Products/Waste

"The practice of designing products and the processes for making those products in environmentally responsible ways is known as Design for the Environment. Its goals of protecting environmental systems from harm, protecting human health and safety, and the sustainability of natural resources apply over the full product and process life cycle. Its practice focuses on reducing on reducing the use of hazardous substances, minimizing consumption of energy and resources, reducing waste, and expanding thelife cycle of products through recycling and reuse." (Robertson. 2014) Although this quote sits at the beginning of chapter fourteen, DFE is probably one of the most important proposals for reform that I have ever come across. And that is saying something since I attempted to do recycle mania quite a few times. The proposal brings to life products that we use, it personalizes their use so that we think of the object as telling us important truths about ourselves. This means we are more likely to find solutions to pollution spread by waste products. We eat from reusable bowls and cups. We live scantily with what we have with constant care for our items. We buy based on need. We produce naturally rather than rely on artificiality. This action plans requires what Robertson calls for, that is,"Zero Waste requires changes to policies and laws..."(Robertson, 2014). To speak the obvious... But the quote surrounds itself with amazing insights into why products should be geared to creating Zero Waste, namely that they provide incentives for reusing and recycling that go along with institutional economic incentives. Likewise, this appeal to safe urchases, reusable goods, and incentives to recycle reinforce," the waste  known as the 3Rs..." (Robertson, 2014) -- that is, to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Food

"The Food Bill codifies the rules of the entire food economy" (Food inc, 2008) This idea from Food Inc about corn production is an astounding observation that I didn't know. The fact that mass production contributes to monocropping oriented production and Food Factories which also has created a codified set of legal obligations in order to keep up with mass production is not only scary but it has attendant effects in the way we consume our goods and the way workers in laboratories and in factories are treated. It strengthens one of the main claims of the film -- that due to the Green Revolution and the allusion of convenience, what we eat today isn't the same foods we were eating 50 to 70 years ago, which came from farms that seasonally produced crop. This raises questions concerning the health of the corn we eat, especially with the laboratory ingredients in most foods like High Fructose Corn Syrup, the cereals we buy, the burgers we eat, and many of the foods that we continue to enjoy at a mere convenience. In other words, our consumption helps contribute to market oriented food production that provides for only those who can pay in exorbitant fees for unhealthy foods. Robertson discusses a similar topic when she says,"Industrialized agriculture uses a method  of planting called monoculture, designed to boost efficiency, in which fields are planted with single types of crops. (Robertson, 2014)" This factory style production, whether in the fields of in actual food factories where they raise chickens or cows or pigs (etc.), contributes to obesity and a lack of energy as well as increased rates of disease, depression, and many other issues which destroy the equilibrium of mind and body, ethics and economy, and society and nature.

However interesting Food Inc is and the ideas and examples shown to us throughout the film, there is one interesting use of language that is glaring in the words "veil" and "factory" as repeated in the film by Michael Pollen. That is, that he wants to open of the veil, which is an allusion to W. E. B. Du Bois' Souls of Black Folk, which, in turn, was written from a socialist perspective. Likewise, the metaphor of a "Factory" was popularized by labor movements influenced by the great philosopher Karl Marx during the Industrial Revolution -- Anarchists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists, and any other extreme social engineering movements have used this metaphor ever since. These two word uses must give the viewer pause, if only to find bias in the movies tone and rhetoric. This bias, however, is not unwarranted. The documentary continues to defends its argument admirably and seeks to convince people to eat healthier. I must say, I am convinced that Tyson is a factory head attempting to enslave my taste buds. Just kidding. To be honest, I don't think our food system as represented in Food Inc. follows the three E's of sustainability, and that is the sad part since, well, Equity is important for any social or financial contract, economic benefit is extremely important for anyone and any country who wishes to expand markets and decrease inflationary negation of currency value, and the environment is an important center for human well-being, a place that must be protected. To conclude, most of the video's ideas was already well known to me, but the use of language caught my interest and made me think deeper about what I was being told from a philosophical and political standpoint as well as from a concerned viewers standpoint.


http://dgeneralist.blogspot.com/2013/11/4-perfect-reason-to-make-you-have-your.html

Livable Cities

"Sprawl is characterized by low density, lane use, single use zoning, and automobile dependency. Sprawl has many negative effects..." (Robertson, 2014)

Many indeed. Sprawl is characterize by the Eisenhower years and the economic expansion found post-world war two, although we see many incidents of sprawl throughout american and global history: the deforestation of France and Germany during the Middle Ages, the colonial ventures in the Early Modern Period, the expansion of the railroads in the 1800s, the New Deal under FDR, and the suburban construction projects and interstate highway system build by Eisenhower are just a few examples. Why must we grow out when growing up is perfectly fine? Could we claim the the pressures of overpopulation and the traumas of modernity have put a strain on people's need for privacy and in doing so have encouraged a desire to build a house outside the population dense zones of cities, into the suburbs. "Sprawl affects not only planetary health of social and individual health as well." (Roberston, 2014) This is true in more ways than one, but what major problems faced with sprawl is increased obesity. By localizing, towns and people can build municipal areas more likely to be helpful for the individual across the board. This would drastically reduce VMTs that greatly increase the amount of carbon emissions we have, consequently, been emitting. This requires new ways to plan cities. I don't think many citizens would disagree with the statement: "most cities in the USA can use a re-planning and rebuilding project. This means, as Robertson says, cities must plan their cities using the "Five Ds: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to travel" (Robertson, 2014). My one concern however is the tensions that grow between people in overly dense, regulated environments. Think about the regimes in charge of Rwanda leading up to the Genoce: highly regulated, locally planned, and extremely dense population. Although the massacres did not seem to be related to overpopulation and was driven by ethnic and racial hatred between the Tutsis and Hutus, the environment must've had some effect on the outcome of the gruesome events to happen in 1994. My last concern is that these newly planned cities will encourage a less active lifestyle in international relations, which means the global disasters may be less readily stoppable or we may be less able to act if focusing on regional life. This scares me... especially with the genocides and human rights violations upon genocides we find in the world in the past and present. I fear that an internal focus may blind the USA and other nations to help countries like Rwanda.

https://nogenocide.ru/post/5

Energy

Creating ways to collect sustainability is a growing field in capitalist markets around the world. I think in this chapter Robertson does a good job of giving us a run down about the different kinds of energy and the pros and cons of most. She is right to say,"We live in a high energy society based on fossil fuels" (Robertson, 2014). Examine your own life, all we use is gas and coal to power our homes, our cars, and even many of the devices we think to be sustainable. But how do we change that? How do we incentivize other forms of energy? Again, I think Robertson does a good job of explaining action plans that could be applied to our own lives as well as those of city and town planners. "Effective plans take an integrated approach, considering building as a whole system whose components influence each other" (Robertson, 2014). This type ofplan and some of the other solutions she proposes reminds of a former player of one of my favorite soccer teams, Matheiu Flamini. Over the last couple years, Flamini has taken what he has earned from being a professional soccer player and invested it into a company called GF Biofuels, where he and other advocates of sustainable energy have been testing the capacity of Levulinic Acid to fuel our cars and homes. According to his company, LA can be safely used in food packaging (and is biodegradable) and in our homes cook our foods and clean our kitchen. Hence, Flamini believes the chemical might allow offer a sustainable and holistic chemical that can be used to stop carbon emissions and protect the health of our planet and our own lives. Since revealing that he was one of the CEOs of the company, his investment has risen in value as share projections suggest he could be worth well over a billion after developing a plan to make Levulinic Acid on a commercial scale. I think this ties into Roberston's book when Robertson says,"Making the transition to a post-carbon  world is a mutli-faceted undertaking. (Roberston, 2014). She later gets into the three strategies we can employ to reduce our use of fossil fuels -- this is exactly what Flamini has aimed to do.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/football/741763/mathieu-flaminis-no-fuel/

Pollution

"Neurotoxins attack nerve cells, causing permanent neurological damage. Neurotoxins include heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and many pesticides,..." (Robertson, 2014)

And to think that because of pollutants like oil being spouted off into the sea like the shouts of a man at the top of a canyon, echoing into the skins and cells of fish. And we the consumers eat that flesh with whimsical desires, eating without knowing that perhaps this white sea bass is full of mercury, like the planet, deadly and toxic. And what does mercury do to me eventually? It destroys my brain, counteracting the Omega oils that help that brain develop. That is a scary thought, that toxins we expound onto the world with gleeful carelessness are slowly deteriorating, rotting, melting that which every human cherishes the most, the system that gives our contemplative demeanor, our compassionate responses, our ability to communicate beyond a private language. Our mental impressions, the effect force of the will of the brain, are the monads that Leibniz claims strings us together in the Eternal Grace of God. As an agnostic, I generally take a different route -- I choose to describe this phenomena of collective unity or consciousness in terms of String Theory, where we are the musical impressions of one dimensional strings that continue to create wavelengths that are our existence, our reality. But I digress... The idea that there are so many man-made pollutants scares me. I mean, think about what Robertson calls Endocrine Disruptors, which disrupt our normal hormonal functions, generally acting not unlike estrogen -- a chemical that encourages more feminine development -- "Phthalates are carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, widely used as plastic softeners in toys and food packaging and as a fragrance-enhancersin cosmetics. BPA is another mutagen and endocrine disruptor used in manufacturing poly-carbonate plastics for products including water bottles, food can linings, and tooth sealants;" (Roberston, 2014). One question worth contemplating is whether the long term effects of using these chemicals are encouraging us to loosen restrictions on sexuality? It has been proposed that that Catholic Laws condemning sodomy when Gratian codified his Decretum were the product of the catholic church attempts o create societal order. In which case, anyone caught performing acts other than missionary were made to do penance, and those which were caught perform rectal sexual acts were also punished in the same way. Over time, although the allure of homosexuality did not stop, these laws became socially accepted by Medieval and Early Modern Europe -- despite their conception of sexuality being a lot more open than it is today. With the increased exposure to chemicals acting similar to estrogen make more effeminate men? Making everyone more emotional individuals? Is this why we are seeing changes in law in favor of the LGBT community? This is both a crazy thought but also an appealing thought, a silver lining as it were, despite the chemicals' negative effects. That being said, her chapter on pollution is illuminating. My favorite quote was this one: "Pollution does not have to be inevitable. It is in fact a symptom of poor design, a sign of inefficiency."(Robertson. 2014). Although I cringe at utilitarianism, I can comfortably that that this quote gives someone the hope that things can change and any lasting change, in my opinion, begins with a sign, a ray, a touch of hope.


https://plus.maths.org/content/researching-unknown-string-theory


http://www.123rf.com/photo_46226801_stock-vector-poster-with-lgbt-support-phrase-rainbow-flag-as-a-background-and-black-text-love-is-a-human-right.html

Ecosystems and Habitat

"Ocean fisheries are collapsing, forests and wetlands are disappearing, and deserts are advancing. A process known as the sixth mass extinction is underway, with species going extinct at a rate not seen in 65 million years." (Robertson, 2014)

Why are our habitats disappearing? And I emphasize the "our" because we and the wildlife that is around us are interrelated. This is what a lot of people do not understand. The quote from Robertson's text. however, is just plain fear mongering to forward a certain image of the future. Yes, statistical date is overwhelming leaning toward bad signs, but the "sixth mass extinction"? This is overreaching, especially considering we can only conjecture about the realities of the past and future no matter what evidence we collect. We are inferring that this is so based on the evidence we've collected. We cannot realistically prove this to be true despite deductive validity. It is, as Plato would outline, just a shadow on the cave wall. If we were omniscient. then we could resolutely describe the process that is occurring, but what if, in the next 20 years, regardless of our projections, the natural world recovers some of its past affluence? We must be open to an idealistically future if we are going to change the way we think about the world, and fear-mongering is the least constructive way to create impetus. This begins by asking the question: what is essential to our way of life and what can be overlooked? As Robertson says,"land clearing for crops destroys the largest percentage of terrestrial habitat" (Robertson, 2014). This is a classic case that begs the question: what land do we need for crop production and what and are we using in excess? In terms of market value, just as the SEC has been doing to Securities Law in recent years, perhaps more regulation on land use is an important step for idealistic change, that protects capitalist, personal interests and collectively creates, within reason, safeguards to construct a more healthy worldview. I think Robertson again brings this to light in this chapter despite the fear mongering introduction. For example, she says,"Conserving or restoring ecosystem health involves three broad fields... reservation, restoration, reconciliation" (Robertson, 2014). These are sometimes referred to the three "Rs"... If we take this approach, we aim to repair damages to the environment, which gives us a sense of purpose. We "Reserve" or preserve the natural world untainted by destruction or pollution that already exists. And, lastly, we reconcile our interests with nature; this means applying economic strategies to conserving the natural world and retaining the health of ecosystems, which encouraging further market growth. I think this is the change of mindset that is essentially the right course of action, but I think environmentalists all too often look to the French Revolution,Emancipation, or the Civil Rights Movements as their example of change, abrupt change. But as a historian and someone very interested in the long term effects of change over time in human society, the most lasting and healthy changes have come gradually, have come without revolution. Look, for example, as the Battle of Hastings... The Anglo-Saxon Lords retains much of their land holdings if they swore fealty to King William I. It was only gradual that a "Cross-Channel" Lordship class was created by the Normans. This took a hundred years to really solidify and become a common expression of British society. Likewise, the gradual institutionalization of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages -- do you think Pope Gregory the Great wield uncontested authority through Europe let alone Italy or just areas around Rome after the decline of the Roman Empire? No. This institutionalization took hundreds of years. This same shift in environmental consciousness took hold in the 1800s and continues to grow in our collective minds. Soon this change will be fully evident in our policy decisions as we continue to describe our effect to ecosystems. This is where proper change lies. This is what some of the more vehement Environmentalist need to remember to not affect as much opposition.



http://slideplayer.com/slide/7668832/

Climate

"One the other hand, continual change is characteristic of climate and of all complex systems. So a climate that is changing is nothing new. In order to understand whether the recent temperature changes are unusual, it is necessary to look at Earth's climate history over a longer time period than 150 years." (Robertson, 2014)

I have been echoing this view for years. Many of my friends who believe in climate change have accused me of being a skeptic. But that is far from the truth considering I should be under the title "External Skeptic" if I were to be called one. This is because I look at changes in the climate broadly and not from the onset of the industrial age: from 1860-present. This time frame only catches a phenomena. But when, as Robertson says, we look at the entire climate history of the earth, we are likely to find answers to the debates that have plagued past climate change theorists. Now it should be a forgone conclusion, from an external skeptical standpoint, that climate change does exist if we analyze the rate at which climates have shifted versus how they used to shift. The exponential increase affirms the conclusion that climate change is real. One example is personal for me. Recently, for Civic Engagement, my group sought to build an app to educate people about the importance of shellfish to maintaining a health ph-level in the earth's oceans. But due to recent increases in ph-levels, many shellfish cannot grow adequately to function how they used to function in the ecosystem, becoming easier prey for predators or dying before they become food, which has also drastically changed many food webs in the earth's oceans. This is a scary topic to address. If the animal most used to maintaining healthy ph-levels is dying out, what does that mean for every other animal, not just its predators, in the ocean? An apocalyptic situation. I think humans need to drastically decrease their emissions and their waste pollution if they want to continue to eat protein-dense animals such as sea fish without tons of mercury.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yQuTjRh18-8/maxresdefault.jpg

How do we save our planet after the damage we've caused? I personally think that it begins with the individual. If we take the Humean approach to ethics and apply it to the ethics of keeping the planet from becoming a water world, then we all must be, as Robertson mentions,"Climate Neutral." "Climate Neutral is a term used to describe living or doing business in a way that results in an overall net climate impact of zero. Many people use the term Carbon Neutral to refer to the same condition of no net green gas emissions." (Robertson, 2014) This notion really does become a Friedrich Hayek-like/Humean principle of individual autonomy, where the individual will decide what is best for his/her personal needs and in doing so an economy or a universal ethic is created by contract between others. To do anything worth doing, I believe that is the way to approach climate problems. And to set the bar for zero net climate impact will be one step into the home of creating a better world. This starts with a plan.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Friedrich_Hayek_portrait.jpg

Just as Robertson claims,"Planning is an important first step in any activity, laying out a roadmap for the tasks ahead." (Robertson, 2014) Her use of roadmap reminds me of when I study for the LSAT, where Kaplan and many other helpful guides recommend getting used to making a mental roadmap so that when you answer a question you can go back to the main conclusions and premises with ease. I think this advice is very useful for changing climate change because, in my opinion, setting up a methodology and then putting it into a framework is how we as humans process important information and come to be attached to that information. Therefore, it is likely that if we make a plan and set it into action more people are likely to understand the issue, want to change the issue, and help you do so. What comes to mind is developing more companies that offer affordable electric cars (unlike Tesla) and finding ways to harness electricity without the use of Fossil Fuels.

Chapter 4 and the Earth Charter

"In all of the industrialized nations of the developed world, fertility rates are now at or below the replacement level. The population continues to grow, with almost all of the increase taking place in developing nations." (Robertson, 2014)

Not only does this quote reflect a very real situation but also a very sad situation. Roberson's quote also brings to the fore many moral and ethical questions that intersect with the study of sustainability. Why is war bad? How can the population steady itself out without such paradigmatic statistics (birthrates of developing versus industrialized countries)? Should developed countries allow this sort of policy for its own citizens? All of these questions are extremely scary to think about because they all brush their paint on competitive parts of the canvas of our world. In so doing, we tend to think about these questions from the sociological lens of in-group/out-group relationships. Should the United States not attempt to out breed a developing country who has not produced as many advances in science and technology? I cannot say that I agree because that is flat out disgusting, but it shows an interesting problem in the solution to our population growth problems. How do we stabilize the birthrates of developing countries? Robertson, with just cause, doesn't attempt to answer such specific questions because then she would be stepping into a moral spider trap of no escape. Does it mean more international restrictions on births as we saw in countries like China before its capitalistic policies began to unbind such legal wrappings? Or does it mean asking countries to comply and hoping that they do? To be sustainable means, then, to approach the population question through the lens of changing the conscious mentalities of every human being on the planet and this means beginning education at very young ages all over the world, most importantly in those nations where the birth rates are out of control. I think Robertson, then, misses some key areas of why developing countries have yet to experience a demographic transition. Does "social and economic progress hold(sic) the key to escaping from the demographic trap" (Robertson, 2014)? Poverty doesn't cause high birth rates... What it does is encourage high birthrates and therefore is a correlative mechanism with increased population. Providing education that changes the mental composition of those living in such a society, while providing economic opportunities that align with their particular worldview, will, in my view, enhance our options and spur, in some regards, developing counties toward their demographic transition periods. Social conditions will thus change along with psychological condition. I think the methodology, the social constructed method, misses some of the individualistic realities that we all face as humans and thus looks only at macro-progressions and macro-changes, and not necessarily individual or mico-changes in such societies.

However we look at it though, there seems to be many problems facing humanity as the world's resources are slowly petering away. With population growth at an exponential level, our hopes for long term survival are slowly diminishing unless the world goes through a demographic transition holistically. What needs to be found is the root causes of why population increases and how we can all tackle such problems -- this is always up for debate.




"We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature." (Earth Charter, 1992)

Although this is in the preamble, these couple sentences struck a cord for me. Not in the political sense but on an individual level. I do not wish to create international constitutions that dictate the values of all, however, I think the idea is necessary to be a good person, to find an ethical foundation for our nature of being. If we do not, we are constricted to a nothing in our being that is fundamentally lacking any identity outside of the whole and of the predestined values already in place. Human history has seen many so-called crises. And humanity has always responded by creating documents like the Earth Charter. This is part of the ebb and flow of human society and how we are predisposed to think about the past, present, and future no matter how many theories of relativity attempt to tell us otherwise. So when we look at the internal, we find places in ourselves that literally combat the outside hysteria we find all over the place. In doing so, we project an image that may imprint itself upon many people we come in contact with and if they too embody those traits then we can find common ground to remain stoic in the face of unimpeachable danger. We can look at the world and then find something both individual and holistic. But this doesn't require us to break the bonds of that create a kinship group of like-mindedness. In fact, competition is key to our survival. It is in the way we approach competition that may need to change and this is what I believe the Earth Charter does -- in some areas -- and doesn't do extremely well. It aims to give us an image of a pseudo-religious cause that connects us directly with our planetary body, but it fails to realize that without some of these anxieties we may never travel beyond this planet and into the unknown reaches of our galaxy. This is why, although the Earth Charter is necessary, it doesn't necessary reflect some of the mechanisms that may spur further advances in some areas of our imagination. I wish it would because looking into space at night is one of the most beautiful things the eye can set itself upon. What it does extremely well is tell us that to be humble and to connect with everyone else around us is an extremely important thing. And I have to agree because mutual support is so important for the psychologically imperfect humans that we all are. One of my favorite short story collections by Italo Calvino puts both of these ideas center stage as the main character, qwfwq -- who is meant to be a paradox in time -- travels from earth to many other planetary bodies in search of emotions and companionship. This is a fundamental truth we should all hold dearly. It is a shame many of us don't.

Chapters 3 and 4: The Biosphere and The Human Sphere

"Matter and energy more through every kind of system in regenerative patterns that are cyclical. Cycles happen at all scales of systems, from the metabolism of a bacterium to the pumping of carbon around the planet to the recycling of fundamental matter in the great star factories of interstellar space." (Robertson, 2014)

Now these few sentences captures what is beauty about our lives and the earth that we encompass. We are all matter and energy. We all matter -- to use a pun. This is the beauty of living in cyclical experiences of life, that our emotions shift in circular ways just as our essence does. We are recycled when our life is over and we are given a memory which hopefully lasts beyond our own lives. This memory will be the subconscious imprints of our matter and energy, but it will also be the principles we live by and the acts we choose to do. The metaphor follows: we are stars in and of ourselves but also atoms in a wider galaxy. And when we realize that, to look at systems and the time frame in which those systems exist, we find our lives enriched and hope for the future because, as I wish to say, we have the chance to progress the lives of our relatives in the future by acting as one and understanding the natural world as one. When we understand this we will all be of the same sun that also gives life to a new lively spirit within humanity.



"Systems can be defined at many scales. At the scale of the entire planet there are four major systems, or spheres: rock, air, water, and organism. Ecologists call these the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and the biosphere." (Robertson, 2014)

In this part of the chapter, Robertson does a great job of explaining the differences and similarities in each system and how they form a venn diagram as they begin to interconnect with the broader system of our planet. This idea reminds of the spheres of influence we discuss in the social sciences, especially when we are thinking about Cold War politics. Although this seems like a far reaching analogy, the notion that spheres begin to overlap and then inter mesh and connect is an important idea that we should all understand. In the cold War, many members of the UN had to side with the Left or Right blocs, to be on one side of the Iron Curtain. However, as time went on, countries were constantly attempting to create unique niches of their own and to play the game of politics. This led, slowly, to a unison in end goals which eventually also led to the loosening of communist thought in Russia (not entirely) and the opening up of diplomatic talks like SALT-1 and SALT-2, which, in turn, led to the eventual dissolution of right-wing hysteria in the USA -- for a time -- and the creation of a general election democratic formula in the voting system of Russia -- how effective is still debated about. In Robertson's discussion of the separate systems, the reader becomes entranced by the interconnection of it all and almost subconsciously forced to think about ways to protect such diverse and interconnected systems. I feel like this seems to demonstrate the nature of our moods too.



"Countries in the industrial world have passed through a period of population growth demographers call the demographic transition that occurs as countries move from one stage of development to the next. Preindustrial societies are characterized by both high birth rates and high death rates. As a society moves toward industrialization, death rates fall as food production and medical care improve while birthrates temporarily remain high. As education, social, economic conditions improve, birth rates fall and population growth stabilizes." (Robertson, 2014)

This is very logical and follows the Malthusian Cycle with some more intense research that pinpoints some of the macro-trends in human societal development and decline. The idea that this trend is somewhat natural is a very interesting conception. In fact, it leaves me wondering if, once there are more people around you, you are less stimulated to seek to build a family of your own. Of course I cannot prove such a statement, I can still think it. In my personal experience, as an introvert, I am less likely to be active in social situations that include more people than I am comfortable being around; this leads me to seek asylum away from everyone even when there are like-minded people to support me and my conversation topic. Can we extrapolate this idea into the idea that the building of a family begins with two individuals communicating? If there are too many situations in which someone doesn't feel comfortable meeting someone else, then they may be unlikely to have children -- if this phenomena continues for years and years. Thus, the population slowly declines. Is this one of the solutions to long term sustainability goals? It seems like Robertson would implicitly agree.

Chapters 1 and 2: Sustainability and its History

"Each tree, meanwhile, is part of a forest -- a community of trees, soil, water, and atmosphere. The forest, long-lasting yet constantly changing, is part of a web of interactions that connects it across miles to great planet-scale cycles and across thousands of years to the forests that came before and those that will come after." (Robertson 2014, 4)

Robertson's comment about the all-encompassing systems of nature, especially of the forest, bring back memories from childhood, of growing up in the golden hills and oak dense forests of Northern California's dry climate and also images of my summer times in the state of Washington, the Evergreen State, where thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Douglas Firs and other northern climate trees thicken the hillsides and valleys. I remember hiking up snoqualmie pass with my grandfather and uncles, enjoying the smell of pine, the sound of rapids in the river, and the buzz of the honeybee.  It is hard to believe such an environment is constantly changing and evolving. And that it is our job to sheperd it to sustain it. This is not only a daunting task but it is the only way for us to survive into the future. We must realize the issues of Carrying Capacity and seek long lasting ways to be one with our environment and introduce jobs that will change our industries to work in unison with nature. If we don't, the beauty of the forest and the emotions I feel when looking back at those summer memories, will mean nothing.




"The third 'E' represents equity, that is, social equity or equality (Edwards 2005, 23). Equity includes freedom from unhealthy living conditions and equal access to food, water, employment, education, and healthcare. Equity means providing opportunities for all not just a privileged few, to grow and flourish in their own way." (Robertson 2014, 6)

This is where 'Sustainability' fails its readers. It makes a priori claims without proving the theoretical realism with observable experience. Furthermore, the book is careless with language. This part of my blog will be dedicated to the absurdity of the statement above. First, I will start off by reciting Black's Law Dictionary's definition of Equity: Fairness; Impartiality; evenhanded dealing; 2, The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law. (Garner 1996, 272) This definition requires further explanation. First of all, the book subtly puts a political bias into its language when it synonymizes equity and social equity with equality. According to the definition of equality, for instance, is the right to be equal in power, achievement, or excllence (Oxford English Dictionary). This creates a subtle semantic divide between the two concepts, especially in practice. For example, an Equity Court does not determine whether someone is being paid the same for the same job. Rather, they decide whether the conditions of the job allow for an equality in pay. This distinction is taken for granted in Robertson's book. In fact, she discusses Social Equity as equal to equity which is equal to equality. This type of non sequitur argument over generalizes the implications she sets forward to present. One example of this is the fact that social equality has a different definition than social equity. Despite her lack of contextual and semantic analysis, Robertson also loses focus when she discusses the "privileged few" in terms of equality. This sort of social critical theory has little place in her analysis because it contains polarizing dialectics that do not represent the unity that should be involved in arguments for sustainability. Hence, instead of saying not just for the privileged few, she could say "Equity means providing opportunities for all" so "that they may grow and flourish in their own way".  It isn't that hard to not push for a political side in discourse if you wish to respect everyone. Because when you don't, you provide impetus for your readers to demonize certain people and become less critically aware individuals, instead descending into the marshes of justice as ideological singularity.








"The chemist Ellen Swallow developed the concept of human ecology, an approach in which humans are not seperate from nature or managers of nature; they are part of nature and work within it." (Robertson 2014, 12)

Although I can agree with Swallow's argument, again, Robertson isn't sensitive with her language. In fact, she makes it seem as though Swallow was the first to realize this when, in fact, many Christians who believed they were given "dominion over the land and sea" also believed in the same concepts. In fact, they inextricably tied the movement of other planets and the sun to their own bodies in such a way that there was a singularity of essence in the universe (i.e. the pre-cartesian worldview of Embodied Cognition). I don't understand how someone who claims that everyone should have a broad understanding of many different disciplines would be insensitive to historical reality. The natural world was a part of the body, the soul, and the heavens. This idea stems from ancient Greece and it carried over up until the Enlightenment. Robertson should be aware of this and be more sensitive with her verb usage. Instead of saying developed, she could've easily said "re-introduced", which reflects historical reality and is more consciously aware of the language used in her narrative. This would give students a more realistic image of ideas and how they can be used to change the world, in my honest opinion.

 

Biophilia and Bioregionalism: Chapter 17

"Biophilia, the genetically encoded emotional need of humans to affiliate with nature and with other living organisms, evolved as an adaptive mechanism to protect people from hazards and to help them access resources such as food, water, and shelter. In modern life, research shows that contacty with the natural world has an impact on human health  and well-being as well as people's ability to think and learn." (Robertson 2014)

Biophilia is the genetic tendency to be emotionally attached to nature. It is funny to think about such a concept and never be consciously aware of its existence. It reminds me of the Pre-Cartesian worldview of Embodied Cognition, in which the human body -- back then made up of Plotemy's and Aristotle's notion of the four elements that correspond with Galen's theory of humoralism -- is but a vessel with a small membrane that fully interacts with its surrounding environment, almost as if that membrane was a sponge soaking in the experiences and actual physicality of objects into one's ontological makeup. This same notion is discussed in a minutely different way in Sustainability's discussion about biophilia and how children and adults can learn to embody its benefits by immersing themselves in the natural world. Although we tend to think that we do have a massive appreciation for nature, more so than most, we tend to never skip our way into the woods like a child building a tree fort in the woods behind his house. Why is that? The Enlightenment spurred a huge division in the thinking of today and the thinking of the Medieval World. Before, philosophers and scientists (natural philosophers) like Kant and Lavoisier and Decartes began to describe the natural world and the differing experiences of man versus the natural world, many people believed that the four elements connected them to their surroundings and affected the emotions they felt and the thoughts they conceived. This same notion is put forth in Robertson's book. She seems to take a lot from the naturalistic vs materialistic dichotomy that we also see in the writings of the famous monk and scholar St. Francis of Assisi. More so, she almost takes directly from Aquinas' notions of a materialistic metaphysical reality in which connects us all to God (in almost pantheistic fashion).  If we are connected emotionally and mentally with nature, then, according to Robertson's theories, we also learn in a more beneficial way when we engage with the natural world. The freedom to move and learn at the same time makes biophilia a very real hypothesis that, just like any in vogue theory, demonstrates a nice niche in which humans can connect with their environment. The interesting thing, however, is that this notion is nothing new and in fact is shown in the writing of St. Francis when he refers to his ascetic retreat into the wilderness as a direct connection to his God, which brings fourth an almost Transcendentalist, Emersonesque image of a man who finds himself and his teleology, morally speaking, in his time with nature.

https://thepocketscroll.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/st-francis-and-why-you-like-him/



"Bioregionalism  is an approach to living and learning that focuses on the particular bioregion where a person or group of people live. It represents local knowledge and local livelihoods that grow from a particular place." and "Embedded in biophilia is the genetic human need to exploration and discovery, both important elements in problem-solving... Children sometimes need space and silence and should have the option of choosing solitude." (Robertson 2014)

 These quotes are instrumental to my understanding of the point being expressed in the chapter and what can be used outside of the text in a very real way. If lacking factual evidence to back up its idealsitic, if a bit manorialistic (this is referring to the Medieval notion of Manorialism in that peasants worked to pay for protection in regional communities. Although manorialism doesn't mirror bioregionalism, it creates a historical discourse with the very same notion in different and similar ways: manorialism was instrumental in creating regional notions of identity during the Medieval period, whereas bioregionalism presupposes that we should begin to identify with our regional surroundings and its uniqueness in order to create a better world,) ideas, Bioregionalism asks us to embed ourselves in the present and into the nature that surrounds us. This creates a link which can bind us to that particular area. Although this is scary for some (myself included), for others this is a very real and fascinating way to live because it means that they have to care about where they live and not take from it and leave for places anew. Although I could never live in such a manner because it doesn't favor my cavalier-like worldview, it different gives to the stationary conservative a platform or base to experience the beauty of the natural world and thus help them learn and ethically connect them with others who are interested in preserving the health of our planet. Bioregionalism gives its readers a sense of hope for the future, that whatever has been done to the atmosphere can be backward engineered through education and working together. This sounds a lot like Moore's Utopia, where the Utopians work in gardens to achieve a mutually competitive goal of protecting their island. Education in his philosophical story is one key element that the Utopians use to achieve their sustainable practices and their balwark of defense, they coexist with their environment, and they do not exploit it. One of the ways chapter 17 attempts to prove this same notion of educational achievement is through its explanation of healthy learning and play environments. Should the child be given an atmosphere in which they take their environment for granted or should they engage with the environment. The latter proves to be true according to Sustainability because, although no research or academic studies are cited for evidence, children learned better in an open,nature-oriented environment, where, if given the proper natural materials, they will use problem solving skills with other children (which isn't really explained in detail, only taken for granted) to build natural shelters where they can find personal solace.



https://www.google.com/search?q=More%27s+Utopia&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIuKTnku3OAhVDLyYKHbkPD34Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=6OJrFHUbyVQ-uM%3A

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/a/dieffenbach-anton/playing-children-in-the-w.html

In a personal sense, these are very real conjectures, For example, when I was a kid I used to go skiing with my mother, grandfather, and uncles up in Snoqualmie Pass, Washington during the winter. I used to think that I was conquering the treacherous icy hills and snowy mountains, but the truth of the matter is that I was immersing myself into the beauty of the natural world and in the circadian cycle of my day, night, and time schedules. The places I skied became the imprints of my journey through time, in unison with the natural world. And through this process I felt the sadness and the excitement during the best and worst times in life. Sadness because I would never experience the same exact snow formation again, and excitement because nature gave me an avenue toward a knowledgeable future, where I could use the skills I learned while skiing in various other activities such as soccer and studying.  In other words, its helped me decipher, to some extent, right from wrong.

https://www.wunderground.com/wximage/mdlpic/239\

Biophilia and Bioregionalsim connect to form a beautiful learning experience when you allow it.


"Various groups choose language to reflect their particular views of reality." (Robertson 2014)

And all too often insist on making moral arguments. For some reason I have a problem with this notion of right, especially considering the liberal mantra of "protecting the rights of the individual." If that is the case, then, does right and wrong -- from a factual standpoint -- really matter? My right is to believe in what my heart tells me to believe. At first glance that sounds very, even banally so,cliche, but a closer look at what I mean shows us that that isn't the case. In fact, what I am saying is that because I am human and believe in the fundamental principle that all humans have a standard equality of belief -- especially considering the notion that crimes against humanity are crimes that take that right away --  then, even if I am a nut job, should be allowed to accept and reject any argument I wish to accept or reject. In this way, language becomes all important. If we look at the campaign of Bernie Sanders and his notion of implementing a Carbon Tax, we find ourselves gazing at a Utilitarian argument which claims, moralistically and on a factual basis, that we should accept a Carbon Tax. But this notion and language goes against the principle that the individual has the right of being an individual. Because whatever I do, it begins with my relationship with something else. This means that I act as an individual every time I choose to act. Therefore, to implement any tax to hault my ability to act is an impeachment of some of the minute rights I hold onto as an individual. I have the right to reject and accept the language and shouldn't be coerced into accepting any form of linguistic reason if I choose not to. The same applies to the other side of the political sphere and the notion of abortion. I wont get into here but the fundamental principle still stands. Why should I be told that I cannot act in a manner I wish to act? Why should you stop me? Part of the reason for being in a society is that we linguistically set boundaries or domains of experience that block us from going to extremes in our actions and behavior. And I think that notion is the beauty of being human. To understand what should be regulated and what shouldn't in accordance with the broader context of humanity. And that is why language is so important.



https://www.google.com/search?q=language+animal&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQq_jBlu3OAhUH1SYKHRYHArkQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=language+animal+taylor&imgrc=HLEh00lMqz_eEM%3A