Hello Everyone:
Welcome to Week 7 of our Blog Post Project! Please find following the resources for our discussion this week, and remember that your initial post and response are due Thursday by noon.
Good luck!
Ron
Thiele: pp. 65-89
Worldwatch: pp. 353-362
Synthesis on Biodiversity at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf pp. 18-41.
The World’s Largest Family Reunion at http://www.ted.com/talks/aj_jacobs_the_world_s_largest_family_reunion_we_re_all_invited
Blog Post Project Instructions
You will write to this Blogspot weekly for 14 weeks (1-September – 1-December). 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 in a timely manner. Late submissions, submissions less than 100 words or lacking substance, and submissions not appropriately submitted (for example sent to CANVAS rather than to the Blogspot) 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.
"Poverty and discrimination inhibit individual agency and problem-solving capacity, while inequality weakens social cohesion." (World Watch, pg 359)
ReplyDeleteThe solutions to many problem lay within strengthening the poverty class. According to this statement, lower social standings have limited choices to make and/or limited choices in general and disparity can "weaken social cohesion"; how do you think poverty, discrimination, and inequality can lead to these occurrences?
Social cohesion is something that seems very uncommon. In today’s society it is uniform for people to stick with people who share their races, social classes, and/or religious and political beliefs. This could be primarily because of comfort; involving one’s self with similar people doesn’t make them question anything about themselves but rather solidify what they believed in the first place (groupthink plays a large role in this). Poverty, discrimination, and inequality are the sole reasons for a lack of social cohesion. Poverty plays a role because people fear poverty, and people are in poverty create a reality for other’s fears. This leads to an active avoidance of people in poverty, which creates gaps between people. Discrimination and inequality have sole purposes to separate people and keep them within their realms. Without discrimination, there would be less inequality; with the less inequality there would be less things keeping people from unifying. If all of these different areas of separation were somehow to vanish, complete social cohesion would be much more attainable.
DeleteIt is evident that income inequality, poverty, and discrimination have led to social unrest. History has proved this time and time again, from the French revolution to the American Civil Rights movement. The income disparity in the United States today is a pertinent social issue that has certainly caused social unrest. Millions of people work tireless hours and are compensated very little; thus, their autonomy is diminished along with their human dignity. When we empower people to have sufficient funds to make their own choices and pursue their goals, human dignity is increased and social cohesion is reinforced. I personally believe in a utilitarian approach to society: that our focus should be on maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.
DeletePoverty, discrimination, and inequality have all been factors that have divided people from different classes and backgrounds, and this division has created tension in solving social and environmental issues. The quote that "poverty and discrimination inhibit individual agency" explains that poorer people and those groups that are discriminated against do not have agency because their choices are limited by the wealthy and ruling classes. These social classes have also limited people's problem solving capacity because the elite have taken their social status to make decisions for the poor and uneducated, keeping them at a lower social level. People have created their own inequality by grouping themselves with others in similar social, financial, educated, and racial groups and separating themselves from those that are different. This separateness makes it hard to understand what it is like to live in the other's perspective thus making social cohesion nearly impossible. The elite taking control of responsibilities is not social cohesion, and that is the case in many societies all over the world. I agree with Kyrstin's comment about groupthink, and believe that having a common understanding of people has people with similar capabilities just different experiences is what should change to create social cohesion. I once heard a quote that said "If a flower doesn't bloom, you change it's environment, not the flower." Treating poor people as the problem in poverty doesn't solve the issues, it instead keeps them confined in the poorer classes.
Delete"Here I am alone in my office, but I'm not alone at all. I'm connected to 80,000 people around the world." A.J. Jacobs 'The World's Largest Family Reunion' 1:00
ReplyDeleteI really liked this quote by A.J. Jacobs because in his explanation of it he really touches on human dignity. He explains how, with everyone being more closely related than we thought, there is no room for prejudice. Knowing that someone is technically your cousin, you are not going to look down upon them or discriminate against them. This quote also draws a sense of connectedness and community between people; so when you feel alone this idea is something to remind you that you're not. There is always a person out there who is connected to you in someway that can relate to you in some way, and this is very important for the human psyche. Do you agree that these connections will help to dissolve issues amongst groups of people, or do you think that our prejudices are so deeply ingrained that something so simple will not make a difference?
I think that the influence of these connections in relation to erasing issues between groups depends on how close the relationship is. For example, someone is less likely to hurt or abuse their first cousin than their 30th cousin. At a certain point, being related to some one does not even matter when they are so distantly connected. Relationships are more based on time spent between two people rather than closeness in genes. I believe that is why it is difficult for some people to look at the importance of sustainability as the fate of their descendants. Since we will not be around when the Earth can no longer sustain itself, it's hard to envision the implications for others. We should not only care for those we are related to, but every human being because that is the only way we can save our planet. If someone only abandons their prejudices towards people because they share a common bloodline, then that does not show any significant shifts in society but only within an individual. They should not need to show sympathy, but rather humanity in realizing that we are all the same no matter what genetic differences might exist between us.
DeleteI can see A.J. Jacobs point in that since we are all interconnected and since we are all more closely elated than we thought that there is no room for prejudice. However, I strongly believe that that is not true. The globalization that A.J. Jacobs speaks of today is the direct product of European colonialism from which was based on the thoughts that European culture was superior to other cultures and that other cultures of people needed to be taught "proper" ways. Globalization has had prejudice ingrained in it from the start and although that prejudice may not be as blatant or obvious as it was in the past, it is now more hidden within institutions and has led to fewer opportunities for many races in developed countries. Prejudice can never be totally erased, but we can work to lessen it and its impacts.
DeleteHali McKinley Lester:
DeleteI believe that understanding our world interconnectedness can help dissolve some issues, even though the world will never be completely free of prejudice. We need to recognize that, as humans, we all come from the same origins, so we should treat all humans with a basic respect. I also think emphasizing this global familial connection would help people better understand the need for worldwide sustainability. If we think of the poor people who are suffering without clean water as our cousins, we may be more motivated to help them. It also gives an emotional connection to the sea of faceless people. If I think about my ten-year old cousin Madison quitting school in a few years because she doesn’t have private sanitary bathrooms, I feel worse about my own lack of sustainability. My desire for a long, relaxing shower should not detract from the education of my female “cousins” throughout the world. It also means people don’t have to feel alone in their own struggles against issues. When the thought that your own actions cannot save the environment is overwhelming, remember that you have other family members throughout the world who are also doing what they can to be more sustainable. While there will always be people who refuse to feel an emotional connection to our biological relationship, educating people about our world family could make an impact on dissolving various issues, especially in terms of sustainability.
I really agree with how you said he touches on human dignity. I think that the thought of being related to 75 million people, in addition to reducing someone's instinct to be mean or discriminate against someone, touches of human kind's fear of mortality. I think that this thought of extreme interconnectedness is a good way for us to realize that everything we do has an influence on someone else. It also put the idea of cultural diversity in perspective. While we may all have a different story, a different background, and different direct lineage we are all connected through the environment.
Delete"I think there's a human bias to treat your family a little better than others... a lot of terrible things we've done to each other is because one groups thinks another group is subhuman... we can't do that anymore" (AJ Jacobs, 5 min.57 sec.).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that many historical conflict have occurred due to one group's imagined superiority, I question whether just knowing the fact that we are distantly related to one another will do much to decrease such conflicts. Being somebody's 50th cousin obviously means a much weaker emotional relationship then say, being one's sibling or first cousin. If everyone is related, then relationships lose a lot of their meaning, thus diminishing any change in kindness from one group to another.
I do agree with the idea that we are much more likely to treat the people we love or are related to better than strangers or those who are not our relatives. On the other hand, the people we are closest to are also the ones we are most likely to openly argue with, vent our anger to, or mistreat without fear of consequence.
DeleteI also acknowledge that throughout our history various groups have been marginalized or mistreated. I believe this all ties back to the idea of human dignity. If human dignity lies at the center of our thinking, then all human beings begin to appear as equals who warrant our best treatment. The relation between humans here is not a familial one but takes on a planetary dimension. We are all related in that we play an integral role in the well-being and daily upkeep of our planet. In my opinion, this will not diminish the meaningful qualities of relationships. These relationships are on a much more personal and deep level. Instead, treating every group of people as equals will encourage us to recognize the bond we share and the collective responsibility we have to conserve our resources and do what is sustainable and right. The dynamic between one’s family and a stranger is quite different, but the need to treat all people justly and with respect plays a major role in living sustainably and maintaining human dignity.
Abby,
DeleteI agree with your statement. Just because it becomes known that everyone is related, I don’t think this will change how people view others or change how they act to different people. There is still going to be violence and future wars, even if we know these people may be our 50th cousins. Immediate family is much different then 50th cousins, pretty much incomparable. Also I think knowing people are part of the same family tree wont change much for progressiveness around the world. What will change things is education and increased knowledge about what is happening in the world. People need to work together not because they are distant cousins, somehow related but because if they don’t work together humanity itself will collapse.
You bring up an insightful argument against Jacobs. Although he advocates against individualism and ethnic differences, society may very well have a difficult time actually accepting relations with such a massive quantity of people we do not know. I agree with you that this diminishes the meaning of our current relationships. Our friends and family are special to us because of the time spent with them, not because of the title of our relation. Giving a stranger a similar title seems to discount the titles of family members that we actually know. Yes, we are a species, but nevertheless have historically traveled in tribes. Granted, that may be our fatal flaw.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Change can be good or bad, but it is unavoidable. In fact, trying to keep a system in the same state invariably lowers its resilience.” (World Watch, page 360)
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me in particular because it highlights the contrast between the facts of reality and human nature/tendencies. As human beings, we often shun change, opting instead to keep things as constant as we can. However, nothing remains constant in this world and avoiding change only stands to lower our resilience. One illustrated example is that of parents preventing their child from playing in dirt in order to prevent the child from contracting illnesses. Though this prevents the change of disease, it ultimately means the child will have a weaker immune system. Thus, namely in the area of sustainability, we must embrace change or lose our resilience. As a society we must learn to withstand disturbances and bounce back afterwords. What do you think is the most important component of developing resilience?
I believe the most important component of developing resilience is people's complete cooperation. I'd like to think of this as a physical metaphor. Our combined efforts act almost like a net. When the net is intact, we are tough and are able to withstand some dangers. When these disturbances do hit us, we will be able to spring back quickly if we were to work together and resolve any problems. However, when one of us lets go and acts in a way that is in his/her own interests and affairs, the net fails and is now unable to bounce back when another disturbance hits. Thus, it's important for us to unite when we are faced with an environmental crisis.
DeleteI really like your question because I think the idea of resilience is one we incorporate into our structural systems, but not into our ways of being in the world. For instance, when we make skyscrapers, they are built with careful planning so that in times physical catastrophe they bend and sway instead of being rigid and crumbling under stresses. We know it's important to construct buildings in this way because we have seen what happens when we don't. We need to educate people to understand that one does not weather a storm by standing still and doing nothing, but by moving with the currents adapting to the surrounding forces.
DeleteHi Natalie,
DeleteI completely agree with your comment that it can be hard as humans to accept change. I think people enjoy the sense of safety and comfort that comes with consistency, but that it just not reality. One of the most terrifying and beautiful things about life is how much things constantly change and flow. In my opinion, a very important aspect of developing resilience has to do with accepting constant change and seeing the beauty of it. Instead of fearing change, we need to use our limited time wisely to fix mistakes we have made in the past in order to form a better future. We need to create more positive change so that change itself isn’t something to be feared, but something to be embraced and something to actually be excited about. In order to develop resilience, we need to stop obsessing over our mistakes, take what we can from our experiences, and learn to bounce back as quickly as possible.
Al Jacobs. The Worlds Largest Family Reunion. And were all invited. (3:25)
ReplyDelete“And 75 million may seem like a lot, but in a few years, it's quite likely we will have a family tree with all, almost all, seven billion people on Earth.”
I was amazed at hearing this, that in a few years the family tree will likely be all 7 billion, however was is it only 75 million today, and not 7 billion?
“Abundance—how much there is of any one type. For many provisioning services (such as food, fresh water, fiber), abundance matters more than the presence of a range of genetic varieties, species, or ecosystem types”- Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis page 20. I chose this quote about the definition of the term “abundance” due to the fact that it briefly touches upon the concept of the “illusion of abundance”, which was discussed in Cynthia Barnett’s lecture pertaining to water. Many people falsely believe that just because certain things (like food and potable water) are seemingly plentiful, that they are in abundance. However, many of our resources, especially fresh drinking water, are becoming increasingly scarce. Consequently, we are resorting to harmful and destructive practices to rectify the issue of scarcity such as over-pumping ground water, and the effects of these practices can be felt both directly and indirectly in a short period of time. An example of this is the sinkhole that has formed in North Miami over the past couple of days. This sinkhole, as is the case of many others, can be attributed to the over-pumping of ground water.
ReplyDelete"Private and social values of conserving biodiversity and natural systems often differ widely. The private use value of biodiversity and ecosystem services by individuals will typically ignore the “external” benefits of conservation that accrue to society in general." - Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (pg 38)
ReplyDeleteOften times people's personal beliefs get in the way of making the right choice. They make the wrong decisions because their mindsets are programmed to cater to their own needs and such. That is perfectly understandable, when it comes down to taking care of your family and supporting yourself. However, there is always an alternative then to make a decision that endangers society and the environment as a whole. Then it just becomes selfishness. We see this happen way too many times in the real world, especially in politics. These policy-makers that adhere to their own beliefs and interests destroy society's moral fabric, and puts beneficial change and progress at an impasse. Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive? Delaying advancement in a time of environmental peril when we need it the most?
Wei,
DeleteI think you make a great point in that “policy-makers” of today’s world tend to hold certain economic and political priorities over those environmental ones. This mindset I believe is counter-intuitive because although the economy is important, the environment’s “health” should not be neglected in order to better the economy. I believe that we can improve the world we live in while simultaneously improving our economy. The world we live in is slowly crumbling and if we do not change the way we live, the world as we know it could completely perish. Often, policy-makers view environmental advancement as a waste of time and money because they know that the environment in their lifetime will mostly stay the same and not affect them. The problem is explaining to the policy-makers how important the future of our society’s well-being is, and that this well-being cannot be sustained if we continue living in the same fashion as we currently do.
I think this tree is going to be bad news for bigots, because they're going to have to realize that they are cousins with thousands of people in whatever ethnic group they happen to have issues with, and I think you look back at history, and a lot of the terrible things we've done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub-human, and you can't do that anymore. We're not just part of the same species. We're part of the same family. We share 99.9 percent of our DNA. (AJ Jacobs: The World’s largest family reunion……we’re all invited, 5:47).
ReplyDeleteAJ Jacobs makes a great point of explaining that we are all “interconnected” in some way. I like this quote because it highlights the importance of acceptance within our world. We are all related, and as much as some people would like to think they are superior to their peers, it is now made evident that everyone is related in some way making us more accepting of others. This relation to others as our “family members” is a unique theory that although new, is allowing us to be more open to other races and ethnicities. I think his theory that we are all interconnected is an inspiring message. My question to you is how will this newly found theory affect how future generations view their immediate family compared to their much more distant relatives?
I too pointed out the idea of "interconnectedness" that Jacobs exemplifies in his TED talk. The interconnectedness not only eliminates the prejudice and sense of superiority or inferiority of one group versus another but also aligns us in a common purposes. The goal of staying in balance with our planet as well as protecting it, thus protecting the legacy of the thousands of billions of grandchildren that we all share by making sure they have a healthy and safe home to inhabit. As a family, their is no reason for no one person to feel exempt from helping change our world in order to make it a safer place for our future inhabitants to thrive and carry on our legacy.
DeleteInteresting idea! Humans have known for some time now that we share a majority of our DNA with apes, yet some closed-minded individuals still feel the need to deny scientific evidence and instead condemn evolution. There will always be bigots who refuse to admit that they share the same DNA with other human beings which they deem as sub-human. The scientific evidence alone isn’t enough to change the way individuals treat one another. However, with a nation that has many strong ethnic identities, perhaps this knowledge that we are more similar than different will promote an emphasis on the national identity.
DeletePaxton,
DeleteLanguage will control the future. Time and time again we see how language can either build or destroy a society. I wouldn’t call our “interconnectedness” a new theory, but rather an elegant way of expressing the idea that we all share a past and therefore a future. People that think of their community and the global community as their family (maybe not in the literal sense of the word, but at least appreciate the metaphor) begin to give more importance to the power we hold as a unit and the value of each individual. If future generations were to fully understand this, immediate family would still hold a sacred bond, but I feel that strangers would be held in a more respected light.
"The more inclusive the idea of family is the better, because then you have more potential care takers. As my aunt's 8th cousin twice removed, Hillary Clinton, says: it takes a village." - TED TALK: AJ Jacobs - The World's Largest Family Reunion...We're All Invited! I chose this statement from the video because I thought it best coincided with the idea of togetherness and cooperation in the theme of holistic sustainability. Throughout the talk, Jacobs consistently talks about how enormous our family tree's are, that as humans we not only share the fact that we are the same species but that we are part of the same family. In the context of holistic sustainability to think of all the humans, regardless of ethnic group, religion, or belief in a different creed we all interconnected. This interconnectedness should as a result promote the idea that we are all responsible and care-takers of one another. To bring this further into the context of holistic sustainability, as a family we have a duty to the planet we inhabit. We must make sure to protect it, better it, and remain in balance as a duty to the millions of billions of grand children we share that will one day be left with burdens of our
ReplyDeleteexistence. As a family we have to do everything we can to preserve the legacy we all share. My favorite sustainability quote is: "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit in."
I think Hillary Clinton’s idea that “It takes a village” closely relates to Dr. Leslie’s talk to us explaining the African culture of raising children. Their holistic approach to raising their young contributes to the insurance that each child receives the love and nurturing that is necessary for their development, thus this is a perfect example of the benefits of extended families. If we could incorporate this idea globally I believe it would lead to a more productive and loving world, much like AJ Jacobs addressed in his TED Talk. Even more so thought if we could translate this idea towards how we regard nature it could change the way we manage everything. If everyone viewed themselves as a guardian of the natural world and put forth the effort to “raise it” (like a child) the effects would be exponential.
Delete“Change can be good or bad, but it is unavoidable. In fact, trying to keep a system in the same state invariably lowers its resilience.” (World Watch, page 360)
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because it touches on the need for change which can be attributed to the ideals following the industrial revolution. Looking at the aspect of change politically—as Americans we are classified as liberalism, which favors evolutionary change. Would anyone classify our current system of economic and social institutions as a response to evolutionary change?
“The systems that surround and include us are forever in flux as they grow, mature, and— inevitably—collapse. This is a terrifying prospect but in some respects a hopeful one. It is often in the “back loop”—that chaotic period of release and reorganization—where meaningful change occurs” (World Watch, 362).
ReplyDeleteI liked this quote because it forces us to face the fact that things change. Our society likes continued patterns, and believes we will be able to keep our current systems in place indefinitely. The truth is though, that all things come to an end. It’s the same concept that provides the basis for Terror Management Theory and mortality salience; we don’t want to face the fact that at some point it ends. As people who have responded to our salience of change and finality with active engagement in our local communities, how do we encourage more of the same? Is there a way to teach people not to be afraid of an end?
I like how you connected the text with the terror salience theory of our fear of death, you make a really good point there. As for your question I think that would be a difficult thing to do, to teach people not to subconsciously “fear” death, thus allowing them to face current crises. I think the hardest part would be to actually get them to acknowledge that there even is a problem, because the concept is an esoteric one. This difficulty to accept the truth would come partly out of ignorance and partly out of ego-centrism, as the book suggested, because as the superior human being the idea that we are actually very vulnerable because we depend so wholly on the environment as the basis of everything might not be an idea that people are willing to accept.
Delete“Consider the economic impact of losing just one ecosystem service: pollination. Bees pollinate many of the crops that we grow. As much as 30 percent of our food production depends on their efforts. Unfortunately, bee populations in many parts of the world are in decline, so we may be faced with the prospect of paying to achieve artificially the pollination that nature once provided free of charge,” (Thiele, 74).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this quote in particular because it is the perfect example of how interconnected all living organisms are. I have heard so many people say they hate bugs and they hate bees, but our survival depends on their efforts. It is similarly very easy to forget how interconnected we all are as humans and how much we really depend on each other. An imbalance in even one small part of the ecosystem impacts everything else, and even people or things that seem distant are effecting us now. What kind of impact do you think we would make if people simply felt more connected to each other?
Ecosystems services do not need to be quantitative effects. Ecosystem services also develop culture. Think about the focused old Western cowboy herding buffalo, or think about the praise of a pre-colonial Native American tribe for bountiful harvest after a heavy pollen season.
DeleteDr. Leslie highlighted today (10/06/15) that religion in Africa ties to the environment. I see this trend in every religion and culture. People are a function of their environment.
I stay positive; therefore, I change your "if" to "when." When people simply feel more connected, the ecosystem service of culture rejuvenates. Culture pervades any sense of difference or isolation; however, feeling more connected to each other is not a final solution. We must use the connections to NETWORK a nurtured appreciation for the wonders of nature.
This is only the first step.
I find it sad that, though we are the most intelligent organisms on earth with so much potential, we see ourselves as rulers of the natural world, when in fact, each organism on this planet, from humans to bacteria, plays a vital role in the natural world-going back to the EGOsystem v. ECOsystem idea. I think in order to become more sustainable economically, we have to shift our attitudes and beliefs about how we fit in this world. It is true that continuing developments in technology can help our own survival, but at the same time, I feel as though it creates this EGO mindset that our survival as humans can continue as long as the technology is developed to help us do so, despite the effects on other areas of the ecosystem.
Delete"It is also a crisis of speciation. The problem is not only that we are causing plants and animals to die out. The problem is that so much of the planet is either under human occupation or suffering from human use and abuse that there is insufficient (healthy) habitat to facilitate the evolution of a new species." (Thiele, Pg. 69)
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this I was really startled because I had never looked at human influence on the environment from that angle. We are always told that one of the worst, and biggest, ways that humans hurt the environment is through habitat loss, but it never occurred to me that another harmful consequence of this is the loss of speciation. The fact that our influence has put to a "screeching halt" something that has been naturally-occurring for millions of years and has formed the billions of life forms that exist today, and yet I did notknow was even a consequence, makes me question what I am still ignorant of. And that's a unsettling thought.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNaim Conrad Vilabrera
ReplyDelete(Thiele, pg. 66)
"We conclude by examining the nature of a healthy environment, understood as an unpolluted, biologically enriched, and self-regulating or adaptive system."
With that definition of a health environment, do you think the environment or humans and our engineered systems are more resilient to chronic disturbances?
Does this question merely require a consideration of short versus long time horizons?
Short and long term taken into consideration the environment is much more resilient to both sudden and chronic disturbances. When drought comes onto a land for years the people can't handle it they fight over water and abandon their cities (California), while the land and wildlife adapts for survival with less water, then when the rains come they use that resource more efficiently than our engineered systems can.
Delete“Many of the actions that have been taken to conserve biodiversity and promote its sustainable use have been successful in limiting biodiversity loss and homogenization to rates lower than they would otherwise have been in the absence of such actions. However, further significant progress will require a portfolio of actions that build on current initiatives to address important direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem service degradation.” Synthesis on Biodiversity Pg.20 So this article talks about what are the problems facing biodiversity and this is the first part of the solutions. Nature is strong and resilient, we don’t necessarily have to rebuild it, it can rebuild itself, what we need to focus on is preventing further destruction of the earth which leads to a decline in biodiversity. The best thing that could ever happen for the world’s health and animal biodiversity would be if humans disappeared, both the immediate and long term effects would heal our planet and dramatically increase biodiversity. Although since humanity is a virus the earth cannot rid itself so easily, so we need to first focusing on capping our symptoms, let’s stop destroying so the earth can start to heal. We need to make more conservation areas, just places human expansion can’t build on, this will help with species protection and allow for biodiversity to recover. The lands we do build on need to practice sustainable management in order to at least reduce our effect. Then we get to the question of is it better for humanity to be condensed into concrete jungles or be spread out among the lands? So is it better for biodiversity if humans integrate with nature (live in rural areas) or separate themselves completely (live in urban areas)?
ReplyDeleteAndree
DeleteYou pose a very interesting question; in my urban and regional planning class we are learning about urban sprawl and its impact on the environment. The suburbs are what is crushing biodiversity and habitat because we, as Americans specifically, want to own our own plot of land, have our own space to do what we please with. Our dream is to have a nice house in a nice neighborhood. Yet in order to have the space, we have to destroy the environment. To answer your question, cities and building up is the best way to not only deal with allocating resources to everyone, but with allowing nature to take back the land we decimated for our own use. By having humans located in a confined space, our world would be much more sustainable and nature would have its space. However, some natural areas and species that may need our assistance to get back on track considering the damage we have done, but letting nature run its course is the best solution to biodiversity loss.
Biodiversity would definitely be better off without humans. However, we are already here, so we must find a way to co- exist.
DeleteRegarding your question about urban cities and rural areas, I think the ideal situation would be a combination of both. The growing population makes urban areas necessary because we need to fit many people in a limited space. Rural areas are necessary for growing food. I think the ideal situation would be to have cities that are built and planned in a way that works with the environment. The architecture of these cities would incorporate green roofs and vertical gardening. The large majority of the population would live in these cities, with the others living in rural areas on farms. The people in rural areas would grow food and supply food to the city. With this plan, human’s negative impact on biodiversity would largely diminish.
“The number of people affected by natural disasters exploded over the last century, from just a few million in 1900 to roughly 300 million in 2011” Worldwide Watch pg 352
ReplyDeleteThis really stuck out to me as a serious problem; as more and more of the world is becoming susceptible to disaster, what are the world’s nations doing about it? This is something we will face for the rest of our lives and it will cost the globe billions of dollars, whether a country can afford it or not. A lot of “solutions” that are presented, even here in the United States, are simply band aids. For example in New Orleans, building the levees higher seems like the best idea, but frankly it will not work. If another Hurricane like Katrina hit again, the city would be decimated again and the levees will be built higher and higher, costing more and more money. Another issue is no one wants to leave the city, a city in which will continue to flood, cause problems, and kill people, yet the city has not been moved. How does human dignity play into this and why are we not looking at long term solutions rather than building bigger and bigger walls?
It definitely is related to a prideful mentality, I think.In relation to the environment, we have almost always had an 'us vs. it' mentality. Instead of living with it and in sync, society is constantly using the environment as something to be conquered and tamed. At this point, the city is so historic that losing it would also lose a lot of cultural and historic significance in not only Louisiana, but the south east in general. At what point will that significance not be worth the money/lives I think is the question that needs to be asked. However, as long as we continue to view nature as something that needs to be dominated/overcome by human ingenuity, that day may very well never come.
DeleteI completely agree with the point you have made. Some of the events that have surfaced form the increase of people affected by natural disasters include a substantial increase of the world's population and the great migration of millions of people living close to these areas of increased risk (I.E: the San Andrea Fault or the eastern seaboard). Humans themselves have allowed themselves to just live in whatever place they please due to the attractions of that area; this explanation of course only applies to most developed countries. I agree with Sarah in which this is related to prideful mentality, which is a factor of humanity.
DeleteHowever, when it comes to underdeveloped countries and their risk for exposure to the natural disasters, there should be more efforts made to aid the communities affected by it by the surrounding countries of the area affected. If the U.S continually sends over food, first aid, and medical responders, then they will continue spending millions of dollars. I'm not saying that the U.S shouldn't help another country in need, but how other countries should step up to the plate for their neighbors. Maybe the U.S can create special areas of aid in several areas of the world. Yes, this will cost billions of dollars, but in the long run, it won't allow the American corporations to keep spending more and more capital.
“We all come from the same ancestor… Scientists talk about Y Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, and these were about 100,000 to 300,000 years ago. We all have a bit of their DNA in us… We're not just part of the same species. We're part of the same family. We share 99.9 percent of our DNA.” (AJ Jacobs: The world's largest family reunion … we're all invited!, 4:50.)
ReplyDeleteWhile at first the claim may sound outlandish, AJ Jacobs’ connection of the extensive family tree to ancient interconnectedness and a kinder world ultimately advocates for a more inclusive society. He uses this visual representation of relations in an attempt to bring the world closer together. In doing so, Jacobs focuses on our dense biological similarities as a species. With individualistic culture becoming rooted into our daily lives, this ever-evolving network supports just the opposite. We’re so accustomed to distinguishing differences amongst ourselves. However, this refreshing new approach offers an outlet for us to come together.
I definitely agree that it's good to see a different approach of us coming to be together to show the interconnect Jacob was talking about. It truly is a better outlook of other people because when we begin to think of others as our family, we stop treating others like they are inferior and instead show more human dignity towards each other, we all learned how to share and work together with our close families, so why not be able to treat all those around you the same way and together we can make changes in the world to be more sustainable for generations to come.
Delete“The more inclusive the idea of family is the better because then you have more potential caretakers.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because it enforces the idea that family should be inclusive and that family members should take care of each other. Both of these ideals are essential to dealing with human dignity. When you think of someone as being family, you are more likely to care for them. This rings true despite differences or things you don’t like about a person. An increased sense of familial-ness equates to increased humanity. When you view someone as different than you, you are less likely to feel compassion towards their situation and more likely to misunderstand their struggle. This is especially true for wealthy and impoverished people. Privileged people are able to ignore the poverty around them by creating a mental barrier. However, if the homeless person on the street was a family member, would you simply walk past them without a second glance? There is no human dignity in being capable of helping your family and not doing so.
If/ When genealogists establish a family tree for all 7 billion of us, how do you think that will affect inter- cultural relationships?
Would knowing that all human beings are connected affect the way we treat the environment?
"We're not just part of the same species. We're part of the same family. We share 99.9 percent of our DNA." -AJ Jacobs, TED (6:25)
ReplyDeleteThis particular talk was very intriguing to me for many reasons. For one, as kids, having someone of importance in your family tree allowed for bragging rights. If you were related to some celebrity or other famous individual, it didn't mean anything unless your peers knew about it. Now, every child is entitled to those bragging rights.
As adults, however, knowing that each of us is related to someone else in this world, can have much greater significance in the world than merely having bragging rights. Rather, this knowledge can affect individuals' views of the people and the world around them. As Mr. Jacobs expressed, people are more inclined to treat members of their family better than they would strangers. With this in mind, it could be possible that by viewing a seemingly random stranger as a member of the same family, we are more inclined to treat that person with greater respect and kindness. In other words, it would be easy to follow the Golden Rule that has been taught to us since birth. Additionally, this interconnectedness supports the idea that as a member of the worldly community, we are responsible for caring for the dignity of the other 7 billion people and family members across the globe by caring for our environment and its resources, as expressed in the facets of sustainability.
Katie- I completely agree with your ideas. I think that if we all realize that we are more similar than different, the world would be a much kinder place. We may be separated by by race, religion, politics and war, but we are connected by love, jealously, empathy, depression and beauty, emotions spanning borders and time. No matter where we come from, we all enjoy the colors of a sunset, the warm rays of sun washing over our skin, a cool breeze. While we may feel alone at times, the truth is that we are all creatures dropped on this Earth and it is in our benefit to protect it. If we view a stranger on the street as family, we are more inclined to to protect one another’s human dignity and in effect our resources.
DeleteIf someone is famous or is rich many feel as if they are at a different level then the rest. People worship professional sport players, actors, and musicians and when they realize that they aren't at a different level then all of us things are going to flip. We are all connected and 99.99% of our genes are all the exact same. I'm excited for the revolution trhat is about to come down and it is about time too. So many people are put on such high pedestals almost as Gods and once we all realize everyone is the same and is equal I thing a lot is going to change. I hope people realize sooner then later because once we learn our place we can realize our problems and work as more of a team to fix our planet.
Delete"In practice, however, it is essential to clarify what is being sustained and
ReplyDeletewhat is being made resilient. The sustainability paradigm has failed, for the
most part, because we have not transformed socioeconomic systems predicated
on endless growth. If the resilience framework merely attempts to
make those systems more robust, it, too, will fail" World Watch, p 362. A large problem brought up here is that our current economic way of thriving (continuous growth, exponential GDP increases) is not sustainable nor will it help the resilience of humanity as a whole in a global crisis. What kind of measures can we take as a society to change our socioeconomic systems in a way that is more beneficial to sustainable/resilient practices? Can we change these systems without leaving pre-industrialized societies in poverty?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The tragedy is compounded because the current ecological crisis is not only a crisis of extinction. It is a crisis of speciation. The problem is not only that we are causing plants and animals to die out. The problem is that so much of the planet is either under human occupation or suffering from human use and abuse that there is insufficient (healthy) habitat to facilitate the evolution of new species." (Thiele, page 69)
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because of all of our 4R projects. Thiele recognizes that as humans we are responsible for the destruction of the earth, even though many people may not be aware that where they are choosing to live or what they are purchasing actually endangers many habitats and species. If collectively we all made a more conscious effort to change our lifestyles we could work towards renewing our planet making it a co-habitable sphere for all species.
“So it's really a fascinating time in the history of family, because it's changing so fast. There is gay marriage and sperm donors and there's intermarriage on an unprecedented scale, and this makes some of my more conservative cousins a little nervous, but I actually think it's a good thing. I think the more inclusive the idea of family is, the better, because then you have more potential caretakers” (6:55-7:20) AJ Jacobs: The world's largest family reunion … we're all invited!
ReplyDeleteI found this quote to be interesting to me to see how gay marriage plays a role in our understanding of the history of family. I agree with Jacob for saying the more general our ideas are of a family, the better simply because we learn to more interconnect like how a diverse community should be. For many people, they don’t treat or show the human dignity to the gay marriage or intermarriage in the same way as how most people view traditional marriage.
"Even as we grow more separate from nature, we continue to separate from one another physically." (P.65) Richard Louv: Last Child in the Woods
ReplyDeleteI found this quote to be terribly true. We are more separate from nature, but individuals forget to realize that this act is causing the separation of human interaction. Even though we think we are more connected with the inclusion of social media and messaging into our lives, this is actually separating us; since we have access to these platforms we believe we don't need to be with others anymore. In the book, Louv explains that our separation from nature causes mental illnesses and a terrible case of loneliness. Louv's notion supports my argument of social media and its cons. Yes, the platforms allow us to showcase ourselves to the world in whatever way we want it to be, but it has in fact taken over our psyche and some of our priorities.
I agree that social media to some aspect has created a major disconnect with people in our immediate environment, but it also harvests an avenue for ideas, thoughts, and opinions to be shared across the globe. The World Wide Web holds the ability to connect each individual on the planet instantaneously. This means that a person can connect and relate to someone in another continent-- someone that they normally would have never gotten the chance to meet. I accredit our disconnection with nature and each other to the structure of our society. We no longer are forced to interact alongside nature or one another. We do not have to grow our own food, hunt our own animals, or tend to our own land anymore. We no longer rely on the assistance of others and the formation of a community to thrive on an individual level (or so we think). As we continue to “advance” as a species, we are actually straying further and further away from our true selves. The physical manifestations of this can be seen through the widespread environmental consequences we are currently experiencing. The only way to bridge this gap is to move away from this concept of “progression” and to revert back to our natural roots.
Delete'The goal was to reduce the consumption of electricity in all Cuban
ReplyDeletehouseholds, industries, and enterprises. Children were educated about energy
and then influenced their families and the rest of the culture" PG. 335 WORLDWATCH
-Is it just me or were you not taught sustainability as a child as well? I am at a university and about to turn 19 and until now I never had the chance to explore sustainability more then knowing that the green and blue bins saved the world. I do not understand why children are not taught more ethics in sustainability. If its drilled into our minds as kids we will take it as reality. I was never given a time limit on showers as a kid, although I should have. Only recently did i realize there was another reason not to leave the water running other then a higher bill. I sure am glad I am learning now.
I agree that ethics in sustainability should be taught to all children as a basic education. It is sad how little people know about it. But we also have to remember that sustainability is a generally newer field. As time goes and humans learn more about life, we only just realize what we need to do in order to continue life. Once sustainability becomes a bigger issue, more people will understand why it is important. It is only a matter of time until sustainability becomes a staple of basic education. But the question is how long; because we need to take action now.
DeleteI agree completely, the future generations are the kids. If we could teach them why they need to be sustainable, and what being sustainability is, we’d have a better foundations and a better environment. Children are taught to recycle because its good and to reduce so your mom and dads are happy (literally what I taught kids as a teacher cadet), but that’s not enough. I’ve heard the excuse that kids wouldn’t comprehend it, but coming from a native American tribe and seeing all that those kids are taught about the Earth, and all they understand, we just aren’t teaching the kids. As a child my mother taught me that we always have to use everything we take. She supported us making huge box forts and then using the cardboard to make tacky art for the house. I didn’t pull dead grass out of the ground, but prayed for rain so it would be alive again. I never did anything to directly harm the environment because my mom taught me tribal things. Kids aren’t to dumb to comprehend, we just have to break it down, they need to know.
Delete“We all come from the same ancestor…probably the furthest cousin you share is a fiftieth.” “We’re not just part of the same species, we are part of the same family.” (AJ Jacobs: The world’s largest family reunion…we’re all invited!” One obstacle that defeats the efforts of sustainable movements today is the idea that no one person can make a difference, that we are all too diverse to reach a common goal. The ideas that AJ Jacobs presented point towards the opposite: we are all one big family separated by race, religion, politics and war, but connected to love, jealously, empathy, depression and beauty, emotions spanning borders and time. Do you think that this feeling of connectivity will make sustainable efforts easier?
ReplyDeleteLillia, I believe that if this connectivity could bring us all closer together to promote a more sustainable future, I believe we would have all already been on this path. I agree, humans share so many qualities- we are the only species to wage war on each other. With this, I believe that we have been brought together by waging war on our Earth. In order to sustain our Earth, we can come together to promote a more harmoniously Earth. I believe that as one, we have created this problem and as one we can fix it. Remember, Professor Chandler always says, every problem is first a social problem!
Delete“I think there is a human bias to treat your family a little better than strangers.” (A.J. Jacobs 5:55) I thought this quote from A.J. Jacobs’ talk was an interesting viewpoint and also an enlightening one. The idea that everyone is related sounds a little crazy but is true in a sense. Since we are all humans and we are all interconnected we should treat each other like we would our own family. It all ties back to human dignity. I think that if this idea became widespread and adopted, then people would naturally be kinder to others and the level of human dignity for one another would be high. Some cultures already have this sense of family in their social outlooks. But would it be possible for it to go beyond the cultural level and extend to all human beings regardless of culture?
ReplyDeleteYou have a great point bringing up culture, because that's often a dividing point when it comes to humans connecting with one another. It can be difficult for humans to see other humans simply living their lives differently whether it be marriage, food, religion, or just the clothing they wear. But today we have the opportunity to spread awareness of other cultures through the internet. Knowing that every few hours in Cairo, sirens go off and organized prayer commences throughout the city becomes accepted and not so far off. Realizing that some Asian cultures choose to eat felines instead of adopting them as cuddly pets simply becomes a known fact and not something shocking to discriminate against. We even see some cultures integrating themselves into other cultures. Diversity is largely accepted in many aspects, and even though we aren't quite where every country in the world doesn't care which God you worship or what clothing you put on your body, I truly believe promoting interconnection is made easy through the internet, and one day humans will just see each other as humans, paying no attention at all to which culture they come from.
DeleteAlyse,
DeleteI totally agree with your point that we should treat other as family members, kindly and with respect. Now when it comes to your question, it is really hard to make an entire society aware of this way of conduct towards other human beings. This idea tends to be more effective at a cultural level due to the fact that people integrate it and try to associate it with their religion and their practices, which makes it much easier for them. Now, trying to integrate these values and ideas of kindness and unity between human is something that has been around for a long time now, and we have seen certain religions, groups and even cities or villages change. It is matter of finding the right way and association for people to adopt this conduct, but with hard work, it can be achieved.
Hi Alyse,
DeleteIt is an interesting idea to wrap your mind around, yet hard to swallow. To imagine the world and all its people as a family. However, there are populations that do think this way and live in healthy, thriving communities whose moral beliefs align with nature. Agnes Ngoma Leslie’s presentation last class dives into some communities like these in Africa. She spoke about “Sankofa” which means to “reach back and get it.” Their empowerment comes from ancestors in history and tradition. So if we let that sink in, and connect that to how we are all connected to everyone in history, in the present, and in the future… do we not feel that this is true? That we all breathe the same air as our ancestors, that our children will breathe the same air we do, and that it is our moral duty to protect it because in doing so we would be protecting our family? Now connect that to the land we walk on, the water we drink, the food we grow. Is it not our duty to protect our families? Each other? If we change our minds to think in a more interconnected way that encompasses all generations, all people, and all of nature’s beautiful biodiversity and ecosystems, I believe we will see major changes in the way we protect our planet. We will protect our planet because we would have a heightened sense of protecting our family, which encompasses all its people.
"I think the more inclusive the idea of family is, the better, because then you have more potential caretakers [...]" (6:55).
ReplyDeleteI didn't quite know where AJ Jacobs was going with this family tree thing at first, but this quote explains his point to a tee. The problem with how humans treat each other and the planet begins with the illusion of separateness. We're told from birth to "Treat others how you want to be treated" and to "Be kind to people" but many of us simply forget this when we get to school and grades and money and involvement becomes important or too much to handle. We become the hero of our own stories, only caring for our own survival, and a dog-eat-dog world is manifested. But to look at another human being and see a reflection, and to desire nothing more than to make others feel at ease, is the answer to a more peaceful world filled with a deeper connection to nature. This family tree is a scientific way for people to look around and feel more connected and at home, and that's beautiful.
“Sustainability is grounded in the responsibility we have to sustain the community that sustains us. Most fundamentally as biological organisms, we are sustained by the biosphere. Without the web of life to support us, we would quickly perish.“ Thiele page 65
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because I think it represents the basis of everything we’ve been over thus far. Over and over again I give reasons, and hear people give reasons, that we should sustain the Earth because the Earth gives us life. So basically we are morally obligated to take care of our Earth and be sustainable, because by doing so you are keeping yourself healthy and taking care of yourself. I’ve heard before, we need the Earth, but the Earth doesn’t need us, and I think this quote brings that to life. Without the Earth, and all the green and the clean air and the clean water, we are nothing. We would die within days without all the things the Earth provides to us. All the animals, would be gone also. Nothing can exist without the Earth so we need to sustain it. Relate it to human dignity, no water, no food, no energy, no commerce, all adds up to, you guessed it, no human dignity. So our foundations, the five facets of sustainability, support the quote. We are responsible for the Earth, because without it, we are nothing .
Hali McKinley Lester:
ReplyDelete“Likewise, biodiversity and a healthy environment ought not to be reduced to monetary values. That is because we have a moral duty to preserve species and a healthy environment, just as we have a moral duty to establish and maintain human rights, regardless of the economic impact,” (Thiele 77).
I think this is really important because Thiele admits that economics drive most people’s actions and decisions. Yet, he reminds that we should not be sustainable just because it is economically beneficial. Rather, we should embrace sustainability because it is the right thing to do; you cannot put a price tag on all the ways nature benefits society, especially in terms of emotional and psychological benefits. Yet, for people who don’t care about the environment, economics may be a more effective argument. How much do you think economics needs to play a role in convincing our generation of the need to be sustainable, especially when our generation is stereotypically considered more financially greedy?
Hali, I think economics is a sure way to get through to people, especially those in our generation, and even older generations. Numbers are simply hard to ignore. Reading Thiele's writing, especially his description of the economic value of bees and pollination services, was honestly bewildering. I had no idea that placing an economic value on nature's services, rather than goods, was an actual practice. However, it makes total sense. Depending on your audience, I think that the economics could really get through in the argument for sustainability. Just addressing the possibility of paying someone to pollinate one's garden, or mentioning some of the irreplaceable services of nature that are at risk, could reach people on an applicable level. Part of the issue with our society is the illusion that it doesn't impact us individually. The economics really has a way of hitting home. It may not be the most important benefit of living sustainable lifestyles, but it certainly presents a developed argument.
DeleteThank you for sharing Hali, as you bring up a relevant and interesting point. I believe I can offer a curious perspective to the answer to this question as I am pairing my major in sustainability with a major in business administration. From my experiences the economic value of being more sustainable is a huge driving force for corporations to be more environmentally friendly. It’s important to separate the businesses that create the appearance of being sustainable by simply stating so on their website and on advertisements without taking any proactive action to be more sustainable. This being said I think the economic importance of sustainability should be stressed, but not alone. It makes sense to present the financial benefit along with the moral benefit so a full understanding of why sustainability is important is gathered. I would argue that it makes more sense to stress the financial importance to older populations of people because younger populations tend to have a better understanding that changes need to be made in the way we allocate our resources without considering economics. I also think it would be beneficial for the government to fund some research projects to demonstrate the long-term economic gain of sustainability as this could really shift corporations toward truly being more sustainable; especially if they don’t have to pay for the research themselves.
DeleteHali, I very much agree with your feelings here. It is unfortunate thing that economics drives people's thoughts and actions. In today's world, society has convinced us that money is the key to a happy life, and that you cannot be content unless you have a thick wallet. This is sad. It is sad that we as humans have commercialized the environment. Not only is it sad, but it is also devastating to the sustainability of the Earth. If people can cast away their greed and selfishness ways, we may live in harmony with our environment, instead of taking advantage of it.
Delete"And, of course, many ecosystem services are virtually irreplaceable, regardless of how much economic muscle and technological ingenuity we might expend in the effort to develop replacements." (Thiele 75, paragraph 2)
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt from Thiele's writing, honestly, made me smile. The subtext reeks of a certain level of condescension and sarcasm. But, of course, I agree with Thiele. There is nothing we can do to replace certain benefits that come from ecosystems. Spending exuberant amounts of money and believing a technological fix-all will not get us any closer to having the ability to survive without nature. It's ridiculous to believe such things, in my opinion. We have to realize that we cannot survive without nature; we are a part of nature. We will not be able to find technology to replace it, so that we can continue on our self-destructive path with our minds at ease. However, it seems that is exactly what we are doing. We are avoiding the issue by pretending we can find a technological substitute for nature's bounty. In a society that has blinded itself with this notion, how do we convince them to move on? How does a society respond to the knowledge that technology and money are not all of the answers to all of our problems, and we actually have to do something if we want a way to survive and adapt?
This reminds me of a recent topic of discussion- with the new discovery on Mars, people are buzzing about the possibility of terraforming the planet, making it more hospitable to human life. This, of course, would be so that when we destroy the Earth beyond repair, we have someplace else to go. But if we have the technology to do that, then certainly we have the technology to prevent that from being a necessity in the first place. As for your question.... While this seems to be the consensus of our society, there are obviously plenty of individuals that believe otherwise. In fact, I'd say that the majority of people do not buy into this notion that technology can adequately replace nature (does anyone?) but the people that have the power to change the course that we're on, a course that does seem to buy into that message, are the people that are profiting off of the system, directly or indirectly. But unfortunately, I don't know how to fix capitalism or our corrupt political system.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“[The loss of biodiversity] has an impact on the resilience of ecosystems, and by extension the resilience of the planet’s life support system. The loss of biodiversity threatens human welfare. Oftentimes it has a direct impact on economic life.” (Thiele, 72)
ReplyDeleteThe impact of losing a species goes far beyond that of simply saddening us at a personal level. The effects are felt across the ecosystem. If a small minnow goes extinct to as a result of too much phosphate and nitrogen in their marine habitats not only are the fish who eat that minnow left with less food, but it allows other (possibly invasive) species of minnow to thrive which further upsets the balance of the ecosystem. My question to you is what kinds of things do humans lose when we a species becomes extinct? Possibly economic or medicinal value?
When a species becomes extinct, humans will feel the effects, whether they notice it or not. Something as simple as losing one species of spider could mean a serious spike in mosquito population. The mosquitos will then cause chaos as parks and other outdoor areas humans enjoy. They will attack the humans and their food, as well as other animals. The mosquitos could end up killing off other animals from transmission of disease and cause serious health problems in humans. Since insect repellant is becoming less and less useful due to increased resistance in mosquitos, humans will have very few ways to fight them off.
DeleteThe death of one species of spider could cause many social issues between humans because the mosquito populations would be so high that humans will not want to go outside to socialize with others. It will also cause a large spike in the insect repellant industry, whether it is spray or even citronella candles. Research in anti-itch medicine and skin irritation medicine will be conducted and these medicines will be improved. Many other societal issues will be addressed simply because a species of spider died. All five facets of sustainability will be in jeopardy because humans will be affected by the loss of a species. This example may seem extreme, but it is not out of the question with the mass extinction occurring right now. Humans will always be affected in almost every way possible when a species dies out, even if the effects are small.
"To be effective, conservation must balance the need for protected habitat with the fostering of sustainable livelihoods for indigenous and local peoples." (Page 70, Thiele) To me, this quote reminds me of another quote I once heard. It aimed to ask the question of whether we were at war with our Earth. To me, this quote struck me. Of course, it is easy to believe that we are at war with our Earth, I mean, looking at the ecological crises that our world faces, it is apparent. Moreover, this quote said well, if we are at war with our Earth, than these crises that are happening is Earth's way of fighting back. A question I would like to pose relates to the quote is one that aims to ask how our Earth could live in harmony while sustaining our resources as well as sustaining the livelihoods of our world's inhabitants? To me, this quote reminds me of the key concepts that we have been learning in our class. It points out that in order to live sustainably we must first realize that every problem is a social problem. If we are able to become aware of the problems that we face, we will be able to create a more sustainable future, which in turn would promote human dignity. I would like to know ways in which our current population could create a balance in which we could promote the livelihoods of our peoples and our Earth? Has our Earth reached a point in which this "balance" is no longer possible? Moreover, when reading on in this chapter, the author points out that if we can not stabilize population and climate, then creating a balance will be impossible. Is this true? Are our main problems our Earth faces dealing with our population and our climate, or is it more?
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing Nada. After reading your blog I couldn't help but connect with what you're saying, and how our planet Earth is dealing with the imbalance of people and our negative actions with the environment. I understand how you were able to connect that quote with what we are learning and it had a strong impact on me especially. I would like to think that we still have the ability to change, to live in harmony with out planet. I would like to think that population and climate are our only two major problems. However, though I do agree our population and climate are undoubtedly major issues. I believe there is much more to this imbalance. I agree with you that it is a social problem, and I believe that social issues have a range of major issues other than the growing population and the climate. For me, it also includes our education, our policies, and our beliefs of what is socially acceptable. I believe that with all the issues that regard these topics mixed with our growth as a species and the influence it has on the climate and environment, is why there is such an imbalance. So when thinking about your post, I want to say that we can still fix this, I just feel that there isn't much time left. So rather than focusing on the population and climate we really need to focus on the social issues. However that may be, I am not too sure on the best and quickest way to achieve this. Though with this it will give us a much better chance of still reaching that balance before it is too late.
Delete"Resilience, in the simplest terms, can be defined as a system’s ability to mitigate
ReplyDeleteand withstand disturbances and to bounce back afterwards, while continuing
to function." - Worldwatch pg. 354
The idea of resilience is extremely important in the way we live our life. When we are faced with some form of adversity, how we react determines whether we overcome it or are defeated by it. We must take this idea and apply it to sustainability. How are we going to recover from our harsh degradation of the environment and its resources? In what ways can we make our environment resilient?
In order to make our environment resilient, we must follow the basic principals just like nature. We must follow the principals of diversity, redundancy, modularity, keep reserves, social capital, agency, tight feedback, and innovation that World Watch set out and I talked about in my post. We can only recover from our harsh degradation of the environment and its resources by becoming more innovative and relying less on our reserves unless it is time of a crisis. If we do not follow these principals, we will burn like a forest fire and die out. Only to be recreated again like a forest coming back slowly. Its hard to recover from out past, however, I believe we are a point where we can turn back and create a more sustainable future if we act as a collective.
DeleteInteresting questions, Zack. As I see it our environment is very resilient. In the words of George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are f*cked.", and it is so true. Our degredation of our environment and carelessness may ultimately lead to our demise. But, the Earth has been around for four and a half billion years, and is going to go on whether or not we decide to recycle or not. I mean we obviously need to change radically by reducing consumption and changing our economic system so it can facilitate sustainability, but at the same time its all going to come down to how well we can adapt to our changing environment. We can only realistically change what we are doing to the planet so quickly. If we aren't the ones who aren't resilient and willing to change, than we will be the ones who suffer the consequences.
DeleteI found this quote very relevant to our studies because I agree that resilience is one of the most important aspects of creating a change, especially for those majoring in Sustainability Studies. Personally, I find myself being questioned constantly about what I am going to do with this major and how I could ever make a difference. People often put down my ideas or disagree with my views but resilience allows me to continue to reach for goals.
DeleteIt is also important to consider resilience in terms of the environment. It has withstood natural disasters, wars, and depletion but has continued to provide for us. The resilience of the environment and the planet has been seen all throughout history. But as we continue into a culture of ignorance, we are wearing down the Earth’s resilience.
I find this quote very insightful and it relates directly to what we are trying to accomplish not only in this class, but internationally. People are not judged or looked wrongly upon for what they have done in the past with the natural resources because there is nothing we can do to change what happened at this point, but are now concerned with conservation and sustainability because of the limited natural resources that we realize the Earth now contains. Globally, we have to bounce back and be resilient to the misuse and misunderstanding of the natural resources that are now scarce.
Delete"We all come from the same ancestor". (5':02") The interconnectedness which AJ Jacobs talks about in his address is a literal one. We are all in some sense of the word cousins, and while I've always thought of genealogy as a hobby for sad lonely people. AJ brings up some of the benefits of the research most interestingly the feeling that people get when they find out how closely related they are to people which are very different from themselves. He describes an example of how a bigoted or racist individual could see their family tree and the ethnic diversity within it, and it may act as a sort of wake-up call to treat other people as family. Because really at the end of the day we are all just people and any reminder of that is okay in my book.
ReplyDeleteMack,
DeleteYou're very right about your view of our interconnectedness as humans. What people fail to realize is that despite our slight differences, we are all fundamentally the same. In order for sustainability to thrive, we must strive to embrace not only the interconnectedness within the human species, but also that between humans and nature. Nature cares not what race you are or where your ancestral lineage comes from. Rather, it relies on those who respect and seek to better the environment by living in harmony with both the biotic and abiotic organisms that surround us. People should take a page out of nature's book when it comes to discrimination and respect
"Human beings are inextricably entwined with nature, so the rules of the natural world may apply to us as well."- World Watch, p. 354
ReplyDeleteHumans constantly believe they are above nature. We think we preside over nature. However, this perception is wrong. We go along with nature. Just like nature in order to survive and be resilient we must follow the basic requirements World Watch laid out. Our basics must include diversity, modularity, redundancy, social capital agency, inclusiveness, tight feedback, and innovation. By following these principals and including them in our society, we have a change to a greater survival. These will allow us to be resilient as a race and as a society. Without which we become weak as individuals and as a society, and ultimately may lead to our demise.
I am glad that you have taken the time to make the point that "Humans constantly believe they are above nature". As I watched the presentation by Agnes Ngoma Leslie this past Tuesday, I was absolutely taken by the content of her lecture and her effortless communication of passion the environment. As enthralled as I was by her messages about appreciation for the natural world and solutions such as bottom up change, I noticed that she said land is a right to man. This connects back to your point because I think this is a prime example of how humans feel land is an object for them to attain or dominate rather than an entity equal to ourselves. It also shows that our opinion that we "preside" over nature is so ingrained in our cultures and lives that it is second nature to us and often times an unconscious belief. I think the best way to combat this type of conscious or unconscious thought, is by increasing education on ecology sustainability. This could be done by marketing, government funding, or private funding. I believe this would have a meaningful impact because it would get individuals to consider the organisms and nonhuman systems around them on an increasingly regular basis.
DeleteThis very much relates to the Ishmael reading. Humans tend to think of themselves as separate from nature, although ironically we evolved from nature. We view economic activity more important than the environment itself. If the world economy was declining as rapidly as the environment currently is, there would be a bi partisan movement to fix it with very little resistance from critics. But, since we see ourselves as separate from nature we don't realize how crucial it is to have a healthy environment, and tend to view the environment, as a whole, as just another resource that can be depleted till it runs dry. We must realize that just as the laws of the universe(gravity) apply to us, so do the laws of the natural world.
DeleteThe "prospect of rapid contagion through increasingly interconnected systems and the threat of disastrous impacts" is warned against in the World Economic Forum (World Watch Institute p.354). This statement was made in regards to how there are global implications when a system (in this case economic) fails because of how interconnected, as a species, have become. With instruments such as the internet and long distance transportation we have made humanity more vulnerable to both biotic and abiotic factors. For example if a natural disaster wiped out key regions in the U.S. and as a result crashed the U.S. system of currency, the entire world would feel the impact. I do agree with this assertion from the World Economic Forum but I think as technology and and new thought advance, this interconnectedness will increase exponentially so it is fruitless to resist. Rather humans need look at our connections as a way to communicate pertinent ideas/solutions about the current state of the world. For example if you learn day after day in your United States college lecture class that the Haiti is still suffering in nutrition and psychologically from the devastating 2010 earthquake (World Watch Institute p.353), you have the opportunity to, at a few taps of a keyboard look for solutions or ask how you can help. If we use our global systems to bolster understanding of the needs of others and the needs of other environments in danger we can increase global human dignity as well as contribute to answers. This segment of the reading reminded me that each of us today have a relatively unbridled potential to make a difference on the largest scale; the global scale.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the fact that you highlighted the positive aspects to our global interconnected system and how it can be used to our advantage. As you mentioned, at this point in time, we are already way too intertwined with others around the world to try and resist the spread. I believe that this is a wonderful thing because it allows us to have an impact on the lives of so many others and not just those in our immediate surroundings. Especially when it comes to sustainability, so many of the issues go across country boundaries so working together is key and being interconnected is an important factor.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"...And I don't know all the answers, but I have a lot of smart relatives, including you guys, so together, I think we can figure it out. Only together can we solve these big problems." (The World's Largest Family Reunion, 9:20)
ReplyDeleteWhen Jacobs puts it like that, it makes the world seem a lot smaller. Imagine if we used just a fraction of our family tree as a resource. What if families, instead of being those people that you see out of love or obligation, acted as communities, banding together to achieve a goal or to help one member achieve their goal? Now of course there must be families that function this way, but I know that mine does not. I feel like a bother asking a cousin how their day went, let alone asking my second cousin (or fiftieth) for help with a problem.
How do you think our world would change if we used our family, our extended family, or our entire family as a resource, like Jacobs suggests at the end of his talk?
I certainly think we would get much more done. Like you said, these global problems need to be solved collectively, as if we are one big family. However, I think it’s especially difficult for us in Western society, considering we already deal with so many prejudices. From race, gender, sexuality, to even political party, preconceived judgements hold us back from working together as one. What is ironic is that the diversity of humanity is what would enable us solve problems; having different perspectives and backgrounds working together across different disciplinary fields compliments each other in group-solving problems.
DeleteMarla,
DeleteI certainly agree with you that family creates a connection which could possibly assist with goals or issues. In fact, if we all take into account the connectedness we have throughout the world and utilize our “family” we could combat global issues just by banding together and working towards a common goal. However, I highly doubt that this would actually occur, especially if we are related to the entire world. I know that for me, considering 50th cousins across the globe makes the idea of family less significant. I do not believe that people would actually act on the information of such distant relatives and use that to make a change in the world. Also, I do not believe that everyone would set aside their prejudices and ideals. People are much more likely to continue with their ways. Though I wish people would act on this connectedness and become progressive, I cannot imagine everyone on the planet doing so. We have to change the way we see each person and respect one another before we can use our “family tree” to change the world.
ReplyDelete“Second, see the forest-and the trees. Preserving intrinsic resilience means trying to understand complex systems before tinkering with them.” (Worldwatch, Pg. 359)
I think this is an important aspect of the environment that we often don’t consider. As a country that has become so technologically and physically advanced, we tend to have this notion that we already know everything that we need to know. We don’t always consider the consequences of our actions because we do not take the time to completely understand what exactly we were doing. For example, the ocean is a complex system that we think we know a lot about. However, people are throwing trash into the ocean every day because they do not understand the way that their piece of trash will effect multiple aspects of the system. In our fast paced way of life, we should all take a step back and learn to understand our environment before making more harmful changes.
I completely agree with this. Going along with your example about the ocean, I feel as though people think the ocean is so vast and so big that there has to be enough of it to last forever. Also, importantly, like you said, people are so unaware of the reciprocations of one small action; they don't understand how every thing we do affects multiple levels of the environment, and in turn, affects us. A major part of this I believe is the whole "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy. Because most humans don't see these exact reciprocations of not recycling or throwing trash into the ocean, and they don't feel any effects from it, they don't take the time to consider it. I believe it is vital for humans in the future to understand the environment more before they do any more harm to it.
Delete"We are currently in the midst of a sixth extinction event. The difference between the current event and the preceding mass extinctions is that today's crisis is anthropogenic, the product of a single species: Homo sapiens." (Thiele, pg. 67)
ReplyDeleteIt is odd to think about the lack of awareness present in the public about this mass extinction. Not many people realize we are experiencing an extinction crisis due to the sole fact that humans have caused immense damage to the environment. Do you think people would even care if they were more well informed? In what way is the fear of mortality related to our desensitization of such catastrophic news?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“I think you look back in history and a lot of the terrible things that we’ve done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub human. And you can’t do that anymore. We are not just apart of the same species; we are apart of the same family. We share 99.9% of our DNA.”
ReplyDeleteThe World’s Largest Family Reunion Ted Talk, (6:13)
This statement is a key concept when it comes to trying to unveil the illusion of separation that has overcome our species. For generations, people have discriminated against others for their race, religion, sexuality and even gender. This false sense of inferiority and superiority has created the basis of injustice and inequality that can be seen throughout our societal structure. This can be seen carried over into our interaction with the environment. Humans have acquired a sense of entitlement to all the land and resources of this Earth. This has resulted in the depletion, exploitation, and destruction of our home without taking into consideration the other inhabitants of this planet. We must realize that we are all children of Mother Earth, no one organism greater than the other, and in order to thrive we need to learn to work as a collective whole instead of individual units.
“Second, see the forest—and the trees. Preserving intrinsic resilience means trying to understand complex systems before tinkering with them. This requires taking a broad view…” (Worldwatch pg 359, paragraph 4).
ReplyDeleteThis quote ties in well with the recent lecture about how African culture respects nature, especially in contrast with how Western society treats the environment. Our culture teaches us to make decisions for our immediate benefit, with no vision of the long-term outcomes. This can be seen through the issues we are now having with overfishing, drought, and deforestation. Not only could we then learn from the respect African societies show toward nature, but also the resilience they have. As we’ve learned from previous speakers, their cultures are open to change and growth. When outsiders enter their communities with constructive input, they work together to achieve a common goal. What will it take for Americans to start acting in the best interest for the community?
Hey Alex,
DeleteUnfortunately, you're right in our preference for short-term gratification. The materialistic and consumerist qualities that our society possesses discourages foresight and precautionary methods. I think that the Worldwatch was correct when it stated that people tend to identify and resolve the problem when they understand the impending disaster. This is probably our best bet for a large scale effort, as a large portion of the population still doesn't acknowledge climate change. When the consequences become evident, this should change, and hopefully it won't be too late. It's incredibly troubling that that is the reality of the situation though.
“The value of bees, and other insect pollinators, goes well beyond the money they save farmers, orchardists, and ultimately consumers. Even so, their value as pollinators has been calculated at over US $200 billion annually.” (Thiele, Sustainability, 74)
ReplyDeleteThiele mentions an analogy comparing species of animals in an ecosystem to rivets on a plane, as soon as too many of them have been removed, the plane will no longer function. He then clarifies that this analogy is also misleading, however, for there are some species that are equivalent to the cornerstone of a building that without its existence, the entire system would collapse—such is the case with bees. The value of a species so seemingly insignificant and as small as an insect reminded me of Maathai’s hummingbird metaphor. Even though the bee may seem unimportant its value is beyond compare.
I love the way you tied this quote with the Hummingbird metaphor mentioned in class. I think it’s so true that things that seem so insignificant to an entire system, like that of the natural world, can hold such power in determining the fate of the entire planet. Something as small as a bee can have the potential to change world, which makes me realize that even the smallest effort in trying to preserve nature and strive for the protection of human dignity can be worth so much. Every decision we make today can have a huge impact on the future and I think that it is so important that this decision incorporate the connection we have with the natural world. It is this kind of system that can withstand anything!
Delete“In a few years it is quite likely that we will have a family tree with all, almost all, 7 billion people on earth” 3:40 – The World’s Largest Family Reunion
ReplyDeleteThis quote really stood out to me because it made me realize just how connected everyone in the world is. Although, we are not all directly related by blood, it is still fascinating to know that we are all connected to people throughout history and in the present. One of his points to support why this family tree of the world was a good thing was that it would perhaps make people kinder to one another. Do you believe that if people knew about this and who they were connected to they would change their ways? Also, would this have an impact on living more sustainably if people knew that their actions would be impacting relatives and not just people that they see as strangers?
I was also impressed by the global familial interconnectedness expressed in this talk. While I agree that perhaps teaching people about how everyone is related may have a positive impact on people's interactions, I am not sure that it would make a large change in their ways. We are already taught to treat others with respect (which is not always followed) as well as that all humans are guaranteed basic dignities (which is also not always followed) along with many other things. Even religious tenants that also state closer ties between all people do not necessarily impact people to live more sustainably or even practice kindness towards their neighbors. I would hope that people learning more about how interconnected the world is would help implement positive change in our actions, but am not overly optimistic towards this outcome.
Delete"In 1993 Cuba’s legislature passed the National Energy Sources Development
ReplyDeleteProgram. Its goals include increased energy efficiency (the first priority),
reduced energy imports, and maximized domestic energy sources" (365). I believe that this is a great idea and America could capitalize by engaging in similar processes. Cuba has showed a large improvement on its ability to conserve and sustain its natural resources, that they realized were becoming scarce. One of Cuba's main points of this program was education. It educated the youth about protecting the environment and allowed them to grow and continue to support the sustainability of their natural resources. Unfortunately for Cuba, from 2003 to 2005 the country had experienced hurricanes and other disasters that cost them $10 billion. There conservation then had to increase as they saw what could happen without the resources because of the blackouts and lack of energy throughout Cuba.
"A species within an ecosystem has been likened to a rivet holding together the wing of an airplane. You can pull out a few rivets and still have a functional airplane. But at a critical point, the loss of one rivet too many will cause a wing to fall off, with catastrophic results for the airplane and its passengers." (Thiele, pg. 71)
ReplyDeleteThis analogy is interesting in the way it describes the necessity of biodiversity in an ecosystem. To a certain extent, the resilience of ecosystems can withstand extinctions. However, at what point will the disappearance of different species lead to total collapse, and is there a way for us to tell when we are getting close to reaching that point? Can resilience really be considered redundancy just because each extinction doesn't have immediate visible catastrophic effects? Since each rivet is added to an airplane wing to help hold it together, are we actually deconstructing our environment to the detriment of everyone and everything within it and dependent upon it?
This concept was actually what encouraged me to decide on my degree in Environmental Science. In the human mind, we are at the center of the universe, the very top of the ladder. For our sake, lets say we're at the top of a Jenga tower. This tower represents biodiversity. A few blocks can be removed from the tower and you can see the spaces where they once were, but what you can't see is that more pressure is being put on the remaining blocks. Of course, when you're at the top, you don't feel all that pressure and don't realize it unless you decide to look down. Take out enough blocks however, and catastrophe awaits. What humans don't realize is that they cannot wait until all the pieces are removed and there is nothing left to stand on.
DeleteJaneshly Algarin
"A society that does not love and revere nature may not be able to discipline itself sufficiently to become sustainable... As a species motivated by emotions, however, we need to make good use of our biophilic passion to ensure that we do the right thing." (Thiele, 82)
ReplyDeleteDo we as human beings have the capabilities to feel for nature as we do towards other humans? If so, is that feeling enough to cause us to change our ways to create a truly sustainable lifestyle? Is Thiele right or completely wrong about what needs to change in order for us humans to become sustainable?
These are all interesting questions you bring up! There are no easy answers to what you are asking. In the same reading we hear about the idea of "ecosystem services." These are all the benefits we receive from the natural world and its processes. Do we humans really need to "love" and "revere" nature to achieve sustainability? Humanity has found ways to replace nature and its services through technology and sheer manpower. In China a few years back, there was a massive die-off of bees. With nothing to pollinate fruit-bearing crops, people were hired to hand-pollinate. The work was tedious and expensive but the crops were more productive than ever. In the end, it was still profitable to hire people to do the job of the bee. While this kind of massive undertaking is possible, is it worth it? Wouldn't it be easier to just respect mother-nature?
DeleteThese are important questions in order to better understand the relationship between human dignity and sustainability. I think we do have the capacity to feel for nature as towards other humans. And I think this feeling could be enough to change our ways if we genuinely embrace the truth. I believe that building a reverence for nature is the undeniable first step in finding the path toward sustainability. This is a similar situation to the case of finding love for other human beings given in the ted talk by AJ Jacobs. We can only bridge our differences by beginning to understand the other people and nature around us and express a mutual respect for them. Once we understand another thing or person, it is much harder to disregard them as subhuman or an “other” not worth our respect. Through better education and opportunities for people to experience the nature and other cultures in our world, and see how amazing both are, we will have taken the first steps toward a better future.
Delete“Ultimately, resilience thinking asks us to embrace change. The systems that surround and include us are forever in flux as they grow, mature, and— inevitably—collapse.—From collapse comes the release of resources, the opportunity to rebuild, and the seeds from which the world blooms anew” (WorldWatch 362).
ReplyDeleteOur world is filled with an abundance of biodiversity and ecosystems that have the ability to, like this quote describes, “grow, mature, and collapse”. It is what makes our natural world so dynamic, beautiful, and resilient. As a society constantly trying to move forward and advance, this perfect model of success and resilience is often overlooked. We strive for growth and development, constantly taking from the natural world, believing that its resources are infinite, and eventually failing to realize that it can only bounce back so many times until there is nothing left. I think that it’s important for us looking to advance the world in a sustainable way to, like described in this week’s guest lecture, connect ourselves with nature in a way that helps us understand the mutual tie and responsibility we have to protect one another. We must be willing to change the way we live, consume, and develop in order to help alleviate the stress we have placed on our natural world in order to maximize our mutual growth into a better future.
Extremely eloquently put. I absolutely agree with you on this point. I believe this principle of mimicking nature to achieve success in society is a great approach to creating resilience and prosperity. In the business world there are a number of companies that use this idea to design their business models. The first that comes to mind is the Carmike Theaters. They understand that their niche calls for a collapse if pushed passed its limit. Carmike Theaters are only found in cities with population 100,000-300,000. Less than that they aren't profitable. In that range they are the thing to do in the town. Over that number, they become obsolete. There are examples but not as many as there should be.
Delete“I think you look back in history and a lot of the terrible things that we’ve done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub human. And you can’t do that anymore. We are not just a part of the same species; we are a part of the same family. We share 99.9% of our DNA.” (6:13 – AJ Jacobs, The world's largest family reunion)
ReplyDeleteThis statement Jacobs makes was the one that caught my attention the most through the entire Ted Talk. It is a clear example of human behavior and our wrong way of thinking. We sometimes think that just because other people don’t share our customs or the way we look, they are not part of us and we shouldn’t care about them, and in most cases, we frame them and spend our lives fighting for no reason, because at the end, if we really think about it, we are all a big family. It doesn’t matter if you believe on the bible or scientific version of human evolution, it is clear that no matter how it happened, it all started with one organism. We have done terrible things, and we must rethink before our actions take place, we have to think about your surroundings and about the fact that our family is also composed of plant, animals and other organisms. Do you believe there is nothing uniting all humans? What do you think is the truth behind our evolution? Are we a big family... or are we more like separated but equal?
I believe we are a lot more connected than we know. I think the idea that we are all related plays into the idea that we are all equal. IF we all come from the same place how could one race or group of people be better than anyone else. I believe diversity and difference is a great thing but we should appreciate these differences because at the end of the day we all are a lot more similar that we thought.
DeleteAlso, touching on your question of evolution I think that scientific evolution supports the idea that we are all related as a single species in some way .
"I think there's a human bias to treat your family a little better than strangers... a lot of terrible things we've done to each other is because one group thinks another group is subhuman. And you can't do that anymore. We are not only a part of the same species, we're part of the same family." AJ Jacobs 5:55
ReplyDeleteThe simple idea that we are all basically the same is powerful. We as a species have up until this point tried our best to differentiate from each other. To isolate each other and separate. Instead of focusing on the tiny differences amongst each other, maybe it would be more productive to acknowledge and act on the huge amounts of similarities we all share.
“I found out that I was connected to Albert Einstein. So I told my seven year old son that and he was totally engaged! Now Albert Einstein is not some dead white guy with weird hair. He’s Uncle Albert, and my son wanted to know what he says; what is e=mc^2?” AJ Jacobs: “The World’s Largest Family Reunion…we’re all invited!” (4:19-4:42)
ReplyDeleteToo often in this class do we address the importance of knowledge and recognition of the world around you. It is unfortunate that most of society does not even know where their food comes from. Children are especially uninformed about the world, because they are children and still learning about themselves. Using the connectedness is a great way to get kids excited about history and remove the disinterest that they have towards the subject. It shows children that history is important and fascinating. With this in mind, what do you believe is another way we could use this connectedness to inform others and get people more involved in the world we live in?
I really enjoy this quote and completely agree with everything that you stated. It is so common for us to be disconnected with everything, including the sources in which food and clothing come from. This becomes much more severe when we discover that human inequality derives in the source. When countries and areas such as Bangladesh use such method to produce clothing and food, we get more sensitive and attentive to where our everyday materials come from. This quote puts an interesting way in how we can become connected to the world. In my opinion, more researches and depictions to where we and our belongings come from can help us to be much more involved and connected. Taking the time to trace the sources will increasingly allow us to be involved and attentive.
DeleteThe World's Largest Family Reunion- AJ Jacobs
ReplyDelete"But I think that there's also a human bias to treat your family a little better than strangers. I think this tree is going to be bad news for bigots, because they're going to have to realize that they are cousins with thousands of people in whatever ethnic group they happen to have issues with, and I think you look back at history, and a lot of the terrible things we've done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub-human, and you can't do that anymore. We're not just part of the same species. We're part of the same family.” (5:52)
I found this quote most intriguing, because despite the fact that we all look so different, we all may be interconnected on a family basis in some way. It’s true, people look out for their family very much more than they look out for strangers, because even when they know nothing about them, they understand that something unseen, something meaningful, is bringing them together. The fact that this can bring us to be more compassionate and aware of one another can be a huge breakthrough. Maybe people will be less willing to resort to violence when unnecessary. On a sustainability level, maybe people will realize they must help one another to ensure our stability and growth on this Earth. We’ve constantly spoken of solving global issues in unity. Problems cannot be solved when relations are fragmented. Hopefully, realizing that we are all family will help us be a little more open minded about taking action.
Janeshly Algarin
Hello,
DeleteI found this quote to be fascinating as well. To think that we are so connected with hundreds, even thousands of people is mind-blowing. When most people think of relatives, they think of common physical traits that link them up. But what everyone must now start to realize is that our lineages go way past that superficial level. People on this planet are easily related to those of differing ethnicities or cultures. Consequently, we are all a lot more interconnected than anticipated, because we are family. I think that when this becomes commonly accepted, or idyllically embraced, knowledge that working together for sustainable purposes will become more of a collective effort. Most families would like their children to inherit the same, if not better, Earth that they had growing up. With the idea that all of these children are ours, there could be an even bigger drive for that.
"The problem is that so much of the planet is either under human occupation or suffering from human use and abuse that there is insufficient (healthy) habit to facilitate the evolution of new species" (Thiele, p. 69)
ReplyDeleteAlthough Thiele mentioned that humans are not solely responsible for the declination of animals and specifically, in the evolution of new species, I believe that we are one of the most, or the most prominent reason as to why it is difficult for the evolution of new species. Whether it is for agricultural, industrial, or commercial purposes, we do not cease to limit or destruct the natural habitats of animals. For our own comfort and entertainment, we are simply stepping over the boundaries of other dwellers, which is creating a huge harm for these animals. For animals to be extinct means a poorer world and a less resilient one. Because everything is connected and one affects the other, the continuation of this habit from humans will eventually lead to consequences, not only to the world, but to ourselves.
Hello Seoyoung,
DeleteI agree with your comments and I also highlighted this quote when I was reading through the book this week. I think that human's superiority complex and egocentric mindset allows the societies to believe that we have more of a right to resources than any other species on our earth and allows us to be destructive without feeling guilt. Most policy makers and leaders have no interest in leaving the earth in a better condition than they found it, and that kind of short termed ideology causes the abuse that the quote is referring to. I feel that Thiele utilizes an honest tone throughout the reading that allows the harsh realities of our current condition to be accurately communicated and this quote is an excellent example of that.
“The importance of biodiversity and natural processes in producing ecosystem services that people depend on is not captured in financial markets.” (p. 38, Biodiversity Synthesis Report)
ReplyDeleteIn a previous class of mine about policy and economics the professor mentioned attempts to put a value on ecosystem services, so that they might be considered in economic analyses and better valued in our markets. For instance, people might know that the forest outside their neighborhood helps to filter water and store carbon. But if they were told that the purification of water and storage of carbon would be valued at $4 million, they might respect this forest more and think twice about damaging it. Do you think that this is a good strategy for the future, trying to include our ecosystem services in the global markets? Or are our natural resources greater than any financial value?
Adam,
DeleteI think you bring up a great point I have never actually thought about. By putting a number or price on our resources and including those in the global market could be eye opening. It is unfortunate in the world we live in, that largely money is a bigger drive than happiness. By slapping jaw dropping million to billion dollar price tags on our honestly priceless and overused resources it could draw a lot more attention to them than has been previously given. As we can see the benefits of the ocean and forests are immeasurable but some people are so ignorant and naive and don’t think twice about these facts. By pricing out what we have and what these resources give us, we could and I believe should be able to up the awareness of how we are treating our environment and using our resources. It might also be able to help us budget the amount of each resource that we use. Brilliant idea.
“The future whispers while the present shouts. Desires demand immediate satisfaction, and amidst their constant shouting the voice of reason may be difficult to hear.” (Thiele, pg. 82)
ReplyDeleteAs humans bounded by a culture of consumerism and fulfilling our unnecessary wants and desires, we’ve gone blind to the long-term goals that are necessary to make life worth living. We give worth to the wrong things and trash those that we don’t see as profitable immediately. However, as we’ve read, preserving nature’s ecosystems and biodiversity is essentially more profitable than having to replace all the services it does on its own. Nature is resilient, but like everything else, it was its limits. As humans we may think we are resilient and able to withstand nature’s fury because we’ve been manipulating it for so many years. However, the fact that we try to manipulate it shows the fear and dependency we have for its existence and functionality. Is it not the trees, plants, and animals that whisper while our TV’s, advertisements, and culture shout? Which is the voice of reason? Which is more worthy of being heard? Because sooner or later, nature’s whisper will become a shout. She will reach her limits and would have reason to shout. So let’s listen to her whispers before it’s too late, instead of only hearing Mother Culture’s shouts. Do you think it’s possible for our culture to listen to the voice of reason and ignore the one shouting?
"This logic is especially worrisome because we have already dug ourselves
ReplyDeleteso deeply into unsustainability, based on the assessment of many scientists,
that we are now passing critical environmental thresholds or “tipping
points.” We are starting to feel the weight of what was once balanced on
Earth’s seesaw now sliding down upon us." (worldwatch, pg.11)
The way this was phrased was incredibly alarming statement for me. In 2013 we were questioning if the world was still sustainable and if claiming we were reaching tipping points. It is now 2015 and our gas emissions, and poor decisions related to development without disregard for the enviornment have seemed to sky rocket. The tipping points are here and we are not doing anything about them and it's scary as a younger generation recognizing the state the world has been left for us. How are we to change this on such a large scale? How can we make the entire world recognize it is time we step back and question is development even development if it is unsustainable, for eventually it will lead to our eminent downfall as a species and planet.
Hello Jillian! This quote from "Worldwatch" is both powerful and scary. We live out our lives day to day without ever considering the state our planet is actually in; on the surface everything seems fine but in reality our planet is struggling. We can not just one day wake up and expect major change to happen in our world. Sustainability initiatives can take years to put in place.We can not save our world and the people in it over night. We need to instill excellent education programs for younger generations such as ours and slowly make the changes our world needs.
DeleteHi Jillian! While that quote certainly gives you a sense of urgency, I think one of the biggest problems in trying to advocate for sustainability is vague, alarmist statements like that one. If people begin to believe that we're already doomed, then what is the point of trying to save our future? There's a certain cynicism and fatalism that accompanies large-scale doomsday statements; statements like those also allow for a certain level of detachment. Often, people hear things like this and think: well, I'm living life comfortably, and the consequences aren't going to affect my lifetime, so who cares? Why try? What's important to note is that every choice adds to the scales. If concrete, factual statements, along with a more optimistic point of view, were posed instead, I believe that progress would come easier. This ties back to the fear of one's own mortality.
DeleteThere is a human bias to treat your family better than strangers. I think this is, this tree is going to be bad news for biggets because they're going to realize they are cousins with thousands of people who in whatever ethnic group happen to have issues with. And I think you look back at history and a lot of the terrible things one group did to another group is subhuman and you can't do that anymore, were not just part of the same species but the same family"(AJ Jacobs, The World's Largest Family Reunion... You're All Invited).
ReplyDeleteHello everyone hope you are having a nice week. This quote, despite not being directly about the environment or sustainability is quite relevant to this course. The line that truly stood out to me was about treating everyone like family because we are all related. Just imagine how much better the world we lived in would be if we treated everyone like they were our brothers and sisters. It all comes back to human dignity; we must treat everyone with the respect they deserve. This extends far beyond just our fellow human relatives. This applies to all living things. I challenge each and every one of you this week to speak to a stranger, ask them how their week is going. Chances are they are struggling with someone and will truly appreciate someone taking an interest in them. If that one person pays it forward and the pattern continues the world’s human dignity would be very strong.
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
DeleteHey Abigail, I had a similar response to the quote you gave. It struck me that this study of genetics will really highlight our interconnectedness as an entire species, and not just that, but also as members of a larger global community we'll have to recognize our similarity to and connection with other organisms. I think this genetic study could spark a lot of thoughtful philosophical analysis of how we treat other species and how we prioritize our human needs over those of other "lesser" important members of our ecological communities. In this way we need to not just pay attention to the needs of our fellow man, but to the also-unspoken needs of other species that may be struggling as well.
“The need to withstand disaster offers a powerful reason to change. But how can resilience thinking be applied in communities, societies, and individual lives? Resilience is stubbornly contextual; there is no one-size-fits-all guide to building resilient systems. Yet a few generalizations apply.”
ReplyDelete(World Watch Institute, Is Sustainability still Possible?, Pg. 359, Second Paragraph)
I connected with this quote from the World Watch Institute, because it reminded me of what we learned in class in regards to peoples “fear master.” Later on this book goes on to explain what we can do in order to help this issue. Stating that we as humans are naturally resilient and have that adaptation imbedded in us already we just need to reach down to our roots in order to attain it. We need to learn and fully understand complex systems before we mess with them, embrace change, whether good or bad, and finally build collective responsibility with our individual resilience. Everyone’s fear master is unique in it’s own way and that is why it is an issue we must fix on our own account. I personally believe fear is a great motivator, no matter what the goal is, everyone wants to have that feeling of comfort, and the discomfort of knowing that something bad could happen at any moment is a great way to achieve change. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same fear level and this needs to be a collective change, just like what they said in the book, “it is our collective responsibility.” My question is what will it take before we can collectively use our fears for the better and change us? When or what needs to happen before there is no doubt in anyones mind that we are in grave danger with the damage and its effects that we have and cause on our environment? Do you think it will be too late, if this is our motivator, or do you think that for the most part people are starting to get it?
"Though we may be reluctant to admit it, we often trade human health, welfare, and life for the sake of efficiency or financial gain" (Thiele, p. 77).
ReplyDeleteThis quote was significant to me because I feel that it is grounded in the realities of why sustainable practices feels like such a barrier for many people. In America, the society has been taught to expect immediate results and awards for what their actions, and due to the fact that being wasteful and unsustainable appeases that need for instant gratification, it is often the path more traveled. People fail to realize that sustainability is a way to accomplish a better standard of living for a society in terms of human health and welfare. I think that by changing the culture's mindset to recognize the long term reward for being more sustainable, the idea of holistic sustainability will be more achievable.
I like what you've decided to discuss because it's probably the most important factor hindering the advancement of sustainability: human ignorance. Awareness is a prelude to informed action. In democratic societies, any kind of action toward sustainable development will ultimately depend of public awareness and support. I think the first step toward creating a more informed public is to reform education to show these younger generations what their future could possibly look like if we don't start taking care of it now. It's sad that we have politicians that still refuse to acknowledge the deterioration of our planet, when they're supposed to be responsible and accountable for it's citizens. I have no doubt that future generations will be deeply ashamed at the lack of foresight, the magnitude of greed, and arrogance of those who are promoting destruction and want to call it development.
DeleteI completely agree with you Amanda, if people recognized the long term effects and benefits of sustainability, they may find that it is more economical and self-preserving way of living. I think this is where early education in sustainability would be most helpful to us, if we are able to teach younger generations to value long term benefits rather than the short term ones. Eventually, we may be able to shift the current mindset that we currently have into a more biocentric, eco-minded, and farsighted thinking that the world requires of us.
Delete"I think this tree is going to be bad news for bigots, because they're going to have to realize that they are cousins with thousands of people in whatever ethnic group they happen to have issues with, and I think you look back at history, and a lot of the terrible things we've done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub-human, and you can't do that anymore" (AJ JACOBS ted talk at around 5:49)
ReplyDeleteHow did these divisions get started in the first place? If we all started off in the same places and are more or less related how did divisions among people begin along the lines of race, gender, ect.?
Is there any way that we as a society could ever see each other as family and not as others? what would a world were this is true look like?
Well starting at the end of your questions and working up. I believe the world would be a bit more understanding of each other if people had a change in their perspective and made these realizations. However as we all know even the closest of family members can get in brutal fights so its hard to say if it would really change a whole lot. Divisions among people developed not only because of the division from physical space and distance but also different cultures and within those cultures different classes. Once a population settles in a location it developed its on means to survive there and that all affected its culture as time goes on. The largest divider of people are our differences be they physical, biological or otherwise.
Delete"Any number of interdependent ecosystems may be degraded by the extinction of a single species, even if that species is not directly involved in the provision o the service." pg 75 Thiele
ReplyDeleteThis statement draws an undeniable notion to the interconnectedness of the world. We assume, as humans, that if things are unrelated on the surface, then they are not related at all. Most people don't see how the relationship between an insect and us makes an difference in the world. They don't realize that without the insect, flowers fail to be pollinated, plants cannot reproduce and flower and provide the food that, not only humans, but other animals require to sustain them. Those animals that are also affected send off a rapidly spreading chain reaction of dying off and extinction. Everything in the world is somehow related to another, and this reminds me of the TED talk. The point in the TED talk was to treat each other kindly because we are all biologically related to each other, and that this truth could be "bad news for bigots". Well, I think this point could be extended out to all organisms on Earth. We all came from one ancestor and through evolution, have diversified to create a stable environment for us to live on. We are all related to birds and dogs and snakes and bananas, and therefore we should treat our relatives with the same family bias that we treat our immediate family with. However, this unity doe not only apply in the literal sense of genealogy and descent, but also in the sense of reliance on one another for stability in the environment. Biodiversity is crucial because of need for redundancy to maintain stability even in case another species is wiped out. This prevents calamities in the natural world and our anthropocentrically based world.
"There's a human bias to treat your family a little bit better than strangers" Ted Talk 6 minutes in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the interconnectedness leading to the kinder world that he describes is the most important potential to change the world. As we find out more and more about this topic and the general public will become more educated over this notion that we are all biologically related, there will hopefully be less hate, less war and a greater willingness to settle differences in a peaceful way. He pointed out that we are naturally willing to treat family better, and once people realize the true interconnectedness of the world this should come into play. And this all makes me wonder how can this apply to a more sustainable global culture? We know people are different all around the world but if we just realize how similar they actually are and get a more well rounded perspective there should be much less between national cultures and different cultures within a country.
Collin!
DeleteI enjoy the quotation you chose to discuss because it ties in with my discussion. We have this mental concept that we must treat our family members respectfully and with care. But in previous discussion, we can include that strangers are possible family members that we have yet to acknowledge. Differences occur in families all the time, so why treat strangers any differently? How I see it, strangers are family members that you just haven’t met yet.
Hello Collin,
DeleteIt is true that people are willing to treat their family better than other people, but it’s so much more than that. At a larger scale, people treat others better when they realize they are the same human, and when they develop a connection with each other, they can no longer ignore the other person’s emotions and discard them as not important. Thus, when people become connected to other communities, and are exposed more to the world around them, they cannot ignore their problems and they cannot ignore that other people are humans too, and deserve the care and kindness that all people deserve.
“Ultimately, resilience thinking asks us to embrace change. The systems that surround and include us are forever in flux as they grow, mature, and— inevitably—collapse. This is a terrifying prospect but in some respects a hopeful one.” – Worldwatch, pg. 362
ReplyDeleteI find this quote interesting because it embraces the inherent chaos in nature. It asserts that for us to find our place in this world and pursue the most sustainable path, we must understand that everything is fleeting and we really don’t have a complete grasp on the systems around us. This captures holistic sustainability tremendously because it demonstrates that it’s impossible to truly predict what our impact is, but if we converge with our thoughts and collaborate, we can come as close to the true prediction. Do you think the uncertainty of nature is something that should be reveled or feared? And does it make sustainability efforts futile or strengthen them?
I believe the answer to your first question is that the uncertainty in nature is something to be both reveled and feared. One f the many wonders of nature is its uncertainty. We are constantly in awe of all of the amazing things nature has shown us. We see a sort of romanticism around nature that serves as a source of inspiration for art and a sign of divinity on earth. We revel in its uncertainty in this manner and enjoy all it has to offer. However, nature must also be feared. Mother Earth is a mighty force. If we think of the earth as entirely one system we must understand the abuse she has endured per our [the humans] accord. This ancient system will take care of her self because she is resilient, and that is when we need to fear. We have caused so many disturbances in nature and altered her systems. Scientifically thinking of newton’s laws: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Quite frankly I fear for the equal and opposite reaction that is extolled upon us. Altogether though, however we choose to see nature, it only strengthens sustainability efforts. If we revel in nature and enjoy it, sustainability efforts are important to preserve what we have, and if we fear nature sustainability efforts are important so that mother earth may have mercy on us.
DeleteYour point about the connection between the fluctuations in nature and holistic sustainability was very insightful! I think that the uncertainty of nature should definitely be respected. It is something that we cannot control, only predict and prepare for it. However, as humans, we are a part of nature and also have the ability to adapt and change with the systems around us. This will be useful in helping us shift to a more sustainable lifestyle, because it is so different than the way that we live right now, we must grow and mature with nature as the impact that we have on it begins to show repercussions.
Delete“I am connected to 80,000 people around the world.” (1:07 in Ted Talk)
ReplyDeleteFor the Ted Talk discussion, we can see that we are all connected. From times past, our relatives from history may be the same relatives to someone that lives in another country. As a community, we walk around not thinking about the idea of the person next to us on the bus may, somehow, related to your from past generations. It is also shocks me that if we think about this idea of all being related, why do we discriminate? If we are technically all ‘one’ or all somehow family, why do we treat some has they do not belong? This concept still remains unknown to me but maybe one day we can change it.
This Ted Talk was one of the more interesting ones I’ve watched and did open up a lot of new thoughts that I never knew before. The problem is though that most people don’t think of the whole world as their family or even know that we are all so very close connected like this. Even though it never makes sense to discriminate, you can understand that when we aren’t taught to think of each other as our family but narrow ourselves to only the ones around us, it is easier for people to look down on others who they think are not in any was the same as themselves. The problem is we are all related in some way and have at least something in common and so if people begin to hear about this and are taught from the beginning that we are easily related to so many people, then we will hopefully see an end to discrimination
DeleteThis is definitely something I started thinking about when watching the TED talk as well. Upon watching it, I was on campus, so I could not help but think about how all the people around me having lunch or talking to a friend are all related to me. It can actually be traced on this tree. This really got me thinking how much more concrete this interconnectedness idea becomes once you and you personally are on the tree. Like you said, it makes you wonder why people discriminate. On top of questioning racism and wars, it also brings in understanding of historic events. For example, Jacobs said in the video that it brings to light how people migrate. People of different races can see how they are connected to each other. There would be initial confusion, but eventually a Japanese-American person could see how they are related to an American whose family has lived in the US for generations by perhaps understanding the events of WWII. This tree brings to light and connects a lot of ideas simply by putting the reader him/herself into the equation.
Delete"Biodiversity use, change, and loss have improved well-being for many social groups and individuals. But people with low resilience to ecosystem changes—mainly the disadvantaged— have been the biggest losers and witnessed the biggest increase in not only monetary poverty but also relative, temporary poverty and the depth of poverty" (Synthesis on Biodiversity pg 40)
ReplyDeleteThis passage reminded me a lot of what Jacob Cravey spoke about to our class a couple of weeks back. Many people in poor, low-income neighborhoods had no idea about anything related to environmental awareness, sustainability, or biodiversity and continue to expend all of their resources without knowing that they could be saving money and energy. Jacob went into these houses and made people so much more aware of simple things they can do to not only benefit themselves greatly but also the environment. I believe that it is our responsibility as informed and educated students and environmental advocates that we must spread this message of sustainability to those who might not understand it as well or are completely unaware to it. I believe everything boils down to awareness; the more we spread it, the more change will come.
“Resilience, then, requires greater self-sufficiency but also a new commitment to social justice. A resilient society empowers all of its people with access to health care, education and opportunity.”
ReplyDeleteThough there are many factors that can lead to a more sustainable society, this quote about resiliency directly relates back to the equity principle, a key concept for sustainability. According to this principle, people have certain rights that must be respected; in narrowest terms, it means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality below, which nobody falls. Do you believe that this concept can be applied across communities, nations, and generations?
Yes, I definitely think this concept can be used across the globe and between different generations of people. And I think it should be. Humans everywhere deserve dignity, which requires (as you said) a certain level of particular factors, like income and environmental conditions. Communities should work together to ensure that members of society have equal opportunities to basic human necessities, including water and land resources. Without these basic resources, individuals cannot achieve social mobility, much less sustainable living. As members of a global society, we should all take the initiative to help others achieve these human necessities so we can make progress toward a more sustainable Earth.
Delete"Resilience, in the simplest terms, can be defined as a system’s ability to mitigate
ReplyDeleteand withstand disturbances and to bounce back afterwards, while continuing
to function." (Worldwatch pg. 354)
After a disturbance in a system, resilience is the force that helps it thrive again. Every surviving ecosystem has been resilient to changes on earth caused by climate, weather, and other natural processes. Having said that, humans have created an ever increasing level of disturbances that seem to have far more devastating effects. On top of that, the presence of these disturbances has escalated in some places to a full time force against nature. Do you think that systems with such an exposure to human activity will have trouble becoming resilient to them? Are there any ways we can ensure that these areas have room to breathe and recover?
I found the article about resilience fascinating. Personally, I would have liked to read more data about the ratio of people who suffered from natural events and the population for each year. I agree with your statement that every surviving ecosystem has been resilient to changes caused by weather and other natural disasters. Had those species, whether plants or animals, not been able to overcome their disturbances, the loss of biodiversity by now could be astonishing. I think exposure increase resiliency among species. Obviously, a gradual introduction to a given disturbance is favored over full-on exposure. This is why so many antibiotics have been developed since the 1850s. Overtime, germs are able to evolve and resist medication; plants and animals act the same when introduced to disturbances, they evolve. Once a species has overcome the initial disturbance and is on the bounce-back, quarantines could increase the chances of a restored population. Keep the species safe and protected from potential disasters and allowing the population to be regenerate. Once the species population is restored and functioning again, the population can be dispersed across as much land as possible. By spreading the species, you decrease the chances of the entire population being decimated by another natural disaster.
Delete“I think you look back at history and a lot of the terrible things we’ve done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub human and you can’t do that anymore we’re not just part of the same species, we’re part of the same family, we share 99.9% of our DNA” - TED Talk: AJ Jacobs. The world’s largest family reunion . . .we’re all invited! [6:15]
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved this TED talk. I found it to be very eye opening. This quote was so profound because unfortunately we live in a word with much hate. Many are constantly being discriminated against and peace and equality seems like a non-stop uphill battle. This quote relates to another quote earlier in the video where Jacobs states that there exists a human bias to treat family a little better than strangers. The fact that we share 99.9% of our DNA, and using the world family tree we can find that were are related to most anyone in some way shape or form, challenges the notion that any of us are different at all. We shouldn’t treat anyone different, because we perceive him or her as a stranger or inferior because we absolutely, definitively are all connected and now we even have the science to prove it. I think this premise is extremely important in addressing holistic sustainability. If we could all recognize how interconnected we are, treat each other better, and recognize everyone’s right to exist, well then the world would be a better place where each inhabitant maintains their human dignity.
AJ Jacobs: Ted Talk
ReplyDeleteMin 6:25 – “We’re not just part of the same species, we’re part of the same family.”
I very much enjoy the ideas and ways Jacobs is going about talking about our human family. The enjoyment he finds in interconnecting everyone is something that I myself find a very enjoyable idea. In a world with so much daily hate and anger towards each other, we a lot of times tend to forget that we are all one. Not only are we all human but we are all related. Our ancestors grew up together and worked together and we must never forget that we are all one family sharing this Earth. This is important to remember when talking about human dignity and viewing the world holistically. If we can acknowledge the idea that we are for the most part a huge family then it will be easier for us to act as one and help make sure everyone in our family gets the same human dignity that everyone deserves. We should want the best for our family members. I truly wonder if science will ever go far enough to actually trace everyone back to the origins of life.
"Cuba has a very low per capita income, yet in the non-materialistic, quality- of-life domain, it excels. Thus Cuba represents a paradox. It is a materially poor country that has First World education, literacy, and health care. It is rich in human development resources and low in environmental burdens, but its standard of living, and therefore its fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions, is very low. Cuba has maintained its human service programs—free educa- tion, old-age support, basic nutrition, and free health care—throughout its Special Period. In 2006, Cuba was the only country in the world rated as having “sustainable development” in WWF’s Living Planet Report." - Worldwatch, 363
ReplyDeleteI thought this was very interesting, although I disagree on many points. Anyone who knows immigrants from Cuba understands that Cuba's quality of life is not excellent by any means; I thought it was definitely thought-provoking that it was considered sustainable, however. Although, isn't human dignity an integral part of sustainability? What do you think - could Cuba really be considered a model of sustainability, and if not, is there any other examples you could think of?
"Climate change, species loss, and other modifications to the ecosphere have destabilized the natural world, ushering in a new and unpredictable era of storms, drought, disease, and rising seas." - Laurie Mazur, pg. 353
ReplyDeleteThe depth of this comment carries a lot of weight to me. Just before this quote, Laurie mentioned that humans' increased vulnerability in their environment is caused by their actions against the environment. Because of this phenomena, the human population must increase their resilience in order to survive on a planet with uncertain possibilities. My question is, what happens when resilience can no longer increase? Obviously human population will decrease; but how much? How far back in technologic-time will it put us? How long will it take for the population to bounce back from that; or will it ever bounce back?
Have you heard of biosphere 2? It was an experiment that scientists did a couple decades ago to fully understand the interactions that different natural systems had on one another in the hopes that they could use this information one day to either fix our biosphere or create another one on another planet. They ended up leaving the 10 or so scientists in there for over 6 months and discovered an abundance of information about how we interact directly with our environments. I think that humans could outlive our planet. The idea that our planet will survive regardless of humans is not true. It might have been true in the past, but the Earth can easily be destroyed. I think we could live either on other planets or in space ships, but our human psychology would be altered so drastically by removing us from our natural environment that we wouldn’t even be humans. That is the point in which AI and technology would rule our lives. It would be a bleak future for sure.
Delete"It is clear that a world designed to weather shocks and disturbances would look very different from today’s world. The systems that supply modern societies with food, electricity, and other essentials are not diverse and modular; they are massive monocultures that grow ever more efficient and vulnerable."(Worldwatch pg.359) There is case after case and story after story about devastating disasters that not only take the lives of those people in the midst of the disaster, but due to its effects thereafter. If societies were more diverse and modular in its systems the death toll and damages to the foundation would be much less. There would be a failsafe considering that disaster would not strike all the facets of its society at once. How do you think our society in the United States could be more modular and diverse?
ReplyDelete“human beings are inextricably entwined with nature, so the rules of the natural world may apply to us as well.” (354)
ReplyDeleteThis quote perfectly identifies our connection with our environmental from a holistic point of view. Of course humans would follow within the laws of our natural world. To think that we have the capabilities to fully operate outside of it is ludicrous. There are always interactions that we continue to ignore. Going back to the video about reversing desertification, I think it’s important for us to operate within the means of nature by using nature to fix our problems! Having said that, I do believe that there is a place for technology to aid in that solution, but through limited, efficient means. For example, I think that we could develop a sustainable food production system in our country by using technology to develop aquaponic/ aeroponic greenhouses in each city that could produce city wide, local produce on a massive scale with extreme efficiency. We could no longer have to transport foods all across the country and we would use renewable energy to produce the food, cutting out significant waste. Going back to the quote, I think the writer of Ishmael would agree that we have too far removed ourselves from our nature. So would John Muir who believed that our societies, even over a hundred years ago, was too far removed from nature. He would gasp at the concepts of today’s world and lifestyles!
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
ReplyDelete"The extinction of a species may sadden us deeply at a personal level. We may grieve for the loss of one of the members of the natural community in the same way we grieve for the loss of a member of the human community. But the extinction of a species is not only an emotional harm. It has an impact on the resilience of ecosystems, and by extension the resilience of the plant's life support system. The loss of biodiversity threatens human welfare. Oftentimes, it has a direct impact on economic life."
I thought this passage was actually fairly connected with the AJ Jacobs TED Talk, in that it emphasized the interconnectedness of individual members of humanity. While we often want to consider ourselves separate, isolated non-members of larger communities, the opposite is very much true. It seems natural that we would experience a feeling of loss when another member of our global ecosystem would permanently pass; we are losing a member of our global family, something beautiful that cannot be experienced again. Of course this is why it's so important to value and care for the members of our environment that cannot speak for themselves and protect themselves against the manmade hazards harming their natural ways of living, which boils down to being better sustainability agents for the sake of maintaining our levels of biodiversity.
“It’s giving us valuable data about how diseases are inherited, how people migrate…” AJ Jacobs: The world’s largest family reunion…we’re all invited! 4:00 – 4:10
ReplyDeleteBefore watching this video, I had trouble imagining what a video about genealogy would have to do with holistic sustainability, but after hearing this quote, I definitely made the connection. Understanding this enormous family tree allows for a much more concrete and relatable perspective on the idea that “everything is connected.” This lineage project allows people to put themselves into the picture, rather than just studying the rain cycle or how food is processed and delivered to them. By seeing themselves on this family tree, people are more willing to pay attention to these important details, and hear out things like disease susceptibility, culture pass-downs, historic events, etc.
"Cuba has a very low per capita income, yet in the non-materialistic, quality- of-life domain, it excels. Thus Cuba represents a paradox. It is a materially poor country that has First World education, literacy, and health care." - WorldWatch p. 342
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, it is common for people to demonize Cuba, claiming it is a restrictive society. However, this article seems to argue that Cubans enjoy a high quality of life. Do you think that a socialist regime could actually encourage the happiness of more citizens? Or is our capitalist free-market system more advantageous for citizens' happiness?
I think this i a very complex question but its important to understand the people of Cuba are what seems like being held hostage by their leader. I have a friend who is able to visit the country and she said it is in a very bad situation. I think the social regime is taking advantage of the resources it has to offer, because although its people may live with a high quality of life they still don't get to have the freedom to do as they please. Thus i do not believe they are encouraging happiness. Yet I also don't really think our capitalist free-market is any better. We run into a situation at a point where only certain people are able to have everything they could want to be happy. and sometimes some people struggle to even provide the basics for themselves while others have entirely too much.
DeleteI do not believe that the socialist leader in Cuba actually encourages the happiness of citizens. The leader there is control opposed to the views of just about everybody in the nation. While we are trying to help these people who are being held by their leader, just about the only positive thing that could be taken away from this situation is their understanding of the world and the environment around them. Because of the poor status and the low standard of living that affects everybody in Cuba, they have come accustomed to the diminishing environment and continue to do everything they are able to do in order to protect the natural resources that they aren’t allowed to get a hold of. They have to create other sources of energy to live off of.
Delete"Inclusiveness. Inclusive social institutions—economic, political, and cultural—can strengthen resilience. For example, communities that practice 'deliberative democracy' by involving people in problem-solving are better able to recover from disaster and rebuild for long-term sustainability."
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because I fundamentally believe that when a community is together, they can get a lot done faster and really make change quickly. When everyone works together and is unified, history is made by the mobility and power of that community. However, when a community is not together and not involved, it remains stagnate and does nothing.
With this in mind, inclusiveness is essential to be able to repair damage to a community quickly, do that it may mobilize immediate and work effectively to solve the issue at hand. In this context, what can be some ways to involve the people of a community, and what impact does that have on the communities strive for long-term sustainability?
“Ecosystem functioning, and hence ecosystem services, at any given moment in time is strongly influenced by the ecological characteristics of the most abundant species, not by the number of species. The relative importance of a species to ecosystem functioning is determined by its traits and its relative abundance. “ pg. 22 Synthesis on Biodiversity
ReplyDeleteThe environment is greatly affected by the species that holds the position of being most abundant. And with a family tree that has the possibility of extending to over 75 million people, I think it is clear that we as humans have taken this role upon ourselves. While insects may overrule us when it really came down to a game of numbers, ecosystem functioning are altered and modified to the characteristics of the organisms that live it is. Biodiversity serves to equalize the impacts of any one species, and as this decreases and the population of human beings rises our impact on the functioning of the environment will exponentially grow. I found it interesting though to consider how this will also serve to effect the influences of other species. What will the world look like after it is only us and a few others?
AJ Jacobs explained in his talk how we are a part of a world family tree and five reasons why it is important. His 4th reason explains that this realization will make for a kinder world in stating "we're not only a part of the same species, but the same family" (6:30), and that humans treat family kinder than strangers. How do you think this perspective of viewing other people could affect how we interact and treat others? Are there any historical examples that support your opinion?
ReplyDelete"a lot of the terrible things we've done to each other is because one group thinks another group is sub-human, and you can't do that anymore. We're not just part of the same species. We're part of the same family. We share 99.9 percent of our DNA." I remember studying the blue people in high school which is this family who kept interbreeding that their genes got messed up and they were all blue. Do we think that is he human race could have problems with interbreeding considering we are all relates? what is the most sustainable way to be a healthy human population?
ReplyDelete"Ecosystems that are diverse tend to be more resilient, yet one aspect of modern global agriculture is its vast expansion of monocropping that ignores or marginalizes
ReplyDeletethousands of plant varieties and thereby exposes the system to risk."
(Worldwatch page 355)
This was on a sidebar of the article but it really stood out to me. It reminded me of Ishmael where he talks about how in nature hyenas would never kill all the lions, the other grass-eating animals and the other species of plants just so that they could have more antelopes. I know that this isn't exactly the same point, but they both enforce the idea of how important biodiveristy is to an ecosystem. In order to survive, we need diversity, but we tend to forget this in favor of only keeping around what is directly useful to us, and we don't think about the effect that this has on the rest of the ecosystem. Do you think we will ever remedy this for the sake of the environment, or only if it becomes a pressing economic issue for us?
"Humanity’s increased vulnerability partly reflects the changes people have made to the global environment. Climate change, species loss, and other modifications to the ecosphere have destabilized the natural world, ushering in a new and unpredictable era of storms, drought, disease, and rising seas. As climate scientist James Hansen puts it, 'Ten thousand years of good weather is over.'" (Worldwatch, pg. 353)
ReplyDeleteBouncing off of this excerpt from Worldwatch, I wanted to pose this question for discussion: Knowing this harsh reality of climate change and resource exploitation in our world today, what are some optimistic ways we can approach sustainability in our daily lives? Because we've learned a lot about the 4 R's last week, for instance, one could mention how these allow us to be sustainable on an individual basis.
"I think there's a human bias to treat your family a little better than others... a lot of terrible things we've done to each other is because one groups thinks another group is subhuman... we can't do that anymore" (AJ Jacobs, 5 min.57 sec.). I really like this quote and think that it can be broadened to represent human dignity a lot. We tend to view our families as an extension of ourselves and would protect them at any cost, even if that means negatively effecting other people. We, as humans, have to realize the little that is being accomplished when putting down others. If we have more togetherness and unity as a country, we could actively reach for what we are trying to accomplish and allow us to make strides in the sustainability and education across the country.
ReplyDelete