Best Paragraph SMACKDOWN!!!

OPTION A

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

OPTION B

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.

Michael Park's Choice of Best Paragraph

What will happen to our earth in fifty years? What would the future of human civilization and life on earth be like in fifty years? Many things in the future may be different from the world we live now. Oil and gases that run our automotive technologies may run out in fifty years. More animals may be endangered or extinct from the mess that we create with our technologies to the ecological chain. If we continue to use technologies as how we do now, all these events may be worse than our expectations. David E. Nye, the author of Technology Matters, Carolyn Merchant, the author of Ecological Revolution, and Leo Murray, the short animated film producer of “Wake Up, Freak Out- then Get a Grip”, warn people to stop using technologies in a way that accelerate global warming, causes huge amounts of pollution and many other problems. They express their points of views and predictions of human civilization and life on earth fifty years from now. David E. Nye predicts that the future is determined by the demand and cultures of human beings, which limited resources will not satisfy different cultures’ wants. Carolyn Merchant thinks that the ecological chains of the world would be ruined. Leo Murray thinks that humanity will survive, but will live miserably. He believes that global warming will cause many countries to become inhabitable and many people to starve. Habitable countries will use their remaining resources to fight to keep out the starving people from inhabitable countries. I believe that the pollution we produce from using technology and global warming will continue, and they will have serious impacts in the future. Understanding that natural resources are limited, I think that the way of how we consume oil and gases will lead to a shortage in fifty years, which people will not be able to use fuelled-run automotive technologies.

Josh Kraskin's choice for best paragraph

When it comes down to it, humans think in terms of economics, and always will think that way. It is nice to be optimistic like Rachel Carson, to think that humans will sacrifice production or wealth for the safety of the environment. But in reality, making this sort of sacrifice simply goes against human nature. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs that have to do with our safety such as financial security are far more important to us than moral needs such as protecting our environment. The only way that that we as a society would voluntarily give up wealth for the sake of the environment, is if everyone is the community were so economically well off that everyone volunteered to give away some of their disposable income towards this cause. Unfortunately in a capitalistic society, this case is so unrealistic, it could be classified as impossible. Instead of relying on individuals to save our environment, the government could step in. Pollution is a negative externality caused by the way that we produce goods. People do not notice it, because it does not directly affect them. If the government were to put higher taxes on natural resources such as gas and oil, it would in effect internalize the externality, making consumers and companies pay for their use of pollutants and natural resources. For example, if the government were to double the current tax rate on gasoline, the economic benefit of driving a car would decrease. The “invisible hand” of the market would make people search for an alternative mode of transportation, one that was economically friendly and tax free. This trend occurred just over a year ago, when gas prices were reaching all time highs, and people were opting to buy more fuel efficient cars, or use fuel free modes of transport such as biking and even walking. The government could also raise corporate taxes on pollutants. Once taxes reached a high enough level, it would become more economically profitable to switch to a greener mode of production. Only then will corporations stop polluting. If governments worldwide are willing to take these steps, than the future on earth will be green indeed.

Ben Holtzman's choice for best paragraph

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.

Choice for best paragraph

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

By: Santiago Roel

"Aimee's for BEST PARAGRAPH"

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

Conor Glover's Choice for Best Paragraph

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.

David Bourque's Choice for Best Paragraph

What will become of the human race 50 years from now? Not only the human race, but mother earth itself? As human beings have come more civilized, sophisticated, and technological, we have had an increasingly large impact on earth. Every action has a reaction, and everything we do on this planet affects it in one way or another. In today’s society, where a country’s GDP is a measure of their greatness, we produce goods without care for how our methods of production affect the earth. We have forgotten about the central importance of our ecosystem, opting instead to put the greater emphasis on the “econosystem.” And the results of our actions? We are seeing ever higher national GDP’s, alongside the deterioration of our planet. Farsighted individuals see the consequences of our actions and caution us to change our ways, yet we still do not do enough. It is possible that in the next half century our attitudes will change, yet many people have varying viewpoints on if we are capable. David E. Nye, a believer in the ability of humans to stay away from technological determinism, would most likely say that human civilization 50 years from now will be healthy and growing. Carolyn Merchant, who is not much of an optimist, would probably say that human civilization is headed for doom and gloom. Rachel Carson, who sees great hope in the future of our dealings with nature, would most likely see hope in the future of our existence as well. Although optimism is a virtue, it is in human nature to put the economy ahead of the ecosystem. Humans will continue their course of actions, until it becomes economically advantageous to protect our earth.

Paper 4 Rough

Peter Eramo

Professor Deese

WR 100

Rough Draft 2 Paper 4

A Fork Between Three Researchers

In every aspect of life, society is provided with many options. Culturally, we relate this common situation to a metaphor best known as “the fork in the road.” This provides society with multiple choices that can either lead to a clearer path, or cause an individual to stumble. In his poem “The Road Not Taken,” Robert Frost elaborates that sometimes taking the road less traveled will result in a positive change, thus the best possible outcome. Researchers David E. Nye, Murray, and Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger all believe that a change is needed within society in order to preserve the world we live in. Though each researcher believes learning from our history is essential in reversing the current environmental issues we face, they use different methods to convince the public. Murray uses a scare tactic in order to gain the attention of his audience, while Nordhaus and Shellenberger promote awareness of environmental issues by positively relating to society.

Murray provides his audience with a pessimistic view of the world’s future. He uses the metaphor of a “tipping point” in reference to when society will be unable to reverse Earth’s environmental issues, “the tipping point is the point at which we cross the peak of the hill, and we no longer need to keep pushing to keep the planet moving towards a much hotter place; it will just keep rolling onwards all on its own” (Murray). Murray lists multiple reasons on why we are reaching this “tipping point.” The albedo effect, white surfaces reflecting more solar radiation than dark surfaces, is one of the major factors that has furthered the global warming process, “[as] greenhouse gasses melts ice and snow, it leaves behind dark ocean or land; those surfaces now absorb more solar radiation than before” (Murray). Furthermore, Murray expresses great apprehension in regards to the hotter temperatures being experienced throughout the world. The lack of rich soil has lead to higher amounts of carbon-dioxide releasing sources, which has lead to many forests drying out, which has lead to more forest fires, which in turn leads to even more carbon dioxide being released in our atmosphere (Murray). Many other issues, such as melting permafrost and over-consumption, has helped further the process of global warming to get to a dangerous level in which we may not be able to overturn. Murray’s solution: reduce consumption. When Murray refers to over-consumption, he is referring to natural resources and other environmental harming substances, such as carbon creating substances. By striking fear into his audience, Murray insists that we must take the path less traveled in order to secure the world we live in.

Researchers Ted Norhaus and Michael Shellenberger support there possible solutions to our environmental situations by relating the current issues to past problems we have faced in our history. For example, Norhaus and Shellenberger refer to Martin Luther King Jr’s famous “I Had a Dream” speech and recalls his “I Had a Nightmare” speech as well (Norhaus and Shellenberger 2). With these two speeches, Norhaus and Shellenberger relate the success King’s speeches had in regards to the issues of racism and equality to the possible success of methods to reduce global warming and other environmental issues. Because King had taken an alternate approach to make a difference in society, the knowledge had spread like wildfire, and society began to make a change overall in regards to equality. Both Norhaus and Shellenberger believe that if exposure can spread and knowledge can be instilled in the minds of society that a change will come. If we can realize how much of a difference King’s speech has made already in less than half a decade, society should trust the researchers’ opinions and heed there advice in order to make a change, “the truth is that King’s dramatic leap from the nightmare to the dream can be a parable for the future only if we first understand how much the world has changed since 1963” (Nordhaus and Shellenberger 4). With a less threatening and more knowledgeable approach, Nordhaus and Shellenberger assure society that a positive change will occur just as change has happened in our past.

David E. Nye brings up many environmental issues and discusses them in a scientific manner. Nye relates current issues to previous historical events such as the European expansion throughout America. He discusses how the explorers destroyed much of the natural resources that were previously here because of over cultivation. The issues Nye mention are the same mentioned by Murray and Norhaus and Shellenberger, however, the approach Nye takes in order to deliver his message is a mid-point between that of Murray and Norhaus and Shellenberger. Instead of striking fear into his audience or being over-optimistic, Nye delivers a realistic and safe message to his audience, “another 100 years of intense use of fossil fuels will accelerate global warming, increase desertification, and cause many coastal areas to be flooded by rising seas (Nye 96). Nye realizes that a lack of change in order to improve the environmental issues at hand will result in negative consequences, however, he is unsure of what the results will be and he decides to not disclose on a definite opinion.

The road less taken seems to be the only option society has left in order to reverse the current environmental issues we face. Though his approach may seem a bit too forward and pessimistic, Murray has the best method in getting his point across to the audience and successfully allows us to know the only way to fix the global warming problem is to end over-consumption. Society fears the road less taken because it is not the safe option that we naturally want to take. If instead society takes action and chooses to take the alternate route, we may begin to see positives changes with the environmental issues that are posed to us today.

Best Paragraph Thing

The second road requires a wealth of reform. It would require change in terms of politics, economics, and in technology. Concerning politics, Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that the tactics used by those seeking environmental change are severely outdated. “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.”[10] By cutting their arguments so thinly and with such specific complaints, environmentalists have failed to express solutions to problems that are incapable of being put into action. The desires of environmentalists, argue Nordhaus and Shellenberger, need to be more broadly based if anything is ever going to change. “Nothing is more central to this book than our contention that for any politics to succeed, it must swim with, not against, the currents of changing social values.”[11] A second political remedy that Nordhaus and Shellenberger propose would be the formation of a union based on shared global investment, much like the one formed in the post World War II era. If countries like the United States, China, and India could ban together and pull resources to better all involved countries, the environmental affects could be extremely positive.

By Lydia Hausle

Paper 4 draft

The future. For many it means a new age in which the mistakes of generations past have been rectified and life is better. For others, it is simply a continuation of the present. The same problems remain unsolved, the same bad habits prevail, the same life. There are many possible scenarios, ranging from chaos to utopia. It all comes down to whether or not humanity can rectify its mistakes; if we are capable of true change. There are a series of interrelated problems in the world that, if left unattended, will grow exponentially, plunging the earth into a chaotic state. These problems, namely population control, or lack thereof, dwindling natural resources, and global warming, could trigger others ad little by little a domino effect would appear, eventually leading to chaos. This, of course, is a worst-case scenario.

Carolyn Merchant's ecological view of the world in her last chapter suggests that she envisions a bleak future for the planet. While she states some local re-growth and optimistic predictions, this is at the expense of some other local ecosystem. As an whole, the planet is suffering from industrialization and technological advancements that further it more and more from the balanced state it was in hundreds and thousands of years ago.

However, she does seem to harbor a little hope for mankind from "ecological thinking" which she believes "offers the possibility of a new relationship between humans and non-human nature that could lead to the sustainability of the biosphere in the future."

Nye. What was his view on technology and ecology? Will technology end up surpassing nature? and will man finally be able to control the world, like another one of its machines, to adapt it to its every need and desire? and if so will it be a stay like this or will it only be a temporary state before the world collapses from the strain we have put in under?

In the Tragedy of the commons, Garrett Harding subtly suggests the idea that man, without restraint, will eventually ruin the planet due to his viral behavior. It seems that Hardin would favor a society in which man is controlled or led by people who deeply understand the relationship with everything around us. That the average man is not faced with decisions whose consequences he does not understand. A technocracy, it would seem, is the outcome that Hardin both desires and predicts. Man cannot be trusted to take decisions that could potentially have a negative outcome for some, even if it's for the greater good. We are ultimately animals, and have a survival instinct, but it seems to be focused on the present, and not the future. For a species who call ourselves the most intelligent creatures on earth, we have a severe problem planning several turns ahead, even when the game is life itself. A group of supreme minds must take over, beyond borders, and beyond ethnicities or any other trivial details that have clouded our choices in the past. These minds have the capability of understanding and making the decisions that an entire civilization cannot. The current system, democracy, is not a system suited for crisis situations, and that is what we are in. A crisis whose proportions and consequences far exceed any other we have encountered in the past. That is why drastic measures must be taken.

Merchant speaks of mutual obligation with the planet (p 263). I agree that it is imperative to develop a relationship with the earth that is mutually beneficial. However, I don't think this is possible. Humans are selfish creatures. They have shown this in the past, and I have no doubt they will show it in the future as well. She states that " a global ecological crisis that transcends national boundaries could trigger a transition to a sustainable earth", and yet global warming is a perfect example of such a crisis and instead of triggering a uniting of the species, it has further demonstrated our selfishness and greed. The hope that she harbors is based too much on a faith in man which I do not share. She also seems to rely on a unanimous decision, with policies that go beyond borders and total reformation and restructure of the system. Such a complete change seems highly improbable, not to say impossible. Although I would love to see a technocracy emerge from the crisis that is growing, I think the safest bet is against humanity. That is why I see the future as BAU (business as usual). There will not be a unanimous mindset about ecological crisis, which will prevent policy from being passed. And with the world being more and more dominated by bureaucracy and legislation, this prevention will undoubtedly be the wall against which all hopes of change will hit.

Draft Paper 4

Money does not fall from trees, right?

Santiago Roel

As they stood in the Lunar Sands Casino, the world looked so beautiful and fragile in the immense darkness that surrounded it. Carolyn Merchant, David E. Nye, and Nordhaus and Shellenberger all placed their bets on human civilization fifty years in the future. Different poker faces, different strategies. They wait for the flop. King of Spades, King of Diamond, King of Clubs. They will wait fifty years for the last two cards.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger see the three kings and reason that we will have achieved sustainability because somewhere in that time, the environment became the top economic priority for the top policy forgers of the world. Nye fundamentally agrees, but underneath the kings he can’t stand but notice the difference in their color and design. He perceives a major challenge in the future: the reckless consumption habits of some. Yet, he calls because he believes that humans will have muddled through. Merchant, crosses her arms, and gives away her cards: Queen of Hearts and Queen of Clubs. She sees the kings and thinks of a male driven society, infused with consumerism and greed. It is obvious for her that humans civilization will continue on the road to destruction; panic of an approaching doomsday will begin a race for survival, fiercely competitive and destructive. Maybe this chaos will save us after all.

“Old politics has taken us as far as it can,” and Nordhaus and Shellenberger see a major problem in the politics of environmentalism: its pessimism. For so long, environmentalists have swam “against the currents” of economic growth. Sustainability depends on the environment becoming a top economic priority for countries around the world. In 2007 Nordhaus and Shellenberger wrote, “Our political goal must be to create a kind of prosperity that moves everyone up Maslow’s pyramid as quickly as possible while also achieving our ecological goals” (p.7). But what will make countries that are on high ground care about the melting ice cap? The answer is simple: money. Nordhaus and Shellenberger are motivated by the fact that there is so much economic potential in the environment. Making ecological policy economically appealing will drive the United States to invest heavily on green infrastructure and technology. Other countries, mainly China and India, will be drawn to this race and compete to become the new economic giant. However, for this race to begin, one country must rise to the challenge. The European Union’s ambitious renewable energy plan has stirred a lot of chatter in governments worldwide. Perhaps this will be enough bait to draw the United States and other hungry consumers to the race for eco-friendly solutions. Nordhaus and Shellenberger place their bet believing that it will not be long before the environment becomes the main economic priority. However, they will continue in their struggle to shift the gears of the environmental movement; less doomsday stories, and more green numbers on the charts.

It already seems that we are working against the clock. Nye thinks that new technology can give us more time to work on repairing the environment. On one hand, he believes that technology brings progress to all as it opens up previously closed-off industries, creates new unexplored fields, and gives us the time to concentrate on imaginative and analytical thinking. Such time will allow humans to concentrate on developing technology that promises human survival. Although one might suppose that this technology will be monopolized, Nye believes quite the contrary. It seems unlikely because technology has consistently brought progress and benefit to all, regardless of who develops and controls it. If anything, the technology that is emerging today is centered on its mass-scale availability and openness to all. Furthermore, humans will be interested in sharing technology because environmental changes affect all countries and peoples. However, Nye also believes that nature has its limit. The batteries of the clock may be changed, but the machinery will eventually break down. He is most concerned with the different consumption behaviors around the world. “In 1990, a North American family of four consumed as much power as an African village of 107 [and] used twice as much energy as a European and ten times as much as a Latin American” (p.214). Sustainability depends on putting putting limits on the insatiable hunger of some. He believes this is a economical and cultural choice. Hybrid cars, home insulation technology, and solar energy might promise to solve the energy crisis, but the choice really comes down to the product’s price. Moreover, “even if the affluent become more efficient, the poor will not be interested in preserving the environment if they remain trapped in poverty” (p.215). Migration might be the solution and give humanity more time to solve the main problem. The poor migrate to developed countries. It is far more likely that these people will move up Maslow’s pyramid faster there. Not only that, but as Nordhaus and Shellenberger suggest, developed countries will make it easier for their people to improve their consumption habits by providing an efficient and low cost infrastructure, like the European public transport. Regarding the world’s carrying capacity, this same promising migration will eventually overcrowd some countries. This will create the illusion that the world is closer to reaching its limit. Although mass panic and conflict is possible, this sensation will have a profound cultural impact on the people living in overcrowded areas. People will continue to look at the clock with worry that it may soon stop. This feeling will predominantly reduce family size and consumption patterns. In the end, Nye bets that the clock will continue to tick beyond 2064. Alkaline batteries may be replaced with solar microchips and it is likely that the clock ticks at a slower pace from the changes in culture. All of this will put less of a strain on the mechanism of the clock.

The ecofeminist side of Carolyn Merchant is ticked off by the presence of three kings on the table. Not only that, but since she wrote “Ecological Revolutions”, raised awareness for the environment has not been enough to inspire a consciousness change. As Nordhaus and Shellenberger point out, people have yet to discover the economic value in environmentalism. Her declensionist view on the environment stems from the assumption that nature was in balance before European colonialization and capitalism. In the epilogue, she sets the conditions that “the capitalist relations of production and the patriarchal relations of reproduction that support mechanistic consciousness would have to give way to new socioeconomic forms, new gender relationships, and an ecological ethic (p.264). Since Europeans arrived in New England, the Indians have not returned to their old practices. Capitalism is a strong force that appeals to human’s - men and women - most basic needs. Her work confirms the strength of capitalism with the example of the Indians and the capitalist revolution. The conditions for sustainability are contradicted by her historical analysis. However, she does have some hope because “global resource depletion and pollution have appeared at the intersection of capitalist economic production and ecology” (p.264). This line of thought is typical of old school environmentalism, which preaches that the world will have to choose either economic growth or sustainability. Do we really have to abandon the comfort of the paved road? Merchant believes that order will come through chaos. Until then, the world will continue on its path of destruction.

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

The end of capitalism is not in sight. People around the world will go where there is money to be made. Today, many companies are realizing that green is really green. This attitude will have become mainstream around the world by 2064. At the end of the day, money moves people more than anything else. People often say that money does not fall from trees. Think again.

test

hi there. please post your paper four here. ---rsd

Article on Yahoo!News

It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup ofgreenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this side of making historic decisions.

"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives' Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.

Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from heat expansion and melting glaciers. On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making plans, packing up, seeking shelter.

The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gasin an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.

The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans.

On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher temperatures, evaporation and drought. Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through warmer forests. In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern robins.

In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated, scientists said. So were other things: By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network formed to peer into climate's future. Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent higher than at the decade's start.

By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest years on record. By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British scientists said.

Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do. As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned more toward the economic.

By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to talk. But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of time.

Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrheniuswas the first to show that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years. The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more urgent story: To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

Charles J. Hanley has covered climate issues for The Associated Press since the Kyoto conference of 1997.

Solomon Belay e-portfolio paper 4 rough draft

Choices enable freedom and the ability to etch one’s path of the future. But choices can also present a burden and can be a gamble. In the poem A Road Not Taken by Robert Frost, Frost brings up the concept of “two roads diverged in a yellow wood”. The poem continues to talk about how the character looks down both roads and tries to decide which road to take. Approaching a fork in the road, I believe that Nye, Merchant, Nordhaus and Shellenberger would all agree that the choices we as mankind make now dictate the future. What they say about the types of choices and the effects of them are what they differ in opinion to. This metaphor of two roads serves as a great embodiment of this idea of choices that we have with regard to technology and our relationship with the natural world. Each of these authors has their own unique way of connecting the metaphor “two roads” to their beliefs and ideas.

Nye would use the metaphor to explain how he believes that technology is helpful and in the long run, beneficial to the environment. Nye would connect his ideas to being that one road would represent the idea of reducing the use of technology that are harmful for the environment. The other road that Nye would explain is that of retaining “harmful” technologies and increasing the effect of “green” technology but also being flexible when it comes down to necessities. Nye would argue that the later of the roads is the one to take because of several reasons that he explains in his essays.

When it comes to Merchant, she probably brings the most abstract ideas of the 3 authors. Merchant would absolutely agree that this metaphor serves as a perfect example of the future. Merchant would most likely say that one path is that of severally constricting many forms of “harmful” technologies and leaving the earth’s environment in good shape. She would also likely say that the other path is the continuation of usage of technologies and the diminishing of the earth’s environment. These ideas almost come straight from the book that she writes, Ecological Evolutions. In her book, she mentions ….

Last we have that of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. This duo actually shares closely similar ideas with Nye rather than Merchant. Nordhaus and Shellenberger would argue that the first road is the retaining of technology and increase of beneficial “green” technology and have maintained a good environment. They would probably say that the second road is neglecting to change the usage harmful technologies and diminishing resources to lead to a cataclysmic result. These beliefs are reflected through their essay, Break Through.

Essay 4 (previous post was mistaken, cant post in eportfolio)

Ashwin Telukuntla

Technology in New England

Professor Deese

Section EF

Essay 4

What thoughts would spring into your mind if you were sitting on the moon staring at our spectacular planet? Would you think about the future of Earth or just gaze at its majestic beauty? Now imagine spending this moment with three influential authors, historian David E. Nye, historian Carolyn Merchant and environmentalist Rachel Carson. While sitting at Lunar Sands Casino with these three scholars, a bet is created on the future of the Earth in year 2064. From interpretations of various essay’s written by Nye, it is likely that Nye would say that the future of the Earth depends on the path of science and technology. Merchant would take the stance that the Earth will be worse off than it is today and Carson would likely agree with Merchant in that the Earth is heading towards its doom. I believe that the Earth may be better off in 2064 than it is today due to the large emphasis that is currently being placed on positive environmental actions and efficiency increasing technologies.

By 2064, the world has the option of two separate fates: prosperity or destruction. Nye would say that the future of the planet depends heavily on the course of science and technology in the upcoming years. If technology and innovations continue toward the “bigger is better” philosophy and disregard any environmental or social consequences, the Earth in 50 years will be that of a planet in shambles. However, if technology and innovations prioritize a level of green and efficiency while maintaining a strong environmentally conscious agenda, the future of the Earth could be that as seen on the Jetson’s. Although Nye focuses heavily on science and technology as a future predictor of Earth, he also would agree that various societies cultures would drastically alter the planets future. For instance, if people on the planet wanted to wear only natural fibers and eat meat on a daily basis, the Earth’s resources would be depleted at exponential rate compared to if people were willing to wear synthetic fibers and consume meat less frequently. If an accurate prediction could be made about the future of technological and cultural preferences, Nye would make a stronger and clearer claim about the state of our planet in 2064.

Although Nye does not seem to take a firm side on the bet, Merchant would take a clear side on the future of the Earth. Merchant believes that mechanism and capitalism are emptying our resources at a rapid pace. In her book, Ecological Revolutions, she explains all the harm we are currently causing our planet. Such as the massive amounts of damage to the ozone layer that was caused by the use of CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbons). CFC’s are emitted with Styrofoam, refrigerators and aerosol sprays. Today, there has been more of an effort to reduce or eliminate this molecule from everyday products. In the eyes of Merchant, one can assume the Earth in 2064 will look similar to that of planet Venus. Merchant was very active in the mid-late 20^th century and many of her assumptions are based of that time period. If Merchant considered many of the new paths taken by societies today, her belief may differ but in accordance to her writings, Merchant does not have faith in this planets future.

Along with Merchant, Carson would likely believe that the Earth in 2064 will be much worse off than it is today. Carson can be claimed as one of the first true environmentalists in the United States. Carson played a major role in the DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) issue that plagued the United States in the Second World War. DDT is a chemical that was very widely used in that era to control a large array of problems, from pests to diseases. This molecule was thought to the miracle control substance, until the side effects were discovered. DDT is an extremely stable and durable compound and therefore does naturally breakdown. The widespread use of this compound caused toxic and poisonous pollution to the environment around the world. Due to Carson’s efforts, such as the publication of her book, Silent Spring, which explains many of the negative consequences of DDT, the use of DDT within the United States was banned. Since Carson lived in a time where environmental consequences were not prioritized the least bit, her view toward the future of our planet is likely to be very negative.

My belief on the future of the Earth is similar to that of David Nye. I believe that the Earth in 2064 will be of much higher quality than it is today. Since the Industrial Revolution, the United States has, for the most part, disregarded the environmental consequences of its actions. In attempt to grow and create industries across the nation, the United States and other developing countries (in the relevant time period) were expanding at a high rate and releasing a strong carbon footprint. Much of this rapid industrialization took place in the two centuries. Today, these same industrialized nations changed their strategies. Since the environment changed for the worse since the industrialization period, many countries are placing incredible efforts in order to save the planet. This change in priorities has lead me to believe that the future of our planet is bright and prosperous. With the emergence of energy efficient and environmentally friendly homes, appliances, cars, factories etc., the Earth's demise will not come as quickly as others thought. Although many promising actions have taken place, there are still various factors that can destroy the current plan. Nations such as India and China, that have been rapidly industrializing in the past few years have caused a great deal of environmental harm. With immense construction and production of goods in such a dense area of land, the carbon footprints released from this area of the planet is on a new level. If more third world countries attempt to massively industrialize, the Earth's future may be filled with darkness and pollution, but my faith in man leads me to believe the Earth is not destined for that future.

A persons idea on the future of the planet is mainly based upon the time era of history they experienced. For instance, Merchant and Carson would have a much more pessimistic view about the future of the Earth since most of their exposure to the world was in the earlier part of the century when environmental concern was not widely prevalent. On the other hand, Nye and I have been exposed to the latter part of the 20th century along with the 21st century, which reflects our more optimistic opinion since we are currently in a time of transition in the realm of environmental concern. Based upon the decision to proceed with "bigger is better" or "energy efficiency" the future of the Earth cannot be accurately predicted. However, if the we continue on the current path we are on today, I would bet the Earth will strive towards becoming a utopia.

Jon Stewart on scandal over hacked CRU emails a.k.a. 'climategate'

Scientists Hide Global Warming Data

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

For more background on this story click here.

Eportfolio for Lani Rush Paper 4

Divergent Paths
Robert Frost is arguably the most famous American poet, and his standout work “The Road Not Taken” has been criticized and analyzed by many, from schoolchildren to philosophers. The metaphor of two paths in “The Road Not Taken” is most often compared to choosing between what is easy and what is right, but it can also be applied to many different dilemnas in our lives and society. One such situation is the evolution of our relationship with the natural world. I believe that differing scholars see different paths. In the opinon of David Nye the two paths available are continuing along the current road of consumption and a fossil-fuel driven market, or using technology to find a new means of supporting our infrastructure. Carolyn Merchant might see the choice before us as one closely related to destruction or salvation, our current path leading us to an unsustainable future and our ruination. She might also see a different path, where the cultural outlook has changed such that Mother Nature is respected and our society has reevaluated its goals and values. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger might use two paths also, between old and new politics. They might view old politics as the path that will lead us toward our destruction via inaction, and the path of new politics our salvation. All three sources can use Robert Frost’s “Two Roads” to explain the relationship ship between the natural world and society: Nordhaus and Shellenberger relate environmentalism to our political struture, Nye analyses the relationship between the natural world and the cultural choices of our technology, and Carolyn Merchant explores the relationship between cultural values and nature. All of these observers see two paths, one that heads toward enlightenment and a better relationship with the natural world and one that leads to our destruction, however imminent. I believe that we are at a unique place in history and our choices are not as clear cut as two roads.
Carolyn Merchant has detailed the road we have traveled to come to this fork quite well, and her view of the shifts in time is most easily seen in the chart on page 26. The view of nonhuman Nature provides a close parallel between the relationship of humanity to the environment. Carolyn Merchant’s opinion, Native American society viewed nonhuman Nature as “active,” believing that the natural world was seen as a living system. This relationship was focused on “reciprocity between humans and nature,” showing the equality of man and natural forces. The colonial ecological revolution occurs, however, and this perspective shifts to viewing nature as “passive commodities” but also fosters a “fatalistic acceptance of nature.” The natural world is seen as something to use to the fullest extent, but still has its own power and mystery. After the capitalist revolution, the natural world is seen as a “scientific object” to be studied and understood. This understanding then leads to “domination and mastery of nature.” Carolyn Merchant believes we are still in the aftermath of the capitalist revolution, thus we are still in the mindset of seeing the natural world as something to own, possess, use, and discard as we see fit. Her two paths that fork in a yellow wood might be the path of continuing as we are, holding dominion and mismanaging our power over the earth, or a path with a different cultural view of Nature. Perhaps she would see a “road less traveled” of a society that see Nature as a living being to be respected and cared for. I believe Carolyn Merchant would also be admant that making this cultural shift would, in the end, “make all the difference.”
If David Nye was to come to a fork in the woods down which he could not see, he might relate these paths to the use of technology in our society and how it is related to our cultural choices. He believes that “technologies are social constructions,” and perhaps he would see paths with different uses of technology. On the current path, we use technology to try to halt the progression of global warming and in half-hearted attempts at alternative fuels until all our sources of fossil fuels become unviable. On the other path, Nye might imagine a future where culture demands that beneficial environmental technology is developed and used in unforseen ways to address our current environmental woes.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger might see two divergent paths, one with old politics and one with the new. With old politics, we will be too late to effectively stop global warming and will eventually spiral into destruction. On the path with new politics, there is hope that we can merge interests and create an economy and society “that joins the individual’s self-interest with the common good.” Perhaps down this new political path, there would be an emergence of environmentalism that does not “seek to constrain human ambition and power” but rather “unleashes and directs them.” Both Nordhaus and Shellenberger and Nye’s path have a shift not in cultural values, but in technological and political ones.
All three sources have one thing in common, however. There is a choice between what is easy and what is right. The path we choose will be irrevocable and we will never stand at a similar juncture ever again. Nye, Nordhaus and Shellenberger, and Merchant all agree that now is the time for change. The source of the change, technological, political, cultural, differs between scholars, but there is always change. I believe that these scholars have a valid point. American society has recently elected a man whose campaign was based on change, and the world is ready. There is no time like the present to choose the road less traveled by, as we can all guess where the road more traveled by will lead. I believe that this change in the view of the natural world will come from the youth, for any of the reasons discussed by Nye, Merchant, or Nordhaus and Shellenberger. I propose that my generation will choose the path less traveled by, or in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, we shall “go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

e-portfolio for Aimee Caplen for paper 4 2nd draft

Aimee Caplen
WR100-Technology and Nature in New England
Professor R.S. Deese
December 2, 2009

Paper 4-Question Y

Earth’s recent climate issues have brought many people to question their usages of plastic, paper, glass, electricity, automobiles, and many other so-called necessities. There are varying ideas when it comes to the topic of the Earth’s crises: global warming and the future of human civilization and life on Earth. David E. Nye, Carolyn Merchant, and Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger each have their own view on the issues. Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s ideas of the world and how it must face a nightmare before any good happens are similar to the ideas of Nye and Merchant. However, each have their own ideas on how the very controversial topic of the century: where the Earth stands and how it can affect human civilization and life. I believe that the Earth’s status is diminishing, but it still has the ability to host the humans on Earth and keep them living and creating new generations for the next fifty years or more.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote an essay in 2004 regarding the topic of global warming. “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” compares the 2004 environmental crisis to Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech. Here Nordhaus and Shellenberger reveal that the “I Have a Dream” speech that we all thought started out optimistic, actually started out pessimistic. MLK was reminded by a fellow performer that he had spoken to her about how he had a dream. This is his most famous speech. MLK, Jr’s speech and the idea of negativity brings positive actions is the basis of Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s argument. They believe that the crisis of global warming must be a negative idea in everyone’s minds because it will force the world’s population to change it. Going green and helping the environment has become a big trend in the past decade. Nordhaus and Shellenberger believe that economic growth created environmentalism, which has now strayed away from the philosophical principal of analyzing the environment and creating ways to conserve the environment. While looking out on the earth rising, Nordhaus and Shellenberger will bet that fifty years from now the Earth will be still be threatened by global warming that may only slightly be fixed. However optimistic Nordhaus and Shellenberger are now, they will state that they wrote an essay about how America and the rest of the world are overlooking the issue of global warming.
The past few elections have focused on the issue of global warming. The candidates tell us that they will find an end, but when will we get to see it? The world in 2064 will be of a different state than it is right now, but I do not know exactly where it will be. More glaciers will be melted, causing the sea level to rise a few inches. I believe that this will not affect the world’s population too bad because the Earth has seen some huge changes. Humans have affected the Earth’s climate with the increased use of automobiles and CO2 emissions. We are going to look back in fifty years and question our decisions; this is if we still are here fifty years hence. Leo Murray posted a video on Vimeo titled, “Wake up, Freak out –then Get a Grip”. In the video he says, “[we] must actively confront powerful vested interest who will stop at nothing to prevent the changes that we need to be taking places”.