Class blog
From Drmills
Class Blog
Instructions: Copy your blog post from your personal portfolio to this class blog page. Your blog posts can be just about anything you want to write that is relevant to our topics. Your posts might include a running narrative of your personal reactions to what your are learning, your opinions about things, a brief review of an article or book you found interesting, additional material that you wrote that was not included in the wiki because it was too detailed or too specific, a list of links to information that your classmates may find of interest, etc. And, any combination of the above. You can blog about pretty much anything you want -- so tap into your creativity. This blog is open to the web, so don't include personal information that you do not want the entire world to have access to.
Remember to sign your post with four tilde ~ characters (which will automatically insert your user name and the date/time when you click on Save).
Contents |
Blog posts for Portfolio #6
Earth Day
Happy Earth Day! At the elementary school I work at, we all wore blue and green and turned off the lights all day in support of Earth Day! I must say that after taking this class I have become so much more aware of the environment and things that we do that hurt it. Recently, I was with a friend who was printing out directions from her computer. She printed out one copy, but it didn't print the map. So of course she had to print out another copy! She ended up printing out 3 copies of the directions and when I told her she could recycle the other 2 pages that she didn't need, and she just laughed and threw it in the trash! I couldn't believe! Even something small like that now gets me annoyed! I constantly am thinking about what I throw in the trash or the recycling bin, if I turn the lights out when I leave a room and if I turn the air conditioning on. I really think its been beneficial to understand the risks and benefits certain actions have on our environment. And now that we are graduating, its important to realize that as we go out into the world we should be advocates for a green culture!AConner 10:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Careers and the future, hmm...
When Dr. Mills asked us if our future plans had changed, I had to think seriously about what I want to do with my life. I always thought I'd work directly with people either as a counsellor, non-profit employee, or maybe even a social worker. After this class, I think I won't be happy if I'm not doing something about the fact that we've totally screwed ourselves over ecologically. If I'm not contributing to the solution, then I might as well be the biggest consumer/polluter/waster of all. I don't think I can go through life knowing that these problems exist and just continue unchanged. It's far to frightening and I feel like the only way to reduce my fear is to make changes in public policies that have environmental impacts (which is virtually all of them). It's true that a conversation about art, happiness, or even justice means nothing if the environment is not our top priority. I guess an eco-centered career is the only way I'll be able to feel fulfilled--or "get happy" as they say.Malonso 01:31, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Blog posts for Portfolio #5
Green-Chic?
I live with three other girls besides myself, and we are each subscribed to number of different fashion magazines. With the growing concern for environmental destruction, I have seen an increasing number of environmental campaigns and advertisements urging people to take action by recycling, buying green products, and cutting down on behaviors that are detrimental to the environment. These environmental efforts seem to have been magnified within just the past year, as it is becoming difficult to watch television or read anything that does not warn of environmental consequences. I received my latest subscription to Elle this past week, and one of the topics on the front cover was “The Green Issue! Your favorite designers go eco-chic!” I was absolutely shocked that the fashion industry is even getting involved in the environmental concern! I love it, it is absolutely everywhere now… people cannot keep ignoring these issues!! So I decided to Google “green fashion” and the search results were absolutely overwhelming!! I found this article titled “The Green Guide” (http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/116/seasonless) while I was going through my Google results which I thought was interesting. I definitely urge everyone, especially women, to consider incorporating green products into their fashion just as we incorporate environmentally-friendly behaviors such as recycling into our daily lives! Think of it from a credibility standpoint… how can you boast about cleaning up the environment and promoting environmentally-friendly behavior if you are wearing the latest [materialistic] fashions (consumerism is one of the most significant problems when considering environmentally-destructive behavior)! Sgalich 20:10, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Echoing others
I recently found an interesting grad program that could be useful as well as intellectually challenging -- Food, Agriculture and Environment at Tufts in Boston. It has been hard for me to reconcile goals of wanting to study further in grad school but also knowing that, depending on what discipline I choose, it could be totally useless information when shit hits the fan like Christina was saying. Recently I read this book Straw Dogs that I would recommend to everyone (I've already shoved it down a few friends' throats)! It is a work of philosophy on humans/other animals offering a posthumanist perspective and taking into account Green thought, neo-Darwinism, Gaia theory, etc. It poses a lot of problems for an individual trying to decide how to act in the world after college though. I skipped the portfolio this week and opted to drop this grade because this is a really demanding class! I took it as an elective because the subject interested me and I'm glad I did, but I think everyone is finding it difficult to keep up with the porfolios and the material for the quizzes. It may seem that two weeks apart is generous, but it's really quite stringent. I am usually racing to finish and then want to take a break before I start working on the next one because I have a lot of other work too. It's hard to read several academic articles carefully, digest it, synthesize it, and reword it in your own way on time. Crogers 19:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
What Can We Do?
Recently I've been finding more and more difficult to find topics to do my portfolio's on. I search for psychology's help to our environmental problems and I have trouble doing so. Why is it that there's not a lot to be done? or Why is no one sharing this information with the world? PSYCHOLOGISTS: Don't keep this information to yourself!! It's frustrating thinking that the discipline you are studying doesn't seem to be as relevant to the issue as you would like. I'll keep searching for answers!AConner 18:32, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
A little bitter...I guess
One of the things I have learned about people by reading many of their opinions this semester, is that too many like to talk about their own thoughts too much. I know that I am doing the same thing right now, but that's because of a requirement, not because I'm filled with a false sense of self-importance. I don't know how so many people can feel as if they are bettering society by filling the internet with their own biased, often non-factually based, opinions. It's not that it is bad for people to vent, in general, or that it is bad for people to express their own feelings, I just don't like it when they do it in a publically accessable space. What ever happened to having a diary, or just opening up a word document and talking about what they think is going to happen. I've always felt like blogs were typically a cry for attention, or an affirmation of one's own self importance, but at least blogs are understood as being based solely on opinion. What frusturates me is when people spend time creating documentaries, video blogs, email groups, and websites that have very little warning about the page being full of BS, or based off of the fact that they had a crappy childhood and have spent most of their life being jaded. This semester has taught me as much about the environment as it has taught me about the wealth of crap that can be found online and in books. It's amazing what people can publish these days, and what people can claim to know asfact. I'm not sure if I've simply stumbled accross a lot of depressed people, but if I haven't I just can't imagine why people spend so much time predicting things about the future on a public website when they have so little expertise even I can prove them wrong. I know people need a place to write their opinion, and people have a right to be depressed, I just can't handle when they're depressed, jaded, or self-rightous on my clock.
Pferraiolo 20:04, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Burrito thoughts
Sitting at Chipotle with a few of my roommates, I decided to grab a bunch of plastic forks to take home. My friends asked me why I was taking a bunch. I tell them that it’s because sometimes all the metal forks and spoons get used up so I figured getting a lot for everyone’s convenience. One of my roommates responds by saying that I should just wash one of the dirty ones and use it. It’s easy for them to say that considering that he especially uses a fork for one thing and puts it into the sink and then a minute later grabs another one out of the drawer instead of reusing the same utensil. I one time saw this roommate use 3 forks and 2 spoons for one meal, one sitting, in one 30 minute period. My other roommates who were also scolding me are no better either. One drives a SUV to a place that’s one block away and goes through paper towels rolls like drinks at a bar. Another simply could care less about the environment in general. So I tell them that they’re worse than me about environmental awareness. Also, I make up some stuff about how washing dishes uses a lot of water, so it’s tough to tell what’s worse for the environment. I really didn’t know what I was saying, just defending myself in any way possible. I simply wanted to get some plastic forks just in case I needed one quickly. When I came back home and was sitting in front of the computer thinking about my day, basically day-dreaming, I somehow was disturbed by what happened at Chipotle. It wasn’t a big deal. I wasn’t mad at anyone or myself. We were basically joking around, giving each other a hard time a little. But the idea of me being wasteful and not conscious about the environment annoyed me enough, especially with the fact that I’m taking a college capstone course about this very thing. I finally realized that what happened can be paralleled to the grand issue of environmental sustainability or lack thereof. My experience was just a microcosm of it. I experienced denial at first in which I tried to excuse my behavior and justify it. But when I truly analyzed my argument, I knew that I was making up evidence and reasons so that I could argue back and not concede. I was a victim to conflict. I was comparing myself instead of judging myself based on my own values. When would I ever need a fork that quickly to the point that I couldn’t wash a few to use? How ridiculous did I sound? I’ve never in my life of 21 years had to use a fork on call. I needed to chill out. More importantly, I realized that the real reason why I got so many plastic forks was because I was too lazy to wash a few of the dirty forks from the sink. I wasn’t willing to sacrifice just a little of my time to clean for the sake of our shared environment. Instead I wanted everything to be easy for me, too easy. This problem is an example of what I think happens to a lot of people, they just aren’t willing to sacrifice their lifestyle. This is the ultimate problem of behavior change.
So now, the plastic forks are still there in the ruffled brown Chipotle bag but they aren’t being used. I now stand in front of the dishwasher and clean some forks to use for myself and for my roommates, which was no big deal in the first place. Maybe if they see that I’ve changed my perspective, they will too in being more thoughtful about their actions. Don’t get me wrong, I still have to improve some of the things I do, which I have to agree are still wasteful. But I’m glad I caught this problem and fixed it. Shyun 19:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Personal Pep Talk:
Ignorance is bliss! Unfortunately, I'm no longer ignorant to all of the crazy shite that's about to go down. I really wish I did not have to know this stuff. It's not good for my health... but I guess it's good for my future if I actually start to prepare now (unlikely). I'm a greedy little animal and right now, I want money - lots of it, so I can buy things now to have when money is just paper a no longer works. I want that machine that was featured on Colbert that turns swamp water to drinkable water. I want solar panels and a farm somewhere far away from everyone to put the solar panels on. I want a new, fuel-efficient car and enough gasoline to last me for a century. But what I want and what I can get right now are so different it makes me sick with worry. Instead of working to secure a future for myself, my money goes to rent, food, gas, debt and even more debt when my student loans come back to get me in the fall. I guess a lot of people are in my situation, but f*ck!
Ok. Worrying is no good. There are things I CAN do. I need to move to that suburban city in northern California (starts with a W) that is becoming completely sustainable. There, I won't be alone in my worry, and I'll be in a place where the people might be ok when shit hits the fan. This is definitely something I can do. I just need two years. I think things will hold up for that long. It's going to be OK...
Cvrooman 14:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Hybrids of all Types If I was going to get a car anytime soon I would definitely get a hybrid. However, that will not be happening anytime soon as to the expense that cars are. Lucky for me I get good gas mileage. My dad on the other hand recently totaled his car and is on the search for a new one. My dad usually is a money saver. I took this opportunity to try to get him to buy a hybrid, saying everything good I know about a hybrid. I told him how he could save so much gas money which is now increasing at a scary. Little did I know he knew his answer from the very beginning. He says, “You know your sister told me to do the same thing, but why should I get a hybrid when I can get a race car.” Since my dad likes to drive fast cars(which many people do) I decided there needs to be a fast, racing-like hybrid. I mean they have already accommodated with SUV hybrids, so shouldn’t sports cars be next? Bcouture 4-10-08
Personal Reflection:
My dad died when I was twelve, and my brother was ten. Each one of my family members was closer to him that we were to each other. My mother is an amazingly kind, wonderful person, but she (especially) really fell apart after my dad died. She would show my brother and me letters that my dad was writing her from the grave. The letters mainly said all of the things she wished he could still say. They were nice, but of an extremely religious nature, reflecting her own beliefs. "My dad" would reassure her of many positive things to come and provide words of comfort. Anyway, you get the idea. So I had to see many counselors and psychologists as a result of his death. They all seemed to be the same person to me at that age, and they all seemed to be full of shit. I would always ask them who had died in their family, or how they knew how I was feeling. They would always refer to a grandparent or some other more distant family member. I couldn't stand having to talk to these strangers who had no idea how I was feeling about something so personal. So... I grew up and eventually wanted to be the psychologist who wasn't full of shit. I wanted to be available to just listen and provide support if it was wanted - to be someone kids could talk to who HAD experienced death first-hand. This is where I was before taking this class... I was actually planning on getting my doctorate in psychology to be able to do what I just mentioned.
Now, everything has changed. Instead of studying psychology, I wish I had studied agriculture or something much more useful. Instead of learning how psychology can address ecological issues, I feel like this class has taught me more about how it can't. I really need to start dedicating more time to learning survival skills... I feel like the hour is later than it seems and that I might have found out about all of this a little too late.
Unfortunately, my boyfriend (we might as well be married) isn't entirely convinced. I'm not even sure if I am, but I do know that I'm not prepared to risk it.
How long do you think you can live on just rice and vitamins? How long can you store rice for? Now that I think about it... I'm kind of excited for this. I don't really feel like I've worked hard for anything in my life = this mild sort of depression. Looking around me, all I see are obese, sad, lonely people. No one seems to have a purpose anymore - and nobody has a tribe/clan.
I think it will be very hard to be depressed when you have to work for every meal. The food will probably be so much more satisfying as well. The one thing I think I'll really miss is warm showers everyday. I really don't like being dirty, but I guess we all might have to deal with that. Ok. enough rambling for today. Cvrooman 13:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
==
Blog Posts for Portfolio #4
==
Biofuel Frenzy
When I was at the airport recently, I was looking at magazines and found a magazine called Discover. The May 2008 issues was about "How Science Will Heal the Earth." Inside there are many articles about how to get better energy, better water, better air and have better conservation. There was also a really interesting article about plastic and how it can be very damaging due to new findings about a chemical BPA. As part of the article, there was a section called "A Day Without Plastic," where it discussed how we use or come in to contact with plastic all the time and that this may be harmful to us! It was pretty interesting though, and I definitely recommend it.AConner 15:43, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
The Nightly News: Your Daily Dose of Depression!!
While watching the nightly news on various channels throughout the week, I noticed a common trend. There were an unbelievably large number of negative reports regarding our economy and the state of the environment. For example: Channel 9 news just happened to be on in the background Tuesday evening and I counted EIGHT reports about the poor shape of the economy, the declining success of American industries, the increase in the cost of food, and the endless amount of global problems we are facing (and I’m not even counting the reports about rising gas prices!).
There was a report about home sales (“House Sales Post Unexpected Jump as Prices Tumble” Link: http://cbs2.com/national/existing. homes.sales. 2.683541.html). While the title does not seem too dire, the contents of the report seemed much worse, describing the drop in home sales and the repercussions it is having on the economy. “Sales of existing homes fell by 12.7 percent in 2007, the biggest decline in 25 years. Over the past two years, housing has been in a steep downturn made worse by a severe credit crunch as financial institutions tightened their lending standards in reaction to their multibillion-dollar losses on mortgages that have gone into default.” Not only does this report show the decline in home sales and the worsening financial situations most Americans are locked into, but it also touched on the mortgage industry and the strict financial position that many U.S. financial institutions have gotten into as well.
Then there was yet another report about the real estate market that explained how the price of homes has fallen dramatically (“S&P: Home Prices Drop 10.7 Percent in January” Link: http://cbs2. com/national/us.home.prices.2.684227.html). The report examined the decrease in home prices in numerous cities within the U.S., which used to have the most prosperous real-estate influences. “Worst-hit were Las Vegas and Miami, both reporting 19.3 percent drops, as the regions are still paying the price for rampant speculation and overbuilding during the boom years. Those cities and 14 others, including Phoenix, San Diego, and Detroit, posted record lows.” While the online article had limited statistics, I remember the television broadcast saying that Los Angeles was also one of the hardest hit cities as well, with about a 14% decrease in home prices. In my opinion, the article summed up the attitudes of the American consumers who are struggling to keep up in our current economy, “Consumer confidence sank to a five-year low in March as tight credit markets, rising prices and worsening job prospects deepened worries that the economy has fallen into recession.” I mean these last two reports had me a little down to say the least, but these could just be a reflection of a temporarily impaired economy. Our economy has hit lows in the past, which proved to be only temporary. However, the next flow of reports quickly made me realize that this was not just a temporary situation.
Moving away from the economy, one of the reports up next was about an ice shelf in Antarctica that had collapsed, as a result of global warming and other environmental factors. (“Ice Shelf Size Of Conn. Collapses Off Antarctica” Link: http://cbs2.com/national/ antarctic.ice.helf.2.684469. html). According to satellite images of Antarctica, there is a 220 square-foot area of ice that has disintegrated.
Up next, was another report about the housing crisis “McCain Addresses Housing Crisis Options;” followed by another report questioning the status of our economy “Consumer Confidence Hits Five Year Low.”
The Next Report was “Social Security, Medicare Resources Depleting” (Link: http://cbs2.com/national/social.security.medicare.2.684413.html). The report stated, “the resources in the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041. The reserves in the Medicare trust fund that pays hospital benefits were projected to be wiped out by 2019.” Wait a second, aren’t these programs set up by the government and those who lead our country, to protect those who are unable to provide for themselves. Oh you think that depressive-neurosis would stop here, but oh no, they continued on about resource depletion next!
I shall stop my rant after this last point about the earth’s food resources. With our exponentially growing population, it has been theorized that the earth’s necessary resources such as food and water will run out and no longer be able to support the population. So how scary is it that we are beginning to see reports about this stuff in the media. I saw a report this same Tuesday about the price of rice sky-rocketing because there is a shortage of rice internationally. Oh Wonderful! Then there was yet another article “Soaring Wheat Prices to Boost Cost of Groceries,” (Link http://cbs2.com/consumer/economy. business.wheat. 2.677456.html). This report was to warn us that it is going to become increasing more difficult to obtain food resources as time goes on. The record put the decreasing supply of wheat into perspective when it stated, “Wheat historically trades at $3 to $7 a bushel. But this week, futures of spring wheat -- which produces the flour used in hearth breads, rolls, croissants, bagels and pizza crust -- were close to $18 a bushel on the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. They climbed as high as $24 in late February.” If there is a shortage of rice and wheat products right now, what is going to happen in only a year from now? The increasing prices of wheat are said to be contributed to weak harvest in Europe, so European countries especially China, are buying up the American wheat crop supply. Another reason is said to be the government incentives for farmers to harvest corn, rather than wheat, because of the demand for ethanol derived from corn.
Besides the numerous automobile accidents and fatalities, the reports we hear from Iraq and overseas, and the corruptness that has become the norm on the nightly news; daily news has reached a whole new level of despair. Most people hear about the educated predictions regarding global warming and the destruction of our planet, the depletion of the earth’s nonrenewable resources, as well as the negative state of the U.S. economy. Concern for these issues is starting to rise, however now that these predictions are becoming a daily reality; I fear that the concern of the American people has come too late. <a href="User:Sgalich">Sgalich</a> 20:13, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
My Market Trip
I walked into a Ralph’s supermarket the other day. While shuffling through the different options of light bulbs, I felt a soft tap against my shoulder. I turned around quickly. This elderly woman stood there holding two cases in her hand. Her eyes said it all. Her brown pupils stood steadfast as for a brief moment I laid waiting for her to speak. Her eyes looked scattered as her eyelids closed and opened rapidly both at me and the two wrapped items. She plunged the two packages in my direction as if she herself were trying to sell them to me in advance, away from the noisy crowd upfront. No more cash registers in this market, just awkward moments of people handing you stuff to choose.
The two items were a normal light bulb and an “energy saving” light LED bulb. I could see that she was literally leaning towards the normal light bulb. The normal light bulb probably had illuminated wonderful past birthdays as it provided the shimmering light source that added sparkle to the celebatory smile and heartened the warmth surrounding the people in photographs with a golden tone hugging their complexions. The normal light bulb with so many contexts was placed close to her body. It was closer to her as if she was ready to toss the other light bulb at me and make a run for it. Instead, she simply asked me, “Which one is better?” As a college student who has to write essays all the time, by habit I shot back a question back at her… a philosophical one, like the start to a corny intro body paragraph. “What does one mean by better?” was my response. No I didn’t quite say that, but it was close, “What do you mean by better?” I asked. She was curious to know which light bulb would actually last longer and would better suit her living room. Like I said, I’m simply a college student. My obvious initial thought was, “Yo check the labels…” But I understood she wanted a second opinion, I could respect that. I looked at the big bolded words of the second package, the one she was holding away from her as if questioning it, holding it on trial in some sort of inquisition. The LED light bulb box included “energy saving” light bulbs with the mentioning of going green for the environment. Before I could imply anything to her, her initial simple glances gave way to verbal speech. She said that she believed this energy saving idea was being sold because of the current trend for the environment and whatnot. But she couldn’t be sure if it was a gimmick or if the light bulb would be even bright enough if it saved energy at the same time. Would it still light up her living room properly? I looked at the two different labels closely. In fact the energy saving light bulb had a comparison label which showed that it not only saved energy but also lasted longer as well. In Ralph’s, it was on sale too. The numbers were there, but there was still a hesitation on her part to examine it further for herself…
This small moment, although not typical of my day at the market, proved to show a lot about how people perceive not only the environment, but how they see the environmental movement within the greater society. Simply put, there are some people who believe that this environmental idea or movement is similar to a fad or a trend like bellbottoms of the 70s. But more importantly, it brought to light the discrepancy between quality and environmental friendly products. People are not willing to forgo the quality of their goods for the betterment of the environment even if it’s the case that they don’t have to. Sacrifice is just not an option to some, even if it might become necessary. The critical point or the critical mass of the population hasn’t quite made that reach yet. But I believe that if you compare every year starting from let’s say 2000, there has been increasing publicity and active awareness in the media. This doesn’t mean it’s sufficient, but just more every year. For example, there is this year’s Earth hour where some of the lights of major cities will shut off for 1 hour. I was listening to indie 103.1, and they’re initiating a program to eliminate usage of plastic bottles and instead promoting reusable metal ones for water. Plastic bottles can take up to 1000 years, a millenium to deteriorate, they say.
There was an article in Times magazine online. The author wrote about if Environmental awareness movements such as Earth Hour actually mattered in the world and for our environment as a whole. Don’t worry… he said it did matter. This is where the idea of trend or fad can get turned around and “reused” or “recycled” in a way (if we’re sticking to environmental terms.) The article emphasized that although 1 hour of not turning on lights or not driving a car individually does very little if anything for the environment. This continuous effort of awareness can be impactful similar to a trend. This perception of a trend is what could at least be a start to the human enterprise of sustainable behavior. Even though environmental sustainability or Earth hour isn’t or shouldn’t be part of a trend, it has the ability to encapsulate a broad range of people whom can at least take a look at its purpose, its cause, its ultimate goal for everyone’s benefit that is considered- our environment. Like a person observing a greater amount of people wearing bellbottoms, that person is more likely to not only observe the pedestrians rocking out their hip bellbottoms in the 1970s mall. They now might be able to actually go inside a particular shop and examine them further to see for themselves if they truly want to buy it. When more people look into the issues, public policy and governmental action happens. The government officials are like the baby sibling watching their older brother or sister. They sit from afar and observe so they too may copy their actions and behaviors. Policies are what will make the difference for the global cause of our environment. Once they see what “important” issues matter to “most” people then there will be such enforcement. Then all these environmental movements won’t seem like just a trend to people, or some hazy alternate option that might be a gimmick. It will become a reality, one that is fully lived.
Here’s an interesting link, check it out: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1725947,00.html
Shyun 15:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Oilcolholic Decal
So, I’m thinking about taking the “camry” decal off my car and replacing it with “oilcoholic” or something to that effect. I’m taking an amazing jewelry class, so I think I’ll be able to cast it in bronze. What do you think? I think it will be a nice addition to my “what are chemtrails?” sign. By the way, if you don’t know what chemtrails are, google it. But avoid the first website that pops up.
I watch thoughtware.tv nearly every day now. Most of the videos feature future technology and give me hope that we might avoid doomsday. Last night I watched the Craig Venter video assigned for class. Videos like this make me really excited for the future. They keep me optimistic. However, I was surprised at how little attention was paid to the possible danger of such technology. I wonder if the suicide genes are mandatory, and generated before each new organism is created. Either way, a program that has the potential to allow organizations to create biological weapons is scary! <a href="User:Cvrooman">Cvrooman</a> 12:55, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Thoughts vs. Action From the panel presentation: How have our actions changed from this class? I can’t really say that I am doing anything different. I drive a small car with good mileage and I recycle. This class does however make me a lot more aware of everything that I do whether I change it or not I do think about it. I think maybe I should take shorter showers and not leave the water running or that my next car which won’t be for a long time will most likely be a hybrid or battery charged of some type. Paper vs. plastic usually I choose paper but I was also told that neither and I should just bring my own bag. Hopefully soon I will be able to put my thoughts into action. BCouture 3/27/08
can anyone hear me?
Marian, here. My reactions to this class resemble manic-depression. Sometimes I’m absolutely excited about what I get to do as an environmentalist, and how I get to work on having a lifestyle that responds to this crisis. And then on other days I worry that we’re all doomed and nothing we do is going to be “good enough.” I sent out a video on the email group that took that approach. Good things are happening, but it’s not enough, and I often think that people are too selfish and dense to realize that we have to change. Caitlin and I worked on this portfolio together and one sentence we wrote was particularly upsetting: “ecological responsibility thus counters psychological, morphological, and behavioral adaptations produced by human evolutionary history.” It seems so huge—I frantically turned around in the computer lab to look at everyone there as if to ask, do you realize what’s happening and where we’re headed? Everyone was of course wrapped up in their own business, but it was a little overwhelming, as if we were in possession of this special knowledge that had to be shared but no one wanted to listen.<a href="User:Malonso">Malonso</a> 18:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Nobody Looking Out For Us, I Don't Think So
One of the biggest disagreements I have with the typical “doomer” perspective is the fact that these people have no hope. The depressing Empire movie we have been watching, although informative, has not given anybody any real guidance for what to do. He ends the documentary with “there is supposed to be a happy chapter here, but I don’t have anything to offer”; he says those supposed to be watching out for us are not and that we are doomed. I don’t know how doomed we really are, but I know that there are some people at least trying to look out for some of us. Corporations are looking into environmentally responsible products for their ability to save money, as well as save the environment. While we have no practical and viable alternative to non-renewable energy right now, making the smaller switches in the products we use and utilizing more efficient design in new endeavors will allow us to buy a little more time. As long as we can look at it that way, there is hope; hope in human will power and technology. As far as doomers go, good luck learning to be helpless while countless others continue to work towards solutions.
<a href="User:Jgarcia">Jgarcia</a> 18:47, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Amen to mood swings
For anyone who can identify with what Dr. Mills describes as the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance in relation to the environmental crisis, I am beginning to appreciate this cycle. Perhaps it's adaptive to experience each of these emotions rather than getting stuck in one indefinitely. Perhaps it's beneficial to be able to know these stages so that we can connect with others who happen to be experiencing a different stage than us at a given time. I mentioned this pattern of grief to my friend the other day and she asked me, "but what are you grieving?" I told her, "well, nothing really, just the whole environmental crisis," to which she replied, "oh, I see--I think we all are in one way or another." This struck me as astute of her. I guess most people are either in the denial stage or bargaining most of the time. Personally, I am trying to gain an underlying philosophy that I can grasp onto for perspective no matter what I feel that day or what I just read. <a href="User:Crogers">Crogers</a> 19:44, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Blog posts for Portfolio #3
'
I Can't Believe it!
As I have been doing research on the human role in activities that help to create or continue environmental issues some things have struck me. Not only was it found that we as Americans understand that global climate change is real and serious problem, but, we continue to acknowledge that the environment is not a high enough priority in terms of government. Incomprehensible!AConner 17:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Psychology
Psychology is such an interesting topic. Before this class, I never would have related it to the environment, but now I realize that psychology can relate to everything. Everything just seems to be in one big circle and psychology is the underlying answer to our problems. In understanding how people think, we can reach them in a way that can change behavior for the better. People can become happier and the earth can become a better and less destructive place. The way people think runs the world. If we can help people think in a different way and understand what is wrong with the earth and that there is something we can do about it, we can make the future better. Hopelessness is not the way to go... psychology and optimism will lead us into the future. Mbrown55 17 March 2008
Wonderful.
The film we've been watching, What a Way to Go, has gotten under my skin. I read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (one of the people interviewed) freshmen year, but hearing those concepts again directly from the author, as well as many other people of the same opinion, is mind-warping. Especially after going to the talk by Ronald Sandler on "Nanotechnology and Environmental Ethics" and learning so much about the possibilities of nanotechnology -- I am having severe cognitive dissonance. It's not that Sandler is a cornucopian, actually he explicitly said he was not a 'nano-techno-social-optimist.' However, he obviously had a strong interest in fastly developing new technologies and a strong background in environmental studies and ethics. Just seeing an academician like that makes me think twice about my dispositions toward environmental doom and gloom and skepticism of a techno-fix. Maybe it's not so much that, as it is the difficulty in swallowing the real message in What a Way to Go. It would mean sustainable agriculture is an oxymoron...and environmental urban planning, also an oxymoron. Since I am interested in these two fields for further study and jobs, it poses quite the philosophical conundrum. Crogers 02:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
MASDAR:
I've been getting more and more depressed about our situation lately- attending class doesn't help very much. The concern, fear and anger I experience in class now translate to all parts of my daily life. I end up feeling upset each time I'm in traffic or any similar situation that remind me of just how crazy life in the 21st century really is. I can't imagine being forced to absorb more mind pollution, or dealing with more stress. Tackling a lion is one thing, but finishing a book wiki assignment while juggling work, other classes, and the knowledge of humanity's likely doom is wretched.
On a more positive note, there are plans for a new city within Abu Dhabi - MASDAR. Sounds too good to be true... is it? A sustainable city in the desert? It is a desert, right? Anyway, if it does work out, I wouldn't mind being a part of the 45,700 people who get to live there. If you're interested in a cool video with music like something from the Matrix or Resident Evil, check out:
Cvrooman 17:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
'
Thoughts from the presentation in class: In regards to the presentation done in class yesterday and the discussion question; why don’t we do something when we know it is bad for the planet? We are all even in a Ecological psychology class and yet I don’t think that anyone of us has really changes any of our habits, even though we here each week how we are all doomed. For a couple hours a week we all sit through class and learn about how there is a possibility that any day the world as we know it is over. After all this, I only think about changing my lifestyle to help the planet but never actually do anything. My habits are just too hard to change. I feel more aware of everything going on and what I should be doing, but it is still all just in thought. I recycle only because I always have. I don’t drive an gas-hog car, but I have always had a tiny car. Other then that(and I don’t think anyone else in the class is too much different) I still may leave the water running to long, take too long of a shower, leave a light on even if I am not in the room, and I definitely do not walk everywhere that I could. BCouture 3-13-08
'
U.S. ‘STUCK IN REVERSE’ ON FUEL ECONOMY:
In a recent article on MSNBC.com, author Roland Jones discusses America’s current fuel-efficient car rut, in comparison with Europe’s wide variety of affordable, fuel-efficient vehicles that are available to European consumers. There is no doubt that there is a rapidly growing fuel-efficient car gap in which the U.S. is currently offering a mere two vehicles that get at least 40 miles per gallon compared to the 113 vehicles that are for sale over seas. To add insult to injury, nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S. based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.
In a recent national poll nearly nine out of 10 respondents thought U.S. consumers should have access to these vehicles. One possible way to spark change in the right direction would be for congress to raise the current fuel-efficiency standards to 40 mpg as opposed to the current standards that are set at 27.5 mpg. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons why more fuel-efficient cars have not been marketed in the U.S. is because the labor unions object and the traditional Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford and Chrysler—are heavily dependent on gaining concessions from the United Auto Workers and other unions. For years they have not been able to bring cars here that would displace workers. So what will the solution be? One has to wonder just how high gas prices will get or how bad the car-selling business will need to be before we start to see some major changes in the fuel-efficient car market. Csenske 21:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT) Ekite 21:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/page/2/
For the March Of Frogs and Penguins Alike
Humans may be able to dodge the issues of the environment with technology. Some other animals however don’t necessarily share that same factor of free enterprise. They can be seen as living to survive while they are constantly being bombarded by the knives and darts of the ecology without the ability to be conscious of their peril. In rank some animals are less likely to bounce back from changes in the environment than others.
Within the Antarctic there lies a king. A king that doesn’t sit on any throne nor wears a golden crown. The animal on top of the Antarctic food web is the King Penguin waging battles against the harsh winter (or summer) climate and feeding upon the fish that was once so abundant in the kingdom of the Antarctic. The King Penguin is so atop and essential to the rule of the arctic land that their endangering means that the peasants or lower squires of the Antarctic food web are probably suffering much worse endangerment. It’s simply getting too hot in the Antarctic due to global warming which is affecting the fish supply. Their populations are decreasing and other species within the ecosystem are in danger as well from extinction. Unfortunately there is an increasing risk against the species and the king penguin might have to relinquish its crown.
On another completely different ecosystem there exists another species. The arctic and the tropical rainforest might be different climates and landscapes, but they share a common thread. You guessed it, it’s global warming. This environmental issue is affecting the harlequin frogs. In reality, the temperatures are actually decreasing for part of the day as global warming actually affects cloud cover over the tropical forests lowering the temperature. Unlike most fungus that exists simultaneously with other species, a certain kind of fungus is actually thriving with the lower temperatures killing many of the harlequin frogs. Similarly like the King penguins, the frogs are species which when endangered are indicators to significant changes in the ecosystem, the environment which they greatly rely on. They march on now but without further analysis and effective action to help, their march will be short-lived. More importantly, if it is the case that the humans have the ability to dodge environmental issues or alleviate them, maybe we can lend a hand to take responsibility to protect the powerless.
Here’s the link for the Penguins (short article): http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1712518,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci
Here’s the link for the Frogs (also short article): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1149382,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
Shyun 00:53, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
The Extreme Social Marketing Tactics of Organized Religion
In this week’s portfolio I am writing about Social Psychology, specifically Marketing Psychology, and how marketing tactics might be used to help achieve Sustainability. Coincidentally, I came across two articles that look into psychological skills that our society could use to get people to notice and be aware of their personal effects on the environment. The first article, “Southern Baptists Fight Climate Change” (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080310/southern_baptists_environment.html?.v=1), explains the environmental declaration released Monday that was signed by the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The declaration forces attention to the problem of climate change. Southern Baptist leaders expressed that it is a biblical duty to help efforts to stop global warming.
I also found another two articles both about the 7 mortal sins that the Vatican released recently called, “Vatican lists ‘new sins,’ including Pollution” (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL109602320080310?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true) or “Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/10/eavatican110.xml). The mortal sins that were announced by a Monsignor at the Vatican were: genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs. The Vatican explained that the announcement of the new mortal sins will hopefully make worshippers realize that their actions affect others around them as well.
Both of these articles show that the issues facing our society today regarding climate change, peak oil, etc., are finally beginning to receive more attention than they have in the past. Also, both articles show a more extreme type of social psychology tactic that organizations may use to influence people toward environmental consciousness. Both the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Church are religiously affiliated, and the personal tactics they implemented force people to follow environmentally-conscience “laws” by deeming them a religious duty/obligation. These articles, which are about the tactics that these two religious organizations are implementing to encourage environmental consciousness, are only one example of the plethora of social marketing tactics that could potentially influence people’s behaviors. Sgalich 20:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
A Day Without Cars
So I came across this video http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155389201/bclid1236266814/bctid1409430683 about Bogota, Colombia celebrating their 8th annual day without cars. So essentially on February 7th of each year they enforce a rule where no one is allowed to drive on the streets or highways from 6:30am to 7:30 pm. If people are found driving then they are given a $118 dollar ticket. Commuters are encouraged to walk, ride a bicycle, or take the bus to work. However, they do allow taxis and buses to be in service. This is also being implemented in a city in Chile and a city in Brazil as well.
After watching this video, I was thinking about whether it would even be possible to implement this in the United States. I can’t even begin to count how many cars I would see in the mornings on the 405 freeway when I was commuting to L.A. for work this past summer. I think it’s a great idea that for one day out of the year, people aren’t able to drive their cars. Since it’s not a daily or weekly thing, planning for one day out of a whole year to use an alternative mode of transportation is, in my opinion, a possible feat. And giving tickets to people who do not follow this rule will definitely be an incentive for people to make sure that they at least try to look for other modes of transportation. Obviously one day out of the year isn’t going to solve all our air pollution problems but it’s definitely a start in the right direction. Perhaps if it is successful, it could be implemented to a couple of times a year or maybe (of course ideally speaking) even to a monthly thing.
Engo 22:54, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Rethinking Things
Lately I have found myself less concerned with the eminent destruction of the world and more concerned with practical solutions to changing my own behavior. There was honestly a period of time this semester that I devoted to thinking about acquiring property in the middle of nowhere to escape the demise of society. I discovered that I fell victim to the presentation of all this information about the negative state of the environment by taking a helpless stance. Instead of looking into more environmentally conscious ways of living, I decided that my actions could not possibly make a difference against the huge problems facing the environment. I have come to realize that without changing my actions on a small scale, there really is not another way I can help the situation. I will not be the guy trying to synthesize self-replicating “CO2-eating oil-producing” organisms, developing alternative energy sources, or working to change politics surrounding environmental issues. I determined that by living more environmentally friendly I may be able to influence others to do the same. If I help one other person become more environmentally efficient as a human being and that person helps one person and so-on, than I have done my job. I have decided that taking the “doomer” perspective does not help anything; trying to scare people into changing their behavior only goes so far as to instigate emotional arousal. As psychology majors we know that attitude tends to follow behavior, so we must begin with change in behavior to change attitudes. I commend those who have already taken an active approach to living environmentally responsible and challenge anyone who is not to think twice.
Jgarcia 17:36, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Am I Improving? Another wikipost down. I'm starting to worry we'll run out of things to say--we have four or five more portfolios to do before the semester is up. Even though I get downhearted in this class, I'm so glad I'm learning about all of this. I've only taken a few classes where I thought "wow, this is really relevant to who I want to be and how I'm going to live my life." I'm glad I'm not the only one who is emotionally (physically, metaphysically?) affected by everything we learn about. I like the topic I wrote about this time and I hope I'm getting this wiki thing down. I've been confused about the writing style and what exactly I'm supposed to be doing. Hopefully this portfolio is an improvement over what I've done in the past. Malonso 20:29, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Blog posts for Portfolio #2
"Oil in the ANWR"
My last Blog focused on the debate between environmentalists that want to protect the wildlife at ANWR and those who wish to utilize the refuge for its oil preserves. However, I still wanted to know how much of an impact ANWR would have on our oil reserves if we did indeed drill. I found this article called, “Oil in the ANWR” (http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm). The article addresses just that question, “exactly how much oil is there in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?” Those who are for the drilling at ANWR claim that there is 30 years-worth of oil available, while opponents say that ANWR will only supply less than 3% of the U.S. annual oil use. The article addresses the changing estimates that have been given over the years, and goes through the tedious geological and mathematical processes that scientists use to determine how much oil is actually there. Estimates that ignore the market price of oil show a “95% probability of being able to technically recover 4.254 billion barrels of oil, and a 5% probability of recovering 11.8 billion barrels of oil. The mean expected estimate is of being able to technically recover 7.7 billion barrels of oil.” These estimates are not dependent on the market price of oil, which the article points out is a huge determining factor. The article goes on to give a very optimistic scenario, in which 10.3 billion barrels could be completely recovered from ANWR resulting in the production of 600 million barrels a year. The U.S. yearly consumption is currently 6,752 million barrels a year; therefore, using these very optimistic estimates ANWR would provide less than 9% of U.S. annual oil usage. Sgalich 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)
“To Drill or Not Drill: The Controversy Concerning the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”
So my Dad is an avid Republican who thinks the world’s oil crisis is a nonexistent joke! When we engaged in an argument over this topic, he expressed his thoughts that there is more than enough oil in Alaska and that oil production is not going to be a future problem. So I decided to go dig around for some facts about ANWR and I found this article
“To Drill or Not Drill: The Controversy Concerning the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” (http://www.alaskaweb.net/special_report.htm). The article explains the wildlife and the diverse ecosystem that are present at ANWR, as well as how far the physical boundaries of the refuge extend. It goes on to highlight both sides of the argument regarding oil drilling at Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is currently not open to oil leasing or development. The article explains past legislation regarding ANWR, how the refuge was put aside by Congress during the Eisenhower administration in 1960, and the series of laws protecting the refuge that have been enacted since then. Environmentalists feel that because the refuge was set up to protect wildlife and the present ecosystem, it should stay that way. However, the issues regarding U.S. dependence on foreign oil and a decreasing amount of oil production are bringing focus to ANWR. Those who support oil drilling at ANWR point out the newly improved techniques and processes of oil drilling which leave a much smaller mark on the drilled area than ever before. There is a lot of money to be made at ANWR and the perceived need for more petroleum is growing, but the case for the wildlife cannot be excused. Sgalich 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Who Killed the Electric Car?
This week when we watched the video titled "Who Killed the Electric Car?" it was so interesting to see the debate and issues behind the electric car. Not only was I unaware that there were any electric cars out there, I was completely unaware that they had come and then gone amongst protest from lots of people who cared. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints from people who owned the EV1, the car companies, and different government workers. It's kind of scary to think that a good solution to our pollution inducing cars today, has been completely shot down. It seems as if people aren't willing to put the effort and the thought into creating something that will help this environment, instead of hurt it. Hybrid cars, that are just beginning to take off, are not even widely used by people yet. Hopefully, one day, people will begin to catch on that if we keep polluting our environment by driving cars that are dirty, then our environment might be so ruined that it cannot be fixed! It's a scary world.AConner 17:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
What's Next?
I have decided that the only way for me not to get too down about this situation, and to cope with the immensity of the situation, is to find out what more I can do to help, particularly in my daily life. I have figured that this is really the only thing I can do aside from purchasing land, an environmentally sustainable cabin, and a car that runs on solar power. Even if what I do now is not enough, it at least keeps me focused enough to not become too depressed about everything. Unfortunately, I have yet to find “10 things you can do that make a big difference and will eventually save the planet and your happiness” however, I think I have found something good for me to focus on, even if it is simply something to pacify my nerves with.
This class, combined with the fact the school is over in two and a half months, has made me realize that the next step is to get a job that can continue this environmentally aware perspective. Sure, this won’t be easy. Getting a good job anywhere is hard enough as it is, but regardless I see that as my only option. However, this doesn’t mean necessarily joining Surfriders, or another grass roots movement, although that probably couldn’t hurt. Nor does it mean necessarily applying to work for the Chevron Oil Refinery in Manhattan Beach. Personally, I think the best thing to do is to continue on the career path we have been on…maybe on foot, instead of in a Hummer…and take our environmental awareness and apply it to whatever organization we are able to work for. It may seem as if the best thing is to drop everything and work for more extreme places that can affect change, but I believe that the best way to change some of these companies, or governments, may be to work for them. Who would any CEO, President, or leader trust more, their second in command or the picket line in front of their parking space? I’m not saying that activism is bad because I think protests, especially well organized ones, can always help change perspective. I just think a reliable, friendly source, can do the job too. So, at least for now, I think our jobs, having learned some of the material, is to make sure that those that are around us, whether it be our co-workers or roommates, have the same knowledge, or access to knowledge, that we have gained by taking this class.
Pferraiolo 15:53, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Wikiwhat?
I’ve been trying to avoid thinking about our possible impending doom for the past few days. As if my life didn’t bring me enough stress already, here I am in an EcoPsych class that helps me to worry about the state of our world.
Currently, I’m not just concerned about this, I also have to be concerned about learning how to express my concerns via wikispace. Wiki this, wiki that. Shoot me! All the info I’m learning is incredibly useful and interesting, but having to figure out how to correctly post four or five different types of entries is really discouraging me from doing it at all.
So far, posting blogs has been the easiest and most enjoyable. I feel like I’m just talking casually to a friend. Posting on the book wiki isn’t too terrible. Sending out e-mails kind of blows because I feel bad for bothering every person in the class with my random contributions. Unless the topic in the header sounds extremely interesting, I generally, delete the e-mails I receive and assume others do the same. Mailbox is full… wtf? Oh, right… ecopsych. The article wiki is just scary. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.
Anyway, aside from bitching about having to keep up with Dr. Mills’ wikispace page, I’d like to talk about the roller coaster ride I’m on when it comes to thinking about our future. Who will win the ultimate battle, Malthus or Kurzweil? I seem to side with whichever argument/ support I heard last. When I watch a youtube video about new technology, I’m extremely optimistic and dismiss any catastrophic talk I heard just an hour before. After watching videos like, Who Killed the Electric Car, I know we’re driving this fucker off a cliff and go to bed sick to my stomach with worry.
It’s so difficult to determine what the outcome will be when there is such solid support for both sides. I guess it’s never a bad thing to be over-prepared, but after a long session of doom-talk with my friends, they walk away thinking I’m absolutely paranoid. “Hey Tom, let’s start a commune. The world is as we know it seems like it’s going to end in about ten years.” “Hey Christy, sounds like fun, but you’re out of your fucking mind. Necessity is the mother of invention.” Some friends think it doesn’t matter what you do, because whatever amazing preparations you make will be seized by a falling government/ army/ society. Here is yet another concern that makes me feel like moving to the moon. "Richard Branson, take me a little higher. I'll give you an extra $200,000…" Cvrooman 14:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Facing it
I’m with Paul Ferraiolo and Christina Vrooman. I’m trying to figure out how I can prepare for this ominous mess, while at the same time not freaking out all of my friends and family. Lately these topics of peak oil, population growth, and collapse have been seeping into my social life. After a long night out the other day I started running my mouth about all this crap and getting into a discussion with some friends. It started with eating meat (I’m a vegetarian for environmental and humane reasons) since we stopped at a drive-through on the way home and wound up with the whole Kurzweil v. Malthus debate. It was silly in a way because they really did not connect with my sense of urgency and were not informed about any of these issues. It was disheartening for me because I realized they represent the majority of the population – even though they are very smart people, they didn’t know much about this and they didn’t seem to care about doing anything about it. I partly attribute that attitude to human nature since we are prone to think about present and short-term consequences rather than worry about long-term, but then there are many people working for change and avidly altering their everyday life in an effort to become more sustainable. Anyway, I know a bit about gardening; what other skills do people have here? Crogers 18:06, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Silicon Valley: The Next Frontier in Solar Technology
Today (February 17) in the New York Times there was an article titled: Silicon Valley Starts to Turn Its Face to the Sun in which the author discusses the recent interest that scientists and solar enthusiasts have taken in developing a large-scale solar energy plant. The article states that some of the valley’s best brains are captivated by the challenge and hope to put the development of solar technology onto a faster track. Some argue that solar technology reflects the engineering reality that computer chips and solar cells have a lot in common. “A solar cell is just a big specialized chip, so everything we’ve learned about making chips applies,” says Paul Saffo, an associate engineering professor at Stanford and a longtime observer of Silicon Valley. Some also point to the financial advantages of developing the solar technology field suggesting that this may be the “biggest market Silicon Valley has ever looked at.” R. Martin Roscheisen, who is the chief executive of Nanosolar in San Jose, California, likens the solar industry today to the late 1970s when mainframe computers dominated and then Steve Jobs and I.B.M. came out with the personal computer and revolutionized the way that the public used computer technology. It is an interesting concept and does shed a more optimistic light on the rapidly ensuing energy crisis that we are likely to face in this century.
We have discussed, in class, the fact that non-fossil fuel energy sources are far weaker and less energy dense than oil—upon which we currently rely so heavily. But perhaps there is still hope after all and perhaps our knowledge of technology will save us in the end, after all. It will be interesting to see what does begin to happen in the way of solar technology in the next few years and if in fact, like the computer chip industry, solar energy is able to revolutionize the way each of us goes about our daily lives. Csenske 18:51, 17 February 2008 (EST) Ekite 18:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Heat Waves In an article by the BBC News, it talks about how more intense, frequent and longer heat waves will be. “The research shows greenhouse emissions are likely to exacerbate the problem.” Our heat wave increase is strongly related to the increase of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Heat waves are one of the biggest natural killers of our time. The elderly are the most susceptible of such intense heat through dehydration. Heat waves of the past like 1995 Chicago heat wave killed approximately 739 people while an estimated 15,000 died in France due to a heat wave in August only a few years ago. The number of heat waves in Chicago and Paris is expected to increase very much. As a human race we can only handle so many of these heat waves. This increasing number and intensity is something that we need to be worried about and are only making worse through our excessive amount of greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559426.stm
A.I. is B.S.?
Will the real John Conner please stand up?
Before we go looking for the next leader to defend the human race against super-intelligent robots like the Terminator either using humans as target practice or causing us to have insecure ego-trips about who’s smarter, there needs to be some insight on exactly what is required for A.I. singularity to occur. Here is an interesting article that is actually more than just interesting but also well written compared to the “lol” language that exists on the web. It brings up a few important issues to mind when critically thinking about the possibility of a singularity. According to the article, the answer is “yes” human beings are still and will continue being the smartest and meanest machines out there. The idea of increasingly capable artificial intelligence has not been a rare commodity just being bought and sold only in this new modern world. This concept, this breath of hope, and whisper of excitement has been born awhile ago.
Starting from around the 1950s, research had begun on artificial intelligence with the most promising minds put to the task. Heavy hitters like Alan Turing and eventually Hawkins no less. Besides their boasting accolades like being mathematical geniuses and numerous P.H.Ds, they believed that they could figure out A.I. In fact, they believed that if 10 of them were to live in a room and hammer out the issues, that in two months they would have something substantial. As it would turn out, this would be like the “Real World” on MTV with so much drama but still a teary unsatisfying ending. It’s from this conception that not only has there been a dramatic increase in research in the field, but also constant expectations and problems that keep nagging on.
Main problem number one is the fact that in order for A.I. to achieve intelligence similar to a human being is that researchers have to crack the questions in neuroscience. We don’t even know how our brain with the unsure numbers of neurons, synapses, and connections work, so how can we possibly replicate our supposed knowledge onto a machine. This is all based on the assumption that in order to create something, one must know about everything that precedes it and that goes into it. Another dilemma is the idea of “Moore’s law,” which basically states that computing power exponentially increases throughout time. It is here that the author agrees that this observation has been holding true. But this law only adheres to hardware like a new computer. But software such as word processing has not been increasing exponentially. Some researchers believe that software is the key to unlocking A.I.
Finally, the problem of language, the whole reason why English teachers have been programmed to keep on giving students B-‘s for no reason whatsoever and get away with it. An essay may be “unclear,” but so is language. Computers follow a binary system or code, which are two things that run on many different orders, 0s and 1s. Human language is not coded in that way. Language would have to be a paradox in itself for Artificial Intelligence. Language would have to be algorithmic and each letter, word, etc. would have to be meaningless symbols while at the same time still hold its meaning within contexts. For example, I might use the word “sick” as a slang word for “great,” like “That surfboard is sick…” A human being would first question with formal logic the possibility of a surfboard having an illness like the flu, but would then assign tone, syntax, and context to the word “sick” to actually pertain to something great. The argument still goes that a computer will one day learn, but as the author states it seems there is more learning that has to be done with ourselves first.
The author takes an insightful approach to the A.I. problem. But I can’t help but think that all his citing and references to things I don’t know the truth of is used to persuade me awry. Before I buy this possible expiring bologna or pure gold, I think I’ll wait and see.
John Connor, you may sit back down.
Here’s the link: [2] Shyun 02:01, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Electric Cars?
The Death of the Electric Car movie really made me ponder some things (aside from why the still standing "electric car charging stations" scattered throughout Santa Monica and other parts of Souther California are still there). On one hand, it is very interesting that car companies would just destroy this popular car for no reason. It actually made me kind of angry because they were wasting perfectly good automobiles that people still wanted. I understand that companies have to make money, and that the car industry fuels the oil industry, but did they really see such a threat with a battery powered car? I guess so. However, I would never buy an electric car. I absolutely love the idea of never going to the gas station and just having to plug in my car in order to charge it. Even more, I love that I would not be polluting the air. The thing with my gasoline powered car is that if on a spur of the moment I want to drive to Santa Barbara or San Diego or even Las Vegas, I can, and there will be many gas stations along the way to fuel me if I want to go farther. If I was driving around all day to work, running errands, and school, and I got a phone call from my mom who lives in Laguna Beach that something bad had happened, I would immediately be able to leave and drive for however long I needed to. I would not be able to do that with an electric car. If people could afford it, the way to avoid this would to be to have one gas powered car and one electric car, but I am a student who can barely afford my one car payment. People who live in apartments like myself, though, really could not even bother with an electric car since there is no place they could put the charger. Anyways, my point is that crushing the cars was stupid and dramatic. They could have just let the people who wanted to buy them out of their lease to do so and just stop production on any more until a battery life that would match that of the milage of a gas powered car was achieved.
MBrown55, February 22, 2008
Creating a More Environmentally-Friendly Campus
It’s funny how things that you see everyday don’t actually get noticed until somebody else brings it to your attention (i.e. through friends or through class). Not until after taking this class and as a result being more conscious of my actions (in regards to participating in more environmentally-friendly behaviors such a conserving energy and recycling), I began to notice how LMU has been promoting a more eco-friendly campus. For example, one thing that I noticed is that on each floor of University Hall and at the entrance to University Hall, there are three separate waste baskets (one for just waste, one for paper, and one for plastic) that enable students to recycle. I think it’s a great idea because many students at LMU have class in the building and it makes it easier for our campus as a whole to recycle. And since the wastebaskets appear to be all over the building, it makes it almost impossible not to recycle.
Also while I was reading the Loyolan the other day, I came across an article entitled “Your choice matters,” discussing the things that you should know before you go to the grocery store (such as avoiding using paper or plastic bags) and discussing the ways to calculate the amount of greenhouse gases that is produced to support your lifestyle. It was an interesting article to read and nice to see that our school cares enough to inform the students on campus on how we can behave in more environmentally-friendly ways.
Also while I was walking down Alumni Mall last week, I noticed what seemed to be thousands of plastic water bottles on the lawn. Curious, I talked to one of the students standing next to the pile of bottles why the bottles were just laying there. I found out that the event was hosted by ECO students, LMU’s environmental club (I wasn’t even aware that we had one!), who were trying to spread the word that we need to reduce our use of plastic bottles and should use reusable bottles instead (they were even giving out aluminum reusable bottles to encourage decreased use of plastic bottles) because the bottled water industry requires an enormous amount of oil to keep it running. So it’s definitely nice to see LMU taking initiative to create a more environmentally-friendly campus through words and action.
Engo 14:39, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Still Effed?
Even if we started our own individual projects to become more green by buying hybrid cars, outlawing plastics, powering homes with solar energy, etc….how many people could actually afford to make the switch today? Even if our entire country made this hypothetical switch, what difference would it make on a global basis where you have India and China developing huge middle classes who do not have the ability to “go green” along with all the other semi-developed/developing nations? Now with their middle classes demanding more resources especially with the new production of a $2,000 car, how much more trouble is the global community getting itself into. If the United States, Europe, and Japan can’t solve this problem, who can? Trying to make the changes that are necessary to curb the damage that will be done if these theories materialize as fact will only lead to our dependence on another resource and then another resource and then another resource.
It has been nice to hear at least some more optimism these last two weeks than the previous two, but we still are not seeing needed changes. I have considered how I would live my life more environmentally sound; but honestly I just don’t see it until the culture adopts the same behavior. Too many times I find myself saying “well what is one person buying soap with less chemicals and trying to drive a more efficient car going to do about the millions that don’t care. The movement is grassroots at best, and until some seriously significant jolts are given to the governments and populations of the world, it is going to continue being a “half-movement” – one where people go “Ok, that sucks, I should live differently, but no one else seems to care so I’ll jump back in my Hummer and go home to my climate controlled McMansion and forget everything by tomorrow.
Jgarcia 22:37, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Wikiexhausted
Now that we're having to become more and more adept at editing all this wikistuff, I'm finding this class to be much harder than I expected. Wiki is confusing. It took me over an hour to post my article, get all the links and references in the correct formatting and insert one picture. I hope the quality of the writing is acceptable, as I was anticipating a complicated wiki editing session and had to hurry. Alas, it's late at night, my posts are late, and there's not much for me to do. I want to add to this article on Oilcoholism because I think it is important to know exactly how (in what ways) we are addicted to oil. I hope this particular post approaches that goal, but I'm sure I'll have to add to it. I'm starting to think that I will have to make my life "all about" figuring out how to deal with this mess of an oil addiction we have, because even if we (read: wealthy developed nations) can handle it, the majority of the world's population will not have access to alternative energy and production.
I think my next contribution will be about the impact of Peak Oil on developing nations, because I feel like such populations are invisible in conversations where the main question is "how will I maintain my current lifestyle?" The question for the world's poor is "how will I survive?"
Oh! I saw the movie "There Will Be Blood" and it is fantastic. I had no idea what it was about and I couldn't believe that I was a few hours earlier learning all about oil as a non-renewable resource. They just went for it--the terrain was so vast and it must have seemed like oil would never run out. And look at the predicament we're in now because of this rapid industrial expansion. Very appropriate.
Malonso 02:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Blog posts for Portfolio #1
Myth of peak oil
In this class I have heard so much about peak oil and how devastating it could become if we go the rate we are going, but I wanted to check out the flip side. I found a website called prisonplanet.com with an article labeled “The Myth of Peak Oil” which said that peak oil is a scam. According to this article peak oil is a con produced by the government to create “artificial scarcity” to increase the oil prices as well as to have control over the American people. This “control” through scarcity is believed to limit world population. Another part of this article that I found shocking was the claim that ways to produce alternative energy have been around for many of years but suppressed, in order to buy into peak oil and pay the jacked up prices. The article goes on by giving “examples” on how gas companies such as chevron and techron are deliberately raising the gas prices. This website offers many additional resources to check out why peak oil is a “myth.” Its pretty convincing but I have learned way too much in this class to believe anything this article says. I definitely think peak oil is here and we must do something about it! If you are skeptical you can check out this site. Watson, P.J., Jones, A., (2005). The Myth of Peak Oil. Prison Planet. Retrived February 4, 2008, from http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm
Virtue and Vice:
I came across an article entitled, “Give Yourself a Break: A study suggests that there is virtue in vice—to an extent; an argument for being able to look back and say, ‘No regrets.’ [3]” The article discussed a study that was done by Ran Kievtz, an associate business professor at Columbia University, who found that in the short term, vice is regretted more than virtue but in the long run, virtue is regretted more than vice. The reasoning behind this is that in the long run once the initial guilt is diminished, the feelings of missing out on not indulging are stronger than giving into the vice. However, the ideal situation is where one can indulge in a relative vice as a reward for choosing a relative virtue. This is where Kievtz’s findings has helped Ron Gonen, chief executive of Philadelphia’s RecyleBank, which rewards households for the amount of plastic, paper, glass, metal and other waste they recycle with “dollars” that is redeemable at participating stores. Kievtz has suggested to Gonen to increase incentives by giving away more desirable prizes such as iPods, which Gonen has implemented. Kievtz’s research shows that if people can afford an iPod, they will feel guilty for buying it outright but they won’t feel bad if they earn it through hard work or by doing something virtuous, regardless of whether the person is rich or poor.
I think RecycleBank’s idea for rewarding households for the amount of waste they recycle is great, but I don’t know how much more effective it will be by adding more desirable prizes. I know for me personally, I feel guilty when I spend too much money on something that I want rather than on something I need. Also at the same time, it is true that if I work hard, then I won’t feel guilty if I reward myself for it. But the truth of the matter is for those who are well off, they would probably just go out to buy the iPod rather than go through all the hard to count the amount of waste they collected so they can redeem an iPod. But I guess we need to start somewhere and no plan is 100% effective…
Engo 12:33, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Effects of Renewable Energy:
So while I was researching the differences between renewable and non-renewable energy, I ran across this article that was written to help students understand the impacts that alternative forms of renewable energy have on our environment: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter17.html. The article first clarifies the distinction between non-renewable energy (fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas) that are permanently gone once we use them all up, and renewable energy sources (wind, sun, water, and biomass) that we have the ability to harness. The article goes on to point out the issues regarding non-renewable fossil fuels that have been focused on in society: the negative environmental consequences (i.e. pollution) that are produced from burning non-renewable fossil fuels and the dependency that fossil fuels create for the U.S. on other countries. However, the article’s main argument is that alternative forms of renewable energy also have negative impacts on our environment: toxicity of fluids used in solar thermal generation process and solar cells, dangers regarding geothermal energy production, the land needed for solar thermal production and wind turbines, the increased harm and displacement of wildlife as a result of land developed for energy production, etc.. The point being made is that even though renewable energy sources do not release pollution into our environment and will provide an increase in jobs within the U.S., the current renewable energy sources still have many non-direct ways of negatively impacting our environment.
Thoughts on Human Impact:
Environmentalism is a very novel idea that seems to evolve over time and changes in how we understand it. Way back during the industrial revolution when pollution really became a problem, people knew that what was happening to the earth was bad, but didn’t really understand it, or just wanted to ignore it for the sake of production and monetary gains (sounds familiar doesn't it). I feel like only recently can we really see the long-term consequences of things we do now and things we as humans did back then. Since man has populated the earth we have been bad to the environment. Even when settlers first arrived to America they destroyed the buffalo and beaver population to almost zero. Garbage and horse feces lined the streets of New York as people lived in stifling quarters without even a thought to hygiene. Things were different back then because people did not know better, and many did not have the resources to change anything. America is a very wealthy country with the technology to change things and the knowledge to know about what affects the environment and what we can do to keep our earth strong. One thing that has always interested me is how we can treat our earth so poorly and spill oil into the ocean and cut down rainforests full of trees and she still seems to bounce back. We have become much more conscious of what we do to the earth, but it seems with just a little effort that people have a very big impact. However, I really think that the earth was built to withstand many things and that we don’t have to stop living and being advanced in order to protect it. Technology will bring us into the future and will help us overcome what problems we might create as long as we stay aware, but not overreactive. mbrown55, Feb 5 2008
GLOBAL WARMING
In an article I read on msn.com, it is being reported that the Earth’s temperature is now warmer than during the Medieval Age. In the article entitled, "Rapid Decline of Arctic Island's ice caps tracked"[4] science expert Gifford Miller has said that Baffin Island’s, which is an Arctic island off of Greenland, ice field will be gone within 50 years! Miller who is at the University of Colorado at Boulder, insists that even if temperatures on Earth do not rise, that ice will still disappear. Miller has done studies in which they “analyzed radioactive carbon in dead plant material emerging from beneath the receding ice margins,” to determine how long these ice caps have been in tact, and has found that they have been around for 1,600 years and are now starting to deteriorate. They have also found that during the mid 1800s (at the end of “The Little Ice Age”) there was 1,351 square miles of permanent ice and snow as compared to now, where just 41 square miles are covered. This finding is shocking in discovering that the melting of ice caps is happening and will keep happening more and more rapidly if global warming continues. Miller says, “...the warming of the 20th century is the warmest sustained period of warming in that time...It clearly says we’re now warmer than we were in Medieval times.” Therefore, this article explains that the world today is warmer than it was in Medieval times. I found it interesting because there have been many debates over the existence of global warming; however, I feel that this article offers some evidence that there is a general warming that is happening since the arctic ice caps are melting rapidly and are expected to be completely gone from Baffin Island in 50 years.Aconner 13:27, 2 February 2008 (CST)
BLOG POST 1
The article Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room puts forth that oil and its companion natural gas together make up about 60% of humanity's primary energy. In addition, the energy of oil has been leveraged through its use in the extraction and transport of coal as well as the construction and maintenance of hydro and nuclear generating facilities. Oil is as the heart of humanity's enormous energy economy as well as at the heart of its food supply. Further, the article suggests that industrial agriculture, as practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries, is supported by three legs: mechanization, pesticides/fertilizers and genetic engineering. Of those three legs, the first two are directly dependent on petroleum to run the machines and natural gas to act as the chemical feedstock. The genetic engineering component of agribusiness generally pursues four goals: drought resistance, insect resistance, pesticide resistance and yield enhancement. Meeting that last goal invariably requires mechanical irrigation, which again depends on oil.
With that being said, it is evident that we do rely very heavily on oil as a primary source of energy for the majority of production worldwide. Many individuals speculate that when our oil wells run dry the entire world population will suffer greatly and our way of life will change dramatically. However, all things considered, it seems to me that this kind of crisis will not ultimately be the end of human life as we know it. Humans are expert survivors and are constantly coming up with new ways of doing things. It is also important to note that we live in a world that is dominated by corporations and institutions that have a monopoly over different products and forms of productions. Every time a no-name person comes up with a new way to do something (i.e. electric cars) they are up against the already established, dominant super supplier that controls the market at the time. Therefore, it is arguable that we, the consumer, are at the mercy of those institutions that have the monopoly over a certain product that we depend on—which explains why we are completely dependent on oil as our sole source of energy, today. This is the way that I see it—even though we may be dependent on oil for production purposes at this time, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t already perfectly good alternative forms of energy that we can use, given the need and the chance.
ONE EXAMPLE- Think of it this way: The Starbucks Coffee Corporation is the super-supplier of coffee products around the globe. It is a household name and dominates every other alternative coffee house in every town around the world. But, what if (hypothetically) Starbucks went under one day—what if it just ceased to exist? Would people just stop drinking coffee and would the idea of a coffee house become a thing of the past—reminiscent of a lost generation? I would have to say that I think not. As natural progression and regeneration would have it, there would undoubtedly be another coffee house that would come forward and fill the void that Starbucks left behind. It just seems that this sort of regeneration is ingrained in human nature. We would argue that there are already alternate forms of energy that we could harness, that are available to us right now but that we are not tapping into because the oil industry is simply too powerful to overthrow. However, if occasion should arise, and the oil industry does in fact go under—we think that instead of reverting back to the Stone Age or meeting our demise, we will see the emergence of an alternate form of energy that will prove that all of our pursuits in the technological field have not been in vein and that the human race will prevail. Csenske 15:36, 30 January 2008 (CST) Ekite 15:38, 30 January 2008 (CST)
In an article from the Time magazine it talks about how global warming has gone too far and now it is not just the scientist that are noticing the changes, but 85% of people believe that global warming is occurring. The end of the century could possibly occur through a sea level raise of 20 feet. It is entire glaciers that are melting away into the oceans. It does not even seem to matter any more whether or not we can reverse the changes but how much our earth can take and what can we do to help it. As Al Gore has said many a time we are facing a crisis. A blurb from the article says, “twice as fast, with 53 cu. mi. draining away into the sea last year alone, compared with 22 cu. mi. in 1996. A cubic mile of water is about five times the amount Los Angeles uses in a year. Dumping that much water into the ocean is a very dangerous thing. Icebergs don't raise sea levels when they melt because they're floating, which means they have displaced all the water they're ever going to. But ice on land, like Greenland's, is a different matter. Pour that into oceans that are already rising (because warm water expands), and you deluge shorelines. By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft. ”The article Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room puts forth that oil and its companion natural gas together make up about 60% of humanity's primary energy. In addition, the energy of oil has been leveraged through its use in the extraction and transport of coal as well as the construction and maintenance of hydro and nuclear generating facilities. Oil is as the heart of humanity's enormous energy economy as well as at the heart of its food supply. Further, the article suggests that industrial agriculture, as practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries, is supported by three legs: mechanization, pesticides/fertilizers and genetic engineering. Of those three legs, the first two are directly dependent on petroleum to run the machines and natural gas to act as the chemical feedstock. The genetic engineering component of agribusiness generally pursues four goals: drought resistance, insect resistance, pesticide resistance and yield enhancement. Meeting that last goal invariably requires mechanical irrigation, which again depends on oil. bcouture 2/5/08
Social Pressure:
Here is a blurb from the magazine Psychology Today (December issue): "Peer Pressure: Appeals to conscience or pocketbook don't turn people green as well as social pressure does. Presented with reasons like saving the Earth, being a good citizen, and saving money, homeowners - though they won't admit it - cut energy usage only when they think their neighbors are already doing it." This small finding may have huge implications for the latter part of our book/article. It suggests that people will be more influenced to change their behavior if they get the impression their peers are doing it too. This also brings up similar findings where people are seen to measure themselves against others, regardless of any standard baseline or rational logic. For example, the studies observing people waiting in line at a store have found that people are more satisfied with being ahead of other people in line than the actual proximity of their position to the front. It seems that there is something about human nature that compels us to relate to others far more than any rational choice theory. This is most likely due to the fact that adhering to social pressure was adaptive in the ancestral environment, i.e. avoiding ostracization. This information could be applied, and in some cases already is being applied, to advertising and marketing for renewable energy technologies and more eco-friendly products. Crogers 18:10, 30 January 2008 (CST)
State of the World:
I hope this works. As you know in the world of environmental concerns, there is nothing more for certain than differing opinions and debating views. Even though some of these views have less merit than others, some have actual data or evidence to back up their claims. One of these people is named Bjorn Lomborg who wrote a book called, “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World.” In it he talks about how there is a tendency to be too “alarmist” about how the world is facing difficult environmental issues.
Lomborg basically plays a parenting role in trying to calm his worried audience down by saying that things aren’t actually too bad and what the proverbial mean kids during recess have said are unsupported or untrue. But he still wants people to be cautioned and responsible about the environment. One of the first things that become apparent is that Lomborg initially looks as though he knows what he’s talking about. He has numerous statistics to back up his claims. It makes sense he’s a statistician. Lomborg largely bases some of his views on a cost-benefit analysis in which the cost at which people pay for the attention of certain environmental issues don’t come to benefit as much as people think. His main area of criticism relies on the “Worldwatch Institute” and their annual publications on the environment such as global warming. Once again, he believes in some of the pressing concerns regarding human pollution, etc. But he picks at their focus on short term trends or fluctuations in the environment rather than the long term. He urges people that some of the concerns regarding the environment are political and buying into them too much would cause some resources to be allocated wastefully, while more pressing needs are being ignored.
I don’t necessarily agree with his claims. But I think having critics to the “alarmist” environmental perspective is what fuels skepticism, which is in most part integral to the “oh so great” critical thinking process. Lomborg basically sides on a cautionary tale of humanistic urges to jump on the bandwagon for causes that haven’t been fully analyzed. Just because evidence for a point of view seems like it makes sense doesn’t make it so. I guess the same can be said for his views as well. But at the same time, because things seem like they’re going downhill in our lifetime, doesn’t mean that it was due to factors in our lifetime that caused it. Fluctuations in the environment happen all the time whether or not humans have been there to experience it. Of course there are things like oil that do not fluctuate. A lot of environmental groups literally want this man ousted from his scholarly pedestal. But even if his statistics are skewed or misleading nor is he a real environmental scientist, he brings forward a greater conviction to what real scientists must do in proving their claims. There will always be skeptics out there and if one is to prove them wrong they must provide thoughtful, multi-faceted evidence to urge for the real truth for the “state of the world.”
Here’s a wiki version summarizing major points in his book, some of his views, and his critics: [5]
Here’s an interesting website that criticizes his work, but in a way that takes a more critical approach: [6] Shyun 21:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)
PEAK OIL:
After last Wednesday's class when Dr. Mills talked about how no presidential candidate had discussed peak oil in a debate, I really wanted to research it and see what they had to say. I found was a clip on youtube with Dennis Kucinich. He did seem to have some knowledge on the issue and how we need to move away from our reliance on oil because of the economic and global implications. He marks this as vital to sustain the environment. Howard Dean was asked a question regarding the sacrafices American's need to start making to ensure a sustainable lifestyle. He believes that the sacrifices we need to make include paying more for energy and stop our dependence on foreign oil, which he marks as a threat to our security. Joe Biden says that its at least a decade to go from oil dependence to independence. Does everyone think that this is true? If we act now, taking advantage of all the green technology that exists, and start conserving our fuel rather than treating as a limitless resource, how long will it take to gain complete independence? [7]. I must say that it was pretty frustrating to see the significant lack of information from other candidates, such as Clinton and Obama. For such an important issue, how is it possible that they aren't aggressively addressing it? I think I am going to continue researching this. There has to be more from these people...after all they want to run this country. ALenvin 20:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I'm Scared!
All the material Dr. Mills has presented us with makes it pretty clear that we are are going to be experiencing some dramatic changes to our lifestyle in our lifetime. It's really disturbing to think we might be around to see, or be a part of, 4 billion dead people. Starvation has been going on in third world countries forever, but never in my backyard. I'm trying to prepare to be one of the survivors, but it's really difficult when you're poor, and I'm pretty sure the poor will be the first to go if the Malthusian catastrophe ever becomes reality. There are a ton of sites that explain the need for preparation and how to prepare, but all of them involve spending a decent sum of money that I definitely do not have at my disposal right now. They tell you to stockpile shit, but even if I did that, how would I keep my supplies from 4 billion starving people? Guns?! My dad did leave me twelve rifles in his will, but Jesus! I'm basically just wondering how far I should go with this. Some sites seem to suggest dropping whatever it is that you're doing right now and start preparing, which doesn't seem that crazy to me. On the other hand, though, I have plenty of friends who are really involved with technology who assure me that humanity will find a way. How, though? At this point, I feel concerned, but powerless. I wish I had enough money to 1) leave the country 2) move far away from people 3) start my own organic garden 4) stockpile goods that will keep me comfortable for a long time. But
until I have the means to do this, I guess I'll just make sure my tank is half-full at all times... Cvrooman 00:43, 5 February 2008 (EST)
As soon as this semester is over, all my efforts = starting a commune. Even if we haven't exceeded the carrying capacity of the world, (lifeaftertheoilcrash.net), I'd like to be completely self-sufficient. When shit does go down (and I'm pretty sure it will, I'd like to be one of the two billion people that survive, along with friends and family. step 1) figure out the best place to live in post-peak oil world step 2) learn how to farm step 3) father people, funds and knowledge step 4) learn how to operate a rifle. Cvrooman 23:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)cvrooman
What to Do?
When I signed up for this class I had some knowledge about the environmental state of the world. I recognized the rise in greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, I had heard the theories of population overshoot before, but nothing seemed to warrant any response. As long as I can get up everyday and jump in my car to go wherever and meet whoever than the world would be fine; if we run out of oil one day, who cares…technology will fix it. I obviously had not spent any time thinking about these things in depth or conducting any research of my own. I now find myself torn between what to accept or place faith in after being presented with information every week that seems to be very reliable, having been written by educated authors and supported with significant statistical evidence. What are we supposed to ultimately do?
The internet has plenty of suggestions for what to do, but nothing seems practical right now. Am I really supposed to prepare for the worst, find suitable land somewhere, find 20 skilled people, and try to start a subsistence living community that will be defendable against the starving, panicked masses of people that reacted too late? If we are not supposed to start doing this now, then when? Do we accept a belief in technology as our ultimate savior and just keep guzzling gas, power, and food? If this is really as serious as it’s made out to be by so many academics, why do we not see more of these problems communicated by our world governments? I’m sure all of you have come across the same questions, but honestly what should we do? What can we do….now…today? There is no optimistic answer to these problems aside from placing ourselves in technology’s saving hands – and this has no guarantee. I don't know whether to be extremely anxious about what's going to happen, or just sit back like the rest of the world waiting. I guess we'll just have to see.
Jgarcia 23:59, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Screwed
While all of the new information that this class has provided has been very humbling, as well as depressing, I find myself asking one question: What the hell should I do? Seriously, I don’t know one person who has an answer, or one person who really can help me. Most of my friends are only able to offer the helpful phrase of, “Oh, we’ll be fine”. Even the colleagues that I work with, who are very informed on these issues, just look at me with the knowing look, of yeah, we’re f$#&#*. Cool. Maybe I’m missing the hopeful or positive side of this debate, but I don’t think I am.
My roommate Jon and I have discussed this at length, and after reading Christina Vrooman’s response, I think that many people have the same idea that we do: get the hell out of here. My only problem is: I don’t know where to go. Maybe I can spend the next 20 years of my life devoted to creating an environment literally in the middle of nowhere. This way no starving, murdering, radiation exposed mob will find me. Maybe. But is that my only option? Is my planning to work after college useless? Because really, in 30 years if I have money invested in a plunging stock market, or real estate investments made, it won’t mean jack. Do I have to spend the next however many years recruiting friends with specialized knowledge of how to administer first aid to people, without modern medicine? Is my best bet to learn carpentry until then and have a friend master metal and become a blacksmith?
It’s almost as if I’m kidding, but I’m not. I know that this has not been the first time someone has yelled the sky is falling, but hell, if it’s falling, I don’t know how to stop it.
Pferraiolo 00:22, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Thoughts on the state of world affairs
Ok so after having researched peak oil and over population and hearing about it in class, i must admit I am a bit skeptical about the future of the human race. When you have all of the data and the information placed in front of you it really is a very cold reality check. The human race as a whole is living in a very very dark state of denial. We hear this information and everything in our being wants to shout shut up its not true. The sad part is, it looks like the information is pretty true and on the ball. Its simple numbers, there is only so much oil in the world and we have proven that we are at the top of the game in reguards to oil. We can never produce more than we are now and we are quickly going to reach the point where we begin to produce less and less each year. Now the really scary thing is peak oil, combined with overpopulation. With so many people consuming and more and more people coming into being every day, the little oil and other resources we still have will be eaten up considerably faster than we would like. I wish there was something that we could do to help ease this impending disaster but no one is listening. It seems like we could do something to preserve our way of life if we acted immeadiately but the problem is as the days go by, we are not really addressing the issues or changing. I think one of the biggest things we could do to help would be to place a limit on how many children people are allowed to have. I know its pretty harsh but really we do not have any other choice, its either this or let nature have her way with us in the way of famine, drought, and disease. If we do not lower our consumption rate and birth rates than mother nature will do it for us and in a much more painful manner than we could imagine.
"Energy Wars" on the Sundance channel
Last night I had just got home from work and I caught the second half of a documentary entitled “Energy Wars” which aired at 10pm February 7th on the Sundance channel. This Dutch documentary explored the geopolitical consequences of the world's dependency on fossil fuels. The part I caught began with different celebrities talking about how they use alternative forms of energy and how the United States needed to become less dependent on foreign oil imports.
The documentary then began to talk about alternatives to oil and gas. Bioethanol (which was produced by burning sugar cane) was discussed as something that is being used a lot in Brazil. Africa’s alternative fuel was the atropha plant, which is used as a biofuel. The country of Georgia uses water to help with its energy needs. Georgia believes that in the future their country will be rich with hydroelectricity, not electricity from gas and oil. The documentary stated that the best way to produce energy self sufficiently is solar power. SunTech (a company that makes solar panels) had an advertisement played saying it was a world energy leader. Although solar panels are expensive, it is predicted that within 25 years they will be cheap enough so that the average person will be able to replace them every few years.
In Saudi-Arabia they tried to use solar energy but then changed their minds about it. They spent the money to install solar panels and discovered that they barely got any energy and secondly, the cost of upkeep for the solar panels was too much for the amount of energy they did provide. The spokesman for Saudi-Arabia said that the reason solar energy has not progressed is because no huge corporations want to invest in it for a good 25 years when oil is such an easy alternative. In China they have realized there is an energy deficit. Most major cities have initialized an incentive project to get their citizens to turn to alternative forms of energy. The author of “The World is Flat”, Thomas Friedman, stated at the end that the people who find an alternative source of energy are not going to be the people that discovered and promoted fossil fuels., rather some private citizen working away in his garage.
Overall, this was an interesting documentary. I think that because it was a foreign film (it was Dutch) that a lot more worldwide efforts to find alternative sources of energy were discussed, which I found comforting (although it really is distressing that the U.S. is so far behind other countries in trying to find alternative sources of energy!). CArnold 13:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Pissed-off:
When class first started I was overwhelmed. Not that I don’t sometimes still feel like this is all too much for me, but it was really bad at the start. I think what tipped me off to my own feelings was that I preferred not thinking about these problems once class was over and I walked out of that door. Even though the problems of overpopulation and Peak Oil followed me wherever I went, I would put off giving it any serious thought until I had to actually write something for the class. I think many people operate this way because they don’t like feeling useless, ineffective and small. The crises we’re facing are larger than any one person can deal with on their own—it takes the collective effort of many, I’m sure of that. Of course I can change my individual thoughts and behaviors, but it’s also my duty to share important things I’m learning and doing with others, right? So I have to figure out how to do that without preaching, or embarrassing, or otherwise angering people. And I have to be sure that I am included as a “victim” of my own diatribes. Even though the answer is probably not to be bitter or angry, I still get angry. I hope this class helps me channel that anger in a way that actually fixes the problem and doesn’t just complain about it.
"What I am going to do!"
This is my first blog ever, to any sort of site or anything, so we’ll see how this goes. After listening to lectures for the past several weeks, I feel I am becoming more aware of my surroundings. I am on the rowing team where we practice every morning in Ballona Creek, and each practice I am praying that I don’t get hit in the eye with the dirty water because if I do it’s a 50/50 chance of whether or not I am going to get pink eye or some other infection. And although this has been my common concern, this week I found myself being less concerned with myself and more concerned about the marine life that has t