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.

Blog#6 - Social Ecology

So - I am back after having been pretty sick last week......

Social Ecology........= Ecological Logic?

After reading Bookchin and the other authors for my Social Ecology Teaching group, it seems to me that Social Ecology is essentially reorganizing society, using natural ecosystems' evolution as a model.

I think this makes A LOT of sense - on the one hand it ensures long-term viability because, obviously, natural ecosystems have been around for a while - and on the other hand, it satisfies the apparently uniquely human desire for organizing "the other," as Bookchin put it, in a complementary fashion as opposed to a hierarchical one. Natural systems, even in primate groups it seems, do not actually resemble modern Human ideas about dominance.

Indeed - I can agree with this because any individual that is an "alpha" in a social group only retains their position so long as they are stable and sufficiently competent - when they become otherwise, they are promptly dethroned.

So........this contrasts somewhat with my previous post stating that hierarchy is possibly innate in Humans........well, it still is, but the Hierarchy of our evolutionary past was defined and administered fundamentally differently than modern hierarchy - where "Only institutions, formed by long periods of human history and sustained by well-organized bureaucracies and military forces, could have placed absolute rule in the hands of mental defects like Nicholas II of Russia and Louis XVI of France. (Bookchin 101)"

This stuff sounds good to me -

Blog #4 Readings! Green Philosophy! Revolution!

Readings! Green Philosophy! Revolution!

With all of the readings for today, the overwhelming commonality seems to be concept of Fundamental Societal Change. Okay - change is essential - I can get on board with that. I have thought for some time now that the Capitalist/Free market mentality has gone crazy and that to expect the economy to continue to grow forever - at an "acceptable" (read CRAZY FAST!!) rate - is completely unrealistic. I can get on board with working towards a less hierarchical society that no longer worships luxury commodities or marginalizes people based on race, sexual orientation, sex, or occupation.

HOWEVER - I find some of the assumptions made by Green organizations short-sighted. In Pepper's Defining Environmentalism, Green philosophy apparently assumes that "Social hierarchies are unnatural, undesirable, and avoidable." So, I can agree with the second two: undesirable - absolutely, avoidable - maybe....
BUT unnatural? - Hardly. Being an Anthropology major, I have just taken Primate Studies in Fall 2012. Trust me - social hierarchies are very probably the reason we have such large brains. Brain size in non-human primates is closely correlated with social complexity - and in turn - it seems that by evolving the capacity to handle complex social rules and structure, primate species are generally more reproductively fit........So what am I trying to say?
Humans are quite possibly genetically disposed to create, recognize and exploit social systems. In order to effect the change we want to see as "Greenies" - we need to recognize the fundamental nature of Humans as primates.

I am also currently taking "The New Republic" - a history course about the first 40 years or so of the United States. The arguments pondered and made during this time in our history are actually quite similar to the considerations of Green Philosophy. The Founders were overwhelmingly concerned with the direction of their New Republic - should it stay a primarily agricultural/rural loose confederation of states? - Or should the federal government be strengthened and the "pedal be put to the metal" on domestic industry???

Anyway - interesting stuff - I can email anyone some of the readings from the history class...

Blog #3

After looking over the AASHE website, I found the STARS program and was particularly impressed by one portion of its mission - the inclusion of social implications and initiatives. The website sites the Brundtland Commission Report: “our inability to promote the common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of economic and social justice.” The report continues, “[a] world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life.” And, "[e]ven the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation."

I have often thought about the difficulty that many organizations, both national and international, have in promoting ecological/environmental literacy and green legislation. The statement above reminds me of a saying: "It is hard to make a man understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - I think I heard this in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The logical and moral imperative inherent in most green initiatives and legislation has always been a "no-brainer" for me, but then again, I have never had to work in a coal mine or on an oil rig or lived in a country were cutting rainforest is the only way obtain cooking fuel. It seems logical then to pursue alternatives for people in these situations - a "bottom up" approach, while also pursuing the typical NGO type "top down" approach.

I also revisited the Sustainable Carolina website, and I was most attracted to Campaign #3 - PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF CAMPUS RESOURCES. I would love to be involved with the food and garden teams, but was most intrigued by the Built Environment team. As a plant person, I am constantly pondering the decisions made by the landscaping dept. here at USC. It seems to me that a great deal could be done to boost both the beauty and the natural utility of the plantings all over campus. As I see it - being an unapologetic champion of places/programs like the one at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello - there are three main categories that "ornamental" plantings should be judged by: Natural Utility, Resource Input(water, fertilizer, power tool maintenance), and Historical/social meaning. Natural Utility is the relative usefulness of a planting to the resident or transient species of animals/insects and other plants in the area - AKA does the planting provide fruit, nectar, or forage? Resource input can be summarized as the relative level of effort, water, fertilizer and gas needed for its upkeep. Lastly, some species of cultivated or wild species hold special significance for campus residents - AKA the palmetto tree, Camelias, Live Oaks, Azaleas - furthermore, some specific groupings or plantings can have significance (Magnolia + Azaleas).
My questions for Margaret Bounds is: Has anything like I am describing been attempted and if so - What was the outcome?

Blog #2

Hello All!

My name is Keith Mearns and I am a "super" senior undergraduate here at USC. I have a long history of events but I will try to make it concise enough to be interesting. I am was born and grew up here in Columbia and went to Heathwood Hall through tenth grade. For my Junior year of high school, I went to the SC Governor's School for the Arts - Oh yea, I used to dance ballet. After being at the Gov. school for just one year, I moved to NYC to study ballet at the School of American Ballet, in Lincoln Center. I finished high school through correspondence while at SAB and remained there a year after graduating. I then was accepted as a trainee at Pacific Northwest Ballet's school and spent a year in Seattle training and performing. Stay with me....I then found a "job" in the second company (read training company) of Pennsylvania Ballet in Philadelphia. I say "job" because, while I working with and performed for the Pennsylvania Ballet, I was only paid $200 a week....  I continued to work there for four years before returning home here to Columbia. I danced here for USC's dance dept for a few semesters before "retiring" from the stage. I now teach ballet at a school in the vista. Last year I got married to my beautiful wife, Jessica and we are looking forward to our first anniversary in March! The picture I posted here is of us on our honeymoon in St. John (US Virgin Islands). I highly recommend St. John as a vacation destination for those of you seeking relative quiet and natural beauty.
I have very little in the way of career plans specifically, except that I want very much to be involved with plants/agriculture/horticulture and am currently the TA for BIOL 427 Spring Flora, taught by the curator of USC Herbarium, John Nelson. (He can be seen regularly on ETV's MAKING IT GROW) I also work in the Herbarium databasing plant specimens and mounting new specimens. He invites any and all visitors to the Herbarium on weekdays from 9:00 AM to about 3:00 PM.

P.S. - the background picture on this blog is from Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, which my wife and I have been visiting annually for 2 years now when they have a festival.

Blog#1

What do you want to get out of the course?  What interests you about “green politics?”  What do you want to explore?

After looking over the syllabus in class, I hope to gain a fuller understanding of "green" communities and networks. That is - I have been interested in these communities for some time, but my work and school have prevented me from becoming any more involved than a committed consumer of local foods and goods. I have also always thought of "green politics" as just another way of saying ecological policy. I never have been able to divorce the word Politics from the popular connotation of city, state, and national governments. 

I would love to explore the potential for stabilizing neighborhoods and other similar sized communities through pervasive, low intensity food and durable goods production. For example - What would happen if every household in America grew just one tomato plant? How would the current "crisis" among American mega corn farmers be affected if all the vacant plots of land in cities were planted with corn? I guess what I am saying is - How can local reciprocal networks of production work to lessen our dependence on heavily mechanized, outsourced, or otherwise intensive systems?