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. 

Blog #8 Making Consensus Decisions

What are the preconditions necessary for using consensus decision making in a group or organization?  

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process?

Consensus decision making means that when a group of people are trying to make a decision, the majority doesn't rule and nothing can be taken into effect unless everyone is okay with the final decision. Everyone is also responsible for speaking up about their opinion. This doesn't mean that the whole group has to be in agreement about whatever is being proposed, it just means that they will allow it to happen, even if there is still dissent or hesitancy. You just have to reach a point or idea that everyone can get behind. 

Not every group environment is able to adopt a consensus decision making style. There has to be a respectful and open environment in which all of the member's opinions are taken and heard with the same weight. (No ones opinion is worth more than any other person) In chapter three on the Formal Consensus Website, it talks about how trust is the most important thing. Basically, many of the conditions of a group that can use this process effectively mirror the green values discussed in blog #4. Also, there has to be a certain number of people, like in Estes interview, she says that for there to need to be a facilitator the group should number 30 or more people. The group must also throw out all of the old/traditional decision making processes, such as majority rules, because that will hinder the consensus decision making process. 

There are many positives expressed on the Consensus Decision Making Website. One of the ones that stood out most to me was that this process is the least violent way to make decisions. I never really considered how violent it can get when people are all arguing and persuading towards one side and how someone always comes out the loser. Other pros are that it works well in large groups, it is very democratic, and it welcomes more participation. There are some weaknesses to this process as well, it can take a long time to hear everyone's opinion and to see all possible sides, wont work if people in the group are not used to/have never worked together, trust is needed to and for all participants, one person blocking can hold up the whole group, and group leaders must use facilitation instead of attempting to control the whole process.

Over all, I think that consensus decision making is a good thing that works in most situations, but it is hard to implement because it so so radically different than the ways we do things now.  

Blog #7 Culture Jamming

What is culture-jamming? 

What are its forms?

What do you think of it as a tool for activism? 

Culture jamming is defined by dictionary.com as: a form of political and social activism, by means of fake adverts, hoax stories etc, that draws attention to and at the same time subverts the power of the media, governments, and large corporations to control and distort information that they give the public. So um...what does THAT mean? I need a definition for the definition. They best way to really describe what culture jamming is, is to provide an example. 

One of the largest and most widespread examples of culture jamming occurred in Europe entitled Brandalism. Over a five day period, hundreds of billboards. Check out this site to see some of the billboards:

http://sobadsogood.com/2012/07/23/22-brilliant-examples-of-culture-jamming/

Web Urbanist states that there are three types of culture jamming, political, commercial, and social. Commercial culture jamming is more easily recognized as subvertising or using anti ads. Political culture jamming is less common but when it is used, it usually is targeting war or other national issues. Social culture jamming usually is geared toward making a person rethink reality or even just to laugh at how ridiculous a mainstream idea actually is. 

I think that it is a good tool for activism but not a great one. Some people wouldn't take it seriously at all, and it is also rather expensive to rent out billboards. Also, some of their tactics are a bit illegal not matter how humorous they are. 

This site has a bunch of cool videos and images of culture jamming:

http://weburbanist.com/2007/10/03/watch-urban-street-art-in-action-from-reverse-graffiti-to-train-tagging/

Blog #6 GTP Environmental Policy

 What are your reactions to your GTP reading?

What are your preliminary ideas for leading a class meeting focused on this topic?

I am currently taking a marine science class that focuses on marine policy, which is why I was particularly interested in doing the GTP on environmental policy. One of my first reactions to the chapter I had to read and other research about the topic that I did was that there has been little done politically concerning the environment. They can't even decide at what level environmental policy should be handled at! 

Something I would like to do with our class is something that my MSCI teacher is going to have us do on tests which is to take a scenario for an environmental concern and decide how to solve it with new policy. The class would have to take into consideration a budget and deciding who would have jurisdiction on the issue. Also, I would like to do a brief history of the major environmental policies that have been put into place recently. I think that each person in our group should pick a topic on environmental policy that they are actually interested in because it's easier to teach something you care about. 

This is a topic that some people might not find as interesting as I do, so I want to try and make it as interactive as possible instead of just showing a powerpoint full of policies and dates. No one is going to want to sit there and listen to us lecture for 50 minutes about every environmental policy ever created. We can hit on the major ones and some recent developments and assign readings on some more of the history.