Freeganism is noble but unsustainable
Peter Torre
Issue date: 5/13/08 Section: Opinion
One can accuse freeganism of being many things, but inauthentic isn't one of them. Living your principles is the strongest means of legitimizing them. Some ideologies' principles are easier to exercise than others - for example, traditional Liberals need only participate in the market to endorse what they believe in, but anarchists must separate themselves from a majority culture in order to do so.
A core tenet of freeganism, for example, is the divorce of oneself from the strictures of capitalism, a "sustainable" means of opting out of the ebb and flow of the free market.
The central flaw in this ideological position is that claimed sustainability. Further, it is seemingly tailored for those who can enter and leave the market at their whims.
Firstly, capitalism or any other governmental system requiring a division of labor is necessary for freeganism to have any sort of viability. Capitalism, along with its many faults, often leads to an excess of production. Freegans in a very direct way benefit from that that excess. Without that source, their way of life is completely unsustainable - in the world that freegans want, the sources of excess would not exist, therefore depriving them of their free source of food. By its very nature it is nonproductive, since people are only picking up what has already been thrown away.
Secondly, freeganism is largely sponsored by people who can pay for their own food. In a previous Washington Square News article, a student reported his hope that he wouldn't need a meal plan next year because of the bounty found in dumpsters. Given the endemic presence of malnourished homeless in this city, would they not be the more deserving recipients of this food? Could the food found in dumpsters not alleviate the cost of living for a fellow NYU student (which, from a personal standpoint, is a worthy cause), but instead go to City Harvest, or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter? I recognize that many freegans indeed are socially active and donate their time to such efforts, but such philanthropy isn't explicit in freegan ideology.
I have nothing but respect for members of freeganism. Using public transportation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, walking to save gas or otherwise minimizing consumption is laudable. However, addressing the very real needs of the homeless - those who do not have the ability to freely structure their lives in order to combat capitalism - should take precedence. It is entirely possible to achieve both goals at once and fulfill both altruistic and ideological goals.
Peter Torre is a contributing writer. E-mail him at opinion@nyunews.com.
A core tenet of freeganism, for example, is the divorce of oneself from the strictures of capitalism, a "sustainable" means of opting out of the ebb and flow of the free market.
The central flaw in this ideological position is that claimed sustainability. Further, it is seemingly tailored for those who can enter and leave the market at their whims.
Firstly, capitalism or any other governmental system requiring a division of labor is necessary for freeganism to have any sort of viability. Capitalism, along with its many faults, often leads to an excess of production. Freegans in a very direct way benefit from that that excess. Without that source, their way of life is completely unsustainable - in the world that freegans want, the sources of excess would not exist, therefore depriving them of their free source of food. By its very nature it is nonproductive, since people are only picking up what has already been thrown away.
Secondly, freeganism is largely sponsored by people who can pay for their own food. In a previous Washington Square News article, a student reported his hope that he wouldn't need a meal plan next year because of the bounty found in dumpsters. Given the endemic presence of malnourished homeless in this city, would they not be the more deserving recipients of this food? Could the food found in dumpsters not alleviate the cost of living for a fellow NYU student (which, from a personal standpoint, is a worthy cause), but instead go to City Harvest, or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter? I recognize that many freegans indeed are socially active and donate their time to such efforts, but such philanthropy isn't explicit in freegan ideology.
I have nothing but respect for members of freeganism. Using public transportation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, walking to save gas or otherwise minimizing consumption is laudable. However, addressing the very real needs of the homeless - those who do not have the ability to freely structure their lives in order to combat capitalism - should take precedence. It is entirely possible to achieve both goals at once and fulfill both altruistic and ideological goals.
Peter Torre is a contributing writer. E-mail him at opinion@nyunews.com.
Be the first to comment on this story