Open blog 2 - Analog vs Digital

Analog VS Digital  - no, I don't mean wrist watches....

There seems to be this push to replace simple ways of doing things with more complicated ways. Mainly I am thinking here if the "i" world and the belief that technology  - more and more of it - will solve all our problems. Apparently we all "need" the newest app out for our smartphones to remember anything anymore. 

Yes - many things can be done at the same time and copious amounts of paper can be eliminated by digitizing our lives and work - but what is the cost of all this? How much more electricity are all these mini-computers using? How many times have you been run-into my a person texting while walking on the street? - driving on the street??

And - how may people are being exploited around the world to obtain the Rare Earth Metals needed to create all this digi-culture? How many people around the world are being poisoned while breaking down digi-waste?

Why has no one thought up a computer that would, theoretically, not be disposed of in less than 2 years? Why isn't it easy to switch out old components for new ones?

Apple has attempted to address this by making their computers easier to disassemble and recycle - but they still rely on the same business model of newer is better.

We are all really just interested in see the media we want and access the data we need.......why all the new screens all the time?

Open Blog 1

So - I went and saw the movie "Bag It" at the Russell house a few weeks ago. The movie was really good - well done - not obnoxious at all. What was somewhat obnoxious was the panel discussion after the movie....

After watching what I think everyone could call an alarm call regarding plastics, the environment and people - the members on the panel seemed quite defensive of the lackluster/non-existent recycling and waste issues here in SC. It would have been one thing to recognize the difficulty that exists in this state to move on these issues - but to basically defend the situation?

Ok - maybe this sounds a bit harsh, but I am not sure why the recycling promoter for the city isn't more active - I had never heard of her or her position before. And another thing - this state is red through and through right? - so where is the self-reliance that republicans value so much. It seems to me that this state constantly goes out of its way to attract business - any kind of business (like nuclear waste disposal) - at the expense of the public's general health - and sustainability. I mean - how sustainable can our landscape be if there is nuclear waste buried near by - or landfills receiving trash from everywhere?

I think that this state has an incredible opportunity to retool the way we do things - eat, generate power, transport ourselves - because SC is really fairly underdeveloped compared to many other states. We should really get in on the ground level with sustainability here - and that can start by banning plastic bags......

Ecofeminism

The readings for Ecofeminism did not significantly change my views (I have read about it in the past), I did particularly enjoy Eisler's historical analysis.

Spretnak, and to a lesser extent, King seemed to be clinging to the somewhat lopsided view that women are not just equal to, but superior to men. This is just a feeling I get from the over-articulation of Goddess worship. I liked Eisler's analysis that "the answer to men dominating women is not women dominating men." I huess this might sound somewhat defensive, but I don't mean it this way. To accurately follow the social ecology proposed by ecofeminism, both sexes must receive equal treatment. That is, both have unique and necessary responsibilities and contributions for society. I believe, as these readings suggest in a roundabout way, that neither sex really has any specific predispositions to violence or peace. Just that some unique set of circumstances near the end of the Neolithic period led to male dominance.

Interestingly National Geographic Magazine has an article about Bonobos (Pan paniscus) this month. It had been widely accepted that the Bonobo, a somewhat slighter but distinct species from the common chimpanzee, was a lover, not a fighter. That is they tend to resolve conflict and anxiety with consensual sexual activity, and their social order features female "dominance." Dominance is not entirely accurate as the groups that Bonobos live in are not nearly as rigid as those of common Chimpanzees. The article in the magazine revealed that the Bonobos do in fact have more aggression that was originally thought, but that the different environmental conditions in their range is what has resulted in their distinct social strategy. That was long-winded!! - Anyway, here is a link to the article  - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/bonobos/quammen-text - make sure to look at the great photo galleries and other media with this story!

Green Democracy

So...out of the approaches covered by the readings for Green Democracy, I have to say that I disagree most with the "Earth First" approach. I think that by provoking anger in such a way is in-fact counter productive. With the ultimate goal of equality among species and the greatest possible health of the biosphere, we are not going to get anywhere by blowing up equipment. In order to even begin to approach the goal I mentioned above, the entire human population must have a relatively equal understanding and commitment to the goal.

That is why I found the Ten Key Principles of the Green Party the most useful out of the concepts in Green Democracy. While I think that it may be true that minorities are often the recipients of environmental injustice, it is ultimately useless to focus on the immediate impacts of pollution, etc on these populations only. In line with the Green Party Values, impacts from waste & pollution, while felt locally at first, are in fact global. Additionally, the DECENTRALIZATION value of the Green Party addresses most of the grievances described in the Bullard reading - because minorities are only minorities on a national scale. Within states, minorities are quite often majorities.

The only issues I might take with the Green Party is the numbering of their values - Does this order of values reflect relative importance or urgency? Surely they think that one or several of their core values are the most poorly represented in today's society.

Oh - and Yes - I already voted for local Green Party candidates in the election last year.

Spiritual Ecology

Spiritual Ecology is a slippery slope for me. I think that any time people decide to attach "greater meaning" to something, that thing can become too important or powerful.

As for the readings, I found Lovelock's hypothesis the mostly attractive. It is more like a scientific proposal that happens to be called the "Gaia" hypothesis. I can get behind the idea that the Earth is regulated by the life on it, such that the environmental conditions remain more or less stable for millennia. I am not convinced and am wary of contributing this phenomenon to some conscious entity. Personally, I have no use for latching onto some ancient deity to find meaning in the natural world or to find connection to it.

But maybe this is not what the spiritual ecologists and other "old" religions are getting at. Maybe the worship of animals, elements, and reproductive unity is simply a way to remind us of what is ultimately important - namely the preservation of the biosphere such that we - humans - are able to exist in it. Unless I missed it, the readings did not refer to that fact that if humans alter the biosphere enough - and we are not able to live here anymore - that life will go on. Life will evolve and eventually find a new stability that may or may not be amicable to human life or even the mammalian radiation itself.

A quote from Spretnak's reading was probably closest to what I believe. - "What we need now is the maturity to value freedom and tradition, the individual and the community, science and nature, men and women."

Deep Ecology

I think Deep Ecology is on the right track - as in I agree with basically everything Naess says in his essay. I think that humans really should be focusing on the overall health of the planet-wide ecosystem, mainly because the earth really is a closed ecosystem (excluding sunlight.) What I found most interesting was the absence of fossil fuels in the philosophy. It seems to me that the fuel, literally, for the explosion of human activity and population is oil, coal, and gas. Our indiscriminate use of these limited and dirty resources is the only thing that has allowed for the balance of the biosphere to get so badly out of whack. While certainly not the only problem humans need to address in regards to the biosphere, it is certainly the most pressing. We really should be making the transition away from fossil fuels our worldwide priority - not unlike the "space race" of the 1950s & 60s.

Blog #8

So I like this idea of consensus - I like the way Estes frames the idea and its potential.

I'm not convinced, however, that it is applicable to all situations in its traditional form. Mainly I am thinking here about the current &^$%& that the US congress in in, and the climate change debate.

Currently, congress actually looks a lot like a consensus based situation - as majorities and minorities seem not to matter. The president would seem like a sort of ultimate facilitator, if he did not have an agenda. The speaker of the house and the Senate majority leader would also seem like facilitators - and kind of paint themselves that way - if they did not have enormous interest in one opinion or another. Or...maybe the supreme court is the facilitator, except that - while they are not supposed to - they have interests in the outcomes of legislation as well. So maybe congress really isn't in a ^%$&%, but is experiencing growing pains related to a transition to forced consensus.

As for climate change - there seems to be a lack of facilitation here as well. Really, it seems that all nations know that climate change is the 3,000 lbs gorilla in the room, but a formal consensus process has yet to form. All the summits and protocols have had little effect on the issue at hand - radically and immediately reducing carbon emissions - mainly because the international community cannot agree on a consensus framework. In this situation, consensus really must be had, otherwise many members of the international community will not "comply" with the targets agreed upon............messy.

Maybe the answer lies in a more standardized social media that can allow for massive consensus decision making - where it would be impossible to do so in person at a conference.