Chemicals: Villains of the Natural World...or Not

Recently, something fascinating was brought to my attention by a speaker on biomimicry. Interested in what that means? Read on to learn more...

There is a common misconception. This misconception is that chemicals are man-made hazards that pollute and threaten an otherwise chemical-free natural world.

Chemical [kem-i-kuh l] (noun)
1. a substance produced by or used in a chemical process.
2. of or relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry

Chemistry? Remember chemistry class? The science class that tried to teach you about the structure and property of substances and the changes they go through. And the Periodic Table of the Elements! Everyone knows that. But most of those elements didn't seem so evil...Carbon, Oxygen...the building blocks of life are contained in that colorful table.

So maybe chemicals aren't pure evil. Certainly combinations of them can be harmful to the health of living things - but chemicals are the building blocks of everything - natural and not.

There is this perception that the word "chemical" is evil, yet nature offers some incredible natural chemical solutions to very real world problems. Seashells inspiring self-assembling in nanotechnology. Plants inspiring biodegradable plastics made from CO2. Peacocks and butterflies inspiring color with light instead of pigments.

If we are going to truly understand chemistry enough to make real change - we need to stop villainizing chemicals and look to understand them instead. Biologists are being invited to the design table. Taking inspiration from nature to design for a sustainable future.

"Learning about the natural world is one thing. Learning from the natural world, that's the switch. That's the profound switch." -Janine Beynus, Biomimicry
Learn more at biomimicry.net
http://biomimicry.net/inspiring/

Eating our way to sustainability

I just finished Jonathan Safran Soer's book Eating Animals - I have been a vegetarian for the past 16 years and it was not a book for the faint of heart.  I admit I skipped a few pages, as I am a vegetarian for a reason.  I grew up on a farm in Northern British Columbia and saw how animals were killed, so that part doesn't both me as much as the factory farm piece, the way animals live and our responsibility for that.
Factory Farms were at the core of this book, not only the way animals are treated, but the health risk these farms pose to consumers, neighbors and the planet at large.  Interestingly he noted that these farms are not about creating food, but about creating money.  And when you have animals as your commodity it becomes an even more tense situation.
Our relationship to food is so varied and so that means our strategy towards sustainability will be the same.
For instance there are millions of people in this world who live in poverty and do not have access to food.  And then there are another group of millions who have access to so much food that there are societies with obesity issues. Is the issue about redistribution of this food?  Or could it be looked slightly differently about sustainability of food, food systems, human health and balance with local ecosystems to provide the sustainable amount of food.
In many ways this is what we should be advocating - but doing so in the USA means that millions of food calories do not need to even be produced.  Concern then grows for the livelihoods of the people growing this food.  What if systems were slowed down so the output was lower, more people had jobs and the food that we ate was contributing to a sustainable ecosystem instead of taking away from it.
There are some amazing models of sustainable food systems all of the world that need more voice and need to be supported.  All the way from local farming practices in places like Africa to urban agriculture in Washington DC.

Reconnecting with our food is something we all must take on as a personal challenge - this is the daily relationship with sustainability that we can live.