Indigenous Resistance Response

I was blown away by this article. It is crazy how our society/culture tends to hide and not speak about the times when things like this has happened. I can't believe that the US tried so hard to assimilate this group of people into our culture. It makes me wonder why? Why have things like this happened? Why don't more people know? It shocks me that Americans forced religion on them, because our country was rooted in religious freedom. It is so contradictory of Americans. 

Here is where you can post your reflection/response to my presentation!

Meatrix Response

This video did a great job of getting a big concept/issue through to the audience in a very short amount of time. These videos basically alerted the audience about the issue of factory farming, and how factory farming leads to even more problems itself. This can definitely be related to the Raleigh area because we live in a city where we don't see farms. All we see is grocery stores and we don't think twice about where the meat comes from. For my next paper, I want to research if there is anywhere in Raleigh to purchase meat from a "family farm" rather than a "factory farm." Because as of right now, I don't know of any.

Biotechnology Response

This article, in my opinion, does a good job of explaining their argument of the need for biotechnology. It starts out by explaining the need for more efficient farming, or more food. This shows the audience that there actually is a problem, because some in the audience might be skeptical and think that everything is fine when it comes to food. Then, it explains all the methods we have been using (such as charity relief programs) and why these will not and do not work in the long term. Then, it introduces the concept of biotechnology. It discusses what it means to genetically alter crops, and explains why it is the best way to find a solution for the problem of world hunger. However, there is not enough money in the economy to finance this, and that is an issue. All in all, I think this article does a good job at profiling this issue and explaining what needs to be done, and how it needs to be done.

Fracking Response

This article discusses fracking, and its environmental consequences. Fracking is a way for companies to get oil out of rocks and it is dangerous to the environment. For example, in 2008 the EPA took water samples from residents’ houses and wells and found hydrocarbons, as well as contaminants in what they thought was clean water. These pollutants were most likely due to fracking. Even after the EPA drilled wells, they realized that the fracking really was causing environmental effects, and negative ones at that.

Personally, I believe that this issue is serious because we do not want our environment to be in bad condition. However, it is already in bad condition and we do not want to make it worse! By fracking, we are definitely taking a step in the wrong direction and I really do wish we would not frack. In the Oakland Press, they suggest that fracking needs in to be highly regulated, or not be an optino at all. They say that fracking can lead to “skin rashes, respiratory infections, and tumors.” Obvious fracking is an extremely serious issue and it is really sad that some people have to deal with these extremely negative consequences directly.

Environmental History Artifact

This post had the potential to be a really neat post; however, I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for! This website: http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/04/03/cuban-coastline-retreat-up-to-2-5-meters/ explains that the Cuban coast is receding approximately 1.5 meters each year. I was hoping to find a map with the change over time to show how this is considered to be environmental history. However, there is not a helpful map for this, so I'm just going to stick with the website. This site doesn't say what is causing the problem, it just identifies Cuba to have a problem with receding coastlines.

Free Write - Shit People Say

The video we saw in class today was meant to be funny, but in my opinion it is only funny when you have a personal connection with the word in the middle of shit and say. For example, I've seen "Shit Girls Say" and it was hilarious because I know exactly what it was making fun of, and I experience it pretty much every day. I'm not really a yoga person, so this video, "Shit Yogis say" was not as funny because I do not have a personal connection to yogis. I've done yoga maybe once or twice, but that's about it. I've also seen "Shit App Students Don't Say." Parts of this were really funny to me because I have friends that go to App, and they tell me about different experiences they have, and about the sterotypical people that go to App. However, it was not funny in its entirety because  I do not go to App, and do not have a strong personal connection to App. This is why it is important to find out who your audience is, and what the main idea you want to convey to them is.

Response to Kahn

Richard Kahn’s “Toward Ecopedagogy” is the first article for this class that I have not enjoyed reading. He spends a good portion of the article throwing out facts about the environment: mass extinction statistics, pollution levels, etc. If one is reading this article, obviously he/she knows that the environment is in danger and that is due mainly to human activities. Kahn could have reduced the four pages he spends explaining environmental problems to probably one page, and it would have had just the same effect. This rhetorical strategy Kahn uses is meant to have a drastic impact on the audience, when reality it bores the audience and serves little purpose.

After Kahn’s pages of extended environmental information, he finally starts the article about four pages by stating that environmental revolution “will require a pedagogical revolution equal to its present socio-economic counterpart.” Once he starts explaining this main idea, the rest of the article picks up and is much more interesting and informative. Kahn uses the example of the “Zoo School” as a rhetorical strategy to mention an environmental initiative that on the surface seems to be benefitting the students as well as the environment by teaching the students valuable environmental skills. Kahn then picks apart this model and explains why it is not useful, and why it is not helpful ecopedagogy. This is a strength of Kahn’s that is highly effective because it helps the audience understand what exactly ecopedagogy is. However, once again this portion of the article is too long and too drawn out. It would be much more effective if Kahn was more concise with his explanations because the reader would have an easier time at knowing exactly what Kahn is suggesting.

Though I do agree with Kahn’s major points, that ecopedagogy is an integral part of environmental revolution, I do not think his rhetorical strategies are the best way to convey this information to the audience. Ecopedagogy is definitely necessary, and our education system should have a reform in which they include ecopedagogy in the curriculum. However, this article is not persuasive enough to convince the public that this is necessary. It is too long and too drawn out for most readers to pay attention to. Kahn should be much more “to the point” so that his audience does not get lost in translation and in turn stop reading. 

Response to Postel Discussion

I enjoyed hearing all of the opinions on Postel's water article. However, it seemed in class that everyone pretty much agreed with Postel, and nobody challenged what she wrote. Our class as a whole agreed that we needed to be more water conservative. Also, I think most of our class was as surprised as I was that water was even an issue. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWiabqZ1isE Dr. Peter Evans  speaks about the importance of renewable energy. About halfway through the video, Dan Walter, General manager of Food and Beverage Energy Solutions at GE speaks about the importance of water conservation, more specifically. I am more interested to hear Mr. Walter's advice and opinions on the subject, which he did not elaborate on due to it being such a short video. I am astonished at how much water it takes to make food and beverage, and would love to know more details on that subject.

In the featured Patagonia story, the speaker is desperate and disappointed and hoping that the river gets bigger and better than it used to be. In the following clip, the character named Fred falls into the well. He is desperate and nervous that he will not be rescued. At 16:41 in this video, he is rescued and has a sense of relief and happiness, just like the speaker felt relief and happiness when he saw the gorgeous river.

http://www.fastpasstv.ms/watch/?url=3uXn46ChlNzr7Z%2Fh4tzT0tTqpNTi4JXozsnZ5aDs1ODn3t6r2emq2d%2FU

“Water: Adapting to a New Normal”

Summary and Response

In her article, Sandra Postel explains the impact that water (or lack there of) has in our environment. She explains that we are currently using more water than we should, and if we keep on the track that we are on then we will eventually run out of water. Postel does not give one solid answer for how to solve the problem; however, she gives multiple answers on a smaller scale that she argues will fix the water and energy problems. As a whole, Postel identifies various water problems, gives examples, and analyzes each issue by finding a solution to fixing the problem.

There are multiple problems that our world has that focuses on water. In the past few decades, there have been fatal floods, storms, droughts, dams break, and famines. Though one could maybe make an excuse about one or two of these natural disasters, because all of these are happening, it is not just a coincidence. Postel points out that many American may think that these events only happen in far away, third world countries. She argues that is not the case, and mentions many devastating floods that have happened in American in the past few years. After reading the first couple pages of Postel’s article, it is obvious that there is a water problem on our earth.

Next, Postel explains how important it is that we reverse the water problem. She connects energy and water, and argues that we need one to have another. Therefore, she says that lawmakers are in fact harmful when they try to protect either energy or water, because it makes the other worse. Though I won’t go into detail of how Postel explains we can solve these problems, all in all Postel would like farmers to use a drip irrigation system to avoid waste, for everyone to eat at least half of the meat they are currently eating, and create laws in order for these to go into effect. 

I found Postel’s article extremely intriguing. Call me ignorant, but I had no clue that water was an issue in the slightest. Since we see rain all the time, it seems like it is readily available to us. Not only rain, but when we go to the grocery store, there are shelves of water bottles that seem to be readily available. I can get up out of my bed and turn on the faucet within a matter of thirty seconds. Once again, readily available. I think that many people in the United States, as well as other industrialized countries do not realize there is a water problem because water seems to be so readily available. Maybe the way to solve the problem involves making the public aware of the problem. Everyone knows how the saying goes: “don’t fix something that isn’t broken.” If not enough people view the lack of water as a problem, then there will not be enough effort to actually fix the problem. This is the way multiple environmental problems are. It’s sad, but true. In my opinion, the first key to saving the environment is somehow coming together to educate the public on this water problem in order to take a step in the right direction. 

I agree with Postel on the subsidies. It makes so much sense to try and encourage farmers protect the environment. Sometimes it seems like we can do all the begging we want, but in the end it is the money that matters. This is why lawmakers need to figure out a way to financially support farmers who strive to protect the environment from erosion, runoff, etc.  I do believe that if farmers were given an incentive, then they would be able to improve this problem we are having, as well as others. I remember learning about hog “factory farms” in my sociology class last semester. In North Carolina, we went from thousands of small hog farms to only twenty-five large farm factories. This resulted in an extreme excess of hog poop. Who would have thought of that? The farmers had so much hog poop that they didn’t know what to do with it, so they started dumping it in these huge holes in the ground. Eventually, the poop did much more “harm” than the hogs did “good”. This is yet another reason why lawmakers need to make serious laws that prohibit farmers from pollution and waste. Not only farmers, but factory owners and companies should be part of the law as well. In my opinion, the second key to saving the environment is making and enforcing new (and perhaps) extreme laws. 

One might say that this plan of educating the public, and then creating laws is too simple, and that it wouldn’t work because it would only affect the amount of impact the United States has on the environment rather than all the countries of the world. This is my third key to success: I think we need to find a way to bond with other countries in order to make a lasting impact. I’m not sure the best way to do this because I’m sure many have had this idea. However, we should not give up until we succeed! If I tell you to breathe, will you “try” to breathe? NO! You will  breathe! This is why we should come together as nations of the world, not just “try” to come together as nations of the world and give up when it is harder than it seemed. Of course it is difficult, but it is worth saving our planet. So, the three keys to success are: 1) educate the public; 2) make laws; 3) bond with other countries in order to achieve success!

A major environmental issue that would call for an island civilization in the future is mammal extinction. This is a bigger deal than a lot of people think because all of the animals are interconnected and if one species becomes extinct, it has a bigger effect than one might think. Here is a link to a scholarly article that explains in detail the issue.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5247304803m6535/

"Island Civilization" Summary & Review

     This article by Nash is extremely interesting and thought provoking. Nash is extremely concerned about the future of our planet and well being. In his mind, there is proof that humans can not continue the growing trend that they are on. Humans are reproducing too often, soaking up too many resources, stealing wilderness from other species, and not caring about the sustainability (or lack their of) of their environment and/or planet. Nash thinks that there are four possibilities for what is going to happen to our planet in the fourth millennium. The first possibility is a wasteland in which every bit of “goodness” is used up and humans are left with a wasteland for a planet. The second possibility is what Nash calls the garden scenario in which humans have found a way to modify every part of the planet without biodiversity or any other species. The third possibility is one where technological advances were no where to be found and technology was completely abandoned. The last scenario (Nash’s proposal) is titled Island Civilization. This is an idea in which humans have various islands on the planet and are completely sustainable within their islands. Outside of the islands, animals have completely dominance over the wilderness. If humans choose to go outside of their island and into the wilderness. it must live within the wilderness rather than take over the wilderness by building a house, etc. Nash firmly believes that this is the best option for the future and believes it is possible in its entirety, but humans are currently lacking motivation.

While Nash’s idea of island civilization seems to me to be appealing, I think it is completely bogus. Yes, it is obvious to all that something needs to be done about the environment. Yes, it is obvious to all that we cannot live the way we are currently living forever. Yes, it is obvious humans do not care much about the existence of other species. However, I am a believe that everything happens for a reason. I am confident in the human race that we will be able to figure this out without going to drastic measures and completely reorganizing the entire planet, as Nash wants us to do. I do believe that it is the government’s responsibility to step forward and write legislation that supports the environment because humans will not change their ways on their own, rather they will only change their ways when punishment is threatened. This is why the government needs to get involved. 

Another reason that I do not approve of Nash’s island civilization model is because what if we never make it to the fourth millennium to begin with? What if God comes back before the millennium and saves the Christians and sends everybody else to hell? Then we have done an extreme amount of work reorganizing the planet, but were not able to reap the benefits before God came back. What if God knows that humans were going to suck all of the resources out of the planet and was planning to come back to save them before humans ruined everything completely? God knows exactly where we are headed and I am not fearful that we will have to live in a wasteland.