Thursday, December 10, 2009
"Aimee's for BEST PARAGRAPH"
Conor Glover's Choice for Best Paragraph
David Bourque's Choice for Best Paragraph
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
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
By Lydia Hausle
Monday, December 7, 2009
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.