E-Portfolio for Alyssa Santo

Alyssa Santo
WR 100 FH
Essay 4 Rough Draft

The future of earth and all the life it contains us unknown as of now. Humans have polluted it to an extreme, causing a range of problems from global warming to mass extinctions. Now the fate of life on earth is in our hands. Naturally, some people are pessimistic in their predictions for the future, while others hold more optimism. Authors Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, David E. Nye, and Caroline Merchant all possess different opinions regarding the future on earth. If they all were asked to make a prediction for fifty five years from present, they would all have different answers. Nordhaus and Shellenberger might predict a world that is hot but liveable, Nye might predict a world that is driven by technology, and Merchant might predict a world that is disastrous. I think the outcome that is a safe bet for the world in 2064 is that earth will not have changed as dramatically as some propose, but humans will depend more on technology and alternative resources.

In their book Break Through. Nordhaus and Shellenberger describe the death of environmentalism and the rise of political and economic power. They argue that environmentalists focus on the wrong ideas, and do so in a negative way. "Think of the verbs associated with environmentalism and conservation: 'stop,' 'restrict,' 'reverse,' 'prevent,' 'regulate,' and 'constrain.' All of them direct our thinking to stopping the bad, not creating the good" (p. 7). The issues of concern for most environmental groups, such as water pollution, deforestation, etc., are not being dealt with in a way that promotes progress. Often they take on a problem that was created by humans in the first place and focus on reversing it. What Nordhaus and Shellenberger are arguing is that these issues are being dealt with in the wrong way. They say that there is no need for environmental categories because "the challenge of climate change is so massive, so global, and so complex that it can be overcome only if we look beyond the issue categories of the past and embrace a grand new vision for the future." They are in no way saying that these groups are pointless or failures, but rather implying that the issues we face now are too global to be dealt with so lightly and singally.













Alyssa Santo
WR 100 FH
Essay 3 Rough Draft

There are some things in the world that can never be fully understood or calculated by the human mind. Despite what mathematical or scientific way these things are attempted to be proven, they will always remain incomprehensible. One of these things is the carrying capacity of the world. Can there be 100 billion people on earth? Even 800 billion? According to David E. Nye, the population that earth can sustain is entirely a socially constructed number. In his essay “Sustainable Abundance or Ecological Crisis?” Nye evaluates the idea of a socially constructed carrying capacity and relates it to human being’s standards of living and how ecological crises across the globe influence it. He writes “ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction.” This statement is validated through Nye’s examples and arguments presented in his essay. The needs and wants of different cultures ultimately affect the sustainability of the world’s population.

Nye’s statement that the world’s carrying capacity is a social construction carries a lot of weight. What he means by this is that the capacity of humans on earth is not determined by some sort of equation or science itself, but rather it is determined by the standards of living in societies across the globe. The example he gives to back his statement up is, “if people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people than it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing.” In other words, the population can only be supported by the abundance of material it uses. There can only be so many animals in a population that are used for meat in order to sustain the population of humans; if the human population highly exceeds the animal population, there will never be enough meat to go around. The same idea applies to crops that produce fibers and are used for making clothes. The soil can only handle a certain number of crops growing per season, and even so, the soil may not have enough nutrients to grow the same amount of crops during the season right after. So if people are willing to have lower standards of living, then the world’s carrying capacity will increase.

Nye also evaluates the abundance of natural energy resources that humans use daily. He references the energy crisis of the 1970’s and says, “suddenly it seemed self-evident that oil, gas, and coal were limited resources that would run out within a few generations” (p. 104). This plays into the world’s carrying capacity because people began to realize that they need to turn to alternative energy sources if they want to maintain the standard of living they currently have. If people rely only on sources such as gasoline and oil, they will have very little or no other resources to rely on for energy once those run out. The energy issue leaves some countries in a rut, while others prosper. As Nye states, “Europeans have long been accustomed to smaller automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline, which encourage alternative forms of transport. Many rely primarily on mass transit and bicycles and live in compact cities with many row houses and apartments. Such countries have a standard of living as high as the United States, but use only half as much energy per capita” (p. 105). This is a perfect example of how resources impact human behavior and standard of living. European countries do not depend heavily on unlimited energy resources, yet they have a similar standard of living to Americans. The difference is that Europeans sacrifice the luxury of large machines such as bulky automobiles and use methods of transportation that use up very little energy. If people all around the world were willing to make such sacrifices, perhaps the world could sustain a larger human population. The way people are living now is damaging the environment and atmosphere of earth, putting human life into danger. If the world’s population were to increase drastically, and people still depended on such resources, not only would the resources run out much quicker but also the amount of chlorofluoro carbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other pollutants would also drastically increase and cause unknown consequences to earth. This same idea applies to all resources, as mentioned before. A larger population can be sustained only if people are willing to give up or rely less on natural resources.

I personally agree with Nye because I think it is a very logical explanation. After reading some of his essays, I myself wonder how much of science is actually a social construction. Things such as the world’s carrying capacity can never be determined mathematically or scientifically as a pure fact. Some people believe the human population can be sustained at numbers as high as 100 billion, while others believe it can never go over 10 billion. I think it all depends on how the society wants to live. For example, China has the largest population in the world. Their main cities are always very crowded, and people live extremely close to one another. It is much different compared to a town where someone’s closest neighbor lives a mile away. However, if people in China choose to live that way, then they can have a higher population, and they do. Other countries have much space available that can support a larger population, but they choose not to live that way. It depends on the country’s wealth and resources. Generally, wealthier countries can support a large population because they can obtain more resources and have a better living situation than poor countries. However, I believe that each country has a population limit it can’t exceed. Not because it isn’t possible, but because it is just not reasonable to have an overwhelming population. People want to have high standards of living, and I don’t believe they will give it up to test the population theory.

The earth is only so large, and there can only be so many living organisms that occupy it. How many organisms can occupy it is incalculable. It is something we choose based on our standards of living, and the resources available to us. Overpopulating the earth might result in dire environmental and atmospheric consequences. It can put hundreds of other species extinct, while also polluting the environment to an extreme. According to Nye, the extent of human population is a social construction that is completely under our control. What we choose to do and how we choose to live determines the fate not only of humans and other animals, but also the world itself.










Ford's creation of the assembly line undoubtedly increased efficiency in production and revolutionized the way industry was run. While it definitely increased production and profit, it impacted workers in a negative way. Their new jobs that waited months for were simply to stand there and work with the pace of the machine, not vice versa, the way it used to be. They were held there under strict rules for long hours, barely able to move a few steps. The Ford industry is definitely an example of how we can sometimes let technology control us, and how technology has taken a toll on the work force.










Alyssa Santo
WR 100 H7
14 September 2009
Assignment One

Humans have a long, complicated, and partially unknown history that dates back to tens of thousands of years ago. Even though the origins of humans are still unclear, one thing is certain: technology, even in its simplest form, has been a crucial part of human society and development since the very beginning. There is no doubt that technology has evolved over time and become integrated in societies around the globe. In modern times especially, technology plays a huge role in peoples’ everyday lives, nearly consuming them. Ages ago when people started becoming dependent on technology it sparked a new debate of whether human beings control their technological creations, or whether technological creations control humans. There is quite a handful of literature discussing and analyzing this issue, with two notable contributors being Ralph Waldo Emerson with his poem “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing,” and David E. Nye with his book Technology Matters. One of Emerson’s most famous quotes, “Things are in the saddle, And ride mankind,” is taken from that very poem. As powerful as this quote is, Nye happens to contradict it with overwhelming examples and evidence in his essay titled “Does Technology Control Us?” While Emerson argues in his poem that technology is beyond human control, Nye provides historical evidence for why humans actually have more control over their creations than they think.

Emerson’s poem interprets a 19th century society which has become somewhat dependent on and interested in advancing technology. He compares humans to cattle with the lines “’Tis the day of the chattel, Web to weave, and corn to grind” (Emerson). Traditionally, cattle are raised on farms for the production of milk and beef and they are under the complete control of humans. With these two lines, Emerson suggests that humans are actually the ones under control. He uses the word “chattel” to refer to human slavery, and the line after that to depict the kind of work humans slave over. The sentence “web to weave” insinuates more than just the literal definition of weaving; he can also be referring to the web of technology that exists in society, such as railroads, mining, and telegraphs, all of which are web-like in their layouts. The last two lines of this stanza, and his most famous lines, “Things are in the saddle, And ride mankind,” reinforce his previous suggestion that humans have become slaves (Emerson). But in these lines he makes it clear what humans have become the slaves of, which in this case is technology. He uses the word “things” to include all sorts of technology- ‘things’ people have created- and places them in the saddle, where in reality a human would be sitting. This, again, goes with the theme of humans being subdued by technology. Even though people create technology, in Emerson’s mind technology tends to control them instead of vice versa. He elaborates more on this in the next stanza from the excerpt by describing the “two laws discrete…law for man, and law for thing; The last builds town and fleet, But it runs wild, And doth the man unking” (Emerson). These lines make it clear that Emerson views technology as the ruler, or king, over humans. Even though it builds stable things such as “town and fleet,” it ultimately is uncontrollable in the hands of humans.

While Emerson views technology as an uncontrollable force, Nye seems to have a completely opposite take on it. In his essay “Does Technology Control Us?” he provides historical examples to show that, in fact, humans have complete control over technology and its fate in society. Perhaps one of his best examples is Japan in the 1500’s. At this time guns became widely popular around the world which was something different for a country like Japan where the samurais had used swords for ages. Initially, Japan adopted the use of guns and the art of making them, but over time they deserted these weapons and switched back to the original, and trusted, swords. Nye argues that Japan did this for cultural reasons, because the guns had no meaning or worthiness to the samurais. This proves to be a prime example of how people have the power to reject technology, even if that technology seems to “inevitably” spread worldwide (Nye, 17). Another example Nye gave was the ancient civilization of the Mayans, who rejected the technology of the wheel. The Mayans, apparently, knew about wheels and used them for toys and other small objects, but not for the typical use on construction apparatuses (Nye, 20). The point Nye is making by using these examples is that technology is not “deterministic” – people can pick and choose which technologies are more convenient for them, and they have the power to fully reject or fully adopt the technology into their society. A group of people that still exist today, called the Amish, is the perfect example of how societies choose their technology. The Amish are a society that prefers to live without modern technology, and instead create their own technology through hard work, such as horse carriages instead of cars (Nye, 18). If Emerson’s claim is really true that technology is a force above human control, then how are there still societies today that nearly completely reject the use of it? Nye proves, with examples, that technology really is just a tool; it is a tool used by society to grow culturally and intellectually, and whether or not the technology “runs wild” is the choice of the society itself.

In modern times it is quite difficult to escape the grip of technology, as it is all around us. People are constantly checking phones for text messages, chatting through IM, looking for friends on Facebook, or watching their favorite television shows. Any youth today would say that all the technology we have now was bound to arrive and take over as it has. But after reading Nye’s essay, I have to fully agree with his arguments that technology is not “inevitable.” We see on a daily basis how technology is either accepted or rejected – people go crazy over new HD televisions which become popular, while they ignore inventions seen in advertisements in magazines or on the internet which become forgotten. It isn’t the creators of technology who are responsible for its fate, but rather it is the people in society who are responsible. I think human beings are perfectly capable of controlling the technologies available to them, because after all it is up to them to determine what to do with it. For example, many people watch at least two hours of TV a night, but I personally choose to reject TV (for the most part) because it is something I have no interest in. Therefore, I am a human being who is in control of the technology I have in front of me.

Perhaps the reason people like to think technology is “inevitable” is because it is all they have ever known. From the time I was born through present day, I myself have witnessed tons of technological changes and advancements. I grew up waiting for the next, and better, GameBoy to come out, waiting for updated versions of the Sims, and even witnessed the change from hand-drawn animation to computerized animation. I was still so young as I observed all of these technological feats, and even today we constantly see improvements in technology. For this reason people assume that technology is getting out of hand and that it was destined to become what it has today, but in truth it is those very people that shaped this technological age into what it is. Humans do have control over their creations- it is only when they think their creations control them that they feel powerless and subdued.

Manmade creations have been around since the first humans to make actions easier and doable. Since then, technology has obviously advanced to what it is now and nearly engulfs society. People are afraid of what it has become or what it can become in the future. However, Nye assures us that there is no rational reason to be afraid of technology, as it is just a large part of society that can be controlled. Whether or not it is easy to control depends on the society and the decisions it makes. But most importantly, technology is ultimately in our hands, never vice versa. Emerson does offer good opinions, but what it comes down to is that ‘things’ are not in the saddle- we are.


-----------------------



Works Cited

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing” (1846).
Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston, Thomas Y. Crowell & Company, 1899.

Nye, David E. “Technology Matters: Questions to Live With.” Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007