Our long trek to Iowa City to meet with Mary Mascher, Jim, and others was well worth it. I thought that after three weeks of intensively learning about all sides of food production (for what felt like all hours of the day and many evenings), that we had finally heard it all. But the people Mary Mascher had invited over to engage in a discussion with us about Iowa provided a wide range of perspectives, this included [aspiring] scientists, farmers, activists, politicians, as well as us students. Not surprisingly, putting all these people in the same room to intentionally discuss such controversial issues got really interesting really quickly.

The idea of the drastically altered landscape of Iowa contributing to climate change was another big conversation starter. Jim probably offered the most radical perspective referring to modern day Iowa as one giant field of corn and soybeans, interspersed with “postage stamp relics of streams and prairies.” While Lance, the graduate student, chimed in to add that only somewhere between 1-5% of Iowa’s native prairie lands were left, while 60% of the landscape was corn and soy. Conversation also talked about climate change outside of Iowa and the phenomenon of cities creating “urban heat islands” and micro-climates that can be up to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding areas.

I was really surprised when the conversation went so far as to turn to population control as while this seems to be the looming question no one really seems to want to bring it up, and I would expect this least of all among politicians. This provided the counter-view to what we have heard from most conventional farmers and agricultural associations that they want to “feed the world.” Jim was very willing to ask these tough questions and open the conversation to whether we could afford to feed the world without using chemicals that may be destroying the land and risking human health. Someone also brought up the interesting point of how Borlaug, the Iowan who won the Nobel Prize for Peace and started the World Food Prize (mentioned in earlier blogs), who is publicly credited with saving “more human lives than anyone else in history”, was also known for emphasizing how all his work is pointless without population control. The fact that we went to the World Food Prize and spent a significant amount of time learning about Borlaug and never heard about his feelings on population control just goes to show how unpopular a topic it is.

I am familiar with the population control debate from my Ethics of Globalization class where the ethics of the present distribution of resources was often a topic of concern. Lance presented the argument I had learned in this course that population isn’t that much an issue in terms of numbers of people (as it is stabilizing), but rather in terms of consumption per capita. This basically refers to the phenomenon that nations such as China and India are rapidly consuming more meat and animal products and catching up with America. Based off what I learned in Ethics of Globalization it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for the resources on the earth to be able to support the entire world living the way Americans do. According to this perspective the discussion must then not be about population control but about population usage.

After much more discussion about pollution, chemicals, water quality and other environmental concerns we eventually ended on a more uplifting note. The idea that while government may not have all the answers (this was especially significant coming from politicians) we can each personally do something to promote change. Wendell Berry, (I am a fan!) was mentioned and his poem “think little”, as in don’t try and change the world but instead work on changing yourself and influencing your community. Jim gave the example of how he tries to live out this philosophy by going around and planting trees. But there are many other ways to make changes such as by consuming less or being selective about what you consume. This group was actually fairly supportive of veganism and saw increasing meat consumption as one of the contributors to our environmental crises and veganism as a legitimate way to respond and act individually. Overall it was very interesting to hear such a wide range of voices, who contrasted with many of those we had already heard from over the past few weeks. It seemed like a rare opportunity to be able to meet with such a wide range of people with the exclusive purpose of having an honest discussion about such controversial issues.