Open Blog #2

Happy Earth Week! Personally, I think that we should celebrate the Earth every day, but it's nice for everyone to take a step back and really think about the Earth out of 365 days. I attended a lot of the events that Sustainable Carolina and the Green Quad put on for this week, including the opening day sustainable eating fair, the movie Thin Ice, and the Sounds of Sustainability concert last night. Friday, I'm planning on going to a few more of the events. I really liked the opening day celebration the most though!

Seeing the dancing fruit do the Cupid shuffle was super funny, and I liked that there was a decent turn out of students there eating food and chatting about Earth day. Cocky even showed up to dance and stuff, and I got a t-shirt :) 

All of these events are fun and stuff, but I can't help but think about the fact that so many students, think of Earth day as just another day. I kind of agree with this just because we have become such a holiday orientated society. We designate a month for women, African Americans, breast cancer, you name it, we have made it a holiday. What bothers me about this are that the issues represented by these days or months of 'celebration' and 'awareness' are that these are problems that persist throughout the entire year. We designate one day to think about the Earth, the planet that we live on and the planet that gives us life every day. Seems a bit out of proportion if you ask me. 

As nice as having an Earth week celebration here at USC is, I wish that we didn't have to have holidays for things that we should always be conscious about. 

Open Blog #1

I went to the recycling team's showing of the documentary 'Bag It' last night with pretty low expectations. Don't get me wrong, there are some good documentaries out there, but usually at the end of a very long day, the last thing I want to do is be bored to sleep by another environmental documentary. I'm pleased to report I was very wrong!

'Bag It' was not only very informative but was also incredibly hilarious. The main character was just a huge goofball which made him very easy to relate to. As I've mentioned before, I'm a marine science major, and I really enjoyed how there was a large section of the documentary that focused on what happened when a lot of plastic found its way into the oceans. They focused on the Midway Island albatross population, which is very ecologically significant. The island is the largest breeding ground for these birds, but recently, scientists are finding that there is a higher and higher percentage of plastic in the guts of these birds. When parents bring back food from out to see to feed to their babies, they are bringing larger quantities of plastic. The plastic gets into the baby birds and stays there, in some cases, until they die. Prior to the 60's and 70's, no plastic was found in these birds, and the populations were a lot more stable.

Another aspect of plastic that the documentary focused on pretty heavily was the banning of plastic bags by many countries. Germany, Ireland, Australia, and many others have either completely gotten rid of plastic bags or put a tax on each bag used. In Ireland, the change seemed to happen almost over night. Why pay 22 cents for each plastic bag each time you needed one when you could spend a euro on a reusable bag one time to use many times?

I wish that the United States as a whole would implement some of these plastic policies, but so far, very few states and countries have any policies in place.

Blog #13 Eco-feminism

What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? 

Did you have any strong reactions? 

What do forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?

Well, before I did  the readings on ecofeminism I honestly didn't know much about it, but what i did know, I didn't really buy. What I knew was, very generically, that men treat the earth/nature the way they treat women, inferior to themselves. I do think that women are still seen as inferior to men in many ways, but I don't think that this has anything to do with how humans see the earth as inferior. Nature is seen as a female force, hints Mother Nature, but I think humans as a whole are abusing her. After reading...I honestly still feel mostly the same way. I better understand and appreciate the points of view of ecofeminists. 

Ecofeminism believes that Patriarchal society is built on four interlocking pillars; sexism, racism, class exploitation and environmental destruction. I think that to say that society is built on all of these very negative things is incorrect. 

I do see that men still dominate women in many ways, but I think that it's something  that is slowly changing in the world. Some places, it's worse than others, but that is based on religion as much as societal values. Humans, as a whole, dominate nature and pretty much anything else they can simply because we can. We  think that by dominating things we are showing how awesome we are. 

Blog #12 Green Democracy

Would you join the Green Party or not?  

What aspects of green values do you believe should be ideally incorporated into a "green" party?  Do these align, do you think, with the Green Party? 

Also, are the Earth First! activists justified in their actions?  

I don't think that I could ever label myself as part of the Green Party, and currently, I don't consider myself affiliated with any one party. Some parts of their platform, such as doing away with political corruption, look good on paper but would be incredibly difficult to put into practice. I like a lot of their ideas but not enough to actually join the party. 

I think that for it to be a true "green" party, all of the green values should be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. This might be unfeasible because many of the values are rather anti national government and hierarchy, but since these green values define, in essence, how to be green, I think they should be a critical component of the Green Party. 

Currently, the Green Party does incorporate many of the green values we have previously discussed in class. They are non-violent, believe in social justice, promote ecological education, and decentralization. For the most part, I think that the Green Party and green values align as well as they can since the Green Party is a part of a national, centralized, government, they will never perfectly align since the green values don't promote that type of government. Maybe in the future, as the party gains more support, it will align even closer with green values. 

Blog #11 Spiritual Ecology

What religion were you raised with and how does that affect your view of spiritual ecology?

What are your opinions on the Gaia hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree?

Do you believe we live in a hyper masculine culture? If so how do you see it changing?

When I was little, I went to both Methodist and Baptist churches with my parents. Currently, I would not align myself with any particular named religion, but I would still consider myself a spiritual person. I see nature, in particular the ocean, sky, and land to be incredibly spiritual, and I do not consider just God or any faith in Him or any particular pieces of literature as the only forms of religion. 

I find the Gaia hypothesis to be fascinating; the fact that the Earth as a whole is essentially a living organism, is incredible. That being said, I'm not a hundred percent on board with the concept as a whole. I am a scientist. I know it isn't like this for all science minded people, but I have a hard time believing in things I can't touch, see, or have hardcore evidence for. In the Gaia Hypothesis paper, it lists three facts that I can look at scientifically, the age of the Earth, the composition of the atmosphere, and the climate and chemical properties of Earth have always been ideal for life. All of these things I can prove to myself. And yet, it IS highly unlikely that the conditions of Earth have been so ideal all of this time and that it even came to be in the first place. From primordial soup to what we are today...it's astonishing! But I still see it all very scientifically. The definition of 'alive' doesn't even include viruses, which in my opinion, are more 'alive' than the Earth. By scientific terms, the Earth is not alive, but I can see, spiritually, how it is alive. The wind, the waves, tectonic motion etc, all seem to be so very alive. I think I need to try and get out of my own scientific minded way on this one and think about it some more.

I wouldn't say that we live in a 'hyper masculine culture,' although, I do think that men still have more opportunities than women. We have come so far towards equality in this country, but others, such as Middle Eastern cultures and others, women still lag behind men. I think part of this is past precedent and some is cultural and religious. Look how long it took women in this country and other western nations to get to where they are today, and these nations and cultures are 'younger' than some of the cultures where women are still lagging behind. In time, I would like to think that gender will not limit anyone in any way. 

   

Blog #10 Social Ecology

What is Social Ecology? 

What is your view/opinion of Social Ecology?

What forms of hierarchy are in our world today and where do you think they come form?

Are there and better alternatives?

Social ecology is kind of like looking at how humans interact with each other in society and with nature. What social ecology seems to focus on is the hierarchical structures of human communities and how that applies to the hierarchy that humans apply to themselves in nature. I agree with some parts of social ecology. I think that the formation of hierarchies is natural to an extent, but I also think that humans putting themselves above nature is unnatural. 

I never really thought about they whys behind the subdivisions and hierarchy of human society. It's always been that way, it seems. Even back in ancient Greece, Rome, and even Biblical times, there were clear hierarchies and the social classes were divided. When I think about it now, I guess the concept of having a hierarchy free world where there were no divisions of the social classes is about as foreign to us as desegregation was to people in the U.S in times of slavery and segregation. It seems like it will never change or that everyone thinks it's supposed to be that way...until it changes and works. 

Other forms of hierarchy in our world, besides the social class system, are the way that wealthy or powerful countries dominate the weaker or poorer countries, globally. Look at the U.N. Only 5 countries, that never change, get veto power and really get to make decisions. Those 5 countries are, of course, wealthy nations, who more importantly, were the winners of the second World War. 

I don't think that having a world without hierarchy means that there will not be any leadership. There will still be leaders because some people are just naturally influential. Everyone is different and has a different set of talents and abilities, but I think what the social ecological view on hierarchy is trying to get at is, no matter what your talent is, no matter what service or whatever you are providing society with, is just as important as what anyone else is providing. I think that a hybrid of what we do now and what social ecology teaches would be the best method. 

Blog #9 DeepEcology

After reading Arne Naess' "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement," write a twenty-five-word (give or take) response to each of the seven Deep Ecology Movement principles. Do you agree or disagree with each of these principle. P. 90. 

After reading the article "Deep Ecology," do you feel that Devall and Sessions are accurate with their outline of the Dominant Worldview and the Deep Ecology view? Do you feel that the Dominant Worldview is representative of the average person? Please elaborate.

There are seven principles of the Deep Ecology movement. 

(1) Rejection of the man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image

I agree mostly with this idea. It says that if two things have a relationship, that relationship becomes part of their definitions, and without that relationship, they are no longer exactly the same.

(2)Biospherical egalitarianism (in principle) 

This principle is a bit hard to understand, but what I think its saying is that everything should have an equal chance to survive and that humans should stop seeing themselves as superior. I don't really agree with this because I think that humans have such a high capacity to change and manipulate that we wouldn't be fully using our talents to not see ourselves as superior.

(3) Principles of diversity and of symbiosis

I really disagree with this part, mostly because of the definition it puts out about survival of the fittest. "Live and let live" isn't how nature works. Even plants starve each other of sunlight in order to survive. 

(4)Anti-class posture

I would qualify this principle because I do think that having defined classes both locally and internationally are not the best  thing, but getting rid of them would create chaos. Without leaders, nothing would ever get accomplished. 

(5)Fight against pollution and resource depletion

This is definitely true. It seems like pollution is something that everyone sees as an easy way to 'green' the planet, but they might be doing it in such a way that, as this part says, "increases evils of other kinds."

(6)Complexity, not complication

Once again, I would have to qualify with this one. I don't agree that humans are completely ignorant of biospherical relationships; I think humans just don't really care, most of the time. Division of labor seems like a better idea that fragmentation of labor, but I'm not sure if it would actually work. I don't really understand this principle.

(7)Local autonomy and decentralization

I have a hard time with decentralization, probably because I've been so socialized to believe in it, but I think that localizing everything wouldn't be for the best. It reminds me of how when states used to have their own currency and how complicated that made trade. Localizing some things would be beneficial, but there still needs to be a centralized government or ruling body. 

After reading "Deep Ecology," I feel that Devall and Sessions are accurate about the deep ecology world view but a little off when it comes to the dominant wold view. I do think that our society has become incredibly individualistic, see as humans are a naturally social species. Devell and Sessions make things such as vegetarianism seem ridiculous because they say that vegetarians are saying that the plant kingdom has less rights to live than the animal kingdom. I do not believe that plants have feelings so that's a bit weird to me. Like all papers that argue for something, this one makes the dominant world view seem worse than it is in an attempt to make the deep ecological world view look better. I also don't think that humans see the world as having a infinite amount of resources. We aren't stupid, we know that we will run out of oil reserves eventually and stuff like that. Most people do have this more dominant world view, that's why it's called DOMINANT. It describes the average person give or take a few points. I for example, do believe that humans put themselves above nature and that we should in some regards, but I do not believe that nature has ample resources.