Letters to the Editor

11/5/09 6:00pm

Sustainability inspires discussion

To the Editor:In the Oct. 23 issue of the Thresher, I was delighted to read undergraduate Roni Deitz's column about Duncan College and the environmental mindset of students ("Campus sustainability calls for individual effort, collective awareness," Oct. 23), not necessarily due to her particular viewpoint, but rather because the building itself had provoked the discussion. In planning for Duncan College we wondered how to design, construct and operate a building that responds to the natural resource challenges of the 21st century while also serving as an instructive space that fosters an ethic of sustainability. Indeed, we are already seeing that Duncan College is triggering conversations about our role in the world that no other building on our campus has ever done before, as is evident by Ms. Deitz's column.

This dialogue is quite beneficial - it forces us out of the comfortable realm of theoretical discussions of sustainability into a messier reality. For example, a student might be concerned about the impact of the mining and burning of coal to create electricity and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps that student has even signed a petition or participated in a demonstration to block the construction of coal-fired power plants. With Duncan College, the conversation changes from the generic question of "Do you support using coal as a primary energy source?" to "Are you willing to have an air conditioning unit that turns off when you open a door or a window in order to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, including coal?" The design itself deepens the dialogue.

---

---

As we continue with our program of green building at Rice, these new facilities will inspire, instruct, provoke and challenge us. They will represent, in the words of Professor David Orr of Oberlin College, "crystallized pedagogy," where the buildings themselves are part of the educational experience and intellectual discourse of the university. Whether you agree with Ms. Deitz's conclusions or not, you should stop for a moment to consider when the last time was that a building drew you into a discussion about your place in the natural world.

Richard R. Johnson

Director of SustainabilityWill Rice '92

Online Comment of the Week

In response to "Paleolithic diet adopts primal, evolutionary health approach," Oct. 30:

Your column contains many statements that seem intended to convey some sense of being put on by "fitness experts." But many of us enjoy broccoli, beets, cabbage and the whole other range of nutritious vegetables and fruits. Are you stating that exercising and eating healthy, natural foods is unhealthy? You don't explicitly say so, but you seem to be implying it till the cows come home. Yet you preface a statement by saying, "For those of us not in the best health." This seems to imply that "bacon, donuts, chocolate and butter" might not be doing the trick for you (foods that, by the way, I do NOT enjoy).

Let's cut to the chase. Eighty percent of chronic diseases in this country are the result of lifestyle choices not consistent with good health: smoking, not exercising, drinking too much alcohol, not eating enough vegetables or fruit and being fat. You can like that or not. You can say that those are "unreachable goals," even though others DO reach them. You can "feel guilty" about your lifestyle, and blame that on "experts" who are "making" you feel guilty. But some would state that ACTION, not guilt, is the "logical response."

The Atkins diet contains unlimited saturated fats, which study after study has linked to chronic disease. It limits processed carbohydrates, which is a good thing, but throws the baby out with the bathwater by limiting healthy carbohydrates as well, such as whole grains and most fruit and vegetables like corn and peas. But I guess this is the perfect diet for the sedentary American lifestyle, because carbs are needed for energy and healthy activities such as exercise. Hardly a step in the right direction, and there is not a single long-term study linking the Atkins diet with reductions in chronic diseases, aka "becoming healthier."

And I have no idea where you got the idea that our ancestors were nearly completely carnivorous. Game was very hard to come by, which means our ancestors mostly ate plants, aka vegetables and fruits. They also traveled around 10 miles per day, doing the whole hunting and gathering thing, running for their lives, etc. Suddenly, a short jog doesn't sound so demanding, does it?

Oh, and it's not about denying your cravings at all; it's about satisfying them. You crave food because your body is starving for the nutrients it needs. It hopes that if it keeps you hungry, maybe you'll finally eat something other than a Twinkie. Cravings seem to magically disappear when one starts eating a nutrient-dense diet.

I hate to sound mean, but this column sounds a lot like a college student trying to rationalize poor choices and place blame on others. If you want to eat donuts and sit on your butt that's fine, but why not take ownership of it, and quit trying to make it into a silk purse? I'll say it one last time: 80 percent of chronic diseases are related to that lifestyle. For one, I find that to be great, empowering news, because it means my destiny is, in large part, in my hands. And yours is in yours. What you do with it is all you.

Oh, and Jack LaLanne is 95, in outstanding health, still works out two hours a day and looks great.

Joe Ossenmacher-Bedford

---