While I do not mean to be pessimistic, I simply compared my own family, in a suburban, middle class family with a nice house, nice yard, two children, and two parents--one of whom only works part time, with my aunt's family, who live in a more urban area, with a small house, little yard, one parent at home who works two jobs to support three children. McKibben's ideas would be easy for my own family to implement. My yard could sustain many of the food items my family requires, and my mom definitely has the time to maintain such a garden. What we cannot grow, we could surely afford to buy at a farmer's market, or from somewhere else that might be the slightest bit pricier than Meijer. However for my aunt, none of this is remotely possible. She does not have the time, energy, space, or financial ability to change her food source.
Again, not to be negative, nor to say I disagree with McKibben. I fully believe he is correct. Yet these changes must begin with the middle and upper class, but specifically the middle class. Upper class people are the ones who resist change the most, as they have the "most" to lose, financially. And the lower class, as previously stated, already faces enough risks. However, the middle class has the room to spare a little risk, and only a moderate amount of fear of them. While they too enjoy consistency, they have also experienced the most change in their lifetime, and are where the focus on McKibben's ideas need to begin. From there, the upper class will hopefully join in. Then, further scientific developments in local growing might make this technique more accessible and less risky to the lower class. And while it would be nice to affect all three groups at once, it is not in our mindset to happen.
McKibben stressed thinking small rather than large in this chapter, and that is exactly what we must do within the groups of people we target for pioneering this lifestyle change.


