e-portolio

Paper 3 Sustainable Abundance

Solomon Belay

With so many newborns on their way every single minute of the hour on this world, almost everybody has dwelled on the concept that at some point humans might overpopulate the world. Too many newborns and infants and not enough resources would cause a major problem and competition would increase. The thought of a major surplus of human lives that eventually leading to decreasing the significance of every single person and reduce the value of uniqueness, vital aspects of human life. How would life be then? How will these events play out and will the problem be solved? Well, author David E. Nye had a say in this topic and defended his idea in his essay “Sustainable Abundance, or Ecological Crisis?” I personally stand by Nye’s thesis of the world’s carrying capacity not being a scientific fact but rather a social construction.

Nye spends a good majority of his essay talking about the advancements of exploiting technologies that produce a surplus of foods, goods, and services. He uses several effective examples to show of this advancement. These include coal mining, irrigation, car production and several more economic processes that consume a great deal of natural resources. Nye gives examples to how these processes deplete the natural resources that this planet runs on. Another concept he throws in together along with these economic processes is the idea of simplicity. Simplicity is the concept that one can live an enjoyable and efficient life without many unnecessary goods and the ability to almost live solely on simple material needs. Nye mentions Henry David Thoreau’s book Walden. The book being about an experiment Thoreau conducted based on the idea of simplicity. He built a one room house in the woods of Massachusetts. He lives simply on basic necessities and enjoys hobbies such as reading, reflecting and close studies on nature. Thoreau came to the conclusion that people can easily become slaves to what they own. Nye uses this to wrap up his idea of simplicity. These two topics of exploiting technologies and simplicity lead Nye to proving his point of sustainability and the world’s carrying capacity.

Nye’s thesis is a clear one in that the world’s carrying capacity is something that is adjusted to socially and is not calculated scientifically. He defends his position with an example of the hedgerows. He tells of how some Europeans nations have reversed a policy of destroying hedgerows to create large fields for the “rationalization” of farming. However, many of the bird species lived and prospered in these hedgerows which lead to the diminishing local ecologies being upset. Realizing this, by the end of the twentieth century hedgerows were being re-established to readjust the balance between wild nature and agriculture. This example allows Nye to express how that decision was consciously made by society for the better of the environment. Another example Nye uses is that of the Zuider Zee dam. He mentions how the Dutch cut off the Zuider Zee dam from the North Sea and how that interrupted many ecological circles. Realizing this, they decided not to drain all the water away and recovered some land for settlement and agriculture while allowing much of the area to remain underwater. He goes on to explain that humans’ decisions dictate how much resources are being used up. The way humans socially interact affects nature changes things environmentally. He mentions how if people in dry areas want green lawns and chlorinated swimming pools, there will be less irrigation. He says not only will farmers produce less food but chlorinated water will be unavailable to other species. He also mentions that if people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people. In the end Nye writes that “Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction. Nature is not outside us, and it does not have a fixed limits. Rather, its limits are our own.”

I agree with Nye’s statement completely in the fact that there is no scientific fact that tells of the world’s capacity. I believe that cultural decisions of humans affect how natural resources are used. As Nye showed, if humans are willing to balance environment and production, fundamentally disaster can be averted. The world’s carrying capacity is something that can be changed when humans change how things are socially constructed. I see a direct correlation between the way humans use resources and the seeming carrying capacity. The more humans ask for, the more natural resources are exploited. But on the other hand, the more humans irrigate and cultivate, the more humans can preserve natural resources and keep the carrying capacity at a stable state. So in general I back Nye’s statement and think it is absurd to say that the world’s carrying capacity is a scientific fact.

Work Cited:

Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.

e-portfolio for Aimee Caplen for paper 3 draft

Sustainable Abundance

The word’s resources have diminished due to the increase of the world’s population. The world is required to use these resources to stay alive. Unfortunately, as David E. Nye and other scholars note, the world has a certain carrying capacity. Nye’s statement, “Ultimately the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction” is correct. The world’s population doesn’t necessarily choose who uses the world’s resources because the population of six billion is the cause of the slow decline of resources. Therefore, the world’s carrying capacity is socially constructed.

The carrying capacity ranges from scholar to scholar. The amount of people the world’s resources can support will soon run out, but when? Henry David Thoreau, part of the minority who favored simplicity, believed that “rather than constantly expand one’s desires, it was better to simplify material life.” A simple material life is long forgotten. Today there are few people who follow Thoreau’s simple life ideal. Today’s ideals include work hard play hard; simple lives mean stress free lives; and more leisure time because there are more opportunities for family time outside of one’s jobs. Technology is a way of life therefore today’s ideals have driven away from Thoreau’s simple life is the better life philosophy. Technology has not only created an abundance of products to be consumed by humans, but has helped their lives become relatively easier compared to the lives of those before the large use of technology. Robert Thurston drew conclusions about the easiness of the human lives now. Technologies are “mainly engaged in supplying our people with the comfort and the luxuries of modern life, and in converting crudeness and barbarism into [a more] cultured civilization.”

The nineteenth century became known as the mechanical age. Technology, though a convenient invention, began to create problems for the earth and its people. Thomas Carlyle declared that a steam had “accelerated a process which was going on already, but too fast.” Henry Adams believed that technology had accelerated out of control. For example, the production of cars requires a vast amount of resources that “requires as much energy” to produce the materials for the car “as it does to drive the car for a decade.” However cars have become a necessity for the majority of the population. Also agricultural technology that increases the production of many goods such as bushels of wheat and barley has affected the environment. Even though, the use of the new machines and chemicals increases productivity and profitability it ultimately destroys the soil. Pesticides and other chemicals are profitable and save the crops from weeds and insects that will either suffocate or eat the crops. Although the use of the chemicals is profitable, the consideration of the soil being ruined is not high on the company’s priority list. A company usually fallows the soil every five years therefore limiting the amount of acres in use. Though profitable, the company must consider that using the chemicals will have a long-term affect on the soil and ultimately limit the world’s resources and carrying capacity.

I for one sometimes forget that our world’s resources are slowly decreasing. The amount of paper used to print out documents, sometimes unnecessary, is increasing at a faster rate than it takes to grow and produce the paper. Today’s population needs to consider how much they waste the resources provided to them, or else the world’s carrying capacity will not be able to have all the necessary resources for the world’s growing population.

paper 3 draft

Rough Draft of Paper 3

Josh Kraskin

Carolyn Merchant once wrote “science is an ongoing negotiation with nonhuman nature for what counts as reality. Scientists socially construct nature, representing it differently in different historical epochs.” (Merchant, p. 4) Throughout history, there have been varying views about the relationship between humans and the environment. Myths, religion, pseudoscience, and empirical science have all been used to explain how man should interact with nature. In Ecological Revolutions, Merchant provides a valid argument that man has constructed various views of nature throughout ancient, colonial, and modern times.

Merchant begins her argument by discussing the views of ancient civilizations. She explains that nature “was an actress on the stage of history” and “the bringer of life, fertility, famine, and death.” (Merchant, p. 5-7) Merchant is trying to convey that through this pagan and animistic perspective, ancient peoples had a spiritual view of nature, seeing it as something to be both worshipped and feared. They believed nature to be something eternal; they knew it had existed long before they had, and would continue to do so after they were gone.’

The dawn of the seventeenth century marked the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. From this point forward, views about nature had changed quite drastically; Merchant states that they believed that they “world itself is a clock, adjustable by human clockmakers. Nature is passive and manipulabe.” (Merchant, p. 7) This perspective asserts that man is above nature and has every right to manipulate his environment to his benefit. It is this mindset that fueled many of the actions taken by Western nations during the ages of colonialism, imperialism and industrialization. These views differ greatly from those of their pagan ancestors who saw nature as alive and active as opposed to “dead” and “inert.” (Merchant, p. 7)

Modern perspectives on nature have integrated both mechanistic and primitive views about the environment. While man still utilizes natural resources for his own gain, it is done with respect and the knowledge that humans are a part of nature; our own survival is very much dependant on the well being of our environment. Merchant recognizes this fact when citing Marx: “man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.” (Merchant, p. 10) Marx specifically mentions the word “interchange”, which is defined as “to give and receive reciprocally.” This means that if man is to take from nature, he must also give back; for example, if one cuts down a tree in a forest, one must plant another in its place. Another change in the views on nature in the modern era is the way that nature is seen as a synergistic system or “network” in which “economic metaphors such as producers, consumers, productivity, yields, and efficiency” are used to explain how the different element of ecology interact. (Merchant, p. 9) Merchant further explains that “nature is cast as a computerized network of energy inputs and information bits that can be extracted from the environmental context and manipulated according to a set of thermodynamic equations.” (Merchant, p. 9) This trend of breaking down individual parts of a large system to try and analyze and understand the bigger picture seems to be a growing trend in the twenty-first century.

Merchant’s recurring thesis is that science is socially constructed. She believes that man does not actually know what reality is; therefore he creates his own definitions of what is real and what isn’t, based on the culture and beliefs of society at the time. For example, throughout the Middle Ages, Western civilization was dominated by the views of the Church. The geocentric model of the universe, where the universe revolved around the Earth, was proclaimed to be true by the Church, and therefore accepted as a scientific fact, despite being proven to be false several centuries later. Merchant explains how even modern empirical sciences, like ecology, are socially constructed. She writes: “ the ecological paradigm is a socially constructed theory. Although it differs from mechanism by taking relations, context, and networks into consideration, it has no greater or lesser claim to some ultimate truth status than do other scientific paradigms.” (Merchant, p. 8) She continues by explaining how “both mechanism and ecology construct their theories through a socially sanctioned process of problem identification, selection and deselection of particular ‘facts,’ inscription of the selected facts into texts, and the acceptance of a constructed order of nature by the scientific community.” (Merchant, p. 8-9) In both of these statements Merchant stresses that even the scientific method, which is considered to be an acceptable way of ascertaining the truth, is socially constructed.

Truth and reality are intangible, ambiguous objects that philosophers, scientists, and various other academics have attempted to contemplate for millennia. It is incredibly difficult to distinguish what actually is from what we perceive. What if everything we believed to be real was nothing more than a fabrication, as depicted in The Matrix? While it seems safe to assume that we are not living inside of a virtual reality created by machines, what can we really know for sure? Descartes believed that he discovered the one, sure truth when he stated: “I think, therefore I am.” While Carolyn Merchant would most likely not argue that thinking is socially constructed, she is quite sure that the majority of science is. While this may have been true in the past, and may still be true to some extent today, I believe that humans have progressed enough both technologically and socially to be sure of at least several scientific facts. We can be sure that the Earth will always orbit around the sun; we can be sure that a living person’s heart will always be beating; we can be sure that an object dropped from a high place will always fall to the ground. These ideas are not socially constructed; they have been true before humans were around to observe them, and will continue to be true after we are gone.

e-portfolio for Branden Kim (Hyunsoo Kim)

Branden Kim'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.

***


“Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social

construction.”

In recent history, the topic of overpopulation gained attention. Overpopulation, as many believed, will bring crisis such as starvation and spreading of diseases throughout the world. There would not be enough source of food for everyone and whether or not the person may live or die depends on the concept of the survival of the fittest. However, as Nye states, “Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction,” he asserts that the world’s ultimate capacity of people animals, plants, and the whole population in general depends on the way our society is constructed and not on any previously set scientific values. Like Nye, I concur with the idea that social construction affects the world’s carrying capacity economically and culturally.

David E. Nye uses Daniel Defoe’s classic “Robinson Cruesoe” (1719) as an
example to solidify his view on the ecological crisis. Robinson Cruesoe is a seaman who was stranded on a deserted island off the coast of South America for over 26 years. In a location with zero human population other than Cruesoe himself, he managed to build fortified shleters, catch fish, tame goats, weave baskets, make pottery, and even farm. His means of survival depended upon using his knowledge to obtain the necessities from his surroundings. Nye makes a point that Cruesoe did not become superior because he had metal tools and weapons. He also brings up that Cruesoe did not build tables, chairs, or any of the furniture although he had the knowledge to due to the reason that those items were not necessary for the means of survival. It is not the science itself but together with social construction that will affect the world’s carrying capacity.

It can be clearly stated from our common sense of knowledge that total
population had risen dramatically throughout the last century. As the number of people increased throughout the last century, the advancements in technology had also been taking place, which led to the changes in the ways people lived and utilized the nature around us. “Landscapes are part of the infrastructure of existence, and they are inseparable from the technologies that people have used to shape land and to shape their vision,” stated Nye. (Nye, 89) In this quote, Nye is trying to state that technologies and landscapes go together. The more changes in landscapes, there are usually more technological advancements. For example, Japan’s increasing population has become a concern for the Japanese government. For this reason, the Japanese has been building high-rises, but the problem with this was that Japan is frequently hit with earthquakes. Therefore they utilized the technology of high-rises being able to withstand earthquakes in order to maximize the space for their overpopulation. Japan’s population has reached to about 128 million by 2009. If the number 128 million occurred at the time around 200 years ago, without a doubt there will be catastrophic events such as mass starvation and deaths caused by diseases which results from unsanitary conditions. Nonetheless,technology and the ways of our social construction has changed the ill-fate.

People once thought that the world population would never stop increasing
until food would run out for people to suffer from starvation. They believed that all of our natural resources are going to be used up so there would not be any substitues for our necessary energy. It turned out to be false however, since technologies have changed people’s social conditions and lives. People started having lesser number of babies because the average life expectancy sore up due to better medicine and surplus of food. It was not the matter of survival anymore but the matter of commodity. I agree with Nye’s idea that social construction affects the world’s carrying capacity since the world has become more liberal than religious from the past and this also took account in producing less children in the family.

Many of certain natural resources are running out, but our societies are working to produce different ways of energy efficient technologies. We always have alternative plans when things start to go in a negative way. Technology is reasonable for this, and as long as our societies are ready to adapt to new changes and prepare for the better future,our world’s population seems bearable. I agree with Nye that there is no set limit to the world’s carrying capacity.

When Nye makes this statement, he means that the limits that exist for our world are not absolute, rather he claims that they are based on when they're made. (for there is a direct correlation between the epoch in which these limits are stated, because they depend on how much we consume during that time period).

Different eras have ushered in different mental sets about everything around us, but they have all included a place for our planet. The Earth, and Nature have had many roles throughout the centuries, and these roles have depended on what the civilization's culture and objectives were. That is were the idea of limits sets in. If the world was man's tool, it was viewed as limitless, because it was in their interest to have it that way. But if it was regarded as a living thing with a hihger purpose than to provide for mankind, it was viewed as having limits and thresholds just as any other living, breathing thing.

However, despite the fact that societies have adapted their view of the world so as to best fit their universal scheme, there is such a thing as a scientific fact, and an absolute truth about the world. Nye claims that the world does not have limits, but it does. it isn't a magically endless source of wealth, nor is it an unmutable system. We are capable of, and already have, disturbed the balance that all living things have enjoyed for millions of years. This isn't a matter of perspective. It doesn't depend on your political views. This is an absolute and scientific fact.

Nye says that "it's limits are our own". It is true that within these limits we can change our lifestyes and adapt our needs and desires to vary WHEN these limits are reached, but that they will be reached is beyond question.

It can be viewed as a mathematical equation. However the Left-hand side is modified(us), the right-hand side varies accordingly(time left before the limit are reached) but inevitably, the result will be produced.

Social construction about the world have merely been attempts to avoid guilt for the society's actions. They have been campaigns of misinfrmation to selfishly pursue the society;s goals, or to justify their beliefs. This is the case of the colonists, who needed to believe the new land they had arrived at was one of plenty, and theirs for the taking, as well as the church, who's view of the world, despite changing multiple times, was always used for power over the people(flat world, geocentric universe).

Even now, when our knowledge has proven the existence of such limits, there are still groups of people determined to deny this ultimate truth and keep on instauring their personal views in order to keep benefitting themselves (oil and coal campanies lobbyists)

Through trial and error we have modified our social views on the world and nature, and we will eventually come closer and closer to the ultimate truth. The only question that remains now is the question of when this will occur.

E portfolio Lani Rush Paper 3

How Many People Can the Earth Hold?
Just last year, many news stories covered the birth of the six billionth person. This story lead to much speculation on the limits of the Earth’s population and the rate of growth of the total population. Many cited improvements in natal care and increased longevity s precursors to overpopulation. In “Ecological Crisis or Sustainable Abundance,” Nye addresses the issue of “carrying capacity” and how it relates to modern technology. His final conclusion that carry capacity is not a specific number, but rather an effect of cultural choices, results from analysis of technological advancement and environmental repercussions. I believe that culture and nature are intertwined, especially as highlighted in the difference between living in the Midwest and the Northeast.
Nye’s essay begins with the progession of technology that changed civilization. Nye traces the evolution of agricultural technologies of the United States from its origins in New England to the farms of California and Arizona. The progression from family, subsistence farming to industrialized farming to “irrigated agribusiness” has increased both mechanization and productivity in agriculture. This increased productivity provides for increased food supplies and general wealth, contributing to population expansion. The increased industralization of the land also caused a cultural shift. While humanity was seen as stewards of the land in family farming, the land became “a source of raw materials to be exploited for human development” by the early 1900’s.
Nye then shifts focus from the technologic progress in the United States to a European view of the after effects of mechanization on natural resources. Europeans began mechanization earlier, thus encountered the environmental effects of “deforestation, fuel shortages, air and water pollution…almost 700 years previous to the United States.” The Europeans then proceeded to export damaging agricultural techniques to their colonies. Although productivity and material goods had increased from the pre-colonial era, was the increased abundance worth the environmental sacrifice?
It is true, the average quality of life increases with every generation, but what of the happiness of each successive generation? There is no true account of intergenerational contentment, and Nye acknowledges that thinkers have realized “that people can easily become slaves to what they own.” This indicates a rejection of the modern cultural value that material possesions are the yardstick by which one measure’s one’s happiness. The idea that possesions are enslaving also seems to contradict the technological progression of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it is possible to find a common ground. Modern technology accounts for the ease of living which we in the developed world are fortune to experiene while providing surplus to those in underdeveloped locales. While some harmful farming techniques reach their peak in certain areas, they are being abandoned in another. This is a result of a cultural choice.
One personal experience I have had of cultural choices hsaping the environment comes from my move from the Midwest to the Northeast. The Northeast supports far more people in a smaller amount of space than does the Midwest and that can be linked to the differing cultures of each region. People in the Northeast mostly bike or use public transit to commute, live in smaller spaces usch as apartments and more modest houses, and tend to be more vegetarian. People in the Midwest tend to use cars as the preferred mode of transport, eat meat at many meals, and live in large houses with yards. These few differences contribute to the population density difference between the two regions and this is a microscale example of how culture shapes our environment. Truly, “Nature’s limits are our culture’s.”