Welcome to our Blogspot were we will share our observations about the readings for this semester as well as share thoughts about what these readings mean to us in the context of holistic sustainability.
Following are Blog Post Project instructions that can also be found in the syllabus that I email you Saturday 22-August.
Blog Posts Project: Instructions
Weekly
for 14 weeks (1-September – 1-December) you will write to an online blog. For
the first part of your contribution, you will write a short quotation from the week’s
reading, or from the book on which you are writing your report, and include with
the quotation the page number indicated or in the case of a video, include the
minute/second point at which the quote can be found. Along with your quote,
pose a question, comment, or challenge pertaining to the quotation.
For the second part of your blog contribution you
will respond to another student’s question, comment, or challenge about the
quote that they posted. Your response to another’s question, comment, or
challenge must be a minimum of 100 words.
Students are strongly encouraged to read and respond
to other students’ submissions. Late submissions and submissions not appropriately
submitted will not receive credit. There
are no make-ups for online submissions, so submit yours early to ensure that a late
developing event (e.g. illness, family emergency, etc.) does not prevent you
from receiving credit.
Your initial post as well as your 100-plus word
response to a fellow student’s question, comment, or challenge is due
each Thursday by 12-noon, September 1-December 1. Your blog posts, initial and
response, are worth 5 points each for a total of 70 points.
Readings for Week 1
Aldo Leopold. Thinking Like a Mountain, at http://www.eco-action.org/dt/thinking.html.
Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOPfVVMCwYg&list=PL0EF49AFFABB8AEF8
Savory. How to Green the Desert at http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
“I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”, by killing the wolf the hunter though of his future, all he could do. (Think like a mountain, paragraph 5) I believe the wolf represents ideas in society. We kill things before understanding their importance or what they can accomplish. We tear down natural resources to make things to improve environmental sustainability, example being solar panels. Our initial view is that by building up solar panels we’re building a better future for ourselves. By killing the wolf, the mountain is a more suitable for us. So what’s more important, sustaining the earth and keeping the wolves and mountain happy, or killing the fire and making it a better place for you?
ReplyDeleteI agree. As humans, most of the time we don't realize the profound consequences of our actions in our everyday lives and how every choice we make affects our world both directly and indirectly. As like in "Thinking Like a Mountain", Leopold admits that killing a wolf was simply something that was done, without thinking. He didn't think about it either until he witnessed it first hand and experienced the repercussions of an ecosystem without wolves and how it destroyed the land. Leopold realizes that taking time to understand all the connections within the mountain ecosystem is more important than killing a wolf and in the long run it benefits all humans to respect and understand the environment.
DeleteI agree with your post. Everyday we make actions that reflect our person wants and needs. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture and realize that this earth is composed of more than just yourself. Sustaining the earth will increase our mortality, however we need our view on the world to change from a "today" state of mind to the future. We need to preserve our natural resources and not "kill the wolf". In order for our ancestors to survive, we must look at the world in a manner of sustaining the earth rather than making the it a better place for you.
DeleteI think that your analysis of Leopold's quote is very relevant to how we as individuals think about our own role in the environment and the fears of our mortality. As humans it is natural for us to do whatever it takes for our own survival whether that is hunting deer for food or going to get a flu shot at the doctor's office. Sometimes that instinct for survival can make us ignorant and we can overlook the repercussions of our actions. In the past hundred years, people have only just started to realize that sometimes sacrifice is needed in order to save our environment. And only in the long run will we see the rewards of our actions to preserve the earth today. Therefore, instead of being selfish and killing the wolf for your own gain, you must save the wolf for the survival of future generations as well.
Delete"It's to understand how it is that problems the most vexing and difficult and intransigent that we all deal with come about; and obviously to get a perspective on those problems, that gives us some leverage and some insight on what we might do differently." (Systems of Interdependence, 1:50 min) I felt this video emphasized a lot of what was already discussed in class about holistic sustainability. The importance of looking at the problem in different perspectives, is an action that is best fulfilled by having people with varying point of views and specializations look at a problem. Not only will you be able to identify different facets of the problem, but it'll also give you a greater chance to come up with truly innovative solutions that take into account everyone affected and involved.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that we should seek to understand the problems we are facing in the world today. I do not think we can accurately solve our issues if we do not first eradicate and obtain a deeper meaning of the underlying issues. Different points of view when solving a problem are invaluable because together we can better solve issues and come up with creative solutions. This certainly applies to sustainability because promoting and achieving a sustainable earth will take a lot of creativity and different mindsets contributing to the problem. I am certain that together, with many viewpoints, we can understand the basis of our problems and thus further sustainability successfully.
Delete"Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men" (Thinking like a mountain, paragraph 8). This quote embodies the idea of forgotten and/or ignored interdependence between man and nature. Only as Leopold kills the wolf does he finally realize that she plays an integral role in the world and within the environment, and as he becomes more aware of this does he realize how many other contributors to the environment are also being destroyed. This raises the question if man makes a conscious decision to ignore nature as it is destroyed, or if man is just constantly ignorant and does not see what is happening until it is staring him in the face.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, due to all of the technological advancements in understanding and analyzing scientific observations and information, to say that man does not understand the consequences of his actions in regard to the environment, would be plain untruthful. Unless an individual lacks the resources to become educated with the vast amount of data relating to human's impact on the environment that is available, then we should all be aware of such information. In this view, it is apparent that too much emphasis in our society is being put on the instant gratification of short-term goals, and leaving consequences lying ahead to people of the future. This may be a product of today's obsession with individualism, which often leads to selfishness and a lack of compassion towards anything that does not directly effects the individual.
DeleteI believe the problem is that as humans we believe our needs are above all other forms of life and nature, and thus we have the “right of way” to use the earth however we want. The disconnect between man and nature stems from the belief that nature is here to support humans and not the other way around. As Leopold pointed out, hunters kill wolves so they can hunt deer care-free; we use nature to our own advantage, ignoring the fact that nature has a life of its own, the fact that those wolves who serve as a hunter’s nuisance play a critical role in upholding an entire ecosystem.
DeleteIn our society’s state of destruction, sustainable efforts have increasingly become widely advertised. As a result, I would find it rather hard to believe that man truly does not know the repercussions to his choices. Although he may not know the severity, I would argue that most people now know what is and is not sustainable for the environment. However, since individualism and materialism have become so deeply rooted into our daily lives, some pupils may choose to ignore the consequences of their actions and more importantly lifestyles. They tend to set themselves so far apart from the land they live off of that their human dignity begins to falter.
DeleteI agree with you Jackson, the problem isn't necessarily ignorance. How could it be? When we have movies, speakers and activists (The 11th Hour, Al Gore, etc..) constantly reminding us about our destructive effect on the Earth and the urgent need to rectify it. Even though someone may not know know the exact facts and figures, it's safe to say that more or else everyone knows the effect we have on the planet. The real problem is to get people from just complacently accepting the issue, as having nothing to do with them, and pushing them to be not only aware but active in doing something to stop it. Just knowing isn't cutting it anymore.
Delete“If I’m not prepared to challenge my own Mental Models the likelihood of finding non obvious areas of high leverage is very low.” ( Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 2:45)
ReplyDelete“There is only one option, I'll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind.” (Savory. How to Green the Desert; 11:20)
Senge pointed out that one of the most important factors in finding solutions is being prepared to be wrong. I found it interesting to find that this point was illustrated throughout Savory’s TED Talk, specifically in reference to scientists’ reluctance to use livestock as a means of solving desertification because it was engraved in their minds that livestock was part of the problem. This shows that a huge part of our society’s setbacks in sustainability, and most other things, come from the unwillingness to admit we were wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMany people need to realize that being wrong is not demeaning to their own image in any way. That is just how everyone discover and learn about the world around them. I can't speak for the societies other than the one in the United States, but socially this is a huge problem in our educational process. Students are scared to miss a question when they are called on, but will boast to those whenever they do get something right. We weren't born with the knowledge of the world ingrained into our minds, yet many act like this is the case. Is ignorance really worth it in order to impress those around you? Or is not finding the solution more satisfactory than to discover it yourself through trial and error, so that you wouldn't be embarrassed in a social setting? These are the points that we hold back against ourselves and not progress as a whole.
Delete“We were once just as certain the world was flat, we were wrong then and we are wrong again” (How to Green the Desert, 4:58)
ReplyDeleteThis is one the best examples of human ignorance; throughout history we have constantly assumed that we are correct in our assumptions about the natural world because of our intelligence. We assume that since we are the most intelligent creatures on earth, we are automatically right and we have control over the rest of the earth. This ties in to what we discussed in class about human dignity because many people refuse to admit that they are wrong therefore ignoring the problem at hand. Many people have a hard time understanding that the natural world trumps the human one because it belittles their existence, which is a side effect of high intelligence.
Savory's idea that more livestock grazing will stop desertification, assuming that it is true, is extremely counter-intuitive to the way that people think about ecology. It is often true that the scientific explanation for natural processes is often not in line with the average person's common sense explanation. This likely boils down to an evolutionary bias, and like you have written people are more often wrong about what the best option is than they would like to admit. The truth is that these fundamental topics are extremely complex and complicated, and id like to believe Savory when he essentially says that what hes proposing is the end all be all issue to climate change, but you'll have to forgive me be skeptical about such a claim.
Delete"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness." (Thinking like a mountain, paragraph 8. The thing that intrigued me the most about this quote is the fact that Leopold says we strive for dullness. It led me to consider if I truly hope for dullness in my life and if that means a routine and consistency or simply a boring life. Do you all strive for dullness in your lives? I can certainly say I appreciate safety and prosperity and long life, but is it dangerous to hope for dullness and rest in our comfort zones?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also found this quote interesting. I perceived the dullness as an alternative to volatility in our lives. People do not like change, though we are the cause of it. The world is a perpetually changing place due to constant need for human nature to perfect itself, although sometimes it can lead to our downfall. People sometimes choose be the "dull" Leopold describes as a choice to block out the inherent need to better ourselves and instead enjoy the comfort of reality TV shows in the comfort of our homes. This is the reason for ignorance and complacency.
DeleteI think that people who strive for a dull life miss out on opportunities to venture out into the world and attain knowledge as well as personal growth. The unknown tends to be a scary thing for most people, but residing in a comfort zone or the familiar does not allow for discovery of any sort. This unknown along with both tragedies and times of hardship can be difficult to overcome, but can potentially create passion that sparks new behaviors or movements. A dull life must be one so far from intellectually stimulating that there is nothing to spark emotion or inspire new ways of living. In my opinion, a dull life offers little room to experience personal growth and few opportunities to reach out to society.
DeleteDullness. It is not something I had ever thought worthy of desire. However, when I thought about the meaning of the word, I realized that most of us have yearned for a bit of dullness at one point or another in our lives. I don’t mean that I crave living in a black and white movie, but I sometimes hope to live a life that I am completely comfortable with. When something is going my way, when I am comfortable with my surroundings, I don’t want things to change. I want to live a dull life in those situations. The truth is that while change may be scary, it is important to realize that it brings new beginnings and excitement to our lives. If we think of ourselves as the mountain and change, whether it be good or bad, as the wolf, some perspectives may see benefit in killing all of the wolves we face for the sake of comfort. But just as the mountain ecosystem can be thrown off balance, we can loose touch with the goals and the growth we seek in our lives If we choose to hunt our wolves and live a stagnant life. While both change and the wolves may not seem worth saving from some points of view, they are imperative to keeping our personal growth and the mountain ecosystem in balance.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Dullness", in this case, is referring to the predictability of our lives. We all follow a general schedule to our lives. This schedule is the result of the society in which we live. This society was created to remove as much of the unpredictable as possible. It is ultimately the reason why as a race we feel so indestructible because we feel we have beat the system. Rather than hunting we go to supermarkets to buy food, we don't have to worry about whether we'll have food available. There is a safety in that and it's the results of that safety that we often don't acknowledge that have destructive effects on the environment. So to answer your question, I do think many of us strive for dullness since it makes our lives easier to live.
DeleteI had the same reaction as you did to his mention of "dullness" in the list. On the one hand, this is partly true because we tend to become complacent and secure in our routines of daily life. This just seems to be a part of human nature. But on the other hand, this does not seem to apply to everyone. Many people such as the explorers of the world are constantly looking for new places and experiences. And I think many of us might fall into this latter category. However, I think Leopold was trying to reach the everyday American who might be happy with a dull, "nature-less" life when he wrote this. Or perhaps he was trying to enliven our interest in nature, and trying to irritate us with this claim. We might want to prove him wrong and declare that we are not dull, and thus stand up more for the environment.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Intelligence is always about systems... You could say, well, show me an example of where people have acted really intelligently, and, almost always the examples will have to do with balancing the short-term and the long-term." (Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 3:31)
ReplyDeleteIn this video Senge discusses the importance of realizing that systems are all around us in our everyday lives. Hinting at a major theme behind sustainability, he brings up the point that progress in intelligence is made through connections and community sacrifices, rather than striving to fulfill individual goals. He says that in order to act intelligently, the long-term consequences must be equated into any short-term motivations. On a broader spectrum, every action we take must be made in the context of our community and our future.
I agree with this viewpoint. Systems are all around us and we must learn to work together to get the most out of them. In order to bring about real effective change, we need to work together and emphasize balance. We need to all be willing to make sacrifices as a community, realizing the long-term benefits for the greater good. Although we need to make sacrifices, we also need to find the best balance to meet our needs as a society without giving up everything. For instance, we need to find many alternative energy solutions that are affordable, convenient to use, and still good for the environment. The best solutions can arise when people from all walks of life put their heads together and realize that change can happen. The future is only determined by what we do now. We need to act before it is too late. It is selfish not to act now when we realize the issue of sustainability pertains to society as a whole.
Delete"The cowman who clears his range of wolves does not realize he is taking over the wolves job of trimming the heard to fit the range" - This quote from the second paragraph exemplifies man's negative interference with the natural order (the mountain's natural order in this case." Ignorance to the mountains ecosystem in this example shows that the cowman's elimination of the wolves from the mountain was used as a pivot for profit (less wolves = more deer = more money). However, alteration of the mountains natural order for profit has proven to have negative effects, such as the overpopulation of deer thus baring the mountain of its life and natural resources. I question whether it is the cowman's ignorance or focus on making profit
ReplyDeleteI think making profits heavily outweighs the ignorance of the cowman. I went to Belize this past summer and the tour company we went through was involved in the local government. The leader of the tour company said that the only way to get people to change their ways (the example was the over fishing of Grouper at their spawning sites) was to prove that saving/protecting the Grouper's spawning grounds would help them maintain profits for the future. He originally tried to make the claim of how crucial the grouper are for the ecosystem but that is not enough to stop a man from making money and providing for his family. Even when the people knew what they were doing was harmful to the ecosystem, their desire to provide and support their family trumps the well being of the environment.
DeleteI believe it is man’s unwillingness to look beyond their own perspective due to the extreme disconnect humans are experiencing with nature. The concept of imaginary wealth has altered the way people view the world around them. Instead of working together with our natural environment, humans are finding every possible way to exploit it to acquire some sort of gain. Whether intentional or not, the cowman’s thought process revolved solely around the idea to generate a better profit, apathetic to the long-term consequences to his actions. This mindset is rooted very heavily into our society today.
DeleteThis is an excellent point you make regarding man's interference with natural order. You talk about man's ignorance about the ecosystem around him. However, I think there is also an ignorance in the sense that humans do not even go as far as thinking about the land or ecosystem they are altering. Instead, humans are ignorant in the sense that they do not even care about having or obtaining knowledge of the systems around them. There is a sense of superiority and entitlement where humans believe that natural order and selection are things that they can control. This relates back to Senge's discussion of interdepence and systems. Man's ignorance, which causes him to interfere with the natural order of things, messes up the sustainable, balanced web that once described our planet.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view. Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers" (Thinking Like a Mountain, Leopold, paragraph 6).
ReplyDeleteI was both intrigued to comment and pose a question after reading "Thinking Like a Mountain." Reading this confirmed that the world needs to be in balance for everything to coexist. Too much of one of the facets (we learned in lecture) can offset the relationship man has with the environment. Would it be possible for the other four facets to exist if one was suddenly erased? For example, in "Thinking Like a Mountain" the deer died after the wolves were all killed, the predator-prey relationship is needed to keep both animals alive. This is because both species are a vital facet to their environment.
I agree; every ecosystem has a distinctive balance that we may not even realize until it is broken. As humans we try to alter this balance to favor our needs but in the long run we might actually be destroying what we were striving to achieve. The destruction and annihilation of wolves from areas has left other population unchecked and they are leading to over grazing, leading to deforestation and an area losing its carrying capacity. Nature and environments would not efficiently function with the void of one of the facets. Much like Allen Savory discussed in his TED Talk, “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change”, we must find ways to mimic nature in order to restore and sustain its growth.
Delete“I have to be prepared to be wrong, again, if it was pretty obvious what needed to be done then we’d already be doing it. So I’m part of the problem.” (Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 2:29)
ReplyDeleteSystems are very complex; because of this unwanted outcomes arise. Due to the unforeseeable outcomes of system thinking, people must be able to admit wrongs and be open to several alternative approach methods. Allan Savory, the speaker in the “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change” TED Talk, embraced Senge’s concept of accepting failure in his experience with the elephant population in Africa. How did his willingness to change his thinking process allow him to make substantial gains towards restoring the grasslands around the world, and why is the ability to be flexible in approaches so crucial?
I believe that being able to accept when we are wrong is crucial because once we have done that it is possible for us to look for other alternatives to finding solutions. I definitely agree with what you mentioned about how we should be willing to accept our failures and be willing to try various methods in order to accomplish whatever it is that we are striving to do. Due to the fact that Allan Savory recognized his failure with the work he was doing regarding the elephants in Africa, it allowed him to become more determined and driven to finding a solution to combat the problems regarding desertification. If he had not been willing to admit that he made a mistake, he might not have discovered how to use planned grazing to restore the grasslands. By being flexible in our approaches we are able to combat a problem from numerous angles, so when one method does not work, we are able to try something different until we accomplish our goal.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSavory’s willingness to change his thinking, accepting his past missteps and putting all of his efforts towards finding solutions through multiple approach thinking allowed him to find ideas he might not have otherwise come up with. I completely agree that the ability to recognize error and change perspective is crucial. Flexibility is so important because it gives way for the opportunity to change the way in which methods are approached, and allows the potential for admitting mistakes and improving. Because Savory was able to change his deep rooted negative feelings towards grazing and reevaluate the role of herd animals in the ecosystem, he could come up with the much more successful restoration model he presented in the talk.
Delete"You need to get different people from different points of view who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see." (Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 2:50)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote by Peter Senge to be very interesting because it parallels with a major point that college has taught me so far; different perspectives and backgrounds are incredibly important when trying to understand an issue at hand and looking for a solution. "Systems", such as a society, are complex and are best off when working collectively to come up with alternative behaviors to solve a problem. Do you agree with Senge and believe that our differences make us a more efficient "system" or vice versa?
Thanks for sharing, Caroline. I wholeheartedly agree with Senge in that our differences create a more efficient "system". Diversity is key in nearly any system, not just that of humans. This is why biodiversity is such a critical thing to maintain in natural ecosystems. Not only does it create a more natural web for organisms to coexist in, but it is also psychologically pleasing as Professor Chandler spoke about in class. In addition to this, diversity creates a more efficient system even if the system consists solely of humans. For example, the University of Florida would be entirely different (and in my opinion much more bland) if not for the diversity and differences of our students. Ultimately, our differences create our strengths.
DeleteI agree with this quotation and truly believe that to sustain any system, there must be communication throughout the various parts of the system working to make sure it is operating efficiently. As we discussed in class, the heart of each sustainable effort is human dignity. Having different people with different perspectives coming together can ensure that human dignity is never compromised in the name of making a profit. There is power in people from different parts of the system coming together to create the greater good for each aspect. As we discussed in class, there is strength in diversity and power in numbers.
DeleteI also completely agree with Senge's viewpoint. If each person was to have similar opinions as one another there would be no such thing as diversity. Having different people that have come from different backgrounds and different experiences shed new light onto these "systems" and are how they are maintained efficiently. The societies and places that have mastered this idea of diversity and openness among their people are the ones who succeed the most. Also, these societies also embody a lesson that was taught in lecture yesterday: human dignity. Without this, respect and learning cannot be achieved and people cannot accept new and different viewpoints other than their own. Human dignity is the basis of this successful collaboration and almost "enlightenment" as Sange describes it.
DeleteI think the quotation brings up a great point. All systems regardless of purpose need diversity to thrive. Being in a college setting, having different viewpoints allows us to come together and create new ideas. Looking at the earth as a whole, we need diversity to sustain life. Each piece of biodiversity brings something different to the ecosystem. Many times we affect the environment in ways that we don’t even realize. This brings sustainability into view by asking why we aren’t looking at things holistically. Creating a worldview of how everything interacts will make the importance of all the little things more apparent.
DeleteGood point Caroline, and I completely agree with what Senge mentioned on the "Navigating Webs of Independence" video, our differences do provide us with a more efficient "system." As the popular proverb goes: "four eyes see more than two" - which can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs -, when we have feedback from others, especially different people with contrasting perspectives, customs and points of view, we are able to see aspects that sometimes are not visible to us. It is important to understand that although some will think in a more advanced and analytical way, to have a better "system" we must expand our barriers and be open to all kinds of views of the situation.
Delete“Even without sight or sound of wolf, it is implicit in a hundred small events: the midnight whinny of a pack horse, the rattle of rolling rocks, the bound of a fleeing deer, the way shadows lie under the spruces. Only the ineducable tyro can fail to sense the presence or absence of wolves, or the fact that mountains have a secret opinion about them.” I believe these two sentences represent more than what appears on the surface. Rather than simply being able to recognize the presence of a wolf from the natural environment around them, these lines point toward the general idea of how different pieces in the natural environment of the wolves (and any natural environment for that matter) are interconnected and affect one another. The presence of the wolves affects the whine of the horse, the way the deer react to noises etc. My question to you is do you believe Leopold intended for readers to examine this from a double edged perspective? Meaning, does he also mean that many actions of humans can lead to negative effects on the natural environment, just as the wolf affected the behavior of the deer or the horse?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this I also sensed a bit of a double meaning, so I’m glad you brought this up. I certainly believe he is trying to focus on interconnectedness in this quote. I think the author begins to hint at how nothing in nature goes completely unnoticed. Be it something as small as the ants in the ground or something as big as the wolves or the mountains, each of these things play an equally large role in the lives that they affect. I feel that the author’s main focus is interconnectedness. The subtlety is what makes the piece more powerful with its message.
DeleteI definitely think Leopold wants to show human’s actions can negatively affect the environment because if we don’t look at the system as a whole, we can get selfish about our own immediate wants. However, I don’t think he’s comparing it with how the wolf affected the deer and the horse. Rather, before the wolf was killed off, there was a natural life cycle that sustained a healthy and beautiful environment. The deer population was kept under control, which prevents the chain of events that can destroy the mountain. Therefore, it is humans who are affecting the whole system when they hunt wolves. Leopold fully admits that in his youth he was nearsighted and selfish, but now he realizes the over-hunting of wolves creates implications far beyond making more deer available for hunters. It seems that the mountain is a metaphor for the earth. If we don’t realize that we shouldn’t alter the life cycle of our entire Earth’s life cycle as a whole, the Earth will become like the ugly, barren mountain.
Delete"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer." (Thinking Like a Mountain [7])
ReplyDeleteThis reminded about what was said about our own fear master, which is a tenet of holistic sustainability. Our human behavior is stemmed from our fear of mortality, just like how other beings in the natural world experience the land around them. This concept can be used to describe so many things that we observe, like how we need predators in Australia to keep the rabbit population in check so that the land doesn't erode too quickly. This interdependence is everywhere, and I believe that's what makes something sustainable.
Finding balance, whether that be in the environment, in society, or in our personal lives; should be everyone's ultimate goal for achieving a sustainable system. I believe that finding this balance is certainly easier if we understand how we affect not only ecosystems, but the people in our day to day lives. I really liked how you linked this quote with what we learned in lecture yesterday because it shows how we can apply what we learn in class to the real world. I agree with you that interdependence is everywhere and that it is the fear of mortality that sparks the need to observe the world around us.
Delete“I was part of a team, and there was real collective intelligence in that team. That’s the other thing to me that’s very important about the notion of intelligence or smart in the social context. We all probably spend too much time thinking about smart individuals. That’s one of the problems with school, you know, it’s very individualistic.” (4:06-4:24) Peter Senge, Navigating Webs of Interdependence
ReplyDeleteOften times people forget the value of getting another perspective and working with others. We can get stuck in our ways and insist that we are right when often times we are wrong. We want to feel right because it makes us feel safe and smart. The education system can often perpetuate that because it makes students fear failure and fear being wrong. Most of the time students work alone with the occasional group activity. We need to encourage more collective intelligence from a young age in students in order to come up with creative solutions to the world’s problems. Kids need to understand that it is okay to be wrong but it is important to be trying. We need to teach young kids that their individual skills and values can be applied in a group setting and be even more useful then when they stand alone. I noticed that the idea of working together as a team also ties into the TED Talk by Allan Savory. He says, “Now, the main defense against pack-hunting predatorsis to get into herds, and the larger the herd, the safer the individuals” (9:18). Just like other animals, we are safest from outside danger when we work together in a group. We need to work together in order to find sustainable solutions in all areas and trades. We need people from all different fields to come together in order to have access to the largest pool of knowledge.
Hi Haley! I totally agree with you feeling that putting several minds together is better than one. This video really resonated with me the same way that it did for you. Many people now days try and stray away from group work because it is far more simple, the only input you have to have is your own. Although the results of working with a team can be much more strong, everyone can share opinions and get new perspectives on certain matters. For example, on the first day of class we got to listen to Dr.Chandler's lecture and then break off into small groups. This was very beneficial to me because it was almost as though I was hearing a new lecture. I got to see the material through nine new pairs of eyes. Creativity definitely stems from minds working together, many times getting a fresh perspective can help solve problems much more quickly.
Delete“I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” (Think Like a Mountain, Paragraph 7) I find this perspective interesting because it personifies the mountain and allows the reader to see both the interconnectedness of nature while still empathizing with the mountain itself. Thinking of deer fearing wolves is an ingrained concept in our minds as humans: the idea of the hunter and the hunted, survival of the fittest, etc. Thinking, however, of the mountain fearing the deer and how large of a role the deer play on the survival of this “inanimate object” allows the reader to see survival on a larger scale. It also shifted my focus of looking at the world as a whole to seeing it more as the sum of its parts. Does anyone else typically think of individual aspects of nature, or do you guys typically look at the world as more of a whole? Do you agree with finding a way to truly empathize with the mountain, deer, wolves, or even the people in this piece?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your though process about this think piece. I agree, I enjoyed the personification of the mountain and the mans ability to want to be able to decipher the cries of the wolf. When thinking back to paragraph 7, I was remember the author discussing the end goal of all organisms: peace. Though we live in conformity of nature, and fixing it to suit our own needs, I definitely believe that aspect is very individualized. Moreover, when I think of nature on a grandeur scale, I think of nature as interconnected. So, when the author talks about empathizing, I do believe that we must empathize because we are the ones imposing harmful effects onto our world.
DeleteI also found this perspective interesting, and I especially enjoy your commentary on it- the idea of hunter and prey is ingrained in our minds from an early age, and trying to adjust what that could mean is an interesting journey now.
DeleteI believe that I look at nature as being interconnected. At the very least, I attempt to, because I know that it is. In reality, this can be hard at times- to look at a squirrel and ponder its significance in an ecosystem, but I believe that at least generally, it's important to look at nature as one very large, very complex system. If dust in the Sahara can affect the Amazon Rainforest, what else must we wrap our heads around? And I do empathize with the 'characters' in this piece. It's important to see the perspectives of each- the people thought they were being helpful (at least for their community), the animals just want to live and thrive, and the mountain sees the bigger picture, but also fears for its safety.
"A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run" (Thinking Like a Mountain, Paragraph 8). This quote piqued my interest because it illustrated how when we are too focused on safety, or only one thing, we lose sight of the overall picture which often creates unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. The main point that I took from this is that choosing the most extreme options will typically not lead to favorable results. Therefore, it is much better to find the proper balance in order to limit potential dangers. The first example that comes to mind after reading this quote is in the case of children who grow up extremely sheltered by their parents. Although it may appear that it is beneficial to the children at first, the long term effects can be quite negative when they finally begin to make decisions for themselves because of the potential to have low self-esteem and other negative side effects. However, since there are some instances where an extreme, such as personal safety, may outweigh the dangers that come with it, do you believe that too much of something is always a negative thing?
ReplyDeleteYasmin, I like your analogy with the extremely sheltered family. In the environment, every living system sits on a delicate balance and any impact can be a large one, upsetting that balance. In many cases, including the environment, there can always be too much of one variable. Unfortunately, one action that upsets the natural balance, such as in the reading, can have a negative effect. However, to answer your question, I think that too much of one thing is not always a bad thing. Stepping back to view the entire image will allow for one to see the effects of a decision, and in this case, the wounded mountain.
DeleteI agree with your post, especially with the point about the proper balance that we must find and that going with the most extreme or far left/right idea is usually not the most effective. A way to link the “mountain” reading and the Ted Talk by Allan Savory is that we must let nature teach us what it has learned over thousands of years and we must focus in on the balance that nature has created, not just the black and white that we humans tend to see (meaning we usually only see the one side or the other). Savory talks about how preserving the animals (specifically elephants) in one small location and letting them overpopulate the area turned out to not be the solution but neither was reducing their numbers and killing them off. Similarly killing the wolves did not help the situation on the mountain and was caused by us (humans) not fully understanding the dynamic of the natural ways or law (just like in Africa and understanding desertification). In the end I do believe too much of something is mostly always negative. We can observe very simply from nature that balances are just a part of life and are something that should not be tampered with; we must learn to adapt to them.
DeletePeter Senge urges listeners that, “You need to get different people from different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system, to come together and collectively start to see something that (individually) none of them can see.” (Senge, Navigating Webs of Interdependence, 2:57) This excerpt reminded me of the portion in lecture in which we discussed the importance of individuals working together in order to approach sustainable issues with holistic solutions. While granted that some definitely recognize the benefits in acting this way, how can we encourage society as a whole to begin to follow this decision making process? In turn, drift away from such an individualistic mindset.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this outlook on thinking. It is important to discuss issues to reach a solution rather than assume you know the best answer to a problem. I also believe our groups in class encourage this method of problem solving. A collective understanding of an issue discourages biases and focuses on the greater good for the whole. The quote from the video above expresses the importance of seeing from another's perspective to point out what one could overlook because of preconceptions and lack of understanding. Discussing an issue can act as a mirror to show what you can't see looking through your own eyes, but how you appear through someone else's. Disagreements among people are inevitable, but being open minded to new ideas and perspectives encourages growth by compromising beliefs. What I mean by this is by listening to others, one is more able to form ideas of their own, and at the same time talking about one's ideas and explaining their views allows them to better understand the way they themselves think. We can encourage society to follow this decision making problems by showing examples of power in numbers. We need each other to survive just like we need the environment, and the the Earth can only be as good as the sum of its parts. This will prove beneficial with collective intelligence and understanding.
Delete“You need to get different people from different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system, to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see.” - Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence (2:27 – 3:09)
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video, and looking into what was said, I can only agree with the statement above as well as the message as a whole. To understand and work in any system, educated reasoning on every part of it is needed to run the system. One part, whether a person or piece of data, cannot fully cover or describe something as a whole if it is only representing a certain part of the system. Many committees, and even our government, cannot run without many people, each looking into a specific area. Without one of them, the system could fall apart. Are there any exceptions? Can there be a system that is run by a head over all issues involved? Perhaps we as a class could come together to tackle this concept, each student with their own different take on it.
“This land in Mexico was in terrible condition and I’ve had to mark the hill in because the change is so profound” Min 16:50
ReplyDeleteThe Ted Talk given by Allan Savory was the reading/video that impacted me the most. Last spring semester I took the class Geography of the Changing world and desertification was an issue we strongly covered in the class due to its increasing effects on the geography of the world and its climate/people. This is a problem I am very disturbed about because we are literally losing our lands and ability to grow food. Even more is we can see the terrible cycle that desertification brings. Whether it be man-made or occurring naturally, when desertification occurs in a region, the people and animals have no other choice but to leave the area in search of new lands. This causes other lands to be overpopulated and thus overused forcing more people and animals to relocate. The new land that has now turned to desert also releases more carbon then before, warming the climate and causing even more desertification. It’s an issue that is at the focus of many who study climate change and so when Savory showed the pictures in his talk, especially the one of the hill in Mexico, I was shocked at the amount of progress it had made in bringing back the ecology to the environment. The applause from the audience also showed just how amazing this really was. Savory reminds us that we must learn from nature. He introduces the idea of natural planned grazing techniques, the same methods naturally done by wild life around the world. We as humans must realize that we do not own the Earth and cannot do what we want with it. There are natural balances that have been created over thousands of years of coevolution and to ignore them would only prove to bring our own end upon ourselves. We must learn from nature and learn how to live co-existing with the environment, not form the land to our own liking. I ask, is there really any time man has been able to control nature and not seen the negative effects it had? Can we continue to live like we own the world and ignore the evolution of nature that came before us?
I agree with Paul, I took a climate change class, after learning so much from that class, i feel the same reaction as you did. I believe the only way to save ourselves from the damage caused and to reduce desertification is to do the holistic management planned grazing technique. it crazy that people don't always stop to think about how much damage we inflict to our environment of our selfish reasons. the fact that is most interesting was that one hectare was equal to 6,000 cars worth of pollutants in our atmosphere. I also agree that we should learn from nature which is why the planned grazing technique works against desertification. There is just no more time we can simply ignore nature and continue to do what we want without thinking of effects that we have over the land, animals, plants and us as people.
Delete"Intelligence is always about systems. It's one of the reasons we don't need terms like systems thinking. You can say, 'well, show me an example of where people have acted really intelligently'." (Senge, Navigating Webs of Interdependence, 3:31) This quote shows that to think intelligently, one must consider the various aspects of a system and be able to gain the most leverage within the system. Intelligent thinking is more about planning and patience than gaining the most we can in the shortest amount of time. How can we boost the communities ability to see past quick gains in order to improve the collective?
ReplyDeleteI believe that as a community we will not be able to see past quick gains, until we change our culture in a sense. For the most part I believe our biggest concern is actually how fast something will get done. I feel as if our culture today places quick results as the most important aspect when trying to solve a problem. Changing this I believe is not going to be easy. An option that I see to change how we see things, is to take some time away from the busy atmosphere that we live in and take time to just simply eat a meal without rushing rather than getting something quick to eat. I think even just small changes like this will eventually lead to having greater patients when searching for results.
DeleteAs Senge assets in the video “Navigating Webs of Interconnection,” individuals must humble their mental models and conceptions of Our Comprehensive Problem merely to gain the ability to approach interdisciplinary solutions to Our Comprehensive Problem. Under that humbleness does one seek to support and seek support from others also working to tackle the goal of holistic sustainability. One perspective to The Problem nor one intradisciplinary (yes, intra- not inter-) perspective cannot envelope the volume of the myriad of connections that span the physical, psychological, spiritual, and unknown problems that comprise The Problem.
DeleteA comprehensive problem requires a comprehensive (aka holistic) solution. Therefore, I disagree that “one individual must consider various aspects of a system… to gain leverage within that system.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) hosts a sustainability research networks competition that requires competitors to propose a solution to a given problem with several key characteristics: frontier sustainability research theme, interdisciplinary research, a network of multiple institutions and sectors, support for education, outreach, diversity, management and organization. The competition symbolizes Senge’s belief in the community to address the convoluted nature of The Problem.
To contest and to your question directly, I don’t think communities need to see past quick gains to improve the collective; however, the communities must collectively prioritize the gains that they seek to proceed closer to the goal of holistic sustainability.
If my words seem convoluted or confusing, I’ll be willing to communicate anytime on these topics. Naimcvilabrera94@ufl.edu
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14534/nsf14534.htm
"In Africa, every single year, more than one billion hectares of grasslands, and almost nobody is talking about it. We justify the burning, as scientists, because it does remove the dead material and it allows the plants to grow."
ReplyDelete- Allan Savory (11:00-11:15)
I can't believe that throughout the world so much land is being burned and letting all of the carbon into our atmosphere which is causing climate changes such as the desertification in over two thirds of the earths land area. I had no clue that there was a certain time the grasslands have to decay otherwise woody vegetation and bare soil, releasing the carbon. one hectare is equivalent to the pollutants of 6,000 cars. which means the burning of one billion hectare would produce an insane amount of 6 trillion cars worth of pollutants. After watching the video, i learned we only have one option to save ourselves which is holistic management planned grazing technique which mimics nature, reducing desertification. I really do believe in the idea of reeducating people of this technique instead of burning off the land causing more harm than anything else.
That is a very interesting takeaway. I agree that the sheer numbers described here are absolutely insane. It just goes to show how one seemingly innocuous or even beneficial course of action could have such far reaching consequences. This really reinforces the idea of "systems thinking" and highlights the value of making the field of ecology and conservation interdisciplinary. You may never know what consequences your actions will cause if you don't have people from other fields advising. This also makes you wonder whether or not controlled burns are as beneficial as we think. In Florida controlled burns are used as a way to imitate natural fires and to restore habitat back to sandhill. Certainly these burns will release tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere, just like in Africa. If it is so condemned in Africa, why isn't it here?
Delete"In wilderness is the salvation of the world." I feel that this quote is an interesting few words of 'Thinking Like a Mountain'. On the surface, I instantly notice the simple eloquence of the statement. As I look further into it however, multiple heavy concepts come to mind. I believe that wilderness is the essence of the world. I feel that the Earth is at its very best and most beautiful when it is pure and unaltered. This is seen in the reading. The hunter alters the pure state of the wilderness through his own judgement and action of killing the wolf. The hunter thought that he was doing the correct thing in hopes of influencing the deer population. The fact of the matter is, however, that these humanly thoughts were selfish and disrespectful of the other beings living around the hunters. If people can learn to think like the mountain, then we will be able to keep pure this salvation of the Earth, that is the wilderness.
ReplyDeleteThe wilderness is the true salvation of Earth, because the wilderness still considers Earth its actual home. Humans today view the Earth as a place to build a home, not as their home. Thinking like the mountain allows us to view Earth naturally as our home, not a place to build our home.
Delete"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness…too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run.” (Aldo Leopold, ‘Thinking Like a Mountain,’ Paragraph 8) After reading this quote, I was immediately reminded of a topic Dr. Chandler touched on during our first lecture. We discussed the fact that when faced with adversity, we don’t have to focus on every problem out society is facing, simply focus on our passions and expect the the rest to fall into place. Just as with the Fresnel Lens example, Augustin-Jean Fresnel focused on what he knew best(physics) and came to fix multiple problems with a single invention. When Leopold urges against embracing too much safety, I see that as a warning against trying to solve all the world’s problems at once. If we try to overcome too may challenges, we are likely to become overwhelmed and end up drowning in misplaced hope and disappointment in the future. However, when we zoom in on our strengths, whether that be art, math, physics, or poetry, we can create solutions that have the power to blossom into a revolution of change.
ReplyDelete"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run." Thinking Like a Mountain by Aldo Leopold
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt really stood out to me as a condemnation of human complacency. Everything it seems is trying to do whatever it is that will make it most comfortable, and often this path of least resistance isn't sustainable. Deer can destroy a mountain by overgrazing, but it is not the fault of the deer. Nature doesn't have time to ponder its actions, it just wants to survive. People, on the other hand, do think and are aware of where, in the greater context of things, their actions fall. It is the responsibility of people to not get too comfortable, to not get lazy. It is our responsibility to see the bigger picture and act accordingly, even if it is inconvenient.
I like this statement but, I see humans as a part of nature. We definitely have to think about our actions and not get comfortable. On the other hand we as humans are a part of nature and have to figure how out how we fit within the context of all other parts of nature. It is when we think we are better or more powerful than nature that we get ourselves in trouble.
DeleteI agree with your statement. I feel that as humans we are so much more advanced in all aspects of life, from intelligence to technology, that our actions usually have the ability to cause vast damage to the planet. whereas a deer that eats berries will most likely change their diet or foraging habit very subtly over hundreds of years, humans tend to make vast changes in a matter of years. With that capability I think we have a greater responsibility to ensure that the planet and all of its inhabitant have the opportunity to thrive for the long-run.
Delete"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades." This whole passage is criticizing the method used in the US of eradicating wolves to "protect" the human and wildlife populations in the area. It was very short thought solution that was amplified by the fear people had of these beautiful creatures, even though “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America” according to pro wolves activist groups, that was actually their slogan. Now this isn’t 100% true there are a few cases of healthy wolves killing people but it is extremely rare close to 1 a year, I looked it up to give this number some perspective and 130 death occur every year from people crashing into deer with their cars and dogs kill 31 people a year. So this fear is largely misplaced but people made tons of exaggerated claims but her are the facts; wolves kill less than 1% of livestock and usually only target the weak ones and most attacks are caused by rabies which any animal can contract and pass to humans. This quote speaks of the after math of these imbecilic practices that destroyed the ecosystem of these areas to a point where it will take decades to return to normal also less deer are available now and the ones hunted are smaller in size because there is less vegetation to feed on.
ReplyDeleteMy question is does it matter how we die because animal attack deaths are treated as they kill millions when it is only a handful, but the most common killer heart disease people are just like "but bacon tastes good."
DeleteI now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea. "Thinking Like A Mountain" paragraph 7
ReplyDeleteThis quote emphasizes that ecosystems and Earth as a whole have an unwritten code of balance, where everything is a piece to the puzzle. As soon as we remove one piece of the puzzle it is no longer whole and no longer functioning at optimum capacity. By personifying the mountain, Leopold is allowing it to represent mother nature as a whole. The mountain recognizes the imperceptible balance that the wolves provide that is evident until us humans go and disrupt the system. The cowman is representative of humans and our rashness when it comes to thinking we have ultimate control over the earth rather than the earth having control over us. As is evident when our source of food(deer) disappears, at which point we acknowledge our place in the system rather than rulers of the system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete“The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain.” (Thinking like a Mountain, Paragraph 7)
ReplyDeleteI think this quote proves an ever-present point in our society today. All too often we only look at things in a single pane sense. We act like what we do in our economics, business’, and engineering will not have effect the environment, as if the environment isn’t tied into what we do everyday. In reality, the environment is like the Mountain. We must learn to think in a wholly connected sense. Something as little as changing a material used in a mass produced product, or clearing a single field, can cause an imbalance in the environment. Everything that we do –whether it’s directly linked to the environment or not- affects the world we live in.
I really like the point you’re making here because it reflects the idea of holistic sustainability – sustainability has multiple parts, and we must think of it in its entirety in order to achieve it. That excerpt really emphasizes this concept, too, and it was one of my favorite quotes in the passage itself. You use it as a metaphor (and a message) for the way we should behave in all sectors of society, namely in economic sections like businesses and manufacturing. I definitely agree with you there. We have to achieve balance in all aspects of our lives if we are to live on this planet sustainably, and that includes the way we produce our material items and our food.
DeleteI thought the theme of interconnectedness was, like you were saying, key. The narrator implies that the harmful nature of humans' actions are almost inevitable, but premature. Especially when he writes "seeing the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trail," the image burns into the reader and implies that we're going too far, too quick. We're too excited by success and progress, like the narrator with his excitement of killing the wolf, that we don't take the time to acknowledge what effects out actions will have on the brush and the rest of the mountain flora. We are so concerned with our shortsighted worldview, or as you said, the single-pane sense, that we can't see our actions playing in a larger scale.
Delete"I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view." (Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain, paragraph 5)
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed Leopold's piece in general, this excerpt interested me in particular because it signaled the turning point for the rest of the text. Prior to this, Leopold discusses his "old self" - a brash young man, eager to kill a wolf, a creature many believed to be only a cruel pest in an otherwise serene environment. He makes the point that, back then, no one "had ever heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf." After hunting and killing the animal, however, he realizes the significance of the wolf in its natural habitat. Although it kills and eats the roaming deer, the wolf plays a keystone role in the ecosystem, and removing wolves sends the whole system out of balance. This excerpt emphasizes that realization, which I believe is a major idea to recognize when we discuss and enact conservation efforts. Humans must see the value of each and every animal in the context of its environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour point about the hunter and his change of heart also reminds me of Allan Savory and his decision to kill 40,000 elephants in order to restore the ecosystem. Although not a perfect comparison (as Savory certainly did not have the same intentions while doing so), both are examples of acting brashly in a very complicated environment that is not fully understood. When making a decision, it must be thought out and well-planned. This ensures that a long-term goal is achieved, rather than a brash, short-term goal that has unintended consequences. As intelligent beings, it is our duty to sustain each ecosystem under nature’s natural course; like you pointed out, every animal has its own context, making it vital to its ecosystem. And if we do make mistakes, we must do our best to acknowledge what has happened and reverse the changes we’ve made, as Savory did.
Delete“You need to get different people, with different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see.” (Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence, 2:58)
ReplyDeleteThis quote emphasizes the value of creating and maintaining perspective, and broadening understanding to include approaches from other disciplines. I thought it was interesting how this standpoint ties in with the importance of collective intelligence, and the value of combining understanding to create a less individualistic knowledge base. This could be related back to the Fresnel lens, in that only as a community can knowledge be shared to create positive change. This goes to show that intelligence, as a system, is interdependent in that it requires many parts to create a better whole. Is this the same concept Savory is talking about in his holistic planned grazing?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men."
ReplyDelete'Thinking Like a Mountain', last sentences of the last paragraph.
This is an impactful statement that portrays the concept that destructive human actions are the result of being out of tune with our true nature. I do not believe he used the term "wildness" to encourage barbaric, aggressive behavior that is usually associated with the wild and survival instincts. Instead, wildness can be seen as a form of effortless growth, as the trees grow and flowers bloom. The main idea is to leave our environment unaltered and allow nature to balance herself out, because she always will whether we believe so or not. This is the key to our survival and what the wolf and mountain seem to understand that man cannot.
I completely agree with your statement with simply leaving the environment unaffected. It is through humans' negative interaction with nature that creates instability to our environment. The presentation on Tuesday displays that it is through Human Dignity that can affect the economy, food, energy, and water. But through selfish motives of humans to benefit only themselves ("safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness"), wildness, as you pointed it out, CAN'T be the form of effortless growth. Once one element is tipped, the others of the systems will be as well eventually. And just as you said, our survival will be at stake.
DeleteI totally agree with your point about humans being out of touch with our true nature. One of my professors today made the point that "Humans are animals, no matter how much we like to pretend like we aren't". Leopold shows how our disregard for our true place in nature can have a much bigger impact than we realize, as the effect of each small change alters an ecosystem on every trophic level. I also like your point about leaving nature unaltered. Sometimes when humans step in to solve problems in nature it can be very successful, but it is usually also humans who caused the problems in the first place.
DeleteI now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea. "Thinking Like A Mountain" paragraph 7
ReplyDeleteThis quote emphasizes that ecosystems and Earth as a whole have an unwritten code of balance, where everything is a piece to the puzzle. As soon as we remove one piece of the puzzle it is no longer whole and no longer functioning at optimum capacity. By personifying the mountain, Leopold is allowing it to represent mother nature as a whole. The mountain recognizes the imperceptible balance that the wolves provide that is evident until us humans go and disrupt the system. The cowman is representative of humans and our rashness when it comes to thinking we have ultimate control over the earth rather than the earth having control over us. As is evident when our source of food(deer) disappears, at which point we acknowledge our place in the system rather than rulers of the system.
I really like the line that you ended your response with: “ at which point we acknowledge our place in the system rather than rulers of the system.” Throughout the courses I have taken as a part of this program I have derived a reoccurring theme of man attempting to conquer nature, key word being attempt. Time after time us humans try to intervene on natures processes, not understanding fully the purpose for these processes to begin with. And time after time we continue to amplify problems rather than resolve them. When the human race as a whole can accept itself as a part of nature rather than view itself as exempt from it, as superior to it, or as conquerors of it, we will be able to observe positive change in our world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time." (Paragraph 7, Thinking Like a Mountain, Aldo Leopold)
ReplyDeleteTo me, this quote means that although we all go through life in different ways (the deer, the men with machines, etc.) we all want the same end goal: peace. While reading this quotation, I realized that this story is perhaps more than a mountain and a wolf. However, though on the surface it may seem like a story of a man trying to decipher the calls of a howling wolf, I took it as more. To begin, the wolf seems to be the environment and the howl is actually a cry for help. The human doesn't understand this cry for help because we impose these problems upon the Earth we live on. Moreover, it seems that the mountain understands the cry of the wolf because it too has been changed to fit the needs of man (the mountain represents aspects of the environment as well). Moreover, speaking in terms of the quote above, the message the author is trying to convey to the reader is that it does not matter whether we are human nor animal, we are all trying to make it through this life peacefully and safely. Drawing back on this quote, I remember on the first day of class Dr. Chandler told us that essentially, we are all working towards a common good. Moreover, this quote proves as an introduction to sustainability because though we are all living for prosperity, growth, safety, we are all after the common good: peace. As an introduction to sustainability, we can draw upon our common interests to successfully create a sustainable environment if we learn to hear the crying of the wolf. Essentially, this is what I was able to take from the quote: that no matter who or what we are in this environment, we are all trying to peacefully coexist. Therefore, this leaves me with my question, though we are all trying to exist peacefully, the quote says that each organism will conform the environment to fit their needs. So, are we living safely if it harms others? If it truly is peace, why is the environment at war with us?...
Nada Hussein
“You need to really triangulate, you need to get different people from different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them can see.” (Peter Senge, Navigating Ways of Independence; 2:54)
ReplyDeleteThis point is especially relevant to the topic of sustainability because it is by working through multiple perspectives and angles that we can take counteractive measures against climate change. As individuals working alone we can only get so far when solving problems. This pertains to a discussion I had in the course Climate Change and Solutions, in which we discussed the many interdisciplinary fields in which climate change is related to; for example, we need molecular biologists to work with chemical engineers to develop new organisms with the ability to combat pollutants. In other words, our roles in society are all intertwined. This, however, leads to a frustrating question. Why is it then that we have some groups that refuse to work together in order to achieve a collective goal? If we know of possible long-term solutions, such as Allan Savory’s ongoing plan to reverse desertification by using livestock, then why isn’t everyone on board together? Does this inhibition stem from a stubborn preconceived ideals or is it founded in fear of what the actual circumstances might be?
“What we are doing globally is causing climate as much as, I believe, fossil fuels and maybe more than fossil fuels, but worse than that it is causing, hunger, poverty, violence, social breakdown, and war…if this continues we are unlikely to be able to stop the climate changing even after we have eliminated the use of fossil fuels.” 18:48-19:23
ReplyDeleteI found this quote fascinating because it totally negates the popular view about climate change. Most people assume eliminating or significantly reducing our fossil fuel output will reverse or slow down the process of climate change. However, Savory’s research shows that we must do more than simply eliminate fossil fuels. He makes a very dire prediction in this quote, which can seem overwhelming, but through his talk he also provides proof of attainable solutions that have actually seen significant results. I had never known about this part of tackling climate change, so do you guys think if this method was more well-known people would be more optimistic about dealing with climate change?
Hali, interesting point. I think that if the world was more educated on climate change and understood that the overuse of fossil fuels is doing more than increasing temperatures they would put more effort into reducing climate change. I believe that this topic is often neglected because the people that need to reduce using fossil fuels are not being directly affected by their actions. Once however, it is made evident that climate change is causing hunger, poverty, and violence people will start to take action. I think this is a great point you brought up and it is important that people realize the extent of their actions.
Delete"You need to get different people, from different points of view, who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see." (Seng. Navigating webs of interdependence; 2:59)
ReplyDeleteTo me Seng makes a great point, when navigating a system it is often hard to be successful when different people from the system are only exposed to their point of view. In order to make the system function more smoothly as a whole Seng is saying that the members of the organization need to come together, using each other for guidance and advice on how to most successful function as a group. When people come together ideas are shared, problems are solved, and new interests are sparked. Seng understands that the potential of the group is heightened when they decide to work collectively as opposed to individually.
"But many years ago, we took the worst land in Zimbabwe, where I offered a £5 note in a hundred-mile drive if somebody could find one grass in a hundred-mile drive, and on that, we trebled the stocking rate, the number of animals, in the first year with no feeding, just by the movement, mimicking nature, and using a sigmoid curve, that principle. It's a little bit technical to explain here, but just that" (Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change; 21:21)
ReplyDeleteIt was really captivating to hear this after Allan Savory was asked what he and his team fed the stock with, which serves as another example of the idea that the only option available to mankind to revert its impact on our lands is to, in a way, recreate the processes of nature. This idea of sustainablility is far less complex and costly than most of the "modern" solutions, thus far making it he ideal one to solve the desertification issues that almost half of our planet faces today. But what do you think about this claim? Is it possible that there could exist a modern technique to solving this issue that does not generate greater negative outcomes?
I also was surprised at how simple a solution there is to such a complex problem. Allan’s approach to desertification exemplifies the potential there is when we challenge socially accepted truths about nature. The problem of desertification has widespread negative effects for humans yet no one was taking the time to create effective, sustainable solutions. In regards to your question about there being more modern solutions to the problem, I think that there can be more technologically advanced solutions, but they would still be based on the fundamental principles established by nature. For example, we could create machines that mimic the footsteps of animals in a way that also stops desertification. This would be a more modern, technologically advanced approach, but it would still be modeled after nature.
Delete"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades" (Thinking like a Mountain, Paragraph 8)
ReplyDeleteNaturally, nature consists of a cycle of one benefiting the other to bring balance to the world. In this case, this extensive scenario helped illustrate the what-ifs when one element of the system or cycle is diminished. When humans intervene in this balance driven with selfish or apathetic nature, such as hunting wolves in this case, it creates instability and ultimately forming a "fail...in as many decades". This also reminded me of the Fresnel Lens discussed in class where if one simply removes a glass, the light diminishes. The more fragmented it is, the less effective the invention becomes. Similarly, if an animal is taken out of the cycle, it affects the nature's system as a whole (from affecting one animal, the deer, to affecting its surroundings, the mountain). While humans can be the problem, they can also be the solution. This problem can easily be solved and bring balance through acknowledgement and recognition.
Although I agree with that statement that humans can also be the solution, I disagree with the assertion that follows it. Its as Peter Senge said, if the problem could be easily fixed, wouldn't it have already been fixed? Recognition and acknowledgement are key, however I think that they are only the first step. There are challenges to this alone, unfortunately. The first being how do you get people to actually care? How will this directly affect them is their main concern. Another issue is that people are down-hill thinkers, they do not actively think of current issues, they take whatever information they are fed to heart. There's also the issue of getting the information out to where it is important, such as rural communities or even a bustling city, how will the information be delivered and in what time frame, slowly through generations, gradually throughout one generation, or all at once as a matter of urgency? Beyond recognition and acknowledgment, there must also be an action. Having the information is one thing, how to practically apply it is another thing entirely. There is also the possibility that we could be, once again, wrong, and that would surely have consequences. And then the matter of resources, which goes on into another extensive topic that I won't discuss. You make an excellent point--one that I have held close to my heart and tried to explain to others for years--there is a balance to everything and we must identify and achieve the balance. I do not think, however, that the problem can be easily solved.
Delete"Clearly, we have never understood what is causing desertification, which has destroyed many civilizations and now threatens us globally. We have never understood it." (Minute 7:52 How to Green the Desert) "Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men." (Last sentence of Thinking Like a Mountain) Both of these quotes hold the same, humbling and insightful idea: that humans, despite all our intelligence, are ignorant and simple minded compared to the complexity of life and nature. This is an idea that while many agree with and proclaim, I believe they don't truly know the meaning behind this. The "smartest" of us may realize this, but to paraphrase Peter Senge, our individual intelligence is not the most important factor. This is something that Dr. Chandler mentioned in his lecture, that humans are social animals and we achieved success through our collective intelligence. The question I pose is: Do you think that our collective intelligence could ever fully understand the complexity of life? Or can we only work to minimize our impact on our environment?
ReplyDeleteI believe that nature, in all its realms and in all its beauty, will always remain shrouded in a veil of mystery. There will always be new discoveries and new findings, but I strongly believe that there is just too much out there at too much of a complex level for us to fully understand. With that said, I would choose the latter and say that humans can only work to minimize our impact on our environment. I can only hope that, although we might not understand it completely, humans will understand enough about nature to live in harmony with the earth, and live a life that fosters the sustainability of the planet.
Delete"I have to be prepared to be wrong. If it were pretty obvious what needed to be done, we'd already be doing it. So I'm part of the problem." Systems of Interdependence (2:30). Adopting the eagerness to learn is an essential step toward holistic sustainability. Letting go of what we know to be true and looking at situations from every angle possible instead of labeling views as "good" or "bad" will allow us to move forward in benefitting all living beings. The know-it-all mindset, even while being vastly educated, may be the most ignorant mindset of all. This video also emphasized collective intelligence, which is key to a shift in paradigm. The video mentions how the current "smartness" focused on is individual smartness and more team-based intelligence must be enforced. This is incredibly important not only so our systems and plans are highly functioning and overall better, but also to increase human connectedness and remove the "every man for themselves" dogma when it comes to success and survival. This in turn will hopefully lay down footwork so services for the Common Good become habits. However, as the video mentioned before, if this is the answer, why aren't we already doing it?
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that an individualistic society creates short-sightedness. The world has never worked like that; the Earth acts as a system, created in balance to sustain life, and every part plays a role in maintaining that homeostasis. Focusing on individual smartness drives competitiveness but not connection; it creates a culture and impact that does not last much beyond the short human lifespan. I think that we are not already changing this because of how short our lives are. We don't ever get to see the big picture or consequences to actions. When you mix the fear of mortality with the fear of not accomplishing anything that bears fruit in one's lifetime, you create a society that thrives on people working against each other instead of drawing knowledge from a collective intelligence. This society then teaches a more individualistic mindset and the cycle continues.
Delete"Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf," (Leopold, Thinking Like a Mountain, paragraph 1).
ReplyDeleteCompared to the history of the Earth, the history of humanity has been nothing more than the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, this has lead to an inability to see or truly understand the symbiotic ecosystem that is the world we inhabit. We are myopic, inadvertently trending towards instant gratification because the sheer immensity of time is incomprehensible. So how can we tackle a problem when we have no true understanding of the mechanisms behind it?
Just like Leopold heard a hunt in the howl of a wolf and a deer heard danger, every person perceives the world differently. That is where we are blessed.
Differences in our lives allow us to expand understanding if we work together. It is impossible to live to see the way the world works, but technology and our social nature allows us to get information from unreachable times anyway. Sustainability cannot be anxiety for the future or understanding of the past because those are not accurate measures of the world's true workings. Sustainability must be treated as a part of the entire world, something we don't know much about; however, if we draw on the experiences of those around us, the bigger picture becomes clearer.
I agree with your statement Rebecca, that was really well worded. Many people overlook the fact that we are all interconnected and ecosystems can easily be destroyed by humans looking for instant gratification. For instance many places in the world are over fished so that people can feed their families, but often times these over fished areas can no longer flourish at their full potential because many people don’t understand what over fishing is and that the fish won’t always keep coming back. People are looking to help themselves in any way they can without thinking. In the instance of overfishing although maybe confusing to some, if people limit the amount they catch, maybe they will not make as much money as they hoped immediately but in the long run both the ecosystem and their lives will be better because they won’t over fish the area in a way that makes it impossible for the fish to thrive and come back. Like you said we must draw on others and learn from their experiences to fully understand the bigger picture.
Delete“Today, we have young women like this one teaching villages in Africa how to put their animals together into larger herds, plan their grazing to mimic nature, and where we have them hold their animals overnight…” (Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change; 14:27)
ReplyDeleteCreating an interdependent system not only involves a holistic diagnosis with an interdisciplinary team, but it involves applying that system to local communities that will also become a part of the process toward a sustainable solution. Throughout his TedTalk, Savory references collaborative efforts from “different people with different mindsets” and briefly mentions the impact that local communities felt from planned grazing. I believe that if a sustainably solution is to be effectively implemented, it has to be introduced to the local community. When people have a sense of responsibility and hope on top of that, they work more effectively.
Savory asserts that, "There is only one option left to climatologists and scientists... to use livestock... to mimic nature...". This line is perhaps the most dramatic and central statement to his argument made throughout the video. He uses layman's terms and simple reasoning, along with some before and after photos to convey how monumental and straightforward this idea actually is. However, is this really enough to convince ecologists that one of the fundamental ideas of their study is false. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and after doing some research I found that the evidence of said theory is controversial to say the least. Many journalists and scientists have taken offence to the claims brought about by Savory while others have defended him. It is not easy from a student's perspective to decipher which side makes the better case based upon the evidence. I would like to see more research done in this field to see how practical the results can be for the world as a whole, because if these claims are true they really can change the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your wish for more insight into the claims Savory makes. I've watched many TED talks and this has to be the first one where I found his claims to not have much backup. Its is a profound idea but it was hard to tell if it was something that has be throughly proven, although his before and after pictures were intense. With that said can live stock truly mimic nature enough to reverse the effects of desertification we've seen all around the globe?
Delete"The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea." (Leopold, Thinking Like a Mountain, paragraph 7).
ReplyDeleteI think that Leopold does a great job of showing the disconnect between what humans think is the best path and the path that would be best for nature. Using this example specifically shows how we as a species are often too short-sighted to see the long term outcome of our actions and decisions. We are also too concerned with our own survival, and, to reference what we talked about Tuesday, preserving and improving upon Human Dignity. Clearly what may be best or easiest for us does not always align with what is best for the ecosystem that we often forget we are a part of, not the controllers of. We tend to seek out ways to improve our own lives (both as individuals and society as a whole) and thinking about how that impacts other aspects of nature is often an afterthought. How can we preserve "human dignity" if we disregard the consequences to our actions, like the cowman who clears his range of wolves, and hurt the balance of nature?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like this quote and agree with your response. The earth doesn't revolve around our needs; we are a part of the ecosystem, working with the plants and animals. Without everything working in unison life for anything would not exist so we need to be aware of our actions and impact on the environment before its too late, before we have all dustbowls. Also I like this quote because it shows how if one thing overpowers the other, everything gets thrown off balance. In the end there is truly no “stronger” component because without one thing such as the stripping of forests, for example we would no longer be able to feed and house animals, which would hurt society and Earth in the long run.
Delete"The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain." (Thinking Like a Mountain, paragraph 7).
ReplyDeleteThis quote manages to capture what I saw as the essence of the piece- in short, that everything is interconnected, and by extension, any action to one aspect of the ecosystem effects every other. The mountain, early on, is described as being able to listen objectively to the wolf's howl, personifying the land mass and even making it sound wise, as this is a skill it only possesses because of how long it has 'lived'. Personally, I admire wisdom, so immediately I want to be like the mountain. I trust its judgement. So when the author makes the comparison between how the deer fears the wolf and how the mountain fears the deer, the mountain's fear is legitimate. How can the deer harm an inanimate land mass? Although the answer is not obvious at first, upon further consideration, it becomes quite clear; too many deer will destroy the life that thrives on the mountain. By the end of the piece, it is clear to me that it is so important to think like the mountain, and that the cowman does not yet understand this.
The cowman, in cleaning his range of wolves, does not comprehend the consequences of his actions. He does not look far enough ahead to see that he's messing with the natural work order- he shouldn't be trying to do the wolf's job. The mountain, in all its wisdom, understands this, representing the bigger picture that we all need to see.
I agree with your interpretation of the text. working with nature and our surrounding environment calls for a great deal of foresight. Senge's video supports this in that he asserts that great policy and action come about by sacrificing the short term for the long term (and in order to indeed sacrifice the short term for the long term, we need to be conscious of the long term). I also think foresight on our part should not all be in one direction (such as vertically into the future). It should have components of horizontal thought, such as into the well being of the plants, animals and humans that our actions reach today.
Delete"I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
ReplyDeleteI love this quote because it encompasses the idea that, without humans, Earth would be in perfect harmony. Earth is a system that works in balance, and keeps all realms in check to foster prosperity and longevity. However, human activity is the wrench in the system, and ultimately screws everything up. Humans mess with the balance, and the shameful part about it is that, most of the time, they feel they are helping the planet, or helping themselves, when in reality they are damaging the planet, and ultimately damaging themselves. The hunter thought that,by killing wolves, he would make the land a hunting ground full of life and roaming with prey, when in reality it would create a barren wasteland of zero life. With this, I ask; Is there any way for humans to ultimately help the planet, or will all exchanges between us and our planet somehow end up hurting the earth in one way or another, even by unconceived consequences that arise from our efforts to intervene? Is nature and the natural balance of the universe too complicated for humans to recreate and help foster?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with what you say about the humans altering the balance of the wilderness and ecosystems. As soon as the hunter accepts hid idea that he must make change himself, the pure state of the wolves, deer, and everything else is ruined. If humans can learn to first and foremost respect other animals and beings, then we can make progress towards peacefully coexisting. But until this drastic change occurs, it is extremely difficult to slow down the negative effects of what we as the human population have done. If a balance can be found between humans and animals, then we can have hope for the future of the Earth.
Delete“... But too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run.” –Think like a mountain (paragraph 8, line 3)
ReplyDeleteThis quote to me, in 13 words, fully embodies the message behind the story. The message behind this story being an inability to see a bigger picture, which results in, more trouble than originally perceived. This is so powerful because it resonates so true in today’s world. More than often a problem arises environmentally, socially, economically, and everyone is in search for a quick fix, something that can appease them today, which may be fine and dandy for a little while, but will ultimately end in the demise of our planet. Take for example the melaleuca trees that were introduced to dry the everglades up to reduce mosquito populations. When this action was taken the individuals only saw the mosquito population as a problem. A century later those trees are amongst the most invasive in south Florida and detrimental to the ecosystem of the everglades. The point here is that if we possessed the ability, or even tried, to think like a mountain we might be able to save our selves from our own self-destructive actions.
Peter Senge – Navigating Webs of Interdependence
ReplyDelete(time 4:30)
“The smartness we need is collective. We need cities that work differently… To produce social, ecological, and economical well being.”
This quote changed my way of thinking and view on being “smart”. An Individual may be smart put a group of individuals working together solve a problem more efficiently and with a better solution. When watching this, did you agrees or disagree with this statement made by Senge?
-Kelly Kirchner
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men." (Leopold, Thinking like a Mountain, end of final paragraph)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote extremely important because it encompasses all of the thoughts in "Thinking like a Mountain". By saying this Leopold is referring to the fact that human meddling in ecosystems may be our eventual downfall. This made me recognize the importance of each animal in our world and made me question why humans find it important to hunt for sport. I am not saying that no animal should ever die because that's preposterous and the circle of life. But I am addressing the fact that human stupidity makes it easy to overlook the interconnection between each and every animal on this planet that we share. By overfishing areas you are destroying small ecosystems that may never be able to flourish again. Just as by killing wolfs we allow for over population of deer which in turn destroys the mountains they live on. Each animal plays an important role on the planet and act as a check and balance system between different organisms. If we killed all the spiders in the world, what would become of all the flies with nothing to keep them in check. I challenge everyone to think before the next time you squash a bug or step on a spider. Although you may not be able to see a dying green fire in the eyes of an ant or mosquito recognize it's presence. Just because we have the power to kill as a person, doesn't mean we have to use it.
"There is only one option, I'll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind. " Allan Savory from How to fight desertification and reverse climate change
ReplyDeleteI like this quote because Allan is talking about solutions to problems and not just problems. His ideas are not only good but also working in the real world as we speak. Farmers like Joel Salatain and his Polyface farms employ the ideas of Mr. Savory. Salatain moves/rotates his livestock around his property giving them access to the best and most natural land and food and also helping to restore the land. People like Salatain and Savory really embody the whole idea of holistic sustainability. Savory gives and answers to complex problems and Salatian and other farmers like him put those good ideas in practice.
NAIM CONRAD VILABRERA
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eco-action.org/dt/thinking.html- THINKING LIKE A MOUNTAIN
"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long-life, and dullness."
Has the belief that humans are the forerunners of evolution on this planet withered a connection with nature, thus an ecological connection, to the point that human dignity neglects wonders of nature and concerns only human affairs of "safety, prosperity, comfort, and long-life?" In other words, are ecological careers and hobbies classified in society as self-fulfilling and not as base needs mandated by nature?
Additionally, how do you interpret the word "dullness" in Leopold's sentence: "We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long-life, and dullness."
Paragraph 8 (Final Paragraph). Line 1.
DeleteI also chose this quote, and I think that you posed a very important question in asking whether or not the concept of working towards preserving and protecting the environment is something that people feel moral-bound to as it is their duty or is rather a selfish, self-fulfilling thing. I believe that while many humans have completely lost touch with nature, there are still many individuals who strive to protect the environment not just for themselves, but for the sake of preserving a beautiful and long-standing entity for the future generations to come. Furthermore, I interpret "dullness" in the sense that due to the fact that many people feel uneasy about stepping outside of their comfort zones, they fall into a sense of monotony in their daily routines. We do the same things over and over because we know that, while a bit boring, this is a sure routine that yields an outcome that we are certain about. It is safe. But Leopold's message is that while safety, prosperity, comfort, long-life and dullness are all well and good, it is sometimes essential to put your wants and desires aside and think not as an individual, but as someone who acknowledges that there are far more important things to consider than your own comfort.
DeleteThank you for your comment, Julia. I share your view that many individuals strive to protect the environment for selfless reasons for future generations and beauty; however, I believe that the fact that we must protect the environment is outlandish.
DeleteThe Earth was doing mighty fine by natural processes; it did not need protection from ecologists and well-natured peoples. Nature is the smartest entity I know; that is why nature astounds me. I made a mistake in saying "careers and hobbies." I correct myself by saying an ecological nature, mindset, and disposition.
I started to lose my train of though in this second comment. Do you follow my assertion?
ReplyDeleteThe concept of “systems thinking” (Peter Senge. Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 0:08) is applicable to components of ecology, human interaction, and human interaction with the environment. Thinking of systems as interwoven and “family”-like supports the many cases (occurring globally) of environmental policy and environmental degradation being brought about by individual policy makers or leaders, not by a well-oiled team of interwoven individuals. Even with a near perfect team, Peter Senge also asserts (Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 0:57) that consequences can arise from systems are not intended. This can be seen in agricultural land intensification, where great teams of thinkers encouraged practices such as the Haber Bosch process that produced plant fertilizer to help boost agricultural outputs. As a result of applying these processes bodies of water where depleted of oxygen content; ruining aqueous microbiomes. I believe the best way to avoid these consequences is again reaching out to include an even broader scope of individuals for the system across continents and across educational backgrounds. Lastly, Senge’s Lecture illuminates the quote “long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men” in Aldo Leopold’s Thinking Like a Mountain. Men need to broaden their “system” to include not only a diverse group of humans but also to include a system of ecology. Interactions between man and animal and animal and land need to be taken into account and integrated into the decision making “system” of future generations.
What do you think can best strengthen today’s problem solving systems?
At 4:20, Peter Senge begins talking about how there needs to be a collective intelligence rather than independent intelligence. He states that change cannot be reached by a handful of smart individuals. I strongly agree with his opinion. Relating to sustainability, I believe one of the major issues in society is that people get caught up in their daily lives and they do not look at the bigger picture. They act for their own good rather than for the common good. In many cases, people’s individual good is not sustainable. A collective intelligence will help solve the social sustainability problem. The problem will then be comprehensively recognized and together people will solve the issues rather than ignoring it when it is not desirable.
ReplyDeleteThis particular part of the video jumped out at me as well. Obviously, when it comes to sustainable issues, looking past selfish desires and convenience is a must. Emphasizing collective intelligence is an interesting and fresh way to bring forth ideas of selflessness and will hopefully allow individuals to take every action with the bigger picture in mind. I believe this ideal will truly ignite peace among all beings because people will constantly see how things are connected. This can be as simple as not letting a small speed bump in your day put a frown on your face, and rather continue smiling so others can pick up your positive vibrations. It can also be as complex as sharing as much as possible, even when you barely have enough to survive on your own.
Delete“You need to be prepared that when you do start to see an area of relatively high leverage it may take some time to develop, adopt and apply really alternative behaviors and approaches. It may be years before a relatively higher level approach bares fruit.”
ReplyDeletePeter Senge - Navigating Webs of Interdependence (3:11-3:30)
Often enough we are a very impatient culture, wanting results fast. This can often be seen in the food industry with fast food restaurants, trying to become healthy again with “loose wait fast schemes”, faster technology and etc… So much so that I even find myself getting frustrated when something isn’t operating or producing fast enough. A great example of this would be the wifi not being as quick as we may want it, causing feelings of anger, impatience and frustration that I am almost certain we have all felt at one time or another over this issue. Peter Senge suggests that we need to accept that when we develop a solution we also need to understand that it could potentially take a lot of time until we see results. As a culture that is known for being so fast pace, how can we learn to be patient and accept that developments with our change in alternative behavior and approaches will take time before noticeable differences?
I agree with you that our culture has become very impatient. We always expect instant results for our actions and have difficulty thinking in the long run. I believe that we often face conflicts as a country because we are constantly looking for the fastest and cheapest way to solve a problem. This have proven to be ineffective, as a quick fix never lasts in the long run. Your example of fast food is great because that is one of our country’s biggest industries. We eat the greasy food that arrives at our car window minutes after placing an order but do not think about what effect it will have on our bodies for years to come. I think that it is important for our country to take a step back and analyzes our harmful way of living.
Delete"We all probably spend too much time thinking about smart individuals. That’s one of the problems with school, you know, it’s very individualistic. Very much about the smart kid and the dumb kids. OK, that’s not the kind of smartness we need. The smartness we need is collective. We need cities that work differently. We need, you know, industrial sectors that work differently. We need value change and supply change that are managed from the beginning to the end to produce social, ecological, and economic well-being." (Peter Senge- Navigating Webs of Interdependence; 4:18)
ReplyDeleteThis quote stuck out to me because it really embodies the way a majority of society views education and progression. Schools are stuck on the idea that all students think the same way, that you must be able to pass test X to be considered “smart.” In order for society to progress and reach a better state, we need all types of ideas and people, not just the valedictorians of classes. We need different ideas that come from different people that would not traditionally work together or we will just remain where we are.
I think your post carries a lot of weight behind it. The message that Senge is trying to share with the audience is that their is promise in numbers. Similar to America's education system, conservation efforts in this country are very one-sided. In school, most students are distinguished by how well they do in academics or high score of a standardized test. In reality, teachers (some, not most) see the potential in these bright students and focus all their attention to the one student. I think the conservation is the same way, the teacher is the government and the students are different industries across the nation. Some industries do really well to set the pace for conservation and the Government applauds them. Like the student-teacher metaphor, many industries across the nation are not doing as well as they can. Rather than spending time and aiding the less successful industries, the government focuses on, and praises the sustainably successful companies. If the government created a way to determine which industries needed more attention than others, I believe more conservation would be able to happen within the US.
DeleteThe part of Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain" that had a profound impact on me was "We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness." Although many may seek to refute this claim, it is incredibly true. We see this statement being proven true in that many people feel uneasy when being asked to step outside of their comfort zones. If we are called on to do something that may disrupt the sense of ease that many strive to develop, many choose to ignore this call. This is greatly detrimental to the concept of "thinking like a mountain" which, to me, means acknowledging the fact that there is a great level of interconnectedness between you and the world around you. If you simply think about yourself and fail to realize how significant an impact your actions can have, you are causing great detriment to the world. This ties into Peter Senge's concept of "systems thinking" because, as he states, the world is breeding not a group of viable, intelligent people but rather single, intelligent individuals, and as individuals, it is a lot more difficult to combat such a vast issue like climate change and desertification than it would be to do so as a group. No one man can change the world, but a large group of people, working together with many different ideas and perspectives, can definitely have a profound impact.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observations, in that, our generations are becoming increasing more cut off from our past. This concept is discussed in our upcoming reading Ishmael, this feeling that we must all individually strive for our own specific greatness while disregarding those in the world who are struggling to meet their basic needs. This falls back to the idea we discussed in our first lecture about humanity’s fear of mortality. This unshakable fear is what causes people to look away when they see the advertisements for starving children on the television and feel so completely disconnected to tragedies that are happening around the world or even those that happen in our own backyard. I think it is curious to consider how we may ever feel that connectedness that humanity draws us to feel.
DeleteThe idea that people strive for simplicity and convenience can be extremely detrimental to the fate of the environment. People are unwilling to adjust their lifestyles in order to benefit the environment, even when they see the flaws in our behavior. As a single person, it is nearly impossible to see any major improvement based on any minor lifestyle adjustment. This discourages people from acting because so often we seek instant gratification for our actions. In order to live more sustainably we must learn to consider the repercussions that our actions have on the environment and adjust our lifestyles accordingly.
Delete"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades."
ReplyDeleteAs keystone species, wolves play crucial roles in the productivity of the habitat. Whether accessing wooded forests, scrubby mountain ranges, grasslands, or any environment between, the likelihood of encountering a wolf is high. Not so long ago, the US Government offered a nuisance reward to any hunters that successfully killed any wolf for any reason. As time continued, hunters and wildlife protection agencies realized how killing of the wolf species created more issues for other animals that shared the wolves habitat. Because wolves are keystone species, they play an important role in regulating species populations in given habitats. By ensuring the safety of the wolf, Americans ultimately ensure the well-being of other animals, too.
I completely agree with you Zachary, habitat productivity depends on keystone species, such as the wolfs. I as well have heard of the nuisance award for killing wolfs, particularly I think this was happening in Yellow Stone national park. It is sad how we have had to learn the hard way about what the role of the wolfs is in habitats like the one in the reading, as well as the importance of trusting mother natures system. I also like the quote you choice, it definitely illustrates the patterns of wildlife, and how one disruption has a chain reaction. If only government agencies invested a little more time and money into investigating habitats before changing mother natures course.
Deletefrom the Ted talk by Allan Savory start at min 18:46 " What we are doing globally is causing climate change as much as, I believe, fossil fuels, and maybe more than fossil fuels. But worse than that, it is causing hunger, poverty, violence, social breakdown and war, and as I am talking to you, millions of men, women and children are suffering and dying. And if this continues, we are unlikely to be able to stop the climate changing, even after we have eliminated the use of fossil fuels."
ReplyDeleteI've explored a lot about climate change and what we should be doing about it but I never understood the complexity to the desertification we have going on throughout the world. There has to be more we can do to help these lands, and maybe more thought should be put into finding a solution for this problem. Climate change is an intensifying problem and recognizing that fossil fuels are not the main dilemma makes me question what else we are missing in the puzzle that is our climate future.
While fossil fuels are not the only problem causing all of the world's climate issues, they certainly do not help. Savory explained that the grasslands that people burned contributed negatively to the climate about as much as sixty thousand car exhausts do. There are millions of cars running in the state of Florida alone. Savory focused on deforestation in his lecture but there are clearly other issues that are causing the climate changes. His work rebuilding natural environments and farmlands does slow down the climate change process, but more needs to be done. As humans, we need to be more cautious of the natural environment we choose to destroy for our own convenience and slowly begin to rebuild the world to what it once was.
Delete"I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers." (Thinking Like a Mountain paragraph six)
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt describes the inevitable demise of all environments which are overly tempered with by the human population. The way our race can see only the situation directly at hand, without considering the effect ours actions have on the creatures who actually reside in this habitat. My question pertaining to this quote is, how many people does it take to have seen the bones of the earth and hear the voice of the wolf before we realize that the way we are living will leave us with a barren world? And if the voices of these witnesses are heard, how will carry on from there to right the immense wrongs we have committed against this world?
This is a quote that really resonated with me as well. I loved how deep it was. I think your question is so great as well. Humans have this natural instinct to believe that they are the top of everything, or that they rule everything. Meanwhile, our actions affect the entire ecosystem which eventually comes back to us in the end. I think that not being able to see the consequences that our actions have is the "Achilles heel" of the human race. We may be getting everything we need now (food, resources, etc.) but soon, our whole entire source of life is going to be so barren and destitute that the entire human race will suffer. I don't even believe that with everyone aware of these problems that it is likely for our past and current actions to be reversed.
DeleteColette Spieler
"I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels, while feeding people."
ReplyDelete(Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change. 19:23)
I thoroughly enjoyed Savory's Ted talk. Savory presented his argument in a calm and genuine manor which I responded well to. What made his argument so strong was the way he used straight facts. He was not trying to convince anyone of his ideas, he was just confident in his thought process. That made me respond well as a listener and made me want to actually listen more. I thought Savory was smart with his entire Ted talk... He used personal stories, statistics, straight facts, and his general knowledge, which all tied together nicely. I'm choosing to pose a question because it is one that frequently crossed my mind during the duration of the video. If Savory is presenting such a "simple" solution, then why are we not doing it? It was quite hard for me to wrap my brain around Savory's argument because I have been in many classes where we have learned about climate change/desertification/other environmental issues and I have always left those classes with a sense of despair. My teachers and professors have always (maybe unintentionally) sort of convinced me there is no hope for these problems, that they're irreversible. It was nice that Savory presented a plausible way to stop these issues that are threatening our Earth, however, I felt almost guilty for believing him. Maybe the correct phrase is "too good to be true"?
Colette Spieler
You have definitely made a very valid claim. Savory's argument did include one overall opinion however, and that was that herding large packs of animals over arid terrains of land is the last option for humankind to revive lands that have undergone desertification. Maybe as of now this seems to be our best option, but that does not rule out that we may be able to find an even better solution in the future. Regardless, Savory did provide a boundless amount of studies and facts to reinforce his method of reversing climate change, such as providing evidence of our failed efforts to previously save the environment, and as you said, it tied everything together nicely. To answer your question in the best way I can, I believe we have not done this already because it was Savory that decided to do extensive research on this issue, and this was not something people had thought of doing before. He did say that progress had been made though, and more people were being educated about this method by the end of the video. I do hope that these efforts are being applied in more parts of the world, as about two thirds of the world's lands are not fertile for growth. It's crucial that we not only talk about our problems and find solutions, but also put them into effect.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change
ReplyDelete"There is only one option, I'll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind." 11:50.
It's astounding to think that Savory is convinced that there is no alternative left to mankind, in other words, he believes there is no other option for our survival other than to mimic nature. I agree with him completely. As we learned in our first class, we created the problem, and in turn, we must create the solution. Our problem is that our land, the land we require for the survival and well-being of humanity, is depleting due to our efforts towards "progress". Because we are going through desperate measures to feed our ever-growing population, we are hurting the environment we so highly depend on. Usually the first solutions we think of are to fight this with more technology, or sometimes just leaving it alone and hoping it gets better, but I find it intriguing that Savory believes that natural efforts are the most logical and effective way to solve our issue at hand. What he says is brilliant, low cost, and our greatest hope towards fostering more fertile lands to sustain a healthy environment and biodiversity.
Janeshly Algarin
I also found this quote from Savory to be very interesting. What was so intriguing to me was that he used the initial problem of livestock to solve the issue it had caused and his solution connected to a problem that has reoccurred throughout history. Garrett Hardin’s concept of Tragedy of the Commons is seen throughout today’s society in which our continually growing populations are depleting the earth’s resources for our own personal gain. Before humans began using agricultural techniques, Earth’s resourced were not exploited for progress or industry. I completely agree that it is up to us to solve the problem we have created. By using holistic planned grazing, Savory was able to solve the problem by using systems that mimic nature. Earth’s systems were in balance before humankind began to tamper with the resources. I believe that this way of approaching our environmental issues is a great way to effectively resolve the complications we are now facing.
DeleteDestiny Hartin
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI totally agree in that humans are using desperate, inhumane measures to feed such a large, demanding, and growing population. Each human consumes so much meat and food in a day that collectively, there is a very high demand for food. To meet this demand, there have developed immoral practices when treating animals and plants to get the food supply we need. These practices can include animal cruelty or modifying the genetics of plants and animals to meet our needs. However, these practices are controversial. There needs to be more education on the source of our foods, and a greater effort to get our food from sources that are sustainable and promote a healthy environment.
Delete"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. [...] but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world" (Leopold Paragraph 8). With this piece Aldo Leopold explains that it is natural for humans to desire comfort and stability. So often people act out of self interest with no foresight or consideration for the people and the planet around them. In the moment a cattle farmer would wipe off populations of wolves in order to preserve his livestock and maximize his profits, ignoring natures systems system of checks and balances which hold the ecosystem in place. Over looking such systems can not only be devastating in regards to productivity, but it can also result in major environmental repercussions, in this case over population and overgrazing. While he says such selfish thinking is a requisite to objective thinking, we must learn to focus our energy on working toward the greater good of the public rather than themselves in order to live more sustainably.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your statement that humans tend toward comfort and stability, I also believe that our society in particular desires convenience in addition to the two concepts you stated. It is also true that all of us act out of self interest with little regard for how our actions affect the world around us, because the effects our actions have aren't necessarily seen right away. For instance, many can't see the effects driving a car has on the environment. Additionally, it's such a large world that I believe many question how their actions, as one person, can truly effect change. Therefore, I think it is imperative that we start focusing more on what the future will look like if we continue to live the way we do rather than focusing on the present day effects of our actions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteFor this weeks reading I found this quote to be particularly interesting, “perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range.” (Leopold par 7) Personally, I had to re-read the whole passage a few times to see the main message the author is trying to get across. This quote I found to be a helpful example of what the author wants the readers to know. First, it states how wolfs help control the buck population, however, with the cowman example, that if all the wolfs were killed, then humans must keep up with the wolfs job or else deer will over populate. This shows that nature has a system, like chain links, if one piece is missing something has to fill it or it will not be as effective. This is what I got from it, I am interested to see if other people had a different understanding?
"...but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world."
ReplyDeleteIn this particular piece, Aldo Leopold presents the idea that humans, rather than being a separate entity, are connected and interdependent with the natural world, and therefore must not exploit it or the wildlife found within it, as it will disrupt the balance found within the earth's environment. Though today, we as a society are not as concerned with safety from wildlife (people taking "selfies" with dangerous wildlife for instance), we continue to exploit our natural resources and carelessly disrupt the equilibrium of various environments in the name of convenience and comfort, two ideas which our society stresses. For instance, forests are being cleared for shopping centers and housing developments, while on a more individual level, people are releasing wild animals they can no longer keep while others are hunting for money or pleasure. In all three of these cases, the same result occurs, which Leopold describes as a disrupted balance within the environment that can ultimately lead to our demise. He quote Thoreau by illustrating that by disrupting our natural world, we reduce the longevity of man by reducing the life of the planet. Therefore, it is imperative for us to see that we are interdependent with our planet and must take care of it in order to take care of ourselves.
I completely agree with you. I feel that out society is not concerned about our environment and that we are slightly consumed with greed and focus on ourselves thriving rather than our actual place here on Earth. I believe that we were put here on Earth for a reason and that we should be working with nature, and not against it in order to better our lives and also the future generation's lives. Where I live in Tampa is undergoing major construction of roads and shopping malls, and it's running the wildlife out of their habitats. People then complain when their gardens get destroyed and when there is an increase of roadkill in the area, but not once do they think about the fact that their new walmart, publix and etc was once where that animal's home was. We think of the human race as the top species, but in reality, we are nothing without the help of other species...
DeleteThe following quote was particularly interesting to me: "I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view." This is expresses the erroneous belief that some humans have about nature. At the beginning, Leopold was only able to see how killing more wolves would affect him in the short term. He failed to realize that actions, similar to his, would have dire consequences for humans and animals. Despite this, he later expressed a sense of emotion after looking into the animals eyes. His acknowledgement of his lack of understanding provides hope. I believe that people who are currently destroying the environment are still capable of having transformative experiences and changing their ways. Do you think that people would change their ways if they were more educated on the long term impact of their actions? Or, would they still see environmental problems as too far off to care about?
ReplyDeleteLeopold’s actions are expressive of the attitude that many humans have about our place in the eco system. Society functions upon the idea that the earth and its non- human inhabitants exist with the sole purpose of serving humans. If we continue to make decisions based on this selfish assumption we will end up completely depleting the earth of its resources. This is explained in the following quote: "The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea."
"The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain." Prior to reading this article I have never heard of the term "to think like a mountain", but I think it perfectly captures the type of ideology that we should adapt as a species in order to preserve the integrity of our planet.The article and TED talk seem to come from the perspective that wildlife has a natural way of working to the earths benefit, wether by assisting in the maintenance of its land, or the control of its populations. I think that the human species has become so advanced that it has been able to remove itself from "natural" duties, such as pruning trees and picking berries, and has now moved to alternative motives that can be damaging to the planet we inhabit. I think by accepting the responsibility of thinking like a mountain we put ourselves into perspective on the earths scale. The idea of a mountain as a stationary object observing all of the biodiversity and how every species has a specific duty that is balanced by one another, or offset by the lack of another, can help us understand the magnitude of our decisions on a daily basis. What are some things that you see on a daily basis that you think a "mountain" would disagree with?
ReplyDelete"Whenever I'm trying to help people understand what this word system means I usually start off by saying, are you part of a family? ... Have yoy ever seen in a family people producing concequences in the family ... that aren't what anybody intends. That then grounds people ... in the reality that we live in webs of interdepedence." (Senge, 1:22) I find that this point, while simple and perhaps over looked, to be quite important. Interdependence is the crucial basis for a healthy, thriving ecosystem whether that be a small niche or the entire planet. In order for all organisms on this planet to live sustainably together we must live in harmony in these webs of interdepence. Unfortunately, there is one species on this planet that is far less complaint with these teamwork requirements. Many humans have forgotten that they live in a bigger picture than just their personal lives. What we do as humans directly affects millions of ecosystems, organisms, and so on. Perhaps what we forget in that not only do these other systems depend on our coeixistance with them, but that we also depend on these systems that we are destroying. Every piece of this planet plays a crucial role in creating a balanced and sustainable system. When one piece is missing, the whole system stops working.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. For many of us, we often forget that we are not the only ones inhabiting this earth. We are a part of a system, a team rather, that must work together to meet the needs of one another. We rely on a system that relies just as heavily on us as we do on it. When we fail to realize that we are a part of this complex and intricate system and that our actions have a huge impact on the system as a whole, that is where the damage begins. I love your idea about balance, because that is something that not many of us understand. We need to balance our needs with the needs of the world around us. It's with that understanding that we can finally work together and see a positive change for the future.
Delete“You need to get different people from different point of views who are seeing different parts of the system to come together and collectively start to see something that individually none of them see” (Peter Senge- 2:58-3:10)
ReplyDeleteThis quote that Peter Senge stated in the first video is what I think encompasses a huge part of what holistic sustainability is all about. I believe that in order to grow and to accomplish any goal we must all be willing to stop, listen, and take in as many perspectives as we can. It’s interesting to think about how each and every one of us may see something entirely different and when we all come together as one we are able to share what we know and see a positive change that wouldn’t have been possible before. When you are open to the ideas of others, you are opening the door to ideas and thoughts that could potentially make that single difference. As someone who is passionate about trying to promote positive and sustainable change, knowing that someone alone cannot accomplish all that a team can. This idea is also illustrated in Allen Savoy’s TED Talk. Throughout his journey he too came to realize that the only way to move his vison further was to rely on the knowledge and ideas of others. “So rather than reinvent the wheel, I began studying other professions to see if anybody had. And I found there were planning techniques that I could take and adapt to our biological need, and from those I developed what we call holistic management and planned grazing, a planning process, and that does address all of nature’s complexity and our social, environmental, economic complexity” (Savoy- 13:45-14:10). Savoy had a vision, but knew that he couldn’t see it grow on its own without the knowledge of others. And I think that this idea is key in the journey towards a future in holistic sustainability. Holistic sustainability is all about working collectively in order to achieve the most sustainable and long lasting development possible.
Sir Isaac Newton has a quote that speaks about standing on the shoulders if giants. I believe that the only path to success is to "stand on the shoulders of giants". In the world of science, technology, and literature there is very little that is being created and invented. However, there has been a massive about of advancement in these fields in the last two decades. You may see this as contradicting statements, but rather than creating and inventing people in today's society are innovating upon what exists and taking existing theories and expanding them.
DeleteI disagree with the notion that there is nothing left to create, but schools and university do not teach most of their students creativity but rather innovation. I bring that question to you Lauren, are you going to be creative or innovative in changing the world for the better upon graduation?
"The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range" (Leopold paragraph 7). The issue Leopold speaks of above is an issue humans have struggled with around the world since farming was relevant. Allan Savory argues this same concept in his Ted Talk, "How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change". While Leopold speaks of more natural ways to keep the land in harmony with the animals that use it, Savory simply uses livestock to create a better relationship between the land and those who live on it. Would it be better to use livestock or bring back the natural wildlife in order to restore the land? How would the larger livestock populations affect the wildlife populations if just livestock was used?
ReplyDelete4:30 Peter Senge Navigating Webs of Interdependence
ReplyDelete“That’s not the kind of smartness we need. The smartness we need is collective. We need cities that work differently. We need industrial sectors that work differently. We need value chains and supply chains that are managed from beginning to the end to produce social, ecological, and economic wellbeing. That’s the kind of intelligence we need and it will never be achieved by a handful of smart individuals.”
This section of Peter Senge’s video was very interesting to me. Society as a whole is already very diverse, and that is what makes it efficient. This quote also reminded me of an idea that I was introduced to by a previous professor in which he stated that we all tend to think in terms of “buckets.” What he meant by this was engineers tend to see problems from a more technical side than someone of a different area of expertise would, like an artist. He stated that is important to branch out of the categories that we place ourselves in and see things from a different point of view, because you could be missing something highly important. Senge expressed that same idea of collaboration with others to see a different picture and applied it to making a difference. In order to actually impact the world we live in, I also believe that every side of an issue must be seen. In the Ted talk given by Allan Savory, he also looked at the issue in a different way. He initially thought that technology and time could solve the increase of arid lands, when in fact the solution was in the problem itself. By using livestock, the problem was solved. Combining ideas and beliefs through an open mindedness about other's perspectives is guaranteed to be more efficient and beneficial to all of society.
"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer... [We have] not learned to think like a mountain." Leopold emphasizes that we have yet to fully understand the natural system, and there is value in learning these connections. I really enjoyed the metaphorical slant and descriptive writing style of Leopold. His evocative imagery was not new to the time of the late 1800's, but his message about a "land ethic" and system of nature were surely new to many people of the United States. I have watched a documentary about Leopold before but this is the first that I have read any of his writings. He taught many new people, those educated and not, to rethink their view of the land around them, and to imagine a new society where we are a part of the natural community and to respect our position and brethren. I wonder, what the general reaction was to his message at the time. I think instilling in people a strong respect for the mountains and animals around them is the first step toward moving people to understanding conservation and sustainability.
ReplyDeleteAdam, I think you're spot on. We as a species have operated under the assumption that we know best for too long. We believe that if we use this resource this way, and kill off that population of animals there we'll finally have it right. Having respect for the mountains for me at least in some ways requires the knowledge that as a being who exists on this planet for an inordinately short amount of time, I won't know as much as the mountain. I won't know as much about the animals and plants around it, the role of each organism in the ecosystem, or the best way to help that ecosystem flourish. It may be odd to say I don't know as much as something that isn't "alive", but the mountain existed before I was born, and will exist after as well. I have no business dictating its existence. Individuals carving away at the natural landscape because we keep thinking we have it figured out doesn't solve the problem. It requires careful study over time. I would guess that most people from Leopold's era would have reacted similarly to many today -- that mountains can't have feelings, and that our existence today requires resources in the short term that we'll have to figure out later. I think that's exactly why his message is so important, we're going to have to think differently if we're going to solve the problems we're facing.
DeleteAllan Savory begins his talk with a pessimistic view of humans impact on the future of the planet. While caring deeply about the environment and wildlife, he confesses to have hated livestock and expresses a misanthropic standpoint and goes on to say "humans for thousands of years have never been able to deal with nature's complexity" (How to fight desertification and reverse climate change, 13:45). After explaining desertification and its affect on the planet, Savory admits that he was wrong about livestock being the cause of desertification and his determination to find a solution. He realized that movement of livestock was key to creating healthy soil. To prevent desertification, we could mimic natural livestock traveling to fertilize soil. He explains "I found there were planning techniques that I could adapt to our biological needs and from those I developed what we call holistic management and planned grazing and that does address all of natures complexity and our social, environmental, economic complexity" (14:00). All of theses factors are integrated with each other. Humanity and the Earth are interdependent and we can work with nature to help benefit the planet instead of destroying it. The land being compromised makes up 95% of the land on Earth, and only animals are able to feed people there. Planned grazing has significantly increased production of land allowing grasses, trees and shrubs to flourish where land was once bare. "I believe I have shown you how we can work with nature at very low costs to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on 5 continents… We can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to preindustrial levels while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, your children, their children, and all of humanity" (19:25). Savory's understanding of nature reminds me of Native American views of respecting the Earth. I'm curious as to what the planet would look like if we adopted those beliefs before the industrial revolution. How can we continue to mimic nature to restore bountiful and livable conditions? How have we done so in the past and how can we use technology to imitate and progress nature's ability to heal itself?
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to move forward is to integrate the new and old, we can never go back to being hunter gathers that allows nature free-rain of the plants we but the opposite of unsustainable commercial agriculture we never last us since it destroy's of resources. So we must mimic natural process and cycles with our technology to make it sustainable. In rural Mexico they would plant their crops on floating rafts of decaying plants in the river so they wouldn't need to water or fertilize and didn't need machines to harvest their crop. Now we have something similar called aquaponics which uses fish wastes as fertilizer, water the crop with the same water they swim in, and can be done without soil and in artificial lighting. All it does is mimic a natural system but uses our current technology to make it more accessible.
Delete"I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades." (Thinking like a Mountain). This quotation from the short story resonated with me. We as citizens of the world fail to see things from a perspective other than ours. We create preconceived notions whose inertia we fail to overcome. All things on this planet exist in a web of interdependence and if we alter one aspect of that web entire communities could die. This quote is a demonstration of how this could happen. By decreasing the wolf population, the deer population increased; so much so that the mountain itself then suffered from all the trampling. The wolves, deer, mountain and everything in that community and ecosystem were dependent on the each other. Hurting one link in that web of interdependence resulted in damage to the others linked to it.
ReplyDelete--Mijan Ramharrack
Aldo Leopold wrote, “Too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run” (Paragraph 8). I think this one clause articulates something at the heart of a majority of the problems that we as a species have created. We see the world outside and say, “There’s a scary thing out there that we need to protect ourselves from.” We have too much reliance on foreign oil, they could hurt us. We have to monitor our own citizens because we don’t know where the threat is lurking. There are too many wolves hunting our livestock and that threatens our food supply; we should kill the wolves. Reading that reminded me of security studies in political science and international relations; by separating problems into dichotomies of here and there, us and them, and ultimately friend and foe we create threats that demand action. We attempt to make ourselves safer by putting ourselves in harm’s way. We do this with the planet and the way we manage natural resources as well. At this point it’s no longer a matter of managing the earth’s resources or being stewards, Savory’s research shows the best way to make the earth healthy again is to try to recreate the balances nature made on its own. I have two somewhat related questions. The first, in a culture dominated by this kind of threat construction, how can we change the way we think? And second, what other ways (besides Savory’s agriculture plan) can we mimic nature to slow and reverse our destruction of the planet?
ReplyDelete“A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run.” (Leopold, paragraph 8) Leopold captures one of society’s flaws in this quote. The actions we have taken to ensure our own safety and well being have had negative repercussions on the environment. Sometimes our natural instinct of survival can block our perceptions and make us ignorant of how we are impacting our environment. In the past hundred years, people have only just started to realize that sometimes sacrifice is needed in order to save our environment. And only in the long run will we see the rewards of our actions to preserve the earth today. Therefore, instead of being selfish and killing the wolf for your own gain, you must save the wolf for the survival of future generations as well. What can we do to get rid of our selfish instincts and bring the ideas of holistic sustainability into our everyday actions that will benefit us in the long run?
ReplyDelete"A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run" (Thinking Like a Mountain, paragraph 8). This quote shows the importance of a trial and error system in dealing with and finding solutions with environmental problems. In many cases regarding desertification and climate change, the removal of the ecosystem's natural inhabitants was thought to be the solution so the fauna could have a "rest" so to speak. However, in time that has proven to be wrong as shown in the Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change TED talk as well as the mountain ecosystem in "Thinking Like a Mountain". Trial and error is important, but, as from the quote, don't measure the outcomes by success only. If the results aren't satisfactory then proceed with more research to find a better solution because not taking risks could cost the land even more in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that we have to attempt to change what is happening to the world and its environments. Trial and error seems to occur many times in experiments, and in the attempt to fight desertification and climate change. However, I think a lot of this error comes from a lack of careful planning and research. There have been so many instances of error in the past, and surely there are more to come, but I believe that there has to be a way to learn from the mistakes on a global scale. The world has to be willing to listen to what has and has not worked in the past, and we have to realize that, while we may not always know how to fix it, we often know how to figure it out, without damaging the world even further.
DeletePeter Senge said, "The smartness we need is collective. We need cities that work differently, we need industrial sectors that work differently. We need value change in the supply chains..." (4:29-4:40). I am in my third year of majoring in Industrial and Systems Engineering, and I think Senge's statement is especially true for all systems in the corporate environment. Many engineers involved in these industrial sectors work in teams of other engineers but are unaware of how their projects affect other or the bigger picture. How do you think we can better integrate all types of disciplines so that people are more aware of the greater system and how it affects their environments, and do you think it is important that we do?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Leopold's inclusion of spirituality in "Thinking Like a Mountain" particularly interesting, as he gave a sort of added moral gravity to the subject of disturbing ecosystems. We often get stuck in the purely biological and ecological aspects of sustainability (which are of course extremely important) but thinking about it from a religious standpoint, making God a participatory character, "as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise" is such a provocative image. His inclusion of God, and the extended metaphor with the wolves living in fear, implies that God lives in fear of us, the creatures he gave life to, who are capable of destroying themselves and the rest of what he has made. God can no longer participate, he can only watch as his world crumbles, a feeling many can empathize with in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf." This quote comes from Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain," and is found in the first paragraph, in the very last sentence. Reading this part of the passage, after reading it in its entirety, truly represented the passage. It made me realize that, in reality, the human race is young, and, oftentimes, reckless. Compared to a mountain, we appear to know nothing. There are few who take the time to truly think about their actions, considering all of the consequences and costs. We do not realize the price of how reckless behavior. We are attempting to change the world, because we know it is in trouble, but we don't understand enough about the issue as we go out trying to solve it. It can't be done by one person with one thought about one issue. That, of course, is a start, but we know the difference we are trying to make is much larger. I think what Leopold was trying to tell us is, although we may not be as old as a mountain, we have to try and interpret how we would think and approach global issues if we were. It is going to take nothing less than cooperation and integration of multiple intellects across the globe to make a difference on a global scale. We need to climb a mountain, and get a different perspective in approaching issues. Will it take until we are as old as a mountain to reach that understanding?
ReplyDeleteI also read this passage and felt particularly drawn to this excerpt. I feel like you understand what Leopold was after when he posed the realization of the implications of the hunter's actions. When the hunter watched the fire die inside the wolf, he felt great concern for his wrong-doings. Unfortunately, this passage could be interpreted, as well, as humans' tendencies to put more weight in hindsight than in foresight. Do you think that Leopold could have been pointing out the innate flaw in human nature that is only changing their foolish ways when the deed has been done and the damage is irreparable?
Delete"If you do not look at the grasslands but look down into them, you will find that most of that soil in the grassland that you've just seen is bare and covered with a crust of algae, leading to increased run off and evaporation. That is the cancer of desertification that we do not recognize till it's terminal form." (How to Green the Desert, 3:45)
ReplyDeleteAfter this quote, Allan Savory then goes into talking about how many people think of herds as the cause of desertification due to the grazing and constant movement of them. He then mentions this is how he thought of it for a while before he became knowledgable about the other little problems, such as the algae. What stood out to me in this quote was the last sentence, "That is the cancer of desertification, that we do not recognize till it's terminal form." Cancer is a very small thing, that can grow to create a horrible problem. It made me think about how we tend to always try to fix the major problem instead of first focusing on fixing the little things that contribute to the huge issue. I totally agree with him on that last phrase, it applies to a lot of things we do in life. We don't notice the little problems until it's basically too late. Many people become tunnel visioned with their knowledge. Once we are taught something, it tends to be very hard to stray from it and open our minds up to new thoughts and ideas, such as the fact that the algae is causing a lot of the desertification and that it really isn't just the herds and what we were taught growing up.
In regards to learning, some people think that you should just stick to what you know while others believe you should always be open to learn. My question to you all is that do you think that gaining more knowledge can be for the best, or actually be corrupting?
To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone believe that it is more important to have the freedom to manipulate the natural fluctuation of carrying capacity in a given environment, or is protecting nature's will worth sacrificing certain human freedoms (hunting)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast Child in the Woods "In 2007, the chairman of the Department of Animal Biotechnology at the University of Nevada School of Medicine and his colleagues created the world's first human-sheep chimera which has the body of a sheep and half human organs." (Louv 22)
ReplyDeleteThis pretty much blew my mind. I had no idea that biological engineering had come to this point and the beneficial applications of this are clear given the shortage of transplant organs and need for testing of medical technologies but as the author pointed out the lines between life and a resource are being blurred. I don't think many people would support the direction that this technology has gone were they aware as it is a perversion of humanity. We are and have been abusing lives of other creatures and have become so detached from the other forms of life that some people no longer make the connection between the animal and their dinner or whatever else we may choose to use animals for. The question that this brought to my mind however is where will this path lead us? How long can we go with such disregard for other forms of life? And finally, we, as humans, put a huge focus on combating death and illness when its only natural so what longterm effects will be caused by the increasing lifespan of people in first world countries?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Coal fueled the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, opening the door to accelerated energy-resource discovery and exploitation ... Perhaps the Coal Revolution would more accurately represent the transformational change marked by the nineteenth century."
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because since the industrial revolution, it is true that we have been using coal at an exponentially higher rate, and that the industrial revolution marks the first real big wave of unsustainable practices, and harsh human activity on the ecological world around us. Calling this revolution the coal revolution would be accurate in describing that during this time, humans have used too much coal and have harmed the ecosystem detrimentally as a result of it. However, a coal revolution means that the next revolution we have will use a different means of energy as its source, and so my question is, what will that source of energy be, and will it be more environmentally friendly?