Fasting

[Dissident Heart]

Below is the statement produced by the US Climate Emergency Council as their call to a Fast on Sept. 4, 2007. Here is the CSpan video link for their meeting on Climate Change Legislation where national religious, student, and climate leaders rallied on Capitol Hill to explain that they and people around the nation were fasting that day to urge Congress to pass strong climate legislation during the fall session.Quote:Dear Friends, As global warming rapidly intensifies, the prospect of much more extensive hunger worldwide becomes increasingly likely, especially in poor countries, due to drought, Katrina-like storms, glacial melting and sea level rise. These impacts will lead to crop failures and economic and social disruption on a massive scale. To draw attention to this threat and its moral implications, at least 1195 concerned citizens voluntarily give up food for one day on September 4th, 2007. Other participants will fast even longer beginning on that date, some for weeks. Fasting is a simple yet profound way of combining the spiritual and the political. Mahatma Gandhi called it "the sincerest form of prayer." It communicates seriousness and urgency without violence, thereby focusing peoples' attention on the issues of the fast. The overwhelming urgency of the climate situation motivated this call. We don't think the climate movement can accept that there will be little of substance coming out of this Congress while President Bush is in office. We can't, in essence, let Congress off the hook for another two years. We must do as much as we can, we must push ourselves to do more than we're used to doing, to step it up now. What are we calling for? Three things: no new coal or coal-to-liquid plants; freeze greenhouse gas emissions and move quickly to reduce them; and a down payment of $25 billion for energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy. Our hope is that this fast can generate the kind of media coverage and grassroots response sufficient to pressure Congress to act quickly and decisively. For future generations, Bill McKibben, authorVan Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Mike Tidwell, Chesapeake Climate Action Network/U.S. Climate Emergency CouncilDr. Bob Edgar, National Council of the Churches of ChristMedea Benjamin, Code PinkVandana Shiva, physicist, ecologist, activist, and author, IndiaRev. Jim Wallis, SojournersBrent Blackwelder, Friends of the EarthEban Goodstein, Focus the NationBilly Parish, Energy Action Coalition Dave Robinson, Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement Rabbi Warren Stone, Environmental Chair, Central Conference of American Rabbis Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Hip Hop Caucus (Some of the many notable people who will be fasting on Sept. 4th. Organizations listed for identification purposes)What are some of the consequences of mixing politics, social activism, environmentalism and spirituality in this fashion? What are the moral implications of global warming? Why Fast at all? Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 9/6/07 1:09 am

[Chris OConnor]

I never understood or agreed with the practice of fasting. To me it is meaningless and irrational. Why not tap your left foot on the pavement while making bird calls?If you want to make a difference and help spread a particular meme there are more effective methods.

[Dissident Heart]

....chuckling at the vision of Chris tapping the asphalt while making bird calls....Chris: I never understood or agreed with the practice of fasting. To me it is meaningless and irrational.I think fasting can do a number of things, many of which are meaningful and very reasonable. In an economic system that requires constant consumption to levels that are physically detrimental and ecologically disasterous...fasting can be a powerful way to step out of the grip of these economic forces. Fasting confronts the habits of obesity and compulsive consumption: it slows you down and forces you to shut your mouth and disconnect from the feeding trough of our Fast Food Nation.In this sense it is a personal act of defiance: call it "dietary dissidence". It allows the body a chance to rest, cleanse, and purify itself of the harmful materials that pervade the culture of obesity and compulsive consumption. It is a way to say "No, I will not eat...no matter how much or how often you push your falsified images and manufactured smells at me...my dietary habits are not subject to your economic bottom line."Fasting, as exemplified in the original post above, can also be an act of social justice and civil disobedience. It can galvanize a group of people around a shared cause or issue and bring them to levels of intimacy, solidarity and mutual sacrifice that is hard to replicate....outside of war perhaps.Fasting can forcefully remind you of those who suffer daily in hunger and poverty: taking you from the theoretical to the visceral, thus engaging a level of understanding not possible through words, arguments, or images. This kind of experience can radically reorient your ideological stance regarding those who live on the margins of society and do not participate in the successes or wealth of the dominant economic system: demanding that, from now on, your decisions regarding the bottom line begin with those on the bottom, who are the hungriest. Hunger is no longer simply a notion or passing inconvenience: it's elimination becomes a defining factor for what the meaning of social justice and economic structures should be.

[irishrose]

Fasting is a simple yet profound way of combining the spiritual and the political.

In this case wouldn't it be combining the political and physical? Denying one's self food is a physical act, after all. Or am I mistaken? Not having ever recognized what the hell a spirit is, I might be speaking out of turn. Can you feed a spirit food? ...like cheerios or ice cream?

I agree with Dissident, though, Chris. I think hunger strikes, though probably irrational, can have profound meaning. The irrationality might come from the individual's debilitating impotence during such movements. (i.e. I can't control the powers-that-be, but I can control what I put into my body, and I will let that be a statement.) The hunger strikes were also, arguably, effective in both the suffrage movement and during The Troubles in Ireland. In fact, as of the beginning of this year there were new hunger-strikers at Guatanamo being force fed, as I recall. HBO did a movie relatively recently that featured the Alice Paul-led hunger strike and subsequent force feeding. The production was somewhat cheesy (no pun intended), but I thought some of the acting was outstanding. I think it was called Iron Jawed Angels (or something very close), and Hillary Swank plays Alice Paul.

[MadArchitect]

It's also been claimed that fasting can be applied as a method of decontaminating the body, training yourself to think independently of your belly, and sharpening your own sense of self-discipline -- not, I would think, inconsiderable benefits.

[indie]

In this case wouldn't it be combining the political and physical? Denying one's self food is a physical act, after all. Or am I mistaken? Not having ever recognized what the hell a spirit is, I might be speaking out of turn.

While the concept of spirit is something I've wrestled with, what it boils down to for me* is this: Spirit is a catchall term for the culmination of consciousness, sentience, emotional state, etc. I think there is little argument that fasting can produce an altered state, hence it can be a spiritual tool to that end.

Can you feed a spirit food? ...like cheerios or ice cream?

This brings to mind the terms "soul food" and "food of love". I'm not being flippant, food can profoundly affect us, our moods, thoughts and feelings. So in a way... yeah, I think we can feed our spirituality (however each of us may choose to define it - if we do) with our choices in food and cooking.

*I want to be very clear that this is just my own personal take on this, and it's one I've derived for myself. I also love to cook - and sometimes even eat.

[riverc0il]

First, I would like to state that this thread is making me hungry but I am fasting until tomorrow morning for pragmatic reasons such as weight gain.

What are we calling for? Three things: no new coal or coal-to-liquid plants; freeze greenhouse gas emissions and move quickly to reduce them; and a down payment of $25 billion for energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.

There seems to be a growing fringe environmentalists movement focused on calling for things that are if not impossible then at least incompatible with current market issues, human nature, and rational plausibility. While these three things are great things to strive towards, I think it is premature to call for such drastic measures initially. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, right? So lets be realistic and call for realistic measures.

Additionally, these actions have consequences and it is easier to call for drastic measures than address the consequences of those measures. No new coal or coal-to-liquid plants means one thing: more nuke plants. Period. Even if we pursue alternative sources (wind, hydro, solar, etc.) to their fullest capacity, we could not power the energy needs of the United States let alone the world at this point. So focus initially on reduced consumption instead of how the power is produced unless you are willing to accept the consequences: more nukes.

Freezing greenhouse gas emissions is a notable goal. But doing so with a complete and hard freeze would throw the nation and world into economic chaos. This can not be done overnight, so how about the reasonable goals besides a "freeze."

$25 billion for energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy? That is a really easy goal to throw out there when you do not have to figure out who is going to pay for it, especially when the United States is already so far in debt.

I am far from a critic of environmental and global warming issues. I was screaming from the mountains about these issues back when most people doubted global warming even existed, let alone that it is influenced by man. But the average American lay person will look at fasting for global warming as a fringe loony movement and far from taking it seriously will more likely make fun of it. I admit I am far from an idealist and more realistic, rational, and pragmatic in my politics (though not my beliefs) so while I support the effort, I think it misguided in this case.

[indie]

...No new coal or coal-to-liquid plants means one thing: more nuke plants. Period. Even if we pursue alternative sources (wind, hydro, solar, etc.) to their fullest capacity, we could not power the energy needs of the United States let alone the world at this point.....

This article caught my eye the other day, and your post here reminded me of it: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/991/

I couldn't disagree with the quote above more. A few large wind arrays at sea and interspersed with solar arrays on land and we would be in a much better position to abandon fossil fuels (of which coal is by far the dirtiest, least efficient we use).

Also, compared to coal plants I really don't think more nuclear plants is a bad option At All. Granted, the waste by-products are much more difficult (and expensive) to deal with, but their quantity is low and nuclear plants also do provide a number of industrially useful by-products (e.g. tritium).

At its basest level, energy production has never been about anything more than corporate greed. Sadly I don't see that changing in time for us to prevent a whole lot more human suffering than there is already. Not alarmism, perhaps cynicism.

[MadArchitect]

In response to rivercoil's points, I suppose one question that might be worth raising is, how gradual a shift can we make without incurring disastrous results? For example, if consumption above a certain level is likely to push us to the point of economic collapse at a given date anyway, then knowing as much would put us in a better position to determine more precisely how much shift we can afford to make at any given time. If you simply push for a "gradual" shift, the ambiguity of the term will no doubt allow vested interests to push for something in the range of "so gradual as to be imperceptual." If we grant those points, then the question becomes, how do we determine what's a reasonable rate of change, and who's going to do the paperwork to come up with a criteria for setting an appropriate pace?

[MadArchitect]

Oh, and cheers to indie for joining in on the discussion! Always good to have another voice -- from the looks of things, a novel one at that.