The Yard: Volume 13 Issue 4

THE YARD

Letter from the Editor

Dear readers of The Yard,

thankful to you for your constant support and kind words. More importantly, I am incredibly proud to I am writing this in disbelief that we have reached the know you. final issue of The Yard Volume 13. I have an overwhelming number of people to thank for making this These words can not possibly serve as enough year possible. thanks to these people I have known and loved over the last year, but I offer them as a show of how First, I want to thank my fellow Cistern Yard staff. grateful I am for their friendship.

To Madison, congratulations on winning the first Ms. Congeniality award of Cistern Yard News. There I want to thank my partner, Eva Neufeld, for being is not a single soul better fit for the title. Your presmy ultimate supporter, creative partner, sounding ence has become a hallmark of Cistern Yard and has board, best friend, and co-author of crosswords. helped shape this club and magazine into what it is Your support has given me confidence and the abiltoday. Thank you for being my managing editor this ity to speak my mind. You are The Yard’s biggest year and, more importantly, my best friend. I could fan, and I am yours. not have dreamed of being in this role without your support. To Alix, our very own creative genius! Your Thank you to Melissa Barrett and Kate Culpepper. mind is the backbone of this publication. Thanks to The Yard would never have reached the page withyour continual push for bettering this magazine, the out your kindness and guidance.

Yard has grown into a space for this campus’s imaginative, creative, and dreamlike creations. I am so grateful to have gotten to work beside you for these The Yard has shaped my college experience. My two years. To Camilla, The Yard was lucky to be time in Stern 207 has catapulted me into my blessed by your art this year. Your photography and future endeavors, and without this publication, I design skills have carried this magazine into a new would not have the skills to articulate my thoughts, state of being. Thank you for putting your talents desires, needs, wants, or observations. The Yard has into this publication over the last year. I am and will given me space to mess up and succeed. It has given forever be constantly impressed by you. To Devin, me pages to write about frustration and obsessions. your voice is an unparalleled facet of The Yard.

I am the writer and the person I am today because Gardening with Devin still holds a place in my heart, of this magazine. So, thank you to this campus for and The Yard has not been the same since. Your writ- giving us a space to exist and the opportunity to ing and perspective have given way to some of The reflect the students onto the page. The Yard is for Yard’s best content. Thank you for constantly being the students by the students, and I hope this only a light in the newsroom and always bringing the best continues to grow. ideas to life. To Anna, your creativity and bravery in speaking your mind can be seen in every issue. There With love, is no one I would have rather worked alongside this year. These four issues are genuinely something to Lara O’Dell be proud of, and they would not have been the same without your humor and undeniable talent; thank you. To Blakesley, thank you for your passion. Being able to get to know you as a person, a writer, and a friend this year has been so incredible. I know leaving The Yard to you will ensure not only its success but also its inevitable growth in your hands. I am so

MEET THE STAFFF

Anna Rowe - Opin ions

Lara O Editor dell in Chi ef

Editor

Alix A veritt - Crea tive

Direct or

7

9

der n a l l o Deh n i v e itor D d E s w e City N

ina u q r a rillo-M aphy r a C a r Camil of Photog Head

om o C on s i d a or t M i d E ing g a n a M

tt e h R y le Blakes s Editor e Featur

11

From Tide

To Table The Conservation Efforts of the Charleston Seafood Inustry

By Julia Bianchini

Every year, over seven million people flock to Charleston to experience this award-winning city. They come to see the historical charm, shop at the local stores, and eat at the numerous restaurants throughout the city. With this volume of visitors, restaurants are often booked for entire dinner services and have extensive standby lists of customers just waiting for a spot. In order to keep up with such a large volume, these restaurants have to bring in large quantities of food and goods, and due to the geographical location of Charleston, seafood is one of the most difficult of these products to keep in stock. Charleston’s proximity to water makes seafood restaurants among the most popular types of restaurants around the city, which leads to a very high demand for the product.

While overconsumption of any type of food is harmful for the environment, the overuse of seafood can have detrimental effects on the local marine ecosystem. As the demand for seafood increases, the amount each fishery needs to catch also increases, meaning that these companies turn to indiscriminate fishing and other harmful practices. This method of fishing usually involves bottom trawling, which entails taking a large net or trap and dragging it along the seabed. Companies may also turn to poison or explosives to kill large numbers of seafood which can then be collected. These practices are some of the solutions used in the seafood industry to keep up with the demand for products because it allows restaurants to pay fisheries less for a larger quantity of seafood.

Large-scale international fishing companies are able to keep up with the specific demands of restaurant owner’s desires for popular species of seafood, but these practices also have lasting effects. Overfishing of an area can impact the natural systems of that location, leading to population disruption for marine life. When specific species are caught at a rate faster than they can reproduce, that species will die out in that specific area or even become extinct altogether. Due to the overfishing in local marine areas, the Charleston government has had to protect ethical fishing by putting fishing limits in place for certain vulnerable species, including the regulation on flounder being enacted in June of 2021. This rule limited fishermen to ten flounder a day and they had to be a minimum of 16 inches. Putting stricter regulations on the flounder was necessary after studies were conducted by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and it was found that the abundance and average size of southern flounder was steadily decreasing.

Unfortunately this gives larger-scale operations the chance to fish using unsustainable practices, which then allows the sale of imported fish at much lower costs. The presence of these more cost effective retailers lowers the likelihood of companies sourcing their seafood locally.

In Charleston this means that some fisheries may be catching and shipping fish overseas and the local restaurants may be purchasing from companies outside of the Charleston area, creating an unnecessary and unsustainable cycle. The South Carolina Aquarium explains on their website how even though Charleston has such a close proximity to water,“the low cost of imported seafood, driven by lack of regulations, has caused southeastern fisheries to greatly decline. This results in most of the seafood caught off [the Charleston] coast to be exported and much of the seafood in restaurants to be imported.”

Luckily, many organizations throughout the Charleston area and beyond, including the South Carolina Aquarium, have created new legislation to prevent these practices. Catch size and limits have been put into place, as well as protected areas have been established where fishing is prohibited to preserve the health of the ecosystem in that area. The waters where Southeastern Regional fisheries operate are more heavily regulated and protected than the majority of fishing regions around the world.

One of the people helping to create these methods of preservation in Charleston is Kerry Marhefka, the co-owner of Abundant Seafood in Mt. Pleasant. She provided her background in marine biology and her previous experience as a fishery biologist for the Federal Government to Mark Marhefka’s fishing company, which led them to create the company centered around sustainability. She has collaborated with her husband and business partner to establish Marine Protected Areas in the Charleston and surrounding waters. Throughout their business’s operation, they have collaborated with local scientists and sustainability advisory boards, including the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to continue the movement of sustainable seafood in the Lowcountry.

Marhefka talks about how among the problems occurring because of population depletion and overfishing, there are other factors which make it difficult to fight the impact on the marine environment. “The biggest issues are things outside of [the fish themselves], like private chain issues, fish moving, and then of course

land-based issues with the lack of space for [fisheries] to operate,” explained Marhefka. “Then there’s not many of us; there’s not many commercial fishermen left in the Charleston area.” She continues to explain how even though her and her husband have made lasting change throughout their business’ operation, they are no longer focusing on a future for themselves. “We’re older and I don’t know how many years we have actually fishing, but we’re thinking about the future for everyone else” she mentioned.

The positive impact of these new movements of sustainability show that the efforts of companies like Abundant Seafood have paid off, but it is not enough for only the fisheries to be involved in this issue. Marhefka talked about how important it is for everyone to be involved in helping to maintain the sustainability of the area, including the restaurants, local companies, and visitors.

“The South Carolina Aquarium has a program called the Good Catch Program… and they’re trying really hard to be a part of that education component,” explained Marhefka. The program at the aquarium was created to continue the education component of sustainable fishing by providing information on what each person can be doing to interact with seafood sustainably. According to the South Carolina Aquarium, they support local seafood “by encouraging communities to support local, sustainable seafood practices and the consumption of responsibly harvested seafood.” The Good Catch partners are restaurants, retailers, fisheries, and other companies involved in seafood who have pledged to remain transparent about the practices used in their companies, which are listed on the aquarium website for locals and visitors to see. This transparency along with the other helpful information on the website helps people to feel confident that they are supporting a sustainable business, which can be difficult in an industry where practices are often hidden from the consumer.

The Program has helped hold local restaurants responsible in their part of using Charleston seafood in a sustainable way. Marhefka mentions how “[the Good Catch Program] works with the restaurants, and it’s really important for the restaurants themselves to educate the consumers… whether it’s how they denote what the seafood is and where it comes from on the menu.” She explains how important it is for everyone, not just the fisheries, to join in on the sustainable effort to protect the local environment.

Since one of the largest groups to purchase seafood in the Charleston area are the restaurants, their commitment to support sustainable seafood is vital. One of the restaurants which has been supporting these efforts is Chubby Fish, owned by Chef James London. Before its opening in 2018, London saw the lack of “true dock-to-table” seafood restaurants in Charleson, which motivated him to open Chubby Fish to showcase the local Lowcountry seafood. Chef London, being a South Carolina local, recognized the unique marine ecosystem of Charleston and knew that he wanted to utilize its seafood in a sustainable way. “People know that Charleston is a special place in the wide world of seafood. We have such a diverse fishery that is unlike anywhere else in the world,” explained London. “In order to keep Charleston seafood sustainable it is important for people to think outside of the box and utilize the species that in the past may not have received top billing on the menu.

The more that people are exposed to these species the less they rely on the species that we probably need to be relieving pressure on.”

The team at Chubby Fish has found ways to adapt as stricter fishing regulations are put on their purveyors by utilizing a large variety of different seafood types which varies based on season. Their menu changes daily based on the seafood and produce for sale at their partner vendors. “The way that we order fish forces us to create on a daily basis. The fish business is very fluid meaning that what was available yesterday most certainly will not be available today,” explained London. “In the kitchen that means that we are constantly playing jazz. We allow our ingredients to be our setlist and then we improvise.

What comes out is truly a glimpse of what was fresh locally for that one day and then we’re on to the next setlist.”

For Chef London and the team at Chubby Fish, the effort to purchase and support local seafood has been a positive opportunity for growth and creativity, rather than a constraint on their operations. By pledging to serve as a sustainable partner in the restaurant industry, Chubby Fish has been able to gain the reputation as a local gem in the Charleston area. “Chubby Fish chooses to take the sustainable route for many reasons. One of the reasons we choose to do so is because ingredients raised and harvested using sustainable practices tend to have higher quality and better flavor,” explains London. “The sustainable farmers and fishermen just care so much more. They take pride in what they do and it translates

to the plate that you eat in the restaurant or the ingredients that you buy at the farmers market” A big part of reaping the benefits of buying and using sustainable seafood is maintaining a relationship with the restaurant’s purveyors. London says the choice to support these local fisheries and farmers is mutually beneficial and helps ensure the longevity of both the restaurant and its purveyors. “Selecting sustainable purveyors aligns with the trend towards responsible and ethical dining practices,” explains London. “At the end of the day we still want to have restaurants and access to quality ingredients 50 years down the road from now. However, we have to make smart choices now to ensure we can do that.”

The Charleston area has continued to expand and develop as the desire to visit has grown, but the truly local companies who have beliefs rooted in the protection of the local environment are few in number. The fisheries and restaurants have recognized their place in the longevity of each other’s businesses which has encouraged a sort of symbiotic relationship between the industries.

Chef London discusses the relationship between local restaurants and their purveyors, and how these local businesses work together to support sustainability and support each other. “Chubby Fish would not be around if we didn’t have access to the great local seafood that we do. The whole concept was built on showcasing the quality and diversity of our fishery” mentioned London. “We have relationships with our purveyors. We support their families and they support ours. We know them personally and will do our best to make sure they stay afloat.”

Although the delicate ecosystem has endured damage in the past, and the systems put into place have not fully alleviated the damage done by previous unsustainable practices, the Charleston seafood industry is continuing to heal. As more companies, like Abundant Seafood and Chubby Fish, recognize their responsibility in helping this cause, more and more people are going to join in the effort of supporting a sustainable system which can produce uniquely delicious seafood. These companies will continue to work together to make sure the seafood of Charleston is motivating visitors and locals to come and enjoy the city for many years to come.

Monopolization ON Music

By Caz Kopf While a lot of us around the world only dream of going to Coachella one day, around 750,000 people go to the Coachella Valley in the Colorado Desert every year. The two week extravaganza millions of people watch through FaceTime, YouTube, and live streaming has become a hub for music fanatics all over the world. And Coachella designed it that way.

the festival receiving the criticism.

In 2018, Coachella was caught in a legal battle with Oregon’s Soul’d Out festival over this radius clause.

Soul’d Out claimed Coachella was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits monopolies. Many artists were backing out of performing at Soul’d Out due to Coachella’s radius clause. For example, SZA was The way Coachella is doing this is through fine print. just starting to get popular after her hit album, Ctrl, Coachella has a clause in its contract every artist must was a viral success and was slated to perform at Soul’d sign before performing. It’s called the radius clause. This Old. However, she told Soul’d Out she could not addition to the Coachella contract prohibits artists from attend because of the clause and extended her stay at performing at other North American music festivals from Coachella to perform with Cardi B. Simply put, anyDecember to May. During this same time, artists are not body who’s anybody is at Coachella. Not only does the allowed to hold any concerts in Southern California. daily crowd at Coachella reach up to 125,000 people, They must also wait until the lineup is announced in but a sizable portion of the crowd are A-list celebrities.

January before promoting any tour stops in California, Opportunities and connections are waiting at CoachelArizona, Washington, and Oregon. This clause causes la for both up and coming and already popular artists. trouble for artists and fans alike. From mid December It’s just not worth the effort to fight against this clause. to the beginning of May, almost half a year, artists are restricted in performances they can give their fans, the But Soul’d Out was willing to go up against the bepeople responsible for their success in the first place. hemoth that is Coachella. The case was dismissed in Coachella has been heavily criticized for this radius 2019 on the grounds that Coachella caused no injury clause, but they are not the only music festival that has it. to Soul’d Out as a result of the radius clause. In 2020, But, since Coachella is one of the biggest both in attenthe U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this dance, popularity, and advertising, it just happens to be decision but no further updates have been reported.

But knowing the power of Coachella, this appeal will not hinder their business.

One of the tactics Coachella has used to stay relevant is keeping up with trends and the artists at the top of the charts. This has included Harry Styles, Billie Eilish, Bad Bunny, and surprisingly enough, Kpop artists. The growing popularity of Kpop has taken over the world in the past few years. The girl group Aespa graced the stage of Coachella in 2022, and something groundbreaking happened in 2023. Blackpink was the headliner. Blackpink is the highest grossing girl group in Kpop breaking records on Billboard, YouTube, and Spotify. Similarly J-Hope, a member of the biggest boy group in the world, BTS, was the headliner in 2022 at Lollapalooza and Tomorrow x Together was the headliner in 2023.

This made J-Hope the first Korean act to headline Lollapalooza. The past two years made hopes high for this year’s lineup announcement.

So when the Coachella lineup for this year was announced, I was left feeling both excited but also confused. If anybody is a Kpop fan like me, seeing ATEEZ, Le Sserafim, and The Rose on the iconic sunset colored poster made me proud. Seeing artists I love and am dedicated to on the lineup for one of the biggest music festivals in North America makes me unbelievably proud of their ability to break through the language and geography barrier Kpop faces. Especially for the groups ATEEZ and The Rose who have had to conquer setbacks and obstacles making it harder for them to reach the level of fame they have attained. And only fans of Kpop would know this. So, seeing their names on the 2024 Coachella lineup left me unfortunately scratching my head.

Despite Coachella finding themselves in hot water over their restrictive radius clause, it has not stopped them from dominating the North American music festival scene. Which leads me to the idea that inviting Kpop acts is a way around this clause. A lot of Kpop groups and singers do not tour the United States much and, when they do, they do not go to very many cities. As of right now, the Kpop acts performing at Coachella this year have not announced any further concerts in the US. Perhaps this was planned by Coachella.

For other die-hard fans like me, Coachella may be the only way people can see their favorites without flying to the other side of the country. But at what cost? To

attend Coachella in 2024, the entry level ticket is $500.

This is just for the general admission ticket not including lodging, transportation, food, or any other souvenirs or costs added on at the festival. The $500 ticket is only for one weekend. If people want to go both weekends, they have to buy another $500 ticket. Then add on $150 for camping on the festival grounds for the weekend. Again, it is another $150 for the second weekend. You are looking at a minimum $750 weekend after tickets, camping, and food. This is an exorbitant amount of money, and the prices only go up from there. In 2007, a two day pass cost a mere $165. As the years have gone by, Coachella has asserted its dominance in the music festival industry by jacking up prices. The thing is, people are only feeding the monster.

Coachella knows the following for Kpop is a dedicated, loyal fan base who will do anything to support. This includes spending almost $1000 to go to a desert in the blistering heat just to try to get a spot close enough to see in a standing only concert. Kpop fans also have to deal with non-Kpop fans’ judgment. One attendee of Lollapalooza in 2023 stated he was told “thank you for sharing your culture, but you can put the stick down” when he was cheering on the American singer, Maggie Rogers, with his lightstick before the headliner, Tomorrow x Together, came out. A lightstick is almost like a flashlight but more decorative. Each Kpop group has their own lightstick with a unique design representing that group. Not only was this comment completely uncalled for but the fan was Filipino, not Korean, just showing people’s ignorance towards cultures that aren’t their own.

Coachella has always been purposeful in their business tactics and will continue to do so. Only time will tell if their audience will catch on to it.

O V E RCONSUMPTION The Quest for Immortality and Its Hidden Consequences When posed the question “Would you want to live forever?” many people would respond yes, without a second thought.

But is living forever really as great as it is made out to be?

And is the idea of immortality, the one those of the past have pondered over for generations, closer than we think?

The idea of immortality, the desire to never age and perish, to watch the world grow and fall has been in the minds of humans since the beginning of their time on earth. There are many stories of immortals and humans on the quest for everlasting life that have been passed down through the years, tales that showcase how long humans have pondered if living forever really is possible along with showcasing the possible unforeseen consequences of immortality.

One of the most famous legends centered around the idea of immortality is the Mesopotamian myth “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, which tells the story of the titular king who goes on a quest for immortality after becoming distraught over the death of his friend Enkidu. On a quest to prevent his own inevitable death, Gilgamesh crosses mountains and oceans to find Utnapishtim, the Mesopotamian Noah who was granted eternal life by the gods after he saved humankind from the flood meant to destroy them. Upon meeting Utnapishtim and demanding eternal life, Utnapishtim gives Gilgamesh a test: to stay awake for seven days and seven nights, which he promptly fails. Just as he is about to send Gilgamesh away, Utnapishtim’s wife convinces him to tell Gilgamesh of a magical plant that restores youth. Gilgamesh sets off to find the plant and is able to retrieve it, planning to take it back to share with the elders of his kingdom. But as he is resting one night by a river, a snake steals the plant and as it slithers away, it sheds its skin and is born again.

While not only serving as an origin of snakes shedding their skin, the main moral of the epic poem of Gilgamesh is centered around the idea that while individual men will die, humankind will live on forever.

Another tale that heeds the danger of wanting to live forever is the life and death of Qin Sih Huang, the founder of the Qin dynasty and the first emperor of China. Throughout

his life, Qin Sih Huang was known for his obsession with immortality, wanting to rule over his empire for all eternity.

Qin Sih Huang had heard many legends and believed that his answer to immortality lay in the magical Elixir of Life.

On his quest for the Elixir of Life, Qin Sih Huang tried many different substances in the hopes of them granting him eternal life, and one substance he consumed was none other than the deadly poison mercury. Of course the mercury did not grant Qin Sih Huang immortality, and instead slowly poisoned the Emperor’s body and mind causing him to suffer from memory loss, tremors, and eventually lead to his death.

One folklore that warns those of searching for immortality, involves a fate much worse than death. The tale of the wendigo, a supernatural being hailing from Algonquian folklore, is gruesome and devastating. There are debates on whether the wendigo is a monster or an evil spirit that possesses humans, but traditionally, the wendigo begins its life as a normal human, who is often driven by greed, and resorts to cannibalism in an attempt of immortality. Wendigos do receive their desire, but not in the way they expect. They are turned into deformed and horrendous creatures and cursed to walk the darkest parts of the earth forever, driven only by their bloodlust.

There is one man, however, who is regarded by many to be more than a myth and may have been the closest to discovering the secrets of immortality, with many believing he accomplished his goal. Nicholas Flamel was a French alchemist in the 14th century who is believed to have created and discovered the philosopher’s stone. The stone is said to be a mythical substance capable of turning base metals into gold along with the ability to produce the elixir of life. Many believe that Flamel never died, that he and his wife instead harnessed the power of the philosopher’s stone and were granted immortality. Flamel is regarded by many as one of the best alchemists of all time and his story and believed discovery of everlasting life has made him apparent in popular culture such as his appearance in the Harry Potter series.

To this day no one is quite sure if Flamel discovered the philosopher’s stone or even was an alchemist at all–as some

OF L

I

By Blakesley Rhett historians believe that Flemel was only a scribe in his lifetime–but many have continued on in a search for his work and their own everlasting life.The search for immortality has not faded over the decades, with people intent on discovering ways to live forever now more than ever. In the 1880s, the average life expectancy was 40 years old, and in 2024 the majority of people live well into their seventies, with science almost doubling the expected lifetime. Yet, there are some people who wonder why we should stop there, and are taking up the quest for longevity.

Those searching for immortality in modern times are similar to those in the myths, people with the most power and influence and millions of dollars to pour into research and testing.

Billionaires such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and OpenAI investor Sam Altman have invested thousands of dollars into gene editing and cellular discovery, but no one is quite as invested in the quest to live forever as Bryan Johnson.

Johnson rose to fame as the founder and CEO of Kernel, a company that produces devices able to read and monitor brain activity and has become one of the richest men in the world now obsessed with the idea of lengthening his lifespan.

In an effort to de-age himself, Johnson follows a lengthy and detailed routine that costs him up to two million dollars per day. This meticulous routine involves eating all of his meals before 11 AM, taking over 100 pills a day, and never exceeding 2,250 calories. Johnson also recently came into headlines for partaking in the ‘World’s first multigenerational plasma exchange’, in which, headed by a team of thirty doctors, Johnson injected plasma from his 17 year old son into his own body in an attempt to reduce age-related brain decline although he admitted a few weeks later in a tweet that there were “no benefits detected”.

So what if we could live forever? We have already made huge advancements in medicine and science over the past hundred years so it is highly plausible that lifespans will be lengthened even more than they are now. With less death from old age that would surely be a good thing for humankind, right?

While the idea of immortality seems like a miracle, it may not be as simple as it sounds. If and when it is made possible for

F

E

humans to never die from old age it will surely be an expensive process, one that is reserved solely for the powerful elite.

Take Jeff Bezos and Bryan Johnson. Of course they would be able to pay for research and treatments, but for the average person the overall cost of medications, procedures, etc. would not be possible. If the possibility of immortality does ever come to fruition, it is highly doubtful it would be made accessible to everyone, and it seems that the majority would only be able to watch as the likes of rich politicians and popular figures celebrate their 150th birthdays.

Looking at the idea of immortality from a moral perspective showcases a different debate: is it fair for millions of dollars to be going into research that only benefits the elite when millions of people live without access to basic healthcare and medical attention? If the goal for immortality is truly to enrich the lives of all humankind, then shouldn’t that money be going towards cancer research or making life-saving medicines such as insulin more affordable and accessible for all?

It is also a possible concern that by the time we crack the code to immortality, there may be nowhere left for humans to exist. With researchers suggesting that the doomsday clock is ticking faster than ever due to rising temperatures, it is quite possible that by the time a cure to aging is discovered that the earth may no longer be habitable, rendering all the work and research useless.

The idea of immortality has been around since the first humans walked the earth and is expected to continue until the end of humankind. Now that the idea of everlasting life seems more possible than ever before, it brings about many new questions and concerns surrounding immortality and whether it really is something we as humans should strive for as tales of Gilgamesh and Qin Sih Huang show possible unforeseen consequences of immorality.

After all, if everyone was able to live forever, would that really mean anything? If humans lived forever it would be easy to forget how precious life is and instead we would spend eternity in a constant cycle of work and no play. With the fragility of life removed so would the joy and life would instead become boring and meaningless. Maybe in the end, the only way to really live forever is to just live.

WHAT’S IN MY FRIDGE?

37

Nature’s Refreshment Comes With a

By Anna Rowe You are dying for some water on a hot, humid, and almost unbearable summer day in Charleston. You would usually take a cold sip out of your stainless steel water bottle but, of course, you forgot it on your kitchen table. Instead, you walk into the nearest CVS and make your way to the array of water options. There’s Dasani, Fiji, Smart Water, Aquafina, Polar Spring, and Essentia (did I miss any?). All contain water, H2O. Water isn’t very unique in taste, it’s pretty bland but also somehow refreshing. Especially in the dead of summer in Charleston. It is an essential source for our body’s success in functioning. Yet, all of these brands have put a price on this essential source. On top of that, there’s a competitive market of water brands. Loyal Smart Water drinkers would never dare sip out of a Dasani water bottle, and those who are comfortable with their finances will almost always pick Fiji water without hesitation. On paper it sounds ridiculous, why are people so hellbent on a particular brand of water?

I’m sure you already know that humans are practically made out of water, about 60% actually. Regardless, corporations have found a way to convince consumers to buy their water, and their water only. Consumers are loyal due to the company’s talent in creating a profitable bottle that (surprise!) only contains water. Water should obviously be available to all socioeconomic levels of society, it’s an act against human ethics to make water exclusive. Unfortunately in modern days, almost everything is a luxury. Thanks to capitalism, or politics, or whoever you want to blame, shelter, water, food, and clothes

all come with a hefty price tag. At the rate humans are consuming materials, it’s likely that these basic necessities will soon become as premium as business class.

Like many products in supermarkets, water wasn’t always on the shelves for $5.99. America has a long history of being dirty, metaphorically and literally. The late 1800’s, the boom of industrialization and corporate America, was a pretty nasty time period for America. Yes, we were successfully urbanizing at a surprising rate, but cities were also becoming less hygienic the more people settled.

Soon enough, streets were flooded with pollution, which also meant the water systems were a breeding ground for dangerous diseases and non potable water. At this point, no one dared to drink from public water utilities, for they feared death. Sounds pretty awful right? Instead of fixing this issue by investing in safe, high quality water infrastructure, corporate America stepped in. What if we took safe, potable water and made a profit from it?

New England and the Mid-Atlantic states pounced on this opportunity, taking this disastrous health crisis and turning it into a business model that has changed the trajectory of accessibility to water for decades to come.

These bottled water companies, such as Poland Springs founded by the Ricker family in the 1850’s and St. Catharines Mineral Water founded by E. W Stephenson, traveled to remote mountain springs, lakes, and wells in the North to fill their glass bottles. They shipped them to city retailers, quickly making a sizable profit. They had struck gold.

Consumers assumed that water from “fresh and pure” natural sources had to have been safer to drink than the

contaminated water from their city water system. Once the market was secured, advertisements erupted and competition was fierce. While companies were trying to figure out how to market their water in a way that was appealing, consumers only asked one question: What company sold the safest and cheapest water? The biggest brand to launch their own bottled water in the 1970’s is familiar to almost all Americans, even today. The soda brand Pepsi. They recognized the opportunity within the water crisis and created Aquafina, which is still a force in the bottled water industry. It differed from other water bottle brands because of the emphasis of “all natural ingredients”, which is essentially infusing water with minerals. Aquafina is now a multi-billion dollar company, all on the basis of purified water.

Unfortunately, the reality for many across the country is still the same as people who lived in the 19th century.

Residents of Flint, Michigan avoid their drinking water at all costs, instead relying on bottled water. California is running out of water, no matter the shape or form of it. What once was a flowing waterfall is now a delicate stream. We are running out of water, and at an alarming rate. Who knew we could overconsume a resource that seemed to be endless? Instead of focusing on the root issue, faulty water infrastructure, America does what it does best, create profit. Corporations saw an opportunity to manipulate a basic necessity and took it. The market value of the bottled water industry is around 4.05 billion dollars as of 2022 according to Fortune Business Insights. 4.05 billion dollars. All because of water. As of 2022, the leading water bottle company (a private label) has made 5.24 billion dollars in sales. The average price per gallon of bottled water is $1.11 as of 2016 per International Bottled Water Association (yes there is an association for bottled water). That’s around $400 per year.

An article by Time Magazine reveals that over 30 million Americans lived in areas where water systems violated safety regulations (2020). Others cannot afford to keep clean water flowing in their households. Meanwhile, the water bottle industry is making billions of dollars.

With the increased unavailability of safe drinking water in households comes an uptake of water bottle profits. If America continues to avoid the ongoing dangerous and alarming water infrastructural problem, then the water bottle industry will continue to profit off of it. It’s a sad reality, but this case is not unique. Any basic necessity you can think of likely has a price tag on it. America runs on capitalism.

Now, with all of the statistics and lingering hopelessness of my last paragraph, you may feel as though there is

nothing left to do but wait. Wait until the water runs out, until the faucets stop working, and let bottled water take over. However, there are people who are fighting against this hopelessness and advocating for clean water in America. Organizations such as The Water Project, Pure Water for the World, and Clean Water Action are finding ways to spread awareness of water scarcity and create real solutions. Research scientist Shimi Ainsfield spoke to Yale School of Environment News in a recent interview highlighting the possible routes our society can take to reduce water shortages. He mentions, “Many areas will be able to alleviate scarcity by managing demand through efficient technologies and behavioral change. Some places will use desalination and wastewater recycling to increase supply, while others will use water harvesting.” There are ways to initiate hope and progress, to rewrite this disastrous water narrative in America. You don’t need to be an organization to create change. There are proven benefits to reducing water intake at home and you can choose to reuse your stainless steel water bottle.

It’s also quite reassuring to know that we are in control of the future of the planet. Yes, water bottle companies are still an industrious force in America, but there are ways around purchasing a Poland Spring or Aquafina. We are recognizing the dire need for fresh and safe water. There are laws being implemented to heal the wounds of pollution and the effects of industrialization. It may take time, but we are advancing.

America loves consumption. From food, to clothes, to cars, we love to buy things. And devour them. And then we want more. It’s not a secret, our obsession with consumption has always been apparent. But what happens when the things that we consume run out? Some may argue that running out of materialistic items isn’t such a bad thing, but that’s not what we’re falling short of.

We’re losing some of the most basic resources that every human being needs, and the first to go is water. Water is becoming a luxury to many already, and it has been for years. The bottled water industry has taken advantage of the water crisis and has turned it into a profitable product. Although it seems a bit unethical to take away our most necessary resource, it is a successful marketing strategy.

From Chickens to Utopia: How responsible are we for other’s suffering?

By Devin DeHollander

I

magine eating meat that has never walked around on its own two legs. Meat that has been grown both naturally and in a lab. Meat that has never opened its eyes. This might sound like some kind of dystopian sci-fi story, but it’s an idea that was proposed in 2012 by architecture student André Ford. The work is a harsh one that shows us a glimpse into an unflinchingly dark reality that is yet brighter than our own.

“Headless Chicken Solution” is an art piece published

by André Ford in 2012, although it has since come to be dubbed the Matrix Chickens. The actual artwork itself is a series of artificial chickens lined up in rows with tubes connected to their beaks and their legs lopped off. It’s a fake proposal for a new style of raising chickens, where the creature’s brain stems are removed, putting them in a vegetative state while allowing their body to grow. The point of the piece is centered around Ford’s argument that such a system would be an improvement over our current method of chicken rearing and that by removing the animal’s ability to perceive, we are doing them a favor.

It’s hard not to feel a shiver looking at rows of stationary, footless chickens lined up next to one another, their pale beaks hooked up to strange, interlocking tubes. And yet, as you feel disgusted by the idea of turning these animals into vegetables, remind yourself that this is still more ethical than what we’re doing right now.

This got me thinking about the complicated lives we humans live and the costs they incur. It’s impossible to live without consequencesyour presence will cost the planet something, whether it be through the food you consume,

the clothing you wear, or the products you buy. Every single second that someone spends on the Earth costs something. Are we truly aware of these costs? Do we ever really stop and think about the things we take for granted?

So, I wanted to explore these feelings, and figure out why we’ve created a world in which we feel the need to shove chickens into tubes. What kinds of thinking brought us here, and how can we cultivate a reality where animals actually get to feel the sun on their face?

In order to figure out how to make a more ethical world, we need to examine what it means for something to be unethical. The question of what is moral has been a point of continuous debate since the dawn of mankind, but the general consensus is that if something inflicts unjust suffering, then it is considered to be unethical. For instance, the testing of beauty products on animals has been deemed cruel by our society because the animal is capable of suffering. This is an important point; the animal isn’t given rights because it can argue its case or communicate with us in a manner we can understand, but rather simply because it can suffer.

This is the way we treat humans, too. If something causes suffering, we tend to pathologize it as evil, regardless of its true intent (or lack thereof ). For instance, when a hurricane wipes out a tropical island, we understand on a logical level that the hurricane isn’t actually intending to do harm, and yet it’s difficult to look at the environmental devastation caused by the natural disaster and not feel anger towards the winds and waves that caused so much pain. This is why many of our laws center around the victim’s degree of distress and not the perpetrator. It becomes easy, then, to see who the bad guy in the scenario is. When given the choice between the gratification of an evil person and the protection of an innocent one, the answer becomes pretty obvious.

But what happens when we ourselves are the villain of that story? If we have to choose between our own satisfaction and the rights of others? For instance, the clothing industry is host to many exploitative practices that disproportionately harm impoverished people and their children. And yet… you must wear clothes. You can’t boycott all clothing and walk around naked, so how exactly is one to rectify these two ideas?

“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is a short story published by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1973. It’s short, only about five pages, and tells the story of Omelas, a utopian city absent of suffering. At the beginning of the story, Omelas is celebrating its annual summer festival, a grand party of celebration and joy. The city is endlessly happy and provides perfect lives for all of its inhabitants.

Well, for most.

Deep in a dirty jail cell at the center of Omelas lies a single, ten-year-old child who is endlessly tortured. Every second of every night and every day is a living hell for this innocent, defenseless child, and the worst part of it is everyone knows. Every single inhabitant of Omelas is aware of the price their pleasant lives exact. They are allowed to leave at any time; the front gate is wide open, and yet very few ever do.

As the title implies, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is not a story about the people who live in this grand city, nor is it even about the child suffering at its center. Rather, it’s a tale about the people who turn their backs on the heavy tax such a peaceful world would bring. The story details the fact that some choose to walk out of Omelas’ open gates and into the world beyond but doesn’t go into further detail. It doesn’t describe what the world is like beyond the city, nor what the people who leave end up going on to do.

All it says is that some choose to leave and forge their own path.

The story ends with the following lines: “The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from

Omelas.”

So, what does this story about a utopia based on suffering have to do with brain-dead chickens? Well, I pose the question- let’s say you’re one of the few who chooses to leave the city of Omelas. You’re out in the wilderness, when one day, you receive a letter. The child at the center of Omelas has been put to sleep, perhaps indefinitely.

They will slumber at the center of the metropolis, still tortured, yet unaware of none of it.

If this happened, would you choose to return? Simply because the child was no longer aware of its own pain?

I think that this is a question we all need to ask ourselves in the modern age. I’m not saying we can’t enjoy anything, or that we need to constantly keep in our minds the suffering we are helpless to cause, but instead, I am simply advocating for awareness.

If you ask me, I don’t think that the people living in Omelas are evil.

After all, they themselves didn’t put the child in that prison; they didn’t make the rules of the city. Simply being born into positions where one can cause suffering is not a sin in itself, as there will always be ways in which your existence hurts others. That’s just a part of being alive.

The short story mentions that citizens of Omelas are able to visit the suffering child, and some do. These people, those who continue to live their everyday lives of peace while keeping in mind those who cannot afford to do so are some of the true heroes of the tale.

So as you go about your life, don’t beat yourself up for simply existing. After all, we didn’t start the fire. But, from time to time, visit that child at the center of Omelas and look into its eyes. Educate yourself about the industries you engage with. Shop responsibly.

And perhaps above all else, be conscious of your effect on the world. Understand how you affect the world, manage yourself accordingly, and you’ll be alright.

Do what the Matrix Chickens can’t, and keep yourself aware.

CONSUMER

By: Isabella Case

45

The psychological desire for extrinsic belongings is cultivated through media and subsequently, consumerism. The urge to consume is brought upon us through daily exposure to social media and internet advertisements. The cyclical nature of consumerism is driven by the idea that one can proclaim their identity through the accumulation of belongings. Competitive consumerism asserts that we compare our self-worth with that of others by comparison of material possessions.

47

47

49

FLESH!

FOOD!

FICTION!

By Nick Rodriguez

Cannibalism

in

Seen as a taboo subject steeped in fascination and horror, cannibalism has permeated recent media across diverse platforms. From television dramas to literary works and video games, creators have embraced this heinous practice to explore profound themes. Whether depicting survival in extreme circumstances or delving into the depths of human morality and psychology, these portrayals captivate audiences and provoke introspection. They challenge societal norms and ignite debates about the essence of humanity. By confronting audiences with the visceral reality of cannibalism, these narratives force us to confront our own moral compasses and contemplate the boundaries of civilization and savagery. Through their diversity of perspectives and thematic explorations, recent portrayals of cannibalism serve as important reminders of the complexities of the human psyche and the primal instincts that lurk within us all.

Recent

Media

One notable example of cannibalism in recent media is the television series Hannibal, which aired from 2013 to 2015. Based on characters from Thomas Harris’ novels, particularly the iconic Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the show delves into the complex relationship between the brilliant psychiatrist and FBI profiler Will Graham. While the series is renowned for its stunning visual aesthetics and psychological depth, it also features gruesome scenes of cannibalism, with Hannibal Lecter himself being a connoisseur of human flesh. Through its portrayal of Hannibal’s refined tastes and philosophical ideals surrounding the nature of consumption, Hannibal makes its viewers question their own primal instincts and moral boundaries.

Another compelling portrayal of cannibalism in recent media is the television series Yellowjackets, which premiered in 2021 and is currently expecting another sea-

son. Set in dual timelines, the show follows a high school girls’ soccer team who are stranded in the wilderness after a horrifying plane crash. As they struggle to survive in the harsh wilderness, the girls resort to desperate measures, including cannibalism, to stay alive. Yellowjackets explores the long-term psychological effects of their traumatic experience and how it shapes their lives even decades later. By alternating between their past and present selves, the series delves into themes of trauma, guilt, and the blurred lines between good and evil. As further shown through the show, the inclusion of cannibalism stands as a monstrous metaphor for the descent into darkness and the struggle these girls face to reclaim their humanity in the face of unspeakable horrors.

In many narratives such as these, cannibalism symbolizes the loss of humanity and the descent into savagery. It serves as a commentary on the fragility of societal norms and the potential for moral decay in extreme circumstances. By presenting audiences with the grotesque act of consuming human flesh, these portrayals challenge us to confront our own ideologies surrounding violence and depravity.

In literature, cannibalism has been a recurring theme, but in recent works, they explore the darker aspects of human nature. One such example is The Reapers are the Angels by Alden Bell, published in 2010. Set in a post-apocalyptic world overrun by zombies, the novel follows a young woman named Temple as she navigates the desolate landscape and encounters various challenges, including encounters with cannibalistic humans.

Through Temple’s journey of survival and self-discovery, The Reapers are the Angels explores themes of morality, redemption, and the lengths people will go to in order to survive such extreme circumstances. This inclusion of cannibalism serves as a stark reminder of the brutal realities of a world gone mad and the fragility of civilization itself.

On the flip side, cannibalism could also symbolize the exploitation of the vulnerable and the abuse of power. In depicting the consumption of one’s own kind, the media often critiques systems of oppression and the dehumanization of marginalized groups.

In cinema, films such as Raw (2016), directed by Julia Ducournau, portray a different image of cannibalism.

The French-Belgian horror drama follows a young vegetarian woman named Justine who, after undergoing a hazing ritual at veterinary school, develops an insatiable

craving for raw meat, including human flesh. As Justine grapples with her newfound desires and struggles to suppress her darker instincts, the film explores themes of identity, desire, and the consequences of indulging in these unorthodox urges. The film’s visceral depiction of cannibalism and its exploration of the taboo has made it a controversial yet thought-provoking addition to the horror genre.

These narratives often serve as a powerful symbol, representing deeper themes and societal anxieties that go along with the concept of cannibalism. Whether depicted in literature or film it embodies the darker aspects of human nature and the erosion of civilization.

As mentioned before, cannibalism works as a metaphor, exploring themes of consumption, power dynamics, and the breakdown of social order.

In addition to mainstream forms of media, cannibalism has also found its way into the realm of video games, with titles such as “The Forest” (2014) and “Don’t Starve” (2013) featuring gameplay mechanics centered around survival and resource management in hostile environments. Throughout their gameplay, these games challenge players to confront moral dilemmas and make difficult choices in order to stay alive, including the option to turn to cannibalism as a last resort. By immersing players in virtual worlds where the boundaries between right and wrong are blurred, these games offer a unique opportunity to explore the darker aspects of human nature and the lengths people will go to to survive.

Although some audiences find these depictions of greater themes repulsive, others find comfort within these narratives. Some embrace these narratives as provocative explorations of human nature and societal norms, allowing for greater discussion to come out of these narratives rather than solely the grotesque imagery they bring to the table. Among these recent portrayals of cannibalism in media, many have served as vessels for exploring the darkest depths of human nature and societal taboos. Either through the lens of survival in extreme circumstances or as a metaphor for deeper psychological and emotional struggles, these portrayals challenge audiences to confront uncomfortable truths and question the boundaries of morality and empathy. Even though the subject matter may be unsettling, the exploration of cannibalism in the media provides a mirror in which we can examine our values and beliefs as a society, forcing us to confront the darkness that lies within all of us.

Ciao! Until next time....