The “Trinity of Despair” was a little daunting, but it did seem to make a little sense to me in some ways. I do believe that humans are selfish and self-maximizing. Yet I do agree with others in the class that a lot of people break that mold. Generalizations tend to get us in to trouble. Of course some people will only think of themselves, but the world is full or spectrum's. So, on the other end of the spectrum there are people who never think of themselves and always put others first. I do not think that human nature should be something that inhibits us from going forward with solutions to this problem. We should recognize that human nature is part of our buildups, and then find a solution to make it easier for people to start trying these environmental ideas. That’s where environmental strategies come into play.
I was a big fan of the environmental strategies group that says that we do not need a crisis to stop this problem; a few more people just need to be aware of it. This is also the side that represents small actions first. In our previous blog with Prof. Maniates, I disagreed with his points on environmental strategies. In combination with other things, and as a first step, I believe they are necessary. People need to know how to take shorter showers and buy proper light bulbs before they are going to start riding a bike 20 miles to work and back. We have to recognize that human nature will have an impact on some people’s reactions, and prepare for that.
The social change aspect was also very interesting. I do believe in social change, and we have talked so much in this class about being not a consumer but a citizen. I think that is so important, and people need to be mobilized to support a cause. I do not think we need a crisis in order for things to change, but I do feel that most people are just trying to get through the day. I hope a smaller group than 80% of the population would need to care about environmental issues before changes were made.
I thought the triangle was an interesting way to conceptualize the problem, but like Maniates, I believe we can beat the trinity of despair and truly solve this problem. Using methods that will work to counter all three points of the triangle, to make social change easier, and environmental steps faster. We have been talking about most of these points in class, so it was so interesting to hear about it from another perspective in which the concept truly came to life in the triangle. I would definitely recommend trying to schedule this teleconference again next semester, it was extremely helpful!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Trinity of Despair?
Professor Maniates' Trinity of Despair ... here's how I scored:
HN (Human Nature) - 4
SC (Social Change) - 2
ES (Environmental Strategies) - 3
The trinity of despair exercise was, in my opinion, a good exercise in critical thinking. I think I misunderstood Mr. Maniates when he asked us about human nature; he distinguishes between selfishness and self-interest, stating that humans by nature have a high degree of self interest, yet are not actually selfish, but to me they are essentially the same thing. Self-interest becomes selfishness when one person's self-interest conflicts with that of another person, and both are disinclined to compromise.
As evidenced by the (comparatively) low value I gave to social change, I agree with Mr. Maniates that social change is not an issue in which everybody needs to be on board. I'm completely with him on the whole "it only takes a few really motivated people to make a difference" bit. We don't need a ton of people on completely board the environmental issue, we just need a few people to work hard to change our system to make it simple for a gamut of people with differing viewpoints to find it in their best interests (as well as in the best interests of the planet) to (grudgingly or not) assist reducing humanity's environmental impact.
On the third point of the Triangle/Trinity of Despair, environmental strategies, I opted for the safe middleground. Our consumer-driven attack on the economic system is definitely something to keep pursuing, but it is not what will see the world though this environmental crisis. After all, humans are diverse creatures, and there will always be someone who will want to buy a Thneed, and there will always be a Onceler willing to make and sell it to him. Consequently, we not only need to curb the demand for Thneeds, but we also need to prevent Oncelers from becoming Oncelers. However, our market economics driven world system makes this a hard task. Hard, but not impossible. We just need to adjust the system to encourage the development of Loraxes rather than Oncelers. Again, very, very difficult to do, but completely possible. Look at how far we have "progressed" in just the last few hundred years--or even in just the last few decades!
On a final note, I really liked Professor Maniates (and hopefully he won't read this blog post). He easily conveys his genuine interest in the topic, and his nice personality enouraged me to really try to think about what he was saying--not just critically analyze the logic behind his arguments, but also figure out where I really stand for each of the points of the triangle. And while I'm pretty happy with my score, I'm even now reconsidering and reconsidering points made in our discussion.
HN (Human Nature) - 4
SC (Social Change) - 2
ES (Environmental Strategies) - 3
The trinity of despair exercise was, in my opinion, a good exercise in critical thinking. I think I misunderstood Mr. Maniates when he asked us about human nature; he distinguishes between selfishness and self-interest, stating that humans by nature have a high degree of self interest, yet are not actually selfish, but to me they are essentially the same thing. Self-interest becomes selfishness when one person's self-interest conflicts with that of another person, and both are disinclined to compromise.
As evidenced by the (comparatively) low value I gave to social change, I agree with Mr. Maniates that social change is not an issue in which everybody needs to be on board. I'm completely with him on the whole "it only takes a few really motivated people to make a difference" bit. We don't need a ton of people on completely board the environmental issue, we just need a few people to work hard to change our system to make it simple for a gamut of people with differing viewpoints to find it in their best interests (as well as in the best interests of the planet) to (grudgingly or not) assist reducing humanity's environmental impact.
On the third point of the Triangle/Trinity of Despair, environmental strategies, I opted for the safe middleground. Our consumer-driven attack on the economic system is definitely something to keep pursuing, but it is not what will see the world though this environmental crisis. After all, humans are diverse creatures, and there will always be someone who will want to buy a Thneed, and there will always be a Onceler willing to make and sell it to him. Consequently, we not only need to curb the demand for Thneeds, but we also need to prevent Oncelers from becoming Oncelers. However, our market economics driven world system makes this a hard task. Hard, but not impossible. We just need to adjust the system to encourage the development of Loraxes rather than Oncelers. Again, very, very difficult to do, but completely possible. Look at how far we have "progressed" in just the last few hundred years--or even in just the last few decades!
On a final note, I really liked Professor Maniates (and hopefully he won't read this blog post). He easily conveys his genuine interest in the topic, and his nice personality enouraged me to really try to think about what he was saying--not just critically analyze the logic behind his arguments, but also figure out where I really stand for each of the points of the triangle. And while I'm pretty happy with my score, I'm even now reconsidering and reconsidering points made in our discussion.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The glass is half full...
Like Leigh Ann, I have to agree that the message McDonough and Braungart deliver in Cradle to Cradle is rather optimistic. This is not necessarily a bad thing because frankly, there are too many pessimists out there. I do not think their vision is necessarily idealistic either. Most people don't realize how much they actually waste. It's sad to know that sometimes, it just can't be helped. Like Leigh Ann pointed out about the layers of packaging, what could I possibly do with all the packaging? Is it possible to save some of it for some random use...maybe...BUT wouldn't it be smarter to stop wasting right at the beginning of the assembly line?
I think a lot of us are under the impression that we can go on with our normal routines, as long as we minimize our impact in certain ways. So, if Peson A decides to ride their bike instead of driving their car, they may feel that it's okay to add to the cycle of overconsumption and being completely wasteful. I think McDonough and Braungart provide the little speck of hope that many of us need to see and hear. Some may certainly brush off their hopeful thinking, but what good is world if hope does not exist?
I think a lot of us are under the impression that we can go on with our normal routines, as long as we minimize our impact in certain ways. So, if Peson A decides to ride their bike instead of driving their car, they may feel that it's okay to add to the cycle of overconsumption and being completely wasteful. I think McDonough and Braungart provide the little speck of hope that many of us need to see and hear. Some may certainly brush off their hopeful thinking, but what good is world if hope does not exist?
Cradle to Cradle is Possible!
I really like the Cradle to Cradle message that McDonough and Braungart spell out in their book. I think that although it seems optimistic, it is achievable. Today we are in a cradle to grave economy, a one way, linear system in which things are designed for the dumpster. They say that 90% of durable goods become waste almost immediately (29). Manufactures try to impose universal design solutions, and a brute-force approach to designing. In this scenario, all approaches should be the same, and specialized circumstances do not come into play. I really notice this fact each time I go to the grocery store. Everything comes individually wrapped, in 5 layers, and as soon as I open my food, I immediately throw the packaging away. There has to be a way to do this in a smarter, greener fashion. It is possible!
In the movie The Next Industrial Revolution we got to see these design principles in action. A building was designed to generate more power than it used, carpet was designed to be chemical free and of biodegradable materials, and even Nike and Ford have signed on to change some of their manufacturing. If giant corporations like Nike and Ford Motor can try these methods, anyone can. It might take a little extra money, but at such a large company that will probably go unnoticed. I believe the authors are on the right track, and that design is truly the first signal of human intention. Let’s design a world where we waste less, and let’s try to stop being bad in the first place, instead of simply “less bad”. With all the doom and gloom that comes along with this class (it’s the truth, what can you do?), it is refreshing to see people who are working in a positive way for change. It can be done, and hopefully it will be done!
In the movie The Next Industrial Revolution we got to see these design principles in action. A building was designed to generate more power than it used, carpet was designed to be chemical free and of biodegradable materials, and even Nike and Ford have signed on to change some of their manufacturing. If giant corporations like Nike and Ford Motor can try these methods, anyone can. It might take a little extra money, but at such a large company that will probably go unnoticed. I believe the authors are on the right track, and that design is truly the first signal of human intention. Let’s design a world where we waste less, and let’s try to stop being bad in the first place, instead of simply “less bad”. With all the doom and gloom that comes along with this class (it’s the truth, what can you do?), it is refreshing to see people who are working in a positive way for change. It can be done, and hopefully it will be done!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust
I liked what McDonough had to say in Cradle to Cradle. The implications of how toxic-filled an environment we live in, with toxins in just about everything we eat, wear, or use, waiting to get out through unorthodox usage of those materials was not what impacted me the most. Rather, what struck me most was the clarity and optimism given to the vision of technology and eco-friendliness living side by side.
A great deal of environmentalist action is dedicated towards, as metioned in Cradle to Cradle, a vicious battle between economic growth and environmental protection. However, this does not have to be so, and in that respect I think McDonoughs use of the materials of Cradle to Cradle to make that point is to thier credit. The point, since I don't think I am being very clear, is that humans do not have to technologically downscale themselves, or sacrifice economic progress in order to pursue environmental protection. It doesn't ahve to be a zero-sum equation. Prevailing attitudes towards relationship between the two claim that we shouldn't solely rely on technological progress to save ourselves from our own destruction. While this is true, that doesn't mean that we can't rely on technology to help us. We don't need to revert to being hunter-gatherers to save the planet. As McDonough mentioned, innovation is what brought humans the sort of affluence we now have.
The only problem with the innovation was that it was poorly designed. Misguided technology, if you will. But in the cases where technology has been successful in making people happier and/or healthier, while not being detrimental to the environment, most people will think that they want to continue pursuing the technological path, advancing our society.
So why not? Let's continue to innovate. But from now on let's try to make sure we're doing it right. One saying may go "history repeats itself," but another tells us to "learn from our mistakes." Let's shoot for the latter, one, and start printing books from entirely reuseable (not reuseable in the downgrading sense, but in the Cradle to Cradle sense) paper, and start designing our lives to be not only environmentally friendly, but economically progressive. The technology that humanity is so proud of should not have to come at the cost of a ruined planet or a burdened conscience.
To say that having the "recycle, reuse, reduce" slogan I grew up with so easily overthrown is unsettling is an understatement, but I think most of what McDonough and Braungart have to say consists of viable optimism. For the moment, I'm a convert. The ideas behind Cradle to Cradle seem sound: McDonough and Braungart are trying to solve our problems by looking at all sides of the equation.
A great deal of environmentalist action is dedicated towards, as metioned in Cradle to Cradle, a vicious battle between economic growth and environmental protection. However, this does not have to be so, and in that respect I think McDonoughs use of the materials of Cradle to Cradle to make that point is to thier credit. The point, since I don't think I am being very clear, is that humans do not have to technologically downscale themselves, or sacrifice economic progress in order to pursue environmental protection. It doesn't ahve to be a zero-sum equation. Prevailing attitudes towards relationship between the two claim that we shouldn't solely rely on technological progress to save ourselves from our own destruction. While this is true, that doesn't mean that we can't rely on technology to help us. We don't need to revert to being hunter-gatherers to save the planet. As McDonough mentioned, innovation is what brought humans the sort of affluence we now have.
The only problem with the innovation was that it was poorly designed. Misguided technology, if you will. But in the cases where technology has been successful in making people happier and/or healthier, while not being detrimental to the environment, most people will think that they want to continue pursuing the technological path, advancing our society.
So why not? Let's continue to innovate. But from now on let's try to make sure we're doing it right. One saying may go "history repeats itself," but another tells us to "learn from our mistakes." Let's shoot for the latter, one, and start printing books from entirely reuseable (not reuseable in the downgrading sense, but in the Cradle to Cradle sense) paper, and start designing our lives to be not only environmentally friendly, but economically progressive. The technology that humanity is so proud of should not have to come at the cost of a ruined planet or a burdened conscience.
To say that having the "recycle, reuse, reduce" slogan I grew up with so easily overthrown is unsettling is an understatement, but I think most of what McDonough and Braungart have to say consists of viable optimism. For the moment, I'm a convert. The ideas behind Cradle to Cradle seem sound: McDonough and Braungart are trying to solve our problems by looking at all sides of the equation.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Lorax: Revisited
While individual action is good and dandy,
You have to be a citizen if you want to be handy.
Riding a bike, planting some trees;
That’s a good start, but it won’t save the wallabies.
Gather your friends, start a movement,
This is the true road to improvement.
Take some action, find your gumption,
Let’s steer away from consumption.
Take a step back and look all around,
Solutions are here, they need to be found.
Two heads are better than one, five better than four;
To work towards a bright future, with possibilities galore.
Your government, that’s who you should ask;
So far, they haven’t been up to the task.
“Please, do you have any good ideas?
The world is warming up, from here to Tanzania!”
Don’t wait until you’re twenty or thirty,
By then, the air will be much too dirty.
Be strong and make your voice be heard;
After all, what’s wrong with getting the Earth insured?
So perk up your ears for here is what I recommend;
Mother Nature is our buddy, and it is she whom we must defend.
For without her there would be no mountains or the deep blue sea,
Now start a revolution, aujourd’hui!
You have to be a citizen if you want to be handy.
Riding a bike, planting some trees;
That’s a good start, but it won’t save the wallabies.
Gather your friends, start a movement,
This is the true road to improvement.
Take some action, find your gumption,
Let’s steer away from consumption.
Take a step back and look all around,
Solutions are here, they need to be found.
Two heads are better than one, five better than four;
To work towards a bright future, with possibilities galore.
Your government, that’s who you should ask;
So far, they haven’t been up to the task.
“Please, do you have any good ideas?
The world is warming up, from here to Tanzania!”
Don’t wait until you’re twenty or thirty,
By then, the air will be much too dirty.
Be strong and make your voice be heard;
After all, what’s wrong with getting the Earth insured?
So perk up your ears for here is what I recommend;
Mother Nature is our buddy, and it is she whom we must defend.
For without her there would be no mountains or the deep blue sea,
Now start a revolution, aujourd’hui!
The Lorax?
It's time to take some action
We need a defense reaction
That will take up arms against those who pollute
No longer can the world afford to just follow suite.
-
This is a story of a sphere of land
Where once upon a time there was no supply or demand
This place was called Earth
And this Earth gave birth
To googles of life that lived their lives with great mirth
The Earth looked so blue
Because it not only had land, there were oceans too
And the Garoos and Hifters that lived in that place
With their neighboring Barows and Nebuls did deeply embrace
Their own love of the different shapes
The land and ocean and air would take
In Barroulous caverns the Barows lived with Spekows and Kains
While Garoos and Hifters lived upon wide open plains
And the Nebuls swam among coral reefs in deep blue water
Little did any of them know
That their good friends the Rotoh
Were beginning to discover things about their planet
Such as how to make countertops out of granite
That one day would lead to their slaughter
We need a defense reaction
That will take up arms against those who pollute
No longer can the world afford to just follow suite.
-
This is a story of a sphere of land
Where once upon a time there was no supply or demand
This place was called Earth
And this Earth gave birth
To googles of life that lived their lives with great mirth
The Earth looked so blue
Because it not only had land, there were oceans too
And the Garoos and Hifters that lived in that place
With their neighboring Barows and Nebuls did deeply embrace
Their own love of the different shapes
The land and ocean and air would take
In Barroulous caverns the Barows lived with Spekows and Kains
While Garoos and Hifters lived upon wide open plains
And the Nebuls swam among coral reefs in deep blue water
Little did any of them know
That their good friends the Rotoh
Were beginning to discover things about their planet
Such as how to make countertops out of granite
That one day would lead to their slaughter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)