to smuggle her out of the country, and link up with a shadowy organization called the "Human Project". Rumors suggest that this group is working to halt the extinction of the human race. Meanwhile, it appears that there is a conspiratorial plot to use the imminent birth as a rallying cry for a revolution. Theo is clearly jaded about the state of the world, and has very few people he can trust to assist him in his adopted mission. The storyline concerns itself with his struggle to do something noble and heroic.

But this is somehow not what Children of Men is really about. Instead it is an allegory about the madness and futility demonstrated by human beings. Their priorities are out of whack, and people are experiencing the consequences of the neglect of their own biosystem. This is made evident through the wealth of background imagery that Cuaron (whose debut feature was Y Tu Mama Tambien) has skillfully integrated into his film. We see scenes of savagery, destruction, and horror. But the camera never brings these elements to the foreground, but instead slowly pans across the devastation without obvious comment. This transforms what could have been a ho-hum, action-packed tale of dystopia into a multi-leveled exploration of the various impacts of human behavior. But what is particularly frightening about the film is that it is completely believable. It is a warning of things to come, and because of its poetic genius, it's much more effective than any other I have seen.

The cinematography is simply breathtaking. The acting is professionally competent across the board. And the writing is remarkably unobtrusive for a science fiction film. The interactions of the players are convincing enough to erode the inevitable distance we experience when watching this type of movie. We recognize ourselves in the characters, and can place ourselves in the setting. This is why I consider this an amazing directorial achievement. Watch it as soon as possible. And be sure to check out the extras, which include interviews with celebrity-philosopher Slavoj Zizek and Naomi Klein.