Open Blog #1

ast week was Earth Week.  Sustainable Carolina had many events planned for the week, including Sounds of Sustainability, a concert type event held in the Green Quad on Tuesday evening.  As part of the Marketing Team, I attended the event to assist as needed, and just be a part of the event.  Anyone was welcome to come, and over the course of the four hours the event was held many different people stopped by to enjoy the activities.  To start of the evening, a few DJs set up and performed.  There two DJs who performed had two unique styles, and both of which were a blast to listen to.  There was a girl and her guitar, performing a nice set of both original songs as well as a few delightful covers.  To finish off the evening, a full band setup and performed, again a nice sampling of both cover songs and original material.  Though the name suggests a simple concert, Sounds of Sustainability had many other activities to enjoy or take part in.  There was an urban artist, doing a live painting while the concert was held.  This was particularly interesting as he setup a canvas and used both spray paint and traditional paint brushes to complete his work.  There was also hoola hooping going on, as well as face painting and snacks and drinks to be enjoyed by all.  Overall I would say it was a great success.

Blog #14

What surprised you about the process of EnvironmentalPolicy? Do you think that the U.S. Senate should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?Why or why not. Why do you think creatal policyis so difficult locally, nationally, and internationally? Should communities andlocal government do more on a local level to create environmental policy? Whatenvironmental issues would you like to see addressed by policy makers?

It always surprises me how much environmental policy we actually lack at the government level.  I'm equally surprised at how difficult it is to pass new legislation that could help protect the environment. I don't believe I know enough of the facts on the Kyoto protocol to actually make an educated decision about whether or not the US should have signed on.  I do know that whether we sign it or not, we do need some legislation put in place to protect the earth from the utter destruction we cause on a daily basis, mostly in the name of money.  I also think that acting on the local level may be more effective for this movement. Once many local areas have laws and regulations they will form a network of concerted efforts which surely will make a difference.  Additionally, I am a strong believer in education and personal action. We all contribute to the problem, its time for us to realize this and become educated on how we can personally contribute to the protection of our planet.

Blog #13

What do you think of ecofeminism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?

Before I read the articles, I was under the impression that ecofeminism was concerned with associating the oppression of women with the oppression of the environment.   I had heard a little about it in a 'Human Impact on the Environment'  course, and was familiar with it's association of male dominance and environmental destruction, but the topic was only briefly introduced, so after reading the articles I can see how the ecofeminist view fits into real issues like monoculture farming practices.   

I liked the Huffington Post article with Vandana Shiva.  I've actually seen her before in a documentary called 'Dirt'.  I thought it was really cool she decided to leave the academic world because they were only concerned with helping the large farming conglomerates.  The fact that she would stand up for what she believed in and start a business that would assist small farmers is incredibly admirable.

From the second article I found the section on patriarchal dualism to be of particular interest.  I can see that by diametrically opposing two concepts it can lead toward the tendency of viewing one a superior and one as inferior.  I think the concept of the yin yang and it's symbol is some ancient knowledge that purveys the same message.  The yin yang is not to be viewed merely as a static symbol where white and black are divided, but it represents a motion, a swirling vortex where yin and yang are interconnected and one.  When the yin yang spins fast enough it would simply appear as a grey circle to the human eye.  White and black (yin and yang) no longer separate, no longer distinguishable from one another.

Blog #11

My parents are both Christians, and they raised me in a Christian home.  Though I don't consider myself  a Christian in the traditional sense, my personal morals were definitely influenced by Christian values, and I do believe this makes me more receptive to the concept of Spiritual Ecology.  Like I said I don't consider myself a Christian, not do I like to adopt any "religion" so to speak, but  I would consider myself spiritual, and live by a strong moral code I've developed throughout my life.  I think it's incredibly important to feel a deeper spiritual connection, but I feel like a lot of people, even those who subscribe to a religion, are not even concerned with the spiritual aspect of their life.  Some people who don't claim a religion are scared away from spirituality because they see it as the same thing.  This is why I feel like Spiritual Ecology is rather interesting.  It can be seen from a religious, or non-religious viewpoint, and therefore it is not exclusive, but rather inclusive.  

The Gaia hypothesis is pretty damn cool in my opinion.  I mean, I've always kind of viewed the Earth as a mother, ever since I was young I've been kinda romantically attached to the spiritual idea of Mother Earth.  It just always made sense in my mind that the earth supports us, and a mother supporting her child is just a microcosm of this same idea.  Now here with the Gaia hypothesis, we have James Lovelock, a highly educated former NASA employee who's saying the same thing, only backing it up with science. I think whether or not you agree with it, you have to admit, its pretty interesting.

Blog #10

Social ecology is quite interesting, and it follows similar lines to deep ecology, though not quite so "deep".  Like deep ecology, social ecology sees life on earth as an interconnected web, where all life is interdependent.  It sees hierarchy as an unnatural system of control, and views our entire society as hierarchical, and as so, problematic.  I can kind of relate to this.  I feel like hierarchical systems are divisory by their very nature, yet what are we dividing?  Dividing parts of a ecological system that we're also a part of.  It is this very system that allowed us (humans) to come into existence, yet, we see it as imperfect, and something that can be divided and destroyed without consequence.  I think a much better quality of life can be had by all if we worked together, instead of viewing everything as a competition.

Blog #9

I would have to say I agree with the 7 principles of Deep Ecology. I've always felt all the knowledge gained by the scientific world is only useful if it means something in the big picture. I mean, I would have to believe that the scientific mind originally sprang from mans attempt to understand the world on a deeper level, yet through time it has become quite compartmentalized, and an attempt at a synthesis of information and a "what does this all mean" questioning attitude has been pushed to the back burner. 

To combine a few popular aphorisms; if knowledge is power, and with great power comes great responsibility, then we have the responsibility to be concerned with the big picture. We can use the information we've gained to further isolate ourselves from the rest of the living world, or we can use it to bring us closer to an understanding of the interdependence of all things.

Genetic research has allowed us to take a closer look at DNA. There can be two different views of this information. One sees the incredible similarities of all living things, and does not feel so different from other forms of life. The other sees man as superior, and wonders what differences in our coding makes us "better" or separate from the rest of the natural world.

Take a look at quantum physics, and what it is saying about how the world operates. If the mere act of observation affects the outcome of any phenomena, what does this imply about connection in the world around us. A deep ecologist sees this as evidence of the interconnected nature of reality, and realizes that nothing is separate no matter how different it seems. If matter and energy are equivalent, then everything is just energy. Everything is everything. If the big bang occurred as theorized, it automatically implies that everything in the universe is the same thing just stretched out and interacting. One point of energy expanded.

Now for personal experience that has increased my sensitivity to the idea of deep ecology. I had an epiphany one day, standing on my porch, observing the world. It was a beautiful day. The kind of day that just makes you feel grateful to be alive. I was standing on my porch, looking up at the sky, when I noticed a hawk flying over head. It was just riding air waves, circling my area, effortlessly, peacefully. So much so I began to wonder if it were possible to discern where the wind ended and the hawk began. I began to wonder what the hawk was thinking, what does it feel like to be a hawk? I imagined trading consciousnesses with the hawk, imagining I was that hawk, flying in the air. What I felt was an incredible peacefulness. It is absolutely amazing, to be up so high with such an omniscient viewpoint, being so powerful, yet, only using its power to feed itself what it needs to survive. To live and be, and have that be enough. The hawk at any time could swoop down and slash a human with its fierce talons then back into the sky, yet he doesn't. He doesn't even think like that, even though it could be argued we would deserve it if it were to happen, for the atrocities we've already brought upon the earth. All these thoughts went through my head at the time.

After I went inside I contemplated the experience for a moment, and realized its significance in my life. Sounds kinda crazy I know, but I'd recommend everyone try it at some time, when you're feeling receptive and open to the experience. I've come to do it, more and more, and always enjoy it, even if only for the fun. After all, if you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong.

Blog #8

I believe the only true precondition necessary for using consensus decision making in a group, is the willingness of the group to participate in making a consensus decision. Depending on the situation a facilitator, or someone to help follow the process and make sure everyone is fairly heard. The willingness, however, is the real precondition. Everyone has an opinion on the matter, and by hearing everyone, only then can a consensus decision be made, but this also means participation is required. The strengths are numerous, as decisions that the whole can support are often come to. It is empowering to people, to have their voice heard, and to be part of the process, actively and equally. Another huge advantage would appear to come with time, in that it would bring a group closer together, as by the mere act of participation people would get to know each other on a much more intimate level than merely “neighbor” or “coworker”. The only weakness I can see to the principle comes in on the large scale, where it could potentially take a long time to come to consensus, or if you had a number of people unwilling to participate in a fair manner, and instead becoming negative.