A Moment in Time: The Monthly Planet

By Mark Gardner, original Planeteer

The cover of the Monthly Planet, six years after Gardner’s time on the staff. Image from CEDAR

I was almost there at the Planet’s beginning, as a staff member during its second publication year, circa 1980–81. Fortunately, I saved a number of the original issues. Back then it was called the Monthly Planet, with the adjective reflecting more an aspiration than actual publication frequency, as we produced six issues over the academic year rather than the expected nine.

It is a bit of an understatement to say the production values weren’t up to standards of the current Planet. Our main tools included scissors and a light board for layout, a supply of decent paper, and a good photocopy machine at the AS print shop.

Usually the magazine was a creamy vanilla, but issues varied from blue to gray, depending on what color of nice paper was on hand. One issue was printed on both blue and gray, perhaps because we ran out of the gray paper before the print run was finished. For some reason, we usually neglected to put more than the month or issue number on the magazine, with no year listed, as if we were writing into some void not pegged to the unfolding of history.

All that said, we ended up with a better product than we deserved, courtesy of the outstanding calligraphy and pen and ink drawings of the talented Gay Roselle. And people worked hard at the writing, with a good variety of topical coverage and strong efforts to dig into the issues.

I suppose we were ahead of our time on some things. Decades before Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” Soybeans and CRISPR, Valerie Smith wrote an article titled “Recombinant DNA: Redesign of Nature.”

The article noted that, “Recombinant DNA research has overcome obstacles at a tremendous rate and there are no signs of slowing. We have been assured the potential benefits will be significant, an undeniable statement considering the capacity of the research. Yet, will the positive aspects tip the scales when measured against the risks?”

Four decades later, over 90% of soybeans, cotton, and corn planted in the U.S. are genetically-modified herbicide-resistant crops, that, as the USDA notes cheerfully, “tolerate potent herbicides (such as glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba), [and] provide farmers with a broad variety of options for effective weed control.”

An article by Jim Fiut reflected on the “Steady State Economy: Real Hope for the Future.” Forty years later, we are still hoping, but the idea of a more balanced and stable economic system that provides for peoples’ needs without continual expansion is timelier than ever.

The evolutionary predecessors of the modern Planet Magazine. Photo by Erin Gardner

At least we’ve learned a few things — for example, even in the United States we have evolved to the point where economic growth is becoming decoupled from energy use growth, which is a small if hopeful glimmer. Despite an economy currently on a tax-cut fueled sugar-high, trends such as continued job outsourcing, roboticization, ecosystem despoliation, and savage inequality point to the compelling need for a new vision.

My own writing was the usual tilting against windmills, such as the little screed I wrote against the mindless pursuit of the American Dream in its most materialist incarnation.

Apparently, now, we are told that only half of the dream is worth pursuing.

Historians note that the term “American Dream” was first used to indicate a healthy community, not solely opportunities for personal advancement. According to an article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, the phrase was first used in 1931 by historian James Truslow Adams, referring to “That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.” Apparently, now, we are told that only half of the dream is worth pursuing.

Yet, despite a desire to escape the deadening treadmill, as a kid from the working class I also understood the need to ensure that working people had jobs and a chance at a decent life. It is harder to make the transition to a new, less destructive economy if those who have secured decent jobs, or the prospect of one, are the only ones we talk to.

Some time after Huxley, I saw the false dichotomy of “jobs v. environment” play out as the battle to save old growth forests raged, but also noted that a few environmentalists didn’t seem to get what was needed to reach peoples’ hearts and minds and prepare them for change.

For example, the Wilderness Society had just commissioned a study on how to revitalize the rural economy to counteract job loss after forest preservation, and I invited a local environmental leader to reflect a bit on this possible new rural economic future at an Earth Day talk at the University of Washington. At the talk, I learned about the critical function of mycorrhizal fungi, which I have since learned is incredibly relevant to the forest ecosystem — but I was surprised to hear only about fungi, leaving the jobs stuff unsaid.

“Right now you’re putting out the best damn publication on campus.” -Rudy Yuly

Toward the end of the Planet’s 1980–81 run, we received a note from Rudy Yuly, who was then editor of Western’s literary magazine Jeopardy (another long-running journalistic survivor). The note can perhaps be applied to all the Planet staff through the years rather than to one cohort.

Yuly said, “Right now you’re putting out the best damn publication on campus. Your articles are wonderfully well-researched, literate, informative, and pertinent [. . .] I hope that our leaders in the future will be people like you, who understand perspective and can take a long-range picture, people who understand that money and wealth are foolish and deadly games which bring happiness to few, if any people who believe in the sanctity of the earth.”

Amen to that, and may the Planet and its people live long and prosper.

A Moment in Time: The Monthly Planet

Let Wilderness Thrive

Save City Trees

The Planet Magazine