From its humble folkloric beginnings to the release George Romero’s classic Night of the Living Dead in 1968, today’s current Walking Dead craze has taken zombie culture in America to new heights. And now that Halloween has arrived, our taste for adventures involving hordes of the undead has doubled. Whether you’re searching for candy treats or goodies of a fleshier variety, it’s the ideal time of year to dig a little deeper into the zombie phenomenon as it continues to fill up our film screens, televisions, and literature.
The zombie myth is timeless, with references to the dead rising up again found throughout the histories of various cultures. However, the actual term “zombie” has more specific roots in Haitian Creole traditions and African religious customs, where the zombies were simply mindless slaves rather than the insatiable, flesh-eating monsters they would become in the hands of American pop culture creators.
Regardless of origin, there’s no denying the zombie has come into its own in the last few decades, serving as a metaphor for everything from the danger of mindless consumerism to economic disasters and epidemics on an international scale. And while zombies still operate effectively as metaphors for large scale disasters, global, environmental, and otherwise, there’s are also more immediate messages in shows like The Walking Dead. As we as a society find ourselves relying more and more on automation and less and less on our own intellect, we’re in danger of becoming just as mindless as the monsters we fear.
We’re increasingly producing devices and systems designed to make our lives easier and safer, but at what cost? Automated home security systems that are designed to do our thinking for us in case of a threat to our family members or property are a prime example of the double-edged sword . By allowing an “intelligent” machine system to do the thinking, we decrease the possibility that we’d be able to respond appropriately to a threat should the system no longer operate.
The risk is also inherent in other types of so-called advanced technology, such as increasingly automated features on the vehicles we drive and labor saving machines replacing the humans in our factories. By allowing the machines to think for us, we run the risk of decreasing our own capacity for innovation and creative thinking and thus our ability to operate without technology. We’re in danger of becoming slaves to the technologies that were intended to serve us instead.
On some subtle level, we seem to be aware of and fear the dangers of our overreliance on automation, as witnessed by the popularity of television shows like The Walking Dead, a show supposedly about zombies but that focuses instead on the survivors of the global apocalypse rather than the cause of it. The main characters, although always in danger, nonetheless present a message that the more willing they are to adapt to a world without the technologies and creature comforts they no doubt relied on prior to the world disaster, the more likely they are to be able to survive the new reality. And it’s no accident that the ones most able to survive from the beginning are the Daryl Dixons and Glenn Rhees of the show, those willing to think creatively and who had lived life prior to the apocalypse without an over-reliance on technology.
While the newest zombie-based show on the scene has only aired its first six-episode season thus far, there’s likely an even stronger possibility of exploring the characteristics required to survive a global loss of technology that accompanies a zombie apocalypse. Fear the Walking Dead is set in the same universe as the original The Walking Dead but with a backed-up timeline meant to show the first days of the epidemic. So, while technology had begun to fail by the end of the first season, characters were not yet completely cut off.
There’s no doubt that advances in technology have numerous benefits for mankind, but when the technology is capable of more advanced thinking than we ourselves are, the dangers may just outweigh some of the benefits. If we want to avoid becoming mindless zombie slaves to technology, we have to be able to do our own thinking.
via Branden Engel
John Oliver is an English comedian who first attracted US attention through his work on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In April 2014, he began taping episodes of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a weekly half-hour program that satirizes news and current events. Even as a comedy program, it focuses heavily on topics like climate change and other contemporary concerns that lend themselves to critical, in-depth discussions. HBO has given Oliver has full creative freedom and can thus he can target whomever he likes, be they corporations, politicians, or anybody else who considers themselves beyond the reach of the average journalist or comedian.
From the start, Oliver stepped in to boldly expose issues most often misrepresented in mainstream news. In May 2014, he skewered the media’s laughable coverage of the climate change “debate.” Standard news coverage on a topic of any scientific nature generally has a talking head on each side, with Bill Nye the Science Guy (or another familiar face) speaking for the scientists and some nameless “skeptic” speaking for the powers-that-be currently benefiting from the bounty of fossil fuels. Oliver decided to hold his own “statistically accurate” version of one of these conversations, quickly re-confirming that all proof points to the reality of our rapidly warming world.
As Oliver pointed out, 97 percent of the peer-reviewed papers on climate change state that it is real and is caused by human activity. Oliver then showed the audience what a televised debate reflecting that reality would look like. After seating the two or three “skeptics” on one side of a table, Oliver invited the scientists to join them, which led to a horde of people in lab coats swarming in. The scene was hilarious and the video went viral on YouTube. According to energy experts at Dominion Gas, this tactic of marrying humor and education, when it comes to energy usage and climate change, is an easy way to get viewers to tune in and learn without even trying.
A month later, Oliver took on the net neutrality question – despite admitting that many people find the topic “even boring by C-Span standards.” Maintaining net neutrality, however, is vital, for it is the chief principal of the Internet. It holds that all data should be displayed equally and that everybody should be able to access it. That means that sites affiliated with large companies should not have any advantages over other sites. Amongst other things, net neutrality makes it easier for start-ups to compete with larger entities by keeping the playing field level for everybody.
At the time, the FCC was considering changing the rules to produce a two-tiered Internet with high speed service for the bigger sites and slower speeds for everybody else. That, of course, would have drastically changed the Internet – and not for the better. Oliver ended his dissertation with an impassioned and hilarious plea to all the Internet trolls to go forth and send their angry, ranting comments to the FCC opposing the new rules. 45,000 trolls did so – and crashed the FCC’s comment page. The FCC got the hint and scuttled the new rules, at least for the time being. The net neutrality video also went viral. Oliver’s segment on the exploitation of small poultry farmers by large corporations also ended with a call to action, this time directed at members of Congress.
Oliver will also invite guests on to his show who fit and can expand on a given theme. Most famously, he got Edward Snowden to talk about government surveillance. Similarly, he invited Pepe Julian Onziema, a Ugandan LGBT rights activist, to discuss that very topic.
Since his show is on HBO, John-Oliver does have a lot of creative freedom. He doesn’t have to worry about possibly offending any advertisers. If he’d been on network television, he would not have been allowed to skewer General Motors for its mishandling of the recall crisis, since the networks all need GM’s money. HBO is not in that position, so Oliver could lambaste GM. Similarly, his show has fewer commercial breaks than do network programs so he can do things like devote 13 minutes to net neutrality. Not only can he cover a topic in greater depth, he can also issue a call to action.
John-Oliver’s use of humor makes his show both popular and effective. As mentioned earlier, his segment on net neutrality proved to be very popular – despite the fact that most people find the topic not all that interesting. His use of humor helps him make his point. Having several dozen scientists swarm the stage during a “debate” on climate change showed people that the vast majority of scientists accept the reality of climate change. In that same episode, he pointed out the fallacy of taking opinion polls on known scientific facts, for such polls only demonstrate that an embarrassing percentage of Americans don’t understand science.
John-Oliver is also willing to tackle topics like the exploitation of small farmers by large corporations that network journalists cannot or will not touch. Revealing such information can hurt the corporations, for many of their customers would presumably take their business to competitors who treat farmers fairly. To keep that from happening, the corporations try to keep their misdeeds hidden. Since Oliver names names, his fans know which corporations are involved. By using humor to inform and rouse people, Oliver performs a public service.
via Brandon Engel
Matt Damon – “Things Are All Upside Down” Speech
In this video actor Matt Damon speaks publicly on the New World Order and the Illuminati in a powerful speech.
He mentions the “topsy turvy world”we’re living in where the wrong people are in jail and the wrong people are out of jail.
He also says that the wrong people are in power, whilst the wrong people are out of power. Matt Damon has been a voice in the public eye for many years. He speaks out for human rights and freedom of information. He is a proponent of helping people and a respected actor and director. His speech is great and I am sure you guys will enjoy your time listening to it.
https://youtu.be/Rh-HOyJpJsA
Oliver Stone, byname of William Oliver Stone (born September 15, 1946, New York, New York, U.S.), American film director, screenwriter, and producer known for his ambitious and often controversial movies.
Stone, the son of a wealthy stockbroker, was raised in New York City. He briefly studied at Yale University before dropping out to teach English in South Vietnam. Upon his return, Stone lived in Mexico for a year and again attended Yale for a short period. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the U.S. Army. He distinguished himself in combat, earning two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. Stone then enrolled in film school at New York University (B.A., 1971), studying under director Martin Scorsese.
Stone was deeply affected by his war experiences, and his student films, such asLast Year in Viet Nam (1971), dealt directly with the consequences of the Vietnam conflict. After graduating, he directed the horror movies Seizure! (1974) and The Hand (1981), the latter of which starred Michael Caine. Stone also began experimenting with screenwriting, and he won an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay for Midnight Express (1978), which was based on the true story of a man brutally abused while imprisoned for drug smuggling in Turkey.
Stone devoted much of the early 1980s to writing screenplays, including Conan the Barbarian (1982), Scarface (1983), which was directed by Brian De Palma and starred Al Pacino, and Year of the Dragon (1985). He returned to directing withSalvador (1986), which he also wrote. In the film, a journalist (played by James Woods) documents the atrocities committed during the El Salvador uprisings of 1980–81. Stone again drew on the trauma of the Vietnam War in Platoon (1986), for which he won another Academy Award, this time for directing. The film navigates the perils of war from the perspective of a new recruit who quickly realizes that the idealism that motivated his decision to enlist was misguided. Stone drew upon personal experience once more for Wall Street (1987), using memories of his father’s career as a stockbroker to conjure an indictment of the greed and deceit governing the financial world. In 1988 he adapted Eric Bogosian’s Off-Broadway play Talk Radio to film.
Stone emphasized the continuing ramifications of the Vietnam War with Born on the Fourth of July (1989). The film, based on the autobiography of Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, chronicles the evolution of a young man, played by Tom Cruise, from patriotic soldier to paraplegic antiwar activist. Stone won an Academy Award for directing that movie and received a fourth career nomination for his writing. The year 1991 saw the release of both JFK, a polarizing investigation of the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy, and The Doors, a stylish account of the rise and fall of the titular American rock band. InHeaven and Earth (1993), Stone approached the Vietnam War and its aftermath from the perspective of a young Vietnamese woman.
Stone again courted controversy with Natural Born Killers (1994), a film, written byQuentin Tarantino, about the savagely violent exploits of a married couple, played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis. While Stone claimed that the film was meant to be critical of sensationalized violence, some critics found it guilty of exactly what it purported to condemn. Stone then cast Anthony Hopkins in the title role of Nixon (1995), a measured take on the life of the U.S. president. He also developed the screenplay for Evita (1996), an adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical about Argentine politician Eva Perón (played by Madonna).
Stone revisited some of his favoured motifs, power and violence, in Any Given Sunday (1999), about professional football, and in Alexander (2004), a poorly received biography of Alexander the Great. World Trade Center (2006), a retelling of the events of September 11, 2001, from the viewpoint of two police officers, returned Stone to the centre of public debate. While the film was critically acclaimed, some questioned the propriety of making the film so soon after the tragedy. W. (2008), his biopic of Pres. George W. Bush, drew ire from both extremes of the political spectrum for its refusal to pass definitive judgment, positive or negative, on its subject. Stone later directed Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps(2010), a sequel to the 1987 film that was set amid the global financial crisis of 2008, and Savages (2012), an ensemble thriller about marijuana trafficking that, in its depiction of seedy mayhem, was reminiscent of his earlier U Turn (1997).
In addition to directing and writing, Stone produced many of his own movies. Besides narrative films, he made two documentaries about Latin American politics: Comandante (2003), about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and South of the Border (2009), which focused on several other left-wing leaders, notably Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chávez. With Peter Kuznick, he also created Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States (2012), a 10-part television documentary (and accompanying book) that took an unorthodox look at the preceding century of American political history. In 1997 Stone published a semiautobiographical novel,A Child’s Night Dream.
Sean Stone, son of controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone has acted in his father’s films such as Wall Street, The Doors, JFK, Natural Born Killers and many more. He has starred and directed in his own feature film Greystone Park. Sean joined the team of investigators for the Tru TV hit Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. Sean currently hosts an alternative media show ‘Buzzsaw’ featuring interviews with whistleblowers, styling itself as the ‘real X files’ looking into the hidden agendas behind the news.
Unbelievable hidden messages and symbolism are found not just in Disney productions but also Hollywood in large in general. The entertainment industry may not even realize the severity of the situation with its effort to follow along in ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ trends like flashing the Devil Horns and promoting 666 satanic symbolism.
In films that present humans alongside alien counterparts, we inevitably learn more about our own humanity than of the alien creature’s new perceptions. When we visit a new country far from home, we make just as many (if not more) discoveries about ourselves as we do about our host nation – as any traveler can attest, looking at our own culture from a distance allows for a better understanding of both its strengths and frailties, and opens it up to a greater dialogue about the world at large.
In 1977, the Voyager 2 probe was sent into space with a recorded message of peace (in 55 different languages) along with an eclectic collection of music and 116 images of life on this planet. John Carpenter, in his 1984 film Starman, explores what might have happened if an alien ship were to encounter this Earthling greeting. Alongside a sweet romance between the two lead characters, there is the story of how American government officials react to the appearance of the “Starman.” A socially-conscious piece of sci-fi, the naive and otherworldly Starman reveals both the government’s uneasiness with extraterrestrials (despite spending trillions on defense yearly) and the public’s split perspectives concerning the existence of real alien beings.
Many UFOlogical scenarios begin with a cataclysmic encounter that destroys the planet. Aliens are often depicted as a race evolutionarily superior to our own, with apocalyptic powers that can be used to levitate objects, save lives, start cars – different remarkable skills for different alien life forms. For years, comics, books, television shows and films have drawn people to the world of UFOs and extraterrestrial activities. In the 1940s and 50s, freakish events – the end of the Second World War, the unforgettable image of the atom bomb’s mushroom cloud and a pervasive storm of anticommunist sentiment – inspired the creation of a slew of sci-fi masterpieces. The Roswell Crash happened in 1947, only two years after the atomic bomb was dropped on Japanese citizens. These early B-movies put the nation’s fears of invasion and destruction on film. The reality of an alien invasion, after the paranoia and chaos of the era, did not seem so outside the realm of possibility.
The “mysterious” nature of aliens, and their continued unconfirmed legitimacy by the U.S. government only adds to their appeal. While many prominent scientists have attested to the likelihood of their existence, the proof of alien abductions and landings has been largely discredited. Carl Sagan, in one of his last interviews, said that extraterrestrial intelligence is a “wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.”
For most UFO enthusiasts, theories about advanced civilizations on other planets are a matter of sheer speculation, with little consideration for standards of scientific conjecture. That said, it is difficult to consider extraterrestrial life in terms of our own. Different types of thinking are needed to properly consider a race of beings capable of journeying among the stars – we need to be mentally flexible, as these beings are truly alien and, in all likelihood, of an appearance that our eyes will be completely untrained to see.
What reasons could there be to hide evidence of aliens? Since the Roswell, New Mexico incident, many believe that there are sweeping security measures and secrecy in place to keep the subject under wraps. But the public is not convinced. According to two National Geographic polls held in 2012, 36 percent of Americans believe UFO’s exist, and 79 percent believe a government coverup is responsible for withholding detailed alien information.
This past summer, microbiologists in California discovered bacteria that survive, not by eating “food” as we commonly think of it, but by feeding on electricity. NASA has theorized that beings in the “dark energy biosphere”, beneath deep sea beds, consume so little energy that their “means of living could theoretically be used by extraterrestrial life living in other areas of the solar system, or universe.” Both of these findings prove that limiting space exploration to “Earth-like” planets will limit our discovery of other living beings. If we are modeling our assumptions as to what an alien life needs on our own, isn’t that missing the entire point? Who knows what kind of conditions another life form needs to thrive? Astronomers from the government-backed SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have recently conceded that the chance of discovering life on other planets is inevitable and will likely occur within the next 20 years.
If there are beings capable of harnessing pure energy, they may take the form of these electron-feasting bacteria. Certain species are also capable of producing electrons while metabolizing chemicals, leading scientists to believe that they may be an eventual source of natural energy.
Today, with energy prices skyrocketing, the environment in crisis mode, and no clear solution in sight, it could make sense to invest in projects towards this end. While we haven’t yet been visited by other forms of life, by harnessing pure energy we may edge closer to a new kind of sustainability. Canadian science fiction writer Karl Schroeder has posited that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature” (borrowing from Arthur C. Clarke’s original, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”). Aliens may blend seamlessly into the galaxy, their artificial systems no different from our natural ones. In Carpenter’s film, after finding the welcome messages from Voyager, the Starman heads to Earth – only to discover the hostility of American military men when he is shot down by the U.S. Air Force. But when Starman was released, we were living in a different time. There are hundreds of millions of galaxies in space, and within them millions and millions of stars. If even 1/100 of them contain “life” in any definition, that is still billions of planets with extraterrestrial beings. It’s time we found comfort, rather than fear, in the fact that we are not alone. And even if there aren’t others out there in space, the principle of coexisting peacefully can be applied equally back here on Earth
Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying. In Kubrick’s Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings.
He reveals that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick’s novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick’s film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick’s personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA. Called by Wired Magazine an “erudite conspiracy hunter”, Jay Weidner is a renowned author and filmmaker.
Focus Points for Movies with Hidden Meanings:
Eyes Wide Shut — Secret Societies & Occult Rituals
2001:A Space Odessy – Aliens, Space Travel, AI, Advanced Tech
Dr. Strangelove – War, Fluoride
A Clockwork Orange – MK-Ultra & Mind Control
The Shining – Faked Apollo Moon Landings
George A. Romero’s Vital Role in Paving the Road for Today’s Zombie Film
The first feature length film to employ zombies as a vehicle for social commentary was Abel Gance’s J’Accuse (1919), which is also memorable for featuring authentic footage from the battlefields of the first World War. In the 1930’s, many zombie films were inspired by mostly misinterpreted Haitian mythology. Today, zombie film and culture now permeate virtually all mass media, everything from video games, to TV shows, to graphic novels. Zombies are used as a narrative device to discuss any number of issues, from oppressive, military states, to contagions and pandemics, to xenophobia and social stigma. We owe most of this to George A. Romero.
Zombie films, and indeed exploitation films in general, would not exist as we know them today if not for Romero’s influence. From his early work with the groundbreaking films Night of the Living Dead (1968), Dawn of the Dead (1978), and Day of the Dead (1985) that set the zombie genre in motion to his recent works like Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), and Survival of the Dead (2010) Romero set the standard for the zombie movie in ways that changed how we watch the genre entirely.
Night of the Living Dead, although black and white and also shot on a shoestring budget, has a depth that was surprising for the time. Although the film didn’t shy away from explicit onscreen violence, it wasn’t the blood and guts alone that made this film revolutionary. After all, by 1968, exploitation filmmakers like Herschell Gordon Lewis had already been churning out over-the-top gory films like Blood Feast (1963) for a few years. What distinguished Romero’s film was that it didn’t rely exclusively on sensational gimmicks, but it endeavored to tell a meaningful story with characters that elicited emotional responses from viewers. The film focused more on the human relationships during the post apocalyptic backdrop, and it offered poignant commentary about humanity’s inability to reconcile conflicting self-interests in crisis situations. The film is also notable for featuring a black actor (Duane Jones) as its male lead. What’s more, the film had the audacity to have its main character killed off — and what’s more, the black male lead is shot by a white militia. Bear in mind that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated around the time of the film’s release, and Malcolm X had been assassinated a mere three years prior.
His next installment in the Dead saga was Dawn of the Dead (1978), which mostly takes place inside an overrun shopping mall and also focuses on the survivors of a zombie outbreak. We are told that the zombies flock to the mall because they have vague memories of the site holding personal significance for them. It’s Romero’s stab at consumer culture, and the unhealthy degree of importance assigned to material wealth.
In 1985’s Day of the Dead Romero envisions an underground military base where zombies have been kept for experimentation. It evokes sympathy for the zombies, and vilifies the power-crazed military officials (especially the psychopathic Captain Rhodes, who meets an especially gruesome end). Day, with it’s scaything criticism of governmental abuse of power and ethical issues surrounding military service, is perhaps the most socially relevant of all the Dead films. Not only is it attracting fresh attention because of regular screenings on TV, particularly the new grindhouse/horror-oriented El Rey cable network (more info here), but the film also laid the groundwork for modern zombie productions like The Walking Dead, and 28 Days Later. And moreover, his films have been remade and adapted, proving that they are still as relevant as ever to a modern day audience.
While his film Land of the Dead (2005) did offer unique criticism of the Bush administration, his follow-ups, Diary of the Dead (2007), and Survival of the Dead (2010) failed to gain widespread attention like his earlier works did but they still prove to be potent additions to the zombie film genre catalog. His most recent outings lack the potency as the earlier films. However, these movies were not totally without merit and, in fact, only upheld the idea that Romero is an incredibly important figure in the zombie genre who had an integral role shaping what it is today.
In more recent, unrelated works like The Walking Dead and 28 Days Later, the very ideas those films were founded upon are the same ideas that Romero laid out in his earlier works and upheld in his later films. Surely, if not for Romero’s works and contributions, the zombie genre that we know and love to today would seem infinitely less-thrilling, and considerably less relevant, than it is today.
Science fiction novels and films, historically speaking, provide writers and directors with imaginative vessels for social commentary. And even though they are always a reflection of the idiosyncrasies and anxieties which permeate society in the present, they do, on occasion, manage to predict something about the future with startling accuracy.
Previously, we’ve looked at the degree to which Orwellian projections of a dystopian future have come true, particularly fears about the misapplication of technology as a means of oppressing the general public. Another set of issues that science-fiction auteurs of the past have managed to predict relates to the proliferation of genetically modified, factory produced food.
Consider Richard Fleischman’s cult-classic film Soylent Green (1973), which was an adaptation of Harry Harrison’s novel Make Room! Make Room! (1966). The story takes place in New York City in the year 2022. The world is in shambles. Overpopulation, abject poverty, depleted natural resources, scarce food, and general demoralization and desperation, have all created for a world that is fraught with tension. Things are especially bad in NYC, where the population totals around 40 million. The general public has become entirely dependent upon the Soylent Corporation, who disperse food rations. Their latest advance is a product called Soylent Green, which is said to be made chiefly of plankton, and is also said to be more nutrient dense than any of the company’s earlier products. Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston) is a NYPD detective who is tasked with investigating the mysterious death of a man who, we learn, discovered the grim secret about Soylent Green. Soylent Green wasn’t made from Plankton…but from human remains.
Within the context of these speculative fiction narratives, it all sort of makes sense in a macabre way. Post-World War II science fiction commonly depicted future societies which struggled with both population surpluses and food shortages. Thanks to Soylent Green, accidental cannibalism has become something of a trope unto itself.
The recent film Cloud Atlas(2012) dealt with a similar theme. The film was directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowski’s (the latter of whom are clearly not strangers to making thrillers with subversive undertones, having made The Matrix series and V for Vendetta). The film skips around quite a bit, historically and geographically. The story begins with a violent voyage along the South Pacific during the 1800’s, and addresses mounting fears about nuclear proliferation in the seventies, and ends up showing a dystopian vision of the future wherein people are routinely “recycled” to make food.
The issues, in both real life and the classic science fiction tropes, have everything to do with the scarcity of resources. As natural resources are depleted, governments resort to ethically dubious practices at mass scale. What is somewhat comforting today is that companies who offer more ecologically friendly alternatives are gaining traction in the marketplace. In terms of nutrition and agribusiness, there have been several alternative farms sprouting up all over the country, and some smaller farmers have even become confident enough to take legal action against Monsanto. In terms of eco-friendly energy consumption, solar energy is becoming increasingly common in the United States, and in Canada you can even find alternative eco-friendly energy plans through various informational websites that can let consumers bypass the main fossil-fuel based providers altogether.
What’s especially chilling about these stories, though, is that they do offer interesting comments about the current crises surrounding agribusiness – particularly with all of the stories in recent years about the Monsanto corporation’s destructive tendencies. While there’s no disputing the fact that government farm subsidies and agriculture becoming subservient to major fast food corporations has created a lot of problems, some degree of responsibility falls on consumers. It is critical, now more than ever, that we consume conscientiously…lest we desire a future society wherein people subsist exclusively on human flesh.