E-Portfolio for Xudong Chen

E-portfolio For Xudong Chen

Rough Draft Paper 4

Xudong Chen WR100FH

50 years from now, where do you think the world would be? I don't mean how the economy will be doing, or which wars will be fought. I'm asking about the environment. Different people have different ideas and projections about the future of the environment we live in. Some, like David E. Nye, think that the future will depend on the technologies people adopt. Others, like Carolyn Merchant, think that the future is bleak due to the current trend of human growth. There are also some, like Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, who think that the future is bright, if the current economy is retooled to be green. I think, similar to Carolyn Merchant, that the ignorance of the human race will lead to it's downfall in the future.

At the final page of his book, Nye believes that “By refusing to let any ensemble of objects define out world as already given, we can continue to choose how technology matters.” (Nye 226). From that, he means if people don't let technology control their life, then they will determine what the future will become. Judging by the current trends of computers and electronics, people who have mostly fallen prey to materialism are slowly loosing control of their lives to technology. That combination will lead to an increased degradation of the world's biosphere. “Yet one may hope that a sustainable global environment, society, and ethic will emerge in the twenty-first century.” (Merchant 270) Not much has changed in society since the publication of “Ecological Revolutions” in 1989. People are still looking for more ownership and using more energy. According to Merchant and from the lack of change in society since 1989, the environment of the world will be greatly damaged fifty years into the future. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger believe that “we should never forget that it all began with a nightmare – one that King, and America with him, overcame.” (Nordhaus 18) According to that, we are currently in the nightmare of environmentalism, but if American Government overcame racism is an example, the dream of a sustainable world will eventually be a reality. For me, judging by the trend of human society, the growth of developing nations, and

As Nye points out in his essay, “Sustainable Abundance or Ecological Crisis.” the sustainability of a biosphere depends a lot on the culture of the inhabitants. He rarely writes about how something has been done wrong and often indirectly suggests ideas and things that can be done to increase the carrying capacity of the planet. From his tone of writing, it can be assumed that he has an optimistic view of human culture. He seems to imply that people will change for the better and thus improve and repair many of the problems and situations on the earth. But that was only in that one essay. In the final essay of his book, “Technology Matters”, Nye states “By refusing to let any ensemble of objects define out world as already given, we can continue to choose how technology matters.” (Nye 226) As he can probably tell from today's technological trends, technology is gaining control of people's lives. (example: Computer, Facebook, Media). From this trend, he will probably assume that the world has a dark future ahead that will have some resemblance of the dystopia predicted by the “Matrix” or “2001 A Space Odyssey”.

Merchant overall has been negative towards the industrialized world and it's trends in her book “Ecological Revolutions”. She strongly dislikes the materialistic mindset of people. From the current trends in the developing and developed nations, she would be correct in the assumption that people are becoming more materialistic. (example: native American to European, Basic necessities to less material thoughts) As she has noted, when people become more materialistic, they consume more of the environment and cause more damage. From this she will assume that the world will be in a greatly degraded state in fifty years. Unlike Nye's prediction of a future where technology has some control of people, her prediction will be one of deserts and flooded cities. One of environmental disaster.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have a different idea for the future of the world. They see ecological growth as an eventual cure, not a cause of the degrading world. But the ecological growth has to be based on green technology and sustainable environmental. As an example, they noted the outlawing of racism in the United States. “we should never forget that it all began with a nightmare – one that King, and America with him, overcame.” (Nordhaus 18) Racism is almost as old of a problem as the environment. But as Nordhaus and Shellenberger said, much of racism has been eliminated. In it's elimination, there was a period of nightmare in which racism seemed like an insurmountable problem, but as soon as the nightmare was over, the climb to the sun lit mountaintop started, and the problem was eventually answered. (example of the growth of green technology). From the growth of green technology and the increased awareness of the environment problem, Nordhaus and Shellenberger will predict that the economy will be retooled to be more green and more sustainable, which will lead to a bright future for the Earth.

I think differently. The world is in a downward spiral and there has to be a great change soon or else the human race will be stuck in the grave they dug for themselves. United States and China are two of the worlds greatest polluters. Americans are overall insecure, which leads to an increase of materialism to gain a false sense of security. This will not be changing anytime soon with the economical crisis and the raise of developing countries who will challenge the United States as a world power. China is a developing nation with a lot of people. Because of these facts, it would be difficult for China to become a less polluting country. To lower pollution would mean to stem it's growth which is not something they would want to do. China is using and creating a lot of renewable energy sources like dams, nuclear power plants, dams, and other green sources of energy, but the unethical and unclean business people contribute to a lot of a pollution that the government cannot control. The number of people in China also makes it near impossible to drastically lower the overall pollution of the country. This is just two countries in the world that pollute. From this, I predict a future similar to what Merchant envisions.

Everyone has a different view about what 50 more years will bring. Some envision a world controlled by technology, others view a flooding world with growing deserts, still more see the future as bright. From the way things are going, what do you think the future will be like, and what can you do to improve it?

Rough Draft 2 of Paper 3
Earth's Carrying Capacity?

People worry about people. Not just in a personal way, but also in a global perspective. How many people can the world sustain before it runs out of room? According to Nye, the world's carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction (pg 108). In other words, the the carrying capacity depends on the culture and the way people live. I agree with Nye's view on this topic. The carrying capacity does indeed depend on the culture and lifestyle of people.

In his essay, Nye talks about technology, the different cultures and their environmental impact, and how they affect the carrying capacity of the earth. He compares different cultures in the world and their individual resource use. Improvements in technology are also cited to show how the increase or decrease the carrying capacity of the globe. Many different people are also cited in Nye's essay to show different viewpoints leading to a similar conclusion. From my experiences around the world, I agree strongly with Nye's thesis.

Towards the end of his essay, Nye cites the difference in power consumption between the Americans and Europeans as an example of the variable carrying capacity. “Such countries have a standard of living as high as in the United States, but use only half as much energy per capita”(pg 105) which may prove to be a more sustainable way of living. A higher standard of living does not have to come with the burden of a higher power consumption, and in turn, a more significant environmental impact. The Europeans achieve this in many ways. The average European car is much more efficient and smaller then the average American car. Europeans don't have to travel as far to buy day to day goods. They also use public transportation much more then the average American. Their homes are also smaller and overall they are overall less wasteful then the normal American. They still have all the luxuries of life such as computers, televisions, and cars, which keeps their standard of living as high as the United State's, but they achieve this standard of living with much less excess and waste then the United States. Changing the lifestyle of the more wasteful people could increase the carrying capacity of the planet.

Thomas Moore, cited in Nye's essay, thinks there is an even more efficient way of living. He envisions an utopia, which drastically reduced human wants and adopts a modest lifestyle (pg 100). The utopia's citizens reject luxury on principal and thus removes one of the most wasteful parts of modern day living. The adoption of this utopia would drastically increase the carrying capacity of the planet but also lower standard of living, which is something most people would not like to do. But there are well known people who have lived such simple lives in the developed world. When Henry David Thoreau lived at Walden pond, he had a small rug as a door mat. He “soon found that this small rug had to be taken up and shaken... the rug was merely a small nuisance” (pg 103) and something not necessary in his goal for a simple life. This was very similar to the utopian living envisioned by More, and proves that such a way of living is achievable. The world would be able to support much more people if humans were less materialistic. The way of living chosen by a culture has a large impact on the carrying capacity of the world, but it is not the only one of the factors in the carrying capacity.

Technology itself isn't completely a socially construction, but the adoption and exploitation of technology is. “Since the Renaissance, Western societies have been particularly adept at exploiting technologies to produce a surplus of food, goods, and services.” (pg 96) This temporary increases the carrying capacity of the world by allowing more food and other goods to be produced for the same amount of raw material, but in a few generations, the carrying capacity would be less before. For example, a dam in the desert would create more farming space, until the salts and chemicals leftover from agriculture turns the land back to desert, and after the dam has permanently altered the downstream environment. Because of this, the technologies adopted by cultures also affect the carrying capacity.

Most of my extended family lives in China, and some of them have a much lower standard of living then the average American. They live the semi-rural life with a normal sized brick house with no heating, a few light bulbs and florescent tubes, a few simple beds, a gas or wood fired strove, and the basic furniture. They don't own a car, a large tv, soft beds, air conditioning, or many of the other luxuries that are deemed inseparable from life here. Vacationing for them is traveling to the nearest city and walking around a bit. They usually bath with a single bucket of cold water. Much less then the gallons of water for the average American shower. Most of them didn't even own a computer until me and my family gave them two older laptops this summer. Though they live a harder life then most Americans, they also use a lot less energy and resources. The things my extended family uses and live in are also less resource intensive then their overseas counterparts. Bamboo and wooden chopsticks are much more efficient to make then metal and plastic silverware. They keep everything they use for as long as they can to save on buying something new, which reduces the resources used on new furniture. Beds are wooden or bamboo planks with a thin layer of cloth, which is much less material intensive then two layer mattresses. Brick houses require much less maintenance there then wooden houses, thus saving on repairing costs. Water from a well requires much less energy to transport then water from a reservoir. I probably use more resources a month then one of them uses in a year because of things like a shower head instead of a bucket, metal silverware, heating, computer use, and a multitude of seemingly insignificant things. Their way of living will produce a much higher carrying capacity then my way of living.

I have lived in Germany two years ago for two weeks on a exchange program, and as Nye said in his essay, the Europeans indeed have a less resource intensive lifestyle then the Americans. My host family has two cars. A large van that is rarely used, and a small Volkswagen Gulf. Compared to the SUVs many people drive to work everyday in the United States, the Gulf is much more efficient, and does the same thing, get people to work, with much less waste. Much of my host's house is lit up with florescent lamps, which are much more efficient then incandescent light bulbs still used in the majority of American homes. The most common modes of transportation were by foot, on a bike, or on public transportation, all of which are more efficient then driving a car to everywhere. The food in Europe is better then that of the United States while being less resourceful to get to the consumers. The food has to travel less to get to the consumers, which saves a lot on transportation and the consumers commonly bike or walk to the store, which saves even more in transportation resources. Overall, the lifestyle of Germany requires less resources then that of the Unites States.

If all the people in the world simplified their lives, that would greatly increase the carrying capacity of the world. When people become less materialistic is when we will see an increase in the carrying capacity of the world. Much of the resources in the developed world is focused on satisfying the materialistic wants of people. Many people in the New England area don't need a car, much less a truck, to travel. An bus, electrical scooter, or a bicycle are much more efficient way of transportation then a three thousand pound car carrying a two hundred pound or less person. People do not need fifty inch plasma televisions to watch soap operas when a much more efficient laptop will do, nor do they need a big house when a smaller one would suffice. It is quite possible, as shown by the Europeans, to lower power consumptions while still keeping a high standard of living. A culture that only has and needs the bare necessities of life will allow more people to live in a set space then a culture that wants large houses, big cars, and a pool.

The carrying capacity does indeed depend heavily on the culture and lifestyle of people. As put by Nye, “If people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people then it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing. Ultimately, the world's carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction.” (pg 108) The examples give by Nye supports this well and my experiences of the world also support the idea that the carrying capacity is a social construction.

Works cited:

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

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

Rough Draft for paper one

Xudong Chen

Deterministic Technology

David E. Nye and Ralph Waldo Emerson have very different views of the deterministic ability of technology. Emerson believes in the determinism of technology, that people are controlled by technology. Nye on the other hand, states that people control technology and that people can choose to adopt or reject a new technology. The examples that Nye adds to his essay, and my personal experience with technology, refutes Emerson's claim that technology is deterministic. Human beings control technology through the needs of their environment and their governing force.

Emerson states that “things are in the saddle/And ride mankind”(1) He deduces that people are controlled by their technology and not the other way around. During Emerson's time, this seemed like a very probable idea. Emerson grew up in the industrial revolution in America, when people were replaced by machines, when ready made clothing appeared, and when technology improved the way people did things. Much like today, communication and transportation technology improved a lot during Emerson's lifetime. The telegraph was invented and the printing press came to widespread use. Now news can travel fast, and also be spread to the people quickly. People who lived far away could now communicate to each other in an instant. During his time, people switched from hand making clothing, to buying ready made clothing, people started holding grain in silo, and people began to travel more due to steam power. Technologies and machines like the sewing machine, the telegraph, and the steam engine, caught on very quickly with little resistance during this time, which made technology seem like an all powerful force with it's own life and direction. From Emerson's point of view and his surroundings, technology did seem deterministic, but Emerson only had a limited point of view of the world. Unbeknownst to him, many cultures in the world have proven that technology is not a deterministic force of itself.

Nye provides a great example of the power of a culture over technology. In the 1500s, the Japanese were introduced to guns from the Portuguese traders. This created a new wave of battle advancements for the Japanese warriors. But this wave of technology did not last long. The Japanese eventually abandoned the gun and went back to their swords and bows, despite all the advantages that the gun offers. This abandonment of a clearly superior technology shows that a culture can halt and reverse the spread of technology. Even though the Japanese eventually had to adopt guns, it was not because of the inevitable spread of technology. The Japanese readopted guns for protection against the westerners who were forcing their way into Japanese trade. They adopted guns in self defense. If the westerners never attempted to open up Japan to trade, the Japanese could have held off adopting the gun indefinitely. Even in the US during Emerson's time, there were cultures who proved that technology was not a force of itself. The Amish were very selective about the technology they allowed in their community. They lived a strict religious lifestyle, which allowed them to reject many technological advancements like the telegram, the internal combustion engine, and the factories introduced in the industrial revolution. In more modern days, the Amish prevented the spread of television, internet, and many other modern amenities, into their culture. They are able to prevent the spread of technology into their culture because of their beliefs and their way of government. One seemingly inevitable technology is the wheel, yet some cultures have rejected this antique and ubiquitous piece of machinery. In North Africa, the wheel has been rejected since the 3^rd century AD. Because of the sandy and arid condition of North Africa, creating and maintaining roads for wheeled vehicles and supplying water for the horses were too expensive and the people of the area returned to using camels for transportation because camels were more suited to transporting goods in the desert. The Mayans and the Aztecs knew about the wheel, and even used them on toys, but the Mayans and Aztecs never used the wheel for practical purposes despite the advantages it provides.(2) Even technology as simple and seemingly irresistible as the wheel can be declined.

In my opinion, technology is not a deterministic force. Technology used is determined by the people using it and the environment the people live in. The Japanese and the Amish were able to resist technology because of their culture and their ways of government. The Japanese believed a lot in the honor code and thought that guns were not an honorable weapon, and so discarded the gun. Amish people are governed by ministers and bishops, who determined the technologies that will be allowed into the Amish community. In North Africa, the environment dictates that the method of transportation has to be able to survive the harsh environment of the desert and also be able to carry enough goods to be practical. The wheel match neither of these requirements. Wheel born modes of transportation do not travel well across sand and the animals pulling these carriages require frequent supplies of water which is hard to get in the desert. The wheel was abandoned for a much more practical mode of transportation, the camel. Many modern technologies have proven that people are in control of what they want to adopt and when. A prime example is the flying car. The first development for a frying car started in 1926 with Henry Ford's "sky flivver". But despite the great improvements in both airplanes and cars, the flying car never caught on on society. There are examples of road an sky legal flying cars such as the Taylor Aerocar and the Fulton Airphibian but they never caught on with the public, weather due to cost, safety, or other issues. A more modern example of good technology that did not catch on is the Segway. The Segway contains many advancements, was viewed as the technological pinnacle at the time, and had was supposed to be the next big thing. According to the views of Segway's creator, people now should all be riding Segways instead of walking, but as one can tell by looking outside, the Segway did not catch on with the public. Segway is also a prime example, like the flying car, of a well developed, well know, and available technology that was not embraced by the public. All of these show how technology is controlled by their human creators and clearly refute Emerson's lament that “Things are in the saddle/And ride mankind”(1)

David E. Nye and Ralph Waldo Emerson have very different ideas on the deterministic power of technology. David E. Nye thinks that people have control over the direction of technology, while Ralph Waldo Emerson believes that technology is deterministic and control human beings. Unlike what Emerson maintains, human beings have control over their technologies, which is proven by the examples given by Nye, and more modern examples of rejected technology. Human beings control technology through the needs of their environment and their governing force.

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