Week 10

In a CNN article from February of this year, they reported on a new form of communication. It is a form of social media for farmers. No, it’s not a dating site. It is a site that allows farmers to use this peer-to-peer service, known as WeFarm, to be informed about new farming information. This can range from climate change, failing seeds, volatile market, and infectious crop diseases. This site is mainly used by small-time farmer even individual people to send a question they have about their crop or field and get a response from others in the same field. This is a new way to try and fix the issue of hunger in underdeveloped countries. WeFarm states that about 90% of people have access to a cell phone now. They can then send a text to the WeFarm system and it will give them a useful response from a member of the community. It allows countries and people that do not have the agriculture technology to get answers for these things themselves. A rural farmer in Uganda would not know that an infectious disease from Kenya is coming to harm their crops and that they need to switch crops or find a way to combat it.

In the introduction to On Deep History and the Brain, Smail shows a problem with deep history thinking. He explains it as ghost theories. Basically, it is seeing similarities in history and thinking that they could be related even though it is historically accurate that there has been no interaction between the two events. By following historical texts to get a general gist of the era and concerns of the time they are losing the non-emotional history. Civilizations like the Incans or early Zimbabwe tribes. There is no way to deny that they had intelligence even though the civilizations didn’t have a form of writing that was significant enough to depict what they were thinking or feeling at the time. Smail mentions that his books goal is to write about the deep history of the brain and how it has changed through the years. While it may not be useful to current day, there is no way to tell if knowing what ancient people were thinking about and dealing with can improve the way we continue to live today.

Week 8

Democracy

It seems that in these zones designated a “Sacrifice Zone” people have given in and called it sacrificed land. They may be trying to get it fixed but by giving it that name they show that someone has given up. Whether it is the people or the government. One main thing that the people may lose hope in democracy and the government process. Like the community in California that is next to an oil factory. The community reported the factory for venting 24/7, the first thing that the policymakers did was trying to pass a policy to allow the factory to vent more often. Even now after the concerns of the community, the factory is still venting as often as it can. Democracy becomes essential to sustainability because the benefit of democracy allows the community to overwrite the voice of corporate sponsors. Over time this lack of influence can cause Americans to be dissuaded from caring about politics and the government.  It can become a feeling that a singular opinion doesn’t matter. This becomes a hindrance to sustainability because it relies on the voices of a lot of people to reach the government’s ears and to force corporations to know that it does matter to a greater portion of the population. I do feel that this current political cycle we are in will spur a decent amount of interest back into the politics. It will hopefully help bring sustainability and many other issues to the main stage for the US to debate on.

Sacrifice Zone

The “Sacrifice Zone” idea can be spread to any place in the US due to how rampant the industrialization of the US has been. There are so many places that have been affected by big corporations and factories that many places have environmental issues. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, there are areas in the rural land that have been completely strip-mined for coal. The problem with this being is that the constant construction has created a mountain of waste that has been put into the land of the nearby area. They use fluff zones to help hide their dumping of waste by putting a layer of greenery over thousands of cubic yards of waste. It was also a dumping zone for midnight dumpers to drop off gallons of toxic waste from the factory. In places of Pennsylvania, there are towns that are completely surrounded by toxic waste. I usually thought of pollution as being in major cities and industrialized places. But after watching People 2.0 it shows that the problem is much more spread out and can even be much worse in rural areas. It makes it even more apparent that we need to get changes done. It is no longer a time where we can dump waste and stay ignorant because we didn’t know better. We are in a time where we know that these actions are destroying the land and they are detrimental to us a population. With this, it becomes even more important to use our influence to influence the changes that we want to see.

Week 7

How being materialistic is harming us.

Gabor Mate shows the connection that people have with their emotions and their own physical ailments. He starts by saying that currently in medicine looks at it by separating the mind and the body and it separates the individual from the environment. In the first one Mate gives the example of women in Australia where they did a study to find if emotional stress or emotionally isolated. These women were ones who had already been found to have lumps during a breast exam. They were then given psychological tests that looked at those two possibilities. It was found that any of the women who tested for emotion stress had zero impact on if the lump was cancerous. It was the same for any woman who had been emotionally isolated, zero change. However, for women who had both suffered from emotional stress and have been emotionally isolated the risk of the lump being cancerous is nine times as likely as the average. For the second one, it is found that children living in an environment where they have stressed parents are more likely to have asthma. So, look at how we deal with asthma. It is common to give the same drugs that are used from stress management to those who have asthma. Mate shows strongly that it is not correct to think of medicine as only a physical thing or only a psychological thing. The human body is a complex system that relies on everything in the body, not just parts and pieces. I think, as someone who no real knowledge in the medical field, that this would make a lot of sense being that our body works as one system rather than a mix of multiple systems that just inhabit the same container.

The Bombing of Judi Bari

There has always been at least one conspiracy circling the US or its departments. In 1990, there was a car bomb under Bari’s car which injured her and Darryl Cheney. After this incident occurred the FBI swooped in a tried to arrest them as the bomb makers. They refuted this claim and sued the FBI back, later winning $4 million in damages. The case continued into the late 1990s to try and stop the FBI from discarding the bomb from the incident. Cheney continues to try to get the FBI to give the bomb to an independent lab for DNA testing. The FBI has continually avoided or roadblocked the attempts giving a variety of reasons, such as Cheney not being allowed to handle the bomb since it is illegal and contraband. In my opinion, this case may show how the government can do things that are considered illegal to the public but they are allowed to do it to push their ideas. This seems like a viable option because Bari was a leader of the Earth First! movement that was trying to stop timber companies from cutting down the redwood forests. This may have been an undercut to profits that the government could make from this new source of timber in the US. However, this could all be a conspiracy theory as well, but it makes it suspicious as to how the FBI has acted toward giving up the evidence for further DNA tests. In the end I think it shows that for the most part we as a community need to be able to look critically at what our government actually does and be able to speak up without fear of backlash from them.

Week 6

In the video about the indigenous Mayan people, they are in the problem where their communities designs are not coming under the intellectual property law of Guatemala. In the description of the law protects the intellectual property of an owner. The problem with this being that these designs were created long ago and passed through the generations by its people. This makes it hard to pin down a certain person to be able to give the IP rights to. With this lack of representation for their designs, many of them are being taken advantage of by big business where they are using cheap materials to cash in. The weavers are upset because the main focus of the textiles is to show their community and history through their textiles. With this problem, there may be a reason to relook at laws about intellectual properties to include communities as well. Possibly similar to how the US deals with Native American people where they will give land or money to the community leaders. This idea may be applied to the indigenous communities in Guatemala.

In 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NY unanimously decided that the bulk phone records collection was illegal. This record collecting came up after Edward Snowden first exposed the program in 2013. The program came from a small portion of the PATRIOT Act that allowed the NSA to collect information from phone calls. This information may not seem hugely important, as it would collect who you called, how long you called them, and what time you called. Essentially the metadata of the phone call. The problem with this was that it was not used to only collect data on those who are under watch by the NSA but it collected data on everyone in the country. And if you think of it the way Snowden explains it in his interview with The Guardian. Say you get a wrong call from someone who is under surveillance for a terrorist attack. They find this data that you got a call, know how long it was, and when it was. They don’t know that you got a wrong call, that you didn’t know the person, and that you may not have talked about anything regarding a possible terror attack. They can then go through this enormous database that includes every single phone call you have made since the bill was passed. They can scrutinize you on everyone you talk to. Maybe you had a talk with someone who has a criminal record or someone who is friends with someone whose friends with a person on a watch list. They have the ability to scrutinize on every decision you made, every friend you have spoken with, and attack you with that. They can easily derive suspicion from an innocent person and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.

 

The self-destructive attitude of the US

In Michael Parenti’s speech “The Threat of US Imperialism” he focuses on the items that the government opposes. The main idea that I pick up was how invested he says the government is in budgeting and controlling pay for workers. By opposing every hour decrease for the workers from 12 to 10 to 8 there has always been opposition because the large companies want to force as many people to work for as little as they can so they can stuff their pockets. He states that the companies goal is “to pay you (the worker) as little as possible so that I (owners) can make as large a profit as possible. But, hope that other capitalists will pay their workers enough to buy the goods and services of my workers”. I think that the changes in the workforce put the most readily available and relatable experience for most people. By using the term imperialism (meaning a policy of extending a country’s power and influence) it can become a very strong topic. By using the nation’s doctrine to help influence and control the workers to work for less and for longer. It can create a very upsetting society that will feel based on oppressing the lower class so that those who are more fortunate can continue to prosper undeterred. Since most people at some point in their life had a high school job or a job straight out of school so they could make ends meet it can seem almost like being taken advantage of. Where your opinions may not matter and your person is disposable since it is an easily replaceable position. It can also spread outside of the nation of origin such as people in lesser developed nation’s working for hardly livable wages because the companies who hire them know that they can get away with it. This may be due to the other countries not having enough jobs or having a lower standard of living that US-based companies can take advantage of to increase their profits for their own gain at the expense of the struggling nation’s population.

Along with this, there are others, like Manfred Max-Neef, that believe that this corporate greed for higher profits can be doing actual harm to the nation. In his interview he sees humans, as a race, to know a whole lot but understand very little. In his view as an economist he knows all about poverty, he can make all the models and graphs he wants. But he says that he didn’t understand what it meant to be a man standing in the slums, standing in mud, with 5 children, a wife, and a grandmother to have to provide for. He was able to know what poverty was, what the economy was doing, and how it would change over time. However, he was never able to understand what it would be like to actually live in poverty, to have to work 14, 15, 16 hour days just to provide enough food for a family. He follows this up by bringing up his idea that the US is an “underdeveloping nation”. Originally, there was developed, underdeveloped, and developing as terms for the growth of a nation. He now believes that the US has created a new category, underdeveloping. This new category where the 1% keep doing better and better while the other 99% are continuing to decline. The fact that there are people living in cars, parked in front of places that used to be their home, thousands of people. There are millions who have lost everything but the people that brought about the whole problem are doing extremely well. Thinking that it sucks to be them, but then also think to themselves ‘I’m fine, no problem, it doesn’t affect me’. When asked about how he would fix this issue. He has no idea. Stating that it can end in riots, a self-destructive economy, or wars. In my reading for this week, this was the most depressing and revealing view of the current state of the US. This view coming from someone from Chile. Someone who can look on the outside and see the whole picture as the rest of the world see it. Someone who sees what is supposed to be the most powerful nation in the world crumble beneath it’s own greed and stupidity.

Using Technology to fix Technology

In Dr. Huesemann’s video about what he calls techno-fixes, it becomes clear that he views using technology to fix the problems caused by technology will never work. He uses the laws of ecology to help show that technology violates each one and that it will cause more trouble over time. The first being ‘everything is connected to everything else’ this one is violated by technology because to create each new technology it will be created in a vacuum for its own use. For example, a car is a system that will only work with itself. Once a car is used and disposed of it will not degrade into the soil, it will not release nutrients to an ecosystem, and it will not interact with other systems in nature. For the second law, nature knows best, it is automatically violated as soon as technology was created. Technology is an unnature adaption that was created by man and has no place in the ecology of the planet. Along with this idea, he adds in techno-fixes which can be considered a progress-trap due to the nature of having to use technology to fix former problems caused by technology. It this cycle of creating something and then having to create something else to get rid of the problems of the former you can get stuck in a loop that will end all progression.

In the first chapter of The New Science of Sustainability, it focuses on how the current way we go about sustainability is, well, not sustainable. Stating that the current idea of sustainability uses the environment as its primary rationale and while it has helped it leaves holes in other concerns; jobs, education, health, safety, etc. The new proposal tries to turn this idea around to show that “stable jobs, long-term prosperity, social vitality, and environmental health are all byproducts of a human ecosystem. By changing a few views of how we accomplish improvement in these sectors we can improve the human ecosystem. Some examples being education, rather than shoving rules and regulations at teachers, telling them to get better results we can try to create empowering, hands-on, service-centered, learning systems that will spur on critical thinking and collaborative efforts in a socially-responsible community. This new way of creating sustainable thinking has nothing to do with what is right for the environment or what we should be doing to change our way of living. It is about changing our way of thinking. Changing from a society that thinks about monetary gain leads to success and begin to believe that societal prosperity is the key to success. Not only for those in the community but for the environment as we learn to live with not only each other but with the creatures and plants that inhabit this world with us.

In all, technology is a great gain for humanity but it comes with its downsides. We cannot get into the thinking that technology is the only way to fix a problem. We need to focus on how to change this frame of thinking so that we ourselves can fix the problems that ail society.

Sustainability in an Urban Environment

This week we learned how cities have become a problem for water saturation and natural irrigation. In the town from the video, all of the accomplishments we have made as a society are starting to take their toll on the environment around them. From the dams that are used to help feed water to the farms to the way, we built the streets. This comes from a time before we had the knowledge of everything that affected the environment around us. We if take just the water aspect of a city there are plenty of things we can change to make it more regenerative. So, if you want to make a more sustainable water system within a city there are plenty of items to focus on. Starting from the top down. Water coming down from the mountain will be diverted with a dam to fields and farms up above the city. This in itself isn’t too bad but with the addition of pesticides to the farmland, the water runoff becomes unusable for reuse. By changing the pesticides to a natural alternative we can keep the water usable. That water then goes down into the aquifers after being used by pumps to get water to homes and businesses in the city. Adding in a type of sanitation for used water and a system to take hold of greywater (such as that from a shower or washing dishes) and reuse these sources. These changes will help get a system that will rotate the water throughout each area of use. Eventually, this will keep the aquifers full, keep us out of a drought threat, and allow us to make responsible choices for our environment.

From the video “Ten Towns that Changed America”, the town I found most interesting was Philadelphia. It was founded by William Penn, a Quaker, who had a vision for a large 2 mi. by 1 mi. town that would be split up and let people have very large plots of land. He envisioned that the plots would be filled with orchards and gardens. His idea was very close to what we call suburbs today. However, the people who came to live in Philadelphia had a different idea. Most of them preferred to be closer the central commerce which at the time was the ports. Due to the want to be close to the port, the buildings began to take on a townhome style. Where they were all built very close together and gave the city its now distinct style. I think that this timeline of events play a major role in how urban planning/execution can create a large rift in sustainability. Since most people would rather have the convenience to have some things nearby and do not have to worry about large yards.  With this idea lasting for the last 100 to 200 years, we now have to play catch up to undo some of the things that we have been ignorant to. That being the case I think that as a society we should try and update current urban planning to reflect the current state of affairs. With the growing concern for our environment and for global warming urban planning will need to change along with it.

Doing More with Less

Starting with the topic of sustainability. I have never really had a major involvement or interest in sustainability or regeneration before. I grew up in Illinois where needing to limit your resources isn’t too relevant due to the abundance of space, water, and wildlife. My family was allowed to water every day if we would like. We could even ignore watering because it would rain so often that the grass and plants would be fine without it. Since moving to California two years ago the generalization that sustainability does not concern me has changed. In California, I have noticed an increase in regulations about using resources. When we first moved our town had watering days. To some, this may seem like a normal system but coming from somewhere that didn’t have to worry about this problem it was a change. I have begun to think differently about how much we really need sustainability because I was thrust into an environment that really did need to be aware of the subject. Majoring in business I want to learn of ways to be able to use sustainability in places where there is excess profits or even ways to maintain profits while being regenerative.

I did have some encounters with sustainability, but I never delved into it of my own volition. When I first started college I went to Frostburg State University in Maryland (FSU). FSU was in a rural area in Maryland near the mountains. The school is a member of the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. Meaning the school provides a basis and support for trying to go climate neutral. So on campus, there were plenty of promotions for their Learning Green, Living Green initiative (https://www.frostburg.edu/lglg/). As a community, it was very important due to the area’s dependence on the land. The one event I can distinctly remember is the boycotting and protest of fracking in the area near the school. Fracking is basically shooting very high-pressure liquid into rocks to release the gas inside. The problem is that it begins to erode the underlayers of earth and can cause problems in the direct area, such as earthquakes. Here is an article from bbc.com (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401) talking about the subject and showing some examples of what it is. All of this happened back in 2014 when I attended the school and recently this past November the city has decided to ban hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

John Seely Brown’s (JSB) view of learning looks to be similar to the idea of classroom learning versus learn by doing. In his explanation, he shows cartesian learning which is similar to classroom learning. Meaning that it is the teacher teaches, you try and suck up what they are telling you. A more senior/junior style of teaching. The teacher is the wealth of knowledge and the student is getting it fed to them. JSB’s system, which he calls the social view of learning, is a similar system to learn by doing. By learning in an environment where everyone is on equal grounds trying to participate in understanding the knowledge that both teacher and student have obtained. However, he focuses on how what we learn is strengthed by speaking and understanding in a social aspect. Where we mainly “learn in and through our interactions with others and the world” (per JSB in his speech “Teaching 2.0”). By using the social aspect to bounce ideas off of other people in our society to help strengthen our knowledge on a particular concept. Using the knowledge you gain not only through what is being taught but also by solidifying our own understanding by speaking in a constructive group. Using others to both agree and disagree with the knowledge that was given and to provide a more informed knowledge base. However, I think that this may have more to do with humanities study than with science. It is very easy to have changes in knowledge in humanities-based on personal interaction and cultural views of the subject. It may be harder to see this in science-based knowledge as it strives to be more exact.