e-portfolio for Conor Glover

Conor Glover

Professor R.S. Deese

WR 100 – Technology and Nature in New England

December 9, 2009

Which Road to Take?

What are the most important decisions you have made in your lifetime? They might be which college you chose to attend, a house you chose to buy, a place you decided to go or a friend you decided to make. People make decisions every single day, some big, many relatively small and others seemingly insignificant. The truth of the matter is that every decision impacts our life in some way and there is no way of exactly determining how you life would have been different had you chosen an alternate path. Many decisions are hard, sometimes impossible to make on your own. In “The Road Not Taken,” Robert Frost reaches out to all indecisive people with his story of overcoming a dichotomous split. People who have trouble making decisions may take comfort in conforming to the path that most others take. Frost decides to take the path less traveled, which in the end, “made all the difference.” This metaphor for the split in the road can not only apply to making an immediate decision, but also to choosing your values, worldviews and how you act upon them. It can especially be applied to our use of technology and our relationship with the natural world and the many ecological crises our world is facing today. David E. Nye, Carolyn Merchant, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger all have ideas that are easily applied to Frost’s “two paths” metaphor with respect to politics, social change and cultural values. I believe that if we apply the “two paths” metaphor to our current ecological situation, we can prevent and possibly reverse the negative trends that we are experiencing in our relationship with the natural world.

David E. Nye quotes Walter Benjamin when he writes, “technology is not the mastery of nature but of the relations between nature and man” (Nye 7). In other words, technology is a product of our cultural values with respect to the environment, which can also be split into two “paths,” highly consumptive and less consumptive. The attitude that a culture takes toward its environment determines how technology is used and how sustainably a culture can live. According to Nye, a population’s carrying capacity depends upon the cultural values of the people. Nye states, “If people want to eat meat every day and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people than it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing” (Nye 108). A low-consumptive culture can support more people because it extracts fewer resources from the environment per person. Nye states, “…[H]uman and natural processes are inseparable” (Nye 107). Whether a culture chooses the path of less consumptive or highly consumptive will determine the future of the environment. In this situation, the “path less taken” may make all the difference in the future. In our highly consumptive culture, it would be an intelligent decision to convert most of our energy sources to nuclear power, similarly to France, rather than continue to burn fossil fuels. This would reduce our level of pollution into the atmosphere, since nuclear fission does not emit any gasses.

Carolyn Merchant’s views on ecological crises are similar to Nye’s. Merchant attitudes toward science, technology and culture would lead her to say that the “worn path” has so far lead to environmental stress. The “worn path” would represent the belief that human activity and nature are separate. Merchant states, “Nature is a whole of which humans are only one part… Through science and technology, we have great power to alter the whole in short periods of time” (Merchant 9). The “path less taken” would represent the belief that human activity and nature are intertwined. This belief was best shown by the traditional Native Americans, to whom, “Space was active place – a fusion of natural characteristics with human needs” (Merchant 50). Nature was the giver of all resources they needed to survive; therefore they treated it well. David E. Nye and Carolyn Merchant both relate Frost’s “fork in the road” metaphor to technology and the environment with respect to cultural and social factors. Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger and Leo Murray all relate the metaphor to the political factors of environmentalism and technology.

In “From the Nightmare to the Dream,” Nordhaus and Shellenberger express their political views of environmentalism, which draw a parallel to Frost’s metaphor. They note that environmental issues have been significantly undermined in politics. This, they argue, is because of environmentalists’ “complaint-based approach” to politics. The authors advocate a more imaginative, aspirational, and future-oriented approach to the politics of environmentalism. The authors write, “Think of the verbs associated with environmentalism and conservation: ‘stop,’ ‘restrict,’ ‘prevent,’ ‘regulate,’ and ‘constrain.’ All of them direct our thinking to stopping the bad, not creating the good.” (Nordhaus and Shellenberger 7). This negative approach to politics, they believe, is why “environmental and conservation leaders have failed to create a politics capable of dealing with ecological crises” (5). The politics of limits, which seek to “constrain human ambition, aspiration and power rather than unleash and direct them” (17), do not cooperate with today’s social and cultural values, such as economic prosperity and innovation. “Our unprecedented wealth and freedom have profoundly changed what we care about, aspire to, and believe in, so it’s no wonder that the old political and moral fault lines no longer apply” (4).

Nordhaus and Shellenberger sell their argument by drawing a parallel to Martin Luther King Junior’s “I Have a Dream” speech during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. They assert that if King had made an “I Have a Nightmare” speech, it would not have been nearly as powerful. They do, however believe that the “nightmare” was the power behind the dream. The nightmare behind Nordhaus and Shellenberher’s dream is elaborated in films such as Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Leo Murray’s “Wake Up, Freak Out – Then Get a Grip.”

In “Wake Up, Freak Out – Then Get a Grip,” Leo Murray takes the opposite path of Nordhaus and Shellenberger in which he thoroughly outlines the consequences of humankind’s current trends of consumption. In Murray’s short animation, he compiles scientific research that explains the vicious cycles that result in further acceleration of the greenhouse effect, thus initiating an ecological Armageddon. Murray goes on to predict a sharp decline in global biodiversity and access to freshwater, increased desertification and forest flooding, which, he predicts, will ultimately lead to a battle for resources in which many will not die peacefully. This is the “nightmare” to environmentalists’ “dream.”

In current broadcast, the nightmare path seems to be the path more commonly taken by environmentalists in order to drive social change toward a more sustainable future. However, Nordhaus and Shellenberger may finally be tapping into the minds of the people with their future oriented approach toward environmental politics. Because we have yet to see this type of action in environmentalism, it might just make “all the difference,” as Frost would say.

With technological innovations such as the internet and cell phones right at our fingertips at all times, it is less likely for people today to come to “a split in the road” without being able to retrieve any information as to where the paths might lead. However, as Frost recounts, “knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.” For many choices in our lives, especially those concerning the future condition of our planet, there is a small chance that we will be confronted with the same decisions again. We must make our decisions wisely because we may not ever be able to turn back! That, indisputably, is what Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Murray are saying to the world, they just took two different paths to say it.

Works Cited

Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Print.

Murray, Leo. “Wake Up, Freak Out – Then Get a Grip.” Web. 9 Dec 2009

Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. Break Through. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. Print.

Nye, David E. Sustainable Abundance, or Ecological Crisis?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. Print.

This video is a time lapse animation of the first two wind turbines installed at Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant in Boston Harbor. Each of these wind turbines will generate 600Kwh at full wind speed. Wind power is an underused renewable energy resource. Wind turbines do not generate pollution or radioactive waste. They also do not consume non-renewable resources like coal, oil or natural gas. They can generate electricity for large amounts of people. Wind turbines are sometimes opposed because of their undesirable appearance, noise level, interference with birds, and possible damage by thunder storms.

Conor Glover

Professor R.S. Deese

WR100 – Technology and Nature in New England

November 12, 2009

Population Problem or Culture Problem?

Pollution, deforestation, wildfires, desertification, global warming, soil erosion, extinction; these are only a few of the many examples of ecological catastrophes that the world is experiencing today. The magnitudes of these problems are overwhelmingly overlooked by the majority of Americans. Many people distance themselves from these problems because they feel that they are not directly responsible for them, but such is not the case. The human population of Earth today is estimated to be about 6.7 billion people. If this number were to instantly double, triple, or quadruple, what would happen to the planet’s natural resources? Although the human population cannot instantly triple like magic, it is currently growing at a rate of 1.2% per year. What is the maximum amount of people the earth can hold without our running the planet and our own species into ruins? This concept is called carrying capacity. Some argue that we had past this point years ago, and we are in the process of killing the planet as we speak. “Estimates have ranged from 1 billion persons to over 100 billion. Medians for low and high estimates suggest a maximum population of between 7.7 billion and 12 billion” (Nye 107). David E. Nye, on the other hand, argues that it is not so much the amount of people, but the culture of the people that determines Earth’s carrying capacity. I agree with Nye’s argument that the Earth’s limit is determined by our cultural choices. I also believe that there is a quantifiable amount of steps we can take in order to prevent ourselves from reaching Earth’s limit.

The best example of the consequences of overshooting carrying capacity is in the history of Easter Island. This island, 2,000 miles off the west coast of South America, is only 150 square miles in area. It was colonized by Polynesians at about 400 – 600 CE and at its peak had a population of only about 7,000 people. The people had built one of the most advanced civilizations in the world at that time, from only the resources their small island had given them. By 1500, due to overexploitation and deforestation, there were very few trees left on the island, which affected living arrangements, construction of tools, lead to soil erosion, and many other factors of living on the island. A population of 7,000 became impossible to support and the civilization quickly collapsed (Ponting). Today, Easter Island is merely a tourist site where people marvel at the large stone statues which symbolize the once very advanced civilization of the island.

In Nye’s view, the collapse of the Easter Island civilization would be less significantly influenced by the numerical amount of people on the island, but more significantly by the values and cultural choices of the people on the island. If we take culture into account, the estimated carrying capacity of an area fluctuates dramatically. If the world were mainly populated by upper and middle class people of western culture, the carrying capacity of the earth would most certainly have already been passed. Nye states, “If people want to eat meat every day and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people than it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing” (Nye 108). On the other hand, if Earth were populated by Native Americans, the human carrying capacity of the same given area would be significantly higher. For the Native Americans, “Space was active place – a fusion of natural characteristics with human needs” (Merchant 50). Unlike modern Americans, Native Americans’ had a close, spiritual relationship with nature, rather than a distant, disconnected one. Mother Nature was the giver of all resources they needed to survive; therefore they treated her equally as well. A greater amount of Native Americans would be able to live in a given area than modern Americans because their high regard for nature would allow them to sustainably flourish. “Nature is not outside us, and it does not have fixed limits. Rather, its limits are our own…Its limits depend on how much its inhabitants want” (Nye 108).

“In conceiving the first modern utopia, Thomas More rejected high consumption. More’s Utopia increased leisure by drastically reducing human wants and adopting a modest style of life” (100). Thomas More’s vision of Utopia is valid because in a perfect world, the demise of the planet would certainly not be a problem on peoples’ minds. One step toward making that possible is by adopting a modest, less consumptive lifestyle. I believe that along with a change in cultural values, all human societies need to quickly adopt measures that ensure sustainability. No population can continue running indefinitely on their given resources until they follow the four principles of ecosystem sustainability, which are: reliance on solar energy, biodiversity, population control, and nutrient recycling. Today, each of these principles are broken in some part of the world that we live in. Believe it or not, humans are a part of their ecosystem. If we really want to ensure a “sustainable” abundance in anything, we must adhere to these guides or else resource depletion will occur.

If everyone on Earth were to live exactly the way you live, would the Earth have enough resources to sustain the population? At www.myfootprint.org, after answering 27 questions about your lifestyle, it can calculate how many planet Earth’s it would take to sustain the global population at your level of consumption. Today the world’s population stands at about 6.79 billion people. There are 15.71 hectares available per person on a renewable basis. At the current average level of consumption, we are overshooting the Earth’s biological capacity by about 50%. We would need one and a half Earths in order to live sustainably. This is an insightful tool that compares your values to the grand scheme of Earth’s sustainability. Hopefully, in the near future, Americans and people all over the globe will realize their potential consequences of their consumption and take action to reverse its effects.

Works Cited

Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Print.

Nye, David. Sustainable Abundance, or Ecological Crisis?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. Print.

Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Aside from the annoying characters, this video does a good job at explaining Creative Commons and how it relates to copyright laws, infringement, etc. It also is a good resource for finding websites that contain material under Creative Commons license. Although the video doesn't explain how it relates to school or the workplace, Creative Commons can be significant in these places, especially in jobs and schools of art.

Conor Glover

Professor R. S. Deese

WR100 – Technology and Nature in New England

13 September 2009

Nye Undermines Technological Determinism

In the 2004 Hollywood film, I, Robot, Detective Del Spooner, played by Will Smith, lives in A.D. 2035, in a world where robots are significant contributors to society. The robots are so important in their society, in fact, that Earth culture completely revolves around the use of them. In the course of solving a murder mystery, Detective Spooner encounters violence and revolution as the robots intend to take control of the world for themselves.

Although an extreme interpretation, I, Robot, illustrates the idea of technological determinism, which suggests that technological advancement is out of human control or inherently dangerous (22). This belief became common in the twentieth century, but was earlier expressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson in “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing”, where he writes “Things are in the saddle / And ride mankind.” He is claiming that peoples material possessions, and the technological advancement of them, ultimately control the growth of mankind. Emerson asserts that technology was an autonomous force that drives social change.

Though the examples may be different, the basic idea of technological determinism has persisted from “the day of the chattel” to 2004 and today. Author Stewart Brand claims, “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you’re not part of the steamroller you’re part of the road.” Brand’s claim aligns with Emerson’s idea that technology and man-made items are extremely influential aspects to human society as we progress forward through time. If we would like to be contributing members of an advancing society, we much jump on the technological bandwagon.

David E. Nye, on the other hand, does not see new machines as “coercive agents dictating social change.” Nye states, “Few historians argue that machines determine history. Instead, they contend that new technologies are shaped by social conditions, prices, traditions, popular attitudes, interest groups, class differences, and government policy” (19). Since 1985, Nye notices that more than two-thirds of the articles published in Technology and Culture have applied some form of a contextualized approach (229). Nye references Capitalism and Material Life, by Fernand Braudel who also rejects the deterministic theory, declaring that “Technology is only an instrument and man does not always know how to use it” (20). Braudel states that people become encased in a “web of technological choices” made for them by their predecessors. He notices that for millions of years people lived without electricity, plumbing, and heating, but now it is illegal, in other words, in society’s rules, in many places to live in a house without such conveniences. “This is not determinism,” Nye states, “though it does suggest why people may come to feel trapped by choices others have made” (20). This example illustrates how society determines the use of technology, rather than the opposite.

Nye acknowledges complexity in his argument by showing how the deterministic views of technology often require a free market system. He points out the assumption that in a free market economy, technological products will be so appealing that most consumers, given the chance, will buy them (18). This assumption is parallel with Karl Marx’s predictions of capitalist downfall. In The Critique of Political Economy, Marx argued that “the mode of production of material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual process of life” (22). In his view, the technological advancement was a force, parallel to the economy, which either improved a society or destroyed it. Marx believed that mechanization under communism would provide the basis for a better world. Mechanization under capitalism, however, led unavoidably to social collapse and revolution (24). Marx’s views are the basis of media films such as I, Robot, where technological advancement, the robots, leads to collapse.

Nye continues to refute the idea of technological determinism by rejecting the idea of inevitability. People tend to believe that the spread of television, the microchip, the Internet, and other such technologies were inevitably going to spread. However, Nye points out that even basic technologies were unutilized when their existence became known. The wheel, perhaps the most revolutionary, basic invention by man had fallen into disuse by much of North Africa. This was because it was easier and more efficient to transport items by camel. Nye notes the Japanese’s expulsion of guns from their culture because it interfered with their traditional social structure. Similarly, the Amish culture rejects almost all inventions that the leaders believe to be harmful to their traditional values. The Amish are a clear example of how one has the ability to choose not to be part of the “steamroller” or the “road.” Cultural, social and environmental factors can render such inventions as useless. From a deterministic point of view, these instances in history would not have occurred because the advancement of technology is perceived as inevitable.

The inevitability of technological advancement is also undermined with Nye’s reference to Edward Tenner and his book Why Things Bite Back. Tenner examines “the revenge of unintended consequences” (24). He provides the example of how computers are expected to improve overall efficiency, but in many cases do just the opposite. His reference to the American Manufacturing Association’s study gives statistical evidence, concluding that 24% of firms that attempted computerization suffered losses in profits. Nye also alludes to the fact that skilled laborers had less time to perform skilled work because their jobs included more unskillful work.

With all evidence presented, Nye concludes “rather than assuming that technologies are deterministic, it appears more reasonable to assume that cultural choices shape their uses” (21). He acknowledges that although technological determinism has a lack of philosophical background, the idea still remains popular (31). Nye’s essay “Does Technology Control Us?” essentially holds the polar opposite view of Emerson’s “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing.”

Although the Hollywood view aligns more similarly with Emerson’s view of technological determinism, one cannot help to agree more with Nye upon studying the topic. As a student in Boston, one would find that bringing a car to school would be counteractive. Perhaps even a hybrid car, one of the most advanced pieces of technology seen on Earth today, would be relatively inferior. In the presence of automobile and pedestrian traffic, as well as fluctuating gas prices, one would deem the subway system as more appropriate means of transportation, despite technological inferiority. Although this may be a microscopic example, it illustrates how cultural factors determine the way people interact with technology, rather than the advancement of technology controlling people.

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

I, Robot. Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Will Smith. Bridget Moynahan. Alex Tudyk. James Cromwell. 2004. DVD. 20^th Century Fox. 2004.

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