How to decrease your plastic bag use

October 6th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

plastic-bags

Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags yearly.

Made out of low density polyethylene, they are among the products that are most commonly used by consumers due to their light weight, availability, low cost and huge variety of types.

However, apart from these advantages for use, plastic bags are utterly dangerous for the environment. Their production process consume large amounts of non-renewable petrolium. They are not biodegradable, ie. they can not be  degrade by biological activity, such as enzymatic action, altering the chemical structure of the material.

Morover, only 1-2 percent of plastic bags in USA are recycled, the rest end up in landfills polluting the soil and water, where needless to say they pose a serious danger for wild animals and birds.

Do you need all those plastic?

Most people think that plastic bags are an indispensible part in our daily lives. We grab them everywhere, in malls, grocery, bookstores… For the last one year, I started resisting plastic bag offers in all such occasions and drastically reduced my use.

I carried everywhere a large, yet light weight and foldable cotton bag in my briefcase. At home I emptied it and put it back. Solely carrying around a cotton bag accounted for at least 10 plastics bags a week which adds much up to over 500 a year. It is no minor number…

If nothing you can simply ask for paper. Most of the bigger stores have them. In smaller ones, like most grossery shops in Turkey, you can alternatively envelope what you buy -such as bread and other small stuff- in old newspapers.

The two biggest challenges were garbage and cat litter. As I decrease the amount of plastic bags I carry home, I realized how much I needed them for garbage and litter. Enfolding them in newspaper wouldn’t work, as you might guess (even though some even recommended that to me).

Luckily we have some compostable options to buy, such as BioBag Biodegradable Recyclable Bags. As you pay for what can be for free, you automatically reconsider if you should take garbage away now, or can that wait until tomorrow when it is really full. An easy way to go green even further, huh?

GE Nightmares

August 21st, 2009 by Özge Uraz
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=39582198

This is a 46 minute video on genetically modified plants and trees in the foreseenable future.

A significant number of such GE trees are known to have been developed to resist insects, such as two poplar species that were commercialised in China. Alerting effects are also detected on the soil. GE trees can affect the bacteria, earthworms and soil respiration. The leaves of GE trees planted along a water sourse can enter the waterways and we still do not have enough data to foresee its consequences for the aquatic life.

Therefore, Genetic technology should therefore be restricted to indoors, with containment, and should not be mixed with wild life.

“peepoop” Sanitation for the Third World?

August 12th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

Over 65% of Third World citizens do not have access to safe sanitation systems… Water-borne sanitation it too expensive to install in low cost urban housing areas… Moreover, dense population together with corrupt governments lead to local bullies taking hold of such rare facilities… And every 15 seconds a child dies due to contaminated water.

So peepoople -working in close cooperation with SEC Soweto East in Kibera, Nairobi, Communication consultant LOWE Brindfors, Technical development consultant SemconCaran, Chemical company BASF, Bioplastic producer Tenova- came up with an idea called “peepoo bag” which is basically a plastic bag, “that sanitise the human excreta shortly after the defecation, preventing the faeces from contaminating the immediate as well as the larger environment”.

They seem to have many practical advantages. By means of the chemicals inside waste born pathogens are killed over a period of a couple hours to a few weeks. It is partly biodegradable ( made of 45% renewable materials at the moment). When degrade in the soil, the ammonia byproduct acts as a  fertiliser. Moreover, it is way economical than establishing the infrastructure for wastemanagement and sanitary systems.

However, there is something that makes me feel uneasy about this product. And it is not just the culturally unacceptable idea of defecating in a 34 cm plastic bag.

This thing is simply not sustainable.

How much is it going to cost? let’s say 1 cent. How much will take make up for one person’s annual need? Who is going to provide them their peepoos and for how long? Isn’t that going to make them more dependent on the providers?

There are some dry toilet solutions (like http://www.oursoil.org/firstdrytoiletinmilot.php). I don’t think that constructing dry sanitary infrastructure, say self composting latrines and checking its maintenance yearly would cost more than continously spending on plastic bags.

Furthermore, it doesn’t sound reasonable to me that the plastic would be 100% biodegradable in thenear future. Even if it does, how long will it take to degrade in soil?

Peepoo bag is an interesting idea, I must admit. But it is more likely for it to be used by the developed world in camps.

Against the Bottled Water

August 9th, 2009 by Özge Uraz
YouTube Preview Image

Stephanie Soechtig’s feature is a look into the bottled water industry which privatized one of the major sources of the world in expense of damaging the environment drastically. (http://www.tappedthemovie.com/)

Waste management is still a large problem with considerably low recycling rates. Only 20 percent of plastic water bottles used in the United States are recycled and the larger quantity discarded by consumers has exacerbated this problem. To pronounce in numbers, annually around 1.5 million tons of plastic are expended in the bottling… not to forget the energy consumed in manufacture and transportation.

“People need to think about all the unnecessary energy costs that go into making a bottle of water,” said Peter Gleick, an expert on water policy and director of the Pacific Institute in Oakland. “It would be like filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil,” he added.

In Turkey, I believe the rates are even worse, since we can’t drink from tap and bottled water is way cheaper than many other places. Yet, it would only take 5 minutes to wash a bottle and refill each day or use a flask, instead of spilling a quarter bottle of oil on the ground.

Animals are NOT created for your disposal!

August 2nd, 2009 by Özge Uraz

The time will come when men will look  on the murder of animals
as they now look on the murder of men.

~Leonardo da Vinci

I’ve been surfing on net for the blogs and forums on vegetarianism. I was very disappointed to see that many people consider animals to be actually created for our consumption… When John Locke theoretized natural rights entitled to men, he meant white, European, male persons with property. Avarage life expectancy of a slave was five years, and women were -as now the animals are- treated as mere commodities. The idea that women, the elderly, the disabled and the people of color also have right to life was a revolution and a major shift in conceptualization of the universe.

Animals also have rights to life, quality life in their natural settings. However, the imagination of the man and his environment is so rigid and asserts itself so many areas of life that we can not understand that animals are not made of meat, but we turn them into Adana Kebabs. We ignore the fact that serious harm is inflicted on innocent creatures for motives such as appatite, taste or convenience. Although the facts reveal that vegetarians tend to live much longer than meat eaters, we hide behind the ambush of pseudo science. We stop driving cars in order to reduce GHG emissions, but eat beef at lunch the processing of which cause more emission. Every child cries when “their” lamb is sacrificed, but we teach them to enjoy its roast. Contradictions can be numbered… all in all we are shaped by intrinsicly “masculin” motives to capture, harm, dominate, kill and possess.

The situation seems so helpless and so circular that I am hungry for radical solutions. The conceptual revolution that elevates the previously excluded classes relatively closer to Western male persona, promises some chance; however, the victims of slaughter cannot voice their rights, except for their sad and fearful  eyes in meat factories, or infront of a butcher in Kurban Bayramı.

However valuable that feeling of pity is, we have to pity more actively. We have to shift the terms of argument. The natural rights discourse is a child of Enlightenment male ideology. Employing the same argumental tools, we are trapped in the rationality problem. The problem is all-encompassing (from art, to international relations, diet to household politics) and is borne out of the liberal-capitalist system. It is the fundational ideology of this very system that dichotomizes man and animal, that we have to avoid.

Sexual Politics of Meat

July 24th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

In 18th century philosophy the idea of the “sublime” emerged out of the investigation of the objective qualities of the beautiful and bifurcated out of it. It is a quality utmost of nature experienced as great or vast, terrifying beyond all possibility of calculation, measurement or immitation. Kant distinguishes between the beautiful and the sublime, the former is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, while the latter refers to boundlessness and power to destroy. He also attributed gender characteristics to those two concepts, relating sublime to mascularity and the beautiful to femininity, attributing superiority to the sublime. His ideas on art was a both part of and strenghtened the dominant discourse of this era. Discourses of the imperialism shaped visualization of Europe as the rational and powerful the masculine figure while the East was depicted picturesque as velied or unbribed sexuality of a woman who is minor, not capable of managing itself, irrational, and weak.

These more familiar examples -of using body politics of a deep lying paradigm of male dominance over women- makes it more clear how woman body, nature and East are juxtaposed on each other. Nature (as a homogenized category composed of animals, rocks and plants alike) have traditionally been visualized as female: the mother earth. As early as Aristotle’s in “Nicomachean Ethics” women were likened animals and both were excluded from moral life. The Enlightenment thought consolidates a more rigid dichotomy by imposing a mathematical model on reality and turning nature in to something that can be looked upon and understood, “not true sympathy, of course, but by virtue of the very object-ivity of it.”[1] Horkheimer and Adorno argue that this reflects a psychology of domination, rooted in material conditions. Human consciousness was seen distinct from that of other species as linear and dichotomized. Dealing with irrational creatures was seen as a weakness and was left to women who were themselves irrational and emotional.

Carol Adams in her book “The Sexual Politics of Meat”  reveals the parallels between the treatments toward woment and animals. She likens the ways a moral agent is turned into meat and how women is reduced to sexual objects.[2] Early feminits of 19th century claimed what was directed at them as an insult. They held that enemy of the world was the rational materialism and heartless science. Opposing the atomistic individual ideal of liberalism, feminists of later periods tried to envisage an organic concept of life and collectivity of man and nature. According to ecofeminist vegetarians pain and suffering must be prevented irrespective of race, sex, or species. Emprically women have predominance in animal rights activisim. This is explained by the arguement that women’s experiences with structural oppression and domination draws them closer to environmental egalitarianism. Due to the way women are socialized they ophine more relationally, can feel emphaty with animals.

Adams assert that when an animal is killed for consumption it is made invisible. People don’t think of eating a dead animal which is victimized through instrumentalizing in a means-ends reasoning. I concur to her claim that consuming the animal flesh is analogous to broken women body which is fragile to beating, raping, prostitution and pornography. In both cases there is the gist of aggressive masculin attitude. Also in “The Pornography of Meat” she indicates that popular culture creates a humiliating and antagonistic feeling againts women and animals and that other species gradually comes to convey a female identity that can be raped. Meat eating does convey ideas related to maculinity, which can be accepted or denied by the male of society, yet symbolically, manhood is constructed  through eating meat and dominating other bodies.[3] A striking example of the hegemony of this discourse is again from a primary school textbook that I remember very clearly: “Those nations who does not eat meat are prone to be dominated by those who do!” As the nature is female, the state is male. State mold and manipulate nature, or other states which are as much female. Meat eating has largely been identified with power. And it is intensely political!


[1] Susan Bordo, The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought, Signs:Journal of Woman in Culture and Society, Vol 11 no3 (Spring 1986) 451

[2] Carol Adams, “The Sexual Politics of Meat:A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory”, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.

[3] Carol Adams, The Pornography of Meat, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004

On “What if your lover loves Meat?“

July 13th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

Yesterday a vegetarian called Sudesh Kumar wrote a post called “What if your lover loves Meat?“. Kumar elaborated on the case of the relationship of one vegetarian and one carnivor.

It goes as:

“…forcing someone to join the vegetarian community out of guilt is a terrible reason to make that change of life. Your sweetheart will just resent giving up a food he or she loves and will probably cheat and eat meat when not around you. That kind of tension, resentment and deception is no grounds for a long term love affair.

A better way is to come to terms with your differences, find ways to live with them and then see if down the road, your sweetheart might convert of his / her own free will. The first step, as is true of any conflict in an intimate relationship, is to talk about your differences openly. Sit down and talk about where each of you is on this issue. Agree to disagree. But also agree to find compromises and not to hold the other in contempt or to mock the other for the life choices he or she has made. By reaching a loving agreement, each of you can allow the other to be who he or she is and the romance can continue as the dietary dispute is resolved peacefully.”

My boyfriend is also a non-vegetarian and we live together for 4 years. Most people think that it would be hard meet in the middle way. However, it is not. As long as people respect each other’s choices and do not take the criticisms personally… as long as they aren’t offensive in his/her criticims it is not very much different from differences in religious or political affliation.

I think it was George’s “Should Feminists be Vegetarians” (correct me if I am wrong) which argued on the contrary. She says that being a vegetarian gives an extra load to the woman (ie. cooking something for you and something else for your partner) therefore can not be adhered by feminist women. I find it rather trivial, we always share the housework. Yes, I am a better cook and I find it natural for me to do the cooking. Yet, if his prefered dish is unpleasing for me to cook, he wouldn’t push me to do so. He cooks it himself and the problem is solved… :)

But, yes. I will go on trying to persuade him!

Socio-Politics of Meat Industry

July 6th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

Man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful

~ E.F.Schumacher

By 20th century meat got to be considered one of the four main nutrient and began to be consumed in larger portions and more frequently in developed countries. Moreover, and more drastically, due the spread of factory farming animals are reduced to mere commodity. Animals in this practice are raised in confinement at high stocking density in barren and unnatural conditions. It was encouraged as a policy in the USA to ensure national food security and high quality diet.[1] Officers of Smithfield Foods argue that the conditions that they keep animals are more humane than open field because the healthier and happier the animal is, the better it grows, better is its flesh.[2] These statements reveal the way executives of farming factories commodify animals; however, conceals the mistreatmet that is prone to ethical questions.

For instance, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is thought to be a method of last resort, otherwise there would be vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism among the chiken.[3] Similarly porks are observed to bite each others tails and attack the cages. In order to prevent this their tails and eight teeth were cut without anesthesia. Neither porks not chiken are cannibals. Vadana Shiva encourages the farming industry to ask why they behaved in such an abnormal way. She asserts that those animals were not born to live in cages.[4] Neither to be killed en masse. No type of slaughter can be justified, but this is the most brutal, most unacceptable way. And it has nothing to do with our so called natural tendency to eat meat, it is an outcome of very material production patterns.

Emergence and spread of factory farming brings about new jobs for the maginalized people of the capitalist world. In the contemporary meat industy the working conditions are poor and workers are mistreated, however, the present system always leaves someone to do the “dirty job”. Workers suffer from psychological damages. Many vegetarians argue that this industry violates their human rights with difficult and distressing tasks without adequate counselling, training and debriefing.[5] Forced killers of the capitalism is ignored by meat-eaters. They don’t want to be reminded of the inhumane process. They thrive to escape from ethical reponsibility towards people and animals.

In contemporary world, idea of eating animal flesh as a symbol of prosperity, modernism and industrialization also dominates global developmentalist logic. Timothy Mitcell critiques the hegemonic role of developmentalist expertise of IMF programs imposed on Egypt. He points a twofold relationship between the analysis and its actual object: The country is evaluated in terms of the limits of nature and this naturalness attributes the analytical object an externality to be examined by the experts. They claim that the country has deficient resources for nutrition based on the evidence that Eygpt is an importer of grains and foodstuff. However, Mitchell shows that engaging to the world capitalist system and the gist of developmentalist discourses increased meat production and consumption; And the imported grain was actually for feeding the animals. “(…) Meat eating is a Western norm that ‘develeopment’ has imposed upon non-Western nations reflecting again a characteristically Western cultural imperialism.”[6] On the one hand, Egypt has become dependent on world market for a product it could produce before opening lands to rear farm animals, on the other hand, taste and consumer preferences is reshaped in such a way that violates the right to life of many beings.

Although meat eating is a real strain on reasources and especially for the non Western world, it is often related to public health and diseases in developing countries are explained by consumption of low amount of animal protein. In nutritional terms vegetarian diets are rich in carbohydrates, omega 6, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium and magnesium. They are generally low in saturated fat and cholesterol. Supplementing this diet with B12 would have much less costs, needless to say. However, the dominant tone of scientific expertise goes hand in hand with the media to disseminate studies concluding otherwise, most of which was challenged and proved to be wrong later.

Many vegetarians, contrarily, practice this diet concerning public health and curbing world starvation. It is a conscious simple living strategy in a world meat industry is heavily suspensated. WorldWatch Institute reports that “Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease their health care burden(…); declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. (…), lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world’s chronically hungry.”[7]

In his book “Small is Beautiful”, published in 1973, E.F.Schumacher argues that the current form of economy and production is not sustainable. He proposes a more modest technology and sustain livelihoods with the least we can, because relatively minor improvements like technology transfer to the developing countries will not solve the underlying problem of unsustainable economy. It was later called the “Buddhist Economics”. He accuses the contemporary economic paradigm for failing to consider the most appropriate scale of activity, disseminating the artificial need for luxury and mass production. The aim, according to him, should be the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of consumption.[8] He justly asserted that small and modest is good, but world capitalist economy needed big and numerous. That’s why animals were killed en masse as commodities, dishes were served in gigantic portions and many animals were denied their right to life to be wasted as left overs.

In fact, domination of men over animals, capitalists over workers, and West over East are the epiphenomena of the rational materialism paradigm of Enlightenment. The image of world revolving around the white male atomic individual as the master of women, children, animals and people of color dominated the way very subjects of this domination was constructed. As Donowan argues “domination of nature, rooted in post-Medieval Western males psychology is the underlying cause of the mistreatment of animals as well as the exploitation of women and the environment.”[9]


[1] Jacky Turner, Factory Farming and The Environment, http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/archives/scnnews21/ch04.htm

[2] Mark Kaufmann, Largest Pork Processor to Phase Out Crates, The Washington Post, January 26, 2007.

[3] Livestock Knowledge Transfer, a DEFRA initiative, operated by ADAS/IGER/University of Bristol

[4] Vandana Shiva, Yamyamlık Olarak Terörizm, Birikim Dergisi, Sayı. 195 (Temmuz 2005), 56-59

[5] Factory Farming — Making People Sick,The Humane Farming Association, http://www.hfa.org/factory/

[6] Josephine Donovan, Comment on Georger’s “Should Feminists be Vegetarians?”Signs Vol21, No1( Autumn 1995),227

[7]Worldwatch Institute, News July 2, 1998, United States Leads World Meat Stampede https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02

[8]E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered, Hartley & Marks Publishers, 1973

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> Josephine Donovan, Animal Rights and Feminist Theory, Signs Vol:15, No:7 (Winter 1990), 350-375

seagulls that can’t fly in Istanbul?

July 4th, 2009 by Özge Uraz

I am seeing dead / sick seagulls all the time? Is there a desease or is it related to climate change?

Animals As Moral Agents

July 1st, 2009 by Özge Uraz

I did not become a vegetarian for my health,

I did it for the health of the chickens.

~ Isaac Bashevis Singer

Max Weber contends that people need to justify their deeds as good or right. A child at the age of five comprehends that what is presented with chips and ketchup is actually the lamb he draws as happily out in green pastures. During their socialization into meat-eaters people develop ways to defend their diet against vegetarians. One of the main arguments is that an animal is a lower form of being for lacking cognitive faculties humans have, and it is merely instrumental in serving people’s needs. I remember a sentence in a primary school text book telling that animals are our precious friends because we benefit from their flesh, milk and power.

Likewise, according to Immanual Kant, animals cannot be included in the moral community, because they lack the prerequisite: reason. Peter Singer and Tom Regan, two prominant figures of traditional ethical theories on animals disagree. Singer asserts that inclusion to the moral community does not depend on “whether a being can reason, but whether it can suffer”.[1] On the other hand, Regan challenges Kant’s arguement in that many people, like infants, very old people, people with serious mental disorders etc., also lack the rational capacity required to be eligible to the moral society; thus if reason is the criterion they would be excluded from rights enjoyed by the majority of the people. Animals in his opinion have not instrumental but “inherent value”.[2] They both agree in the value animals have, their perspectives diverge, though.

Singer has a utilitarian perspective. He concludes that “applying the principle of utility to our present situation, esp. the methods now used to rear animals for food and the variety of food available to us, leads to the conclusion that we ought to be vegetarians”[3]. The animal, as a moral entity, has feelings. It is motivated to experience pleasure. It enjoys the life and fears death. When we capture or kill the animal,we deprive it off the further experience of the pleasure of life. Singer argues that unless alternative means for survival exists we should not eat animal flesh for taste or convinience. Most vegetarians agree that meat consumption is not a must regarding the the availability of vegetables and crops.[4]

Regan, on the other hand, embracing a rights perspective, asserts that animals have welfare interests. They, especially adult mamals are moral entities and convey the same fundamental rights with humans, ie. right to life, security and freedom from harm, (the natural rights theoretized for while male human by John Locke) . He argues that animal meat is not one among the essential amino acids that human health requires.[5] Therefore, our right to food cannot overcome their right to life. Moreover, since they cannot have a guilty intent in their conducts, it is not just to kill or harm them as punishment.

Most people would counter this arguments defending that if there is no hierarchy between human beings and other species, it is natural to slaughter and eat animals for personal well-being, as any other carnivor would do. Only if our nature is superior to the rest of the animals we can be ethical, and only then we can approach animals with empathy. We can, then choose to protect animals, as their masters.[6] This arguments suffers from a strawman fallacy. First of all, Singer already agrees that humans can eat animals (or other humans) in extreme conditions of hunger. So do animals: they kill and eat each other due to nutritional needs distinct from humans due to biological factors.[7] Secondly, neither Singer, nor Regan argue that all species are equal in moral or cognitive terms. What they want to clarify is that they are not the “ultimate other” of the Carthesian dichotomy; it is a matter of degree. Because humans have more consciousness of their deeds, they should have higher ethical standards to avoid harming other creatures. Regan’s emphasis on the lack of guilty intent in animal behavior must be reminded. Peoples kill while they don’t need to kill, and they learn ignore the guilty feeling that they ought to feel.


[1] Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Pimlico: Random House, 1990: 7-8

[2] Tom Regan, Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press 2004: 243-237

[3] Peter Singer, Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 325

[4] Peter Cox. Bloomsbury, You Don’t Need Meat , 1992

[5] Tom Regan, Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press 2004, 337

[7] Carnivores’s intestines are four times shorter (in proportion to thier bodies) that those of people; this avoids bacterail growth on the rotten meat before excretion, but it is too short for digesting plants.