Blog #14- How tiny is too tiny?

 
           This week we watched a really cool and motivating film called Tiny.  It is on Netflix but it was sure a movie I had not heard about before taking this class.  It is about people that build their own little house on a trailer pretty much.  Their house is only 100-200 square feet and some are even smaller then that.  They do this because they want to live in a smaller place and enjoy the environment more then the inside of their own home.  It forces them to go outside more and spend more time outdoors since inside is much smaller then a normal house.  There are probably more then just that reason too.  I think that whoever came up with this idea is really cool because although you are living in a box pretty much it makes you think about all the things you buy the things you bring home and how to use things that you would use everyday.  Also the layout of these houses are pretty coll.  I’m one of those people that goes house hunting for fun and goes and looks at model houses because they are bored.  You get so many ideas from these and after watching this movie I got so many ideas on how to use things and how to store them so that they are not in the way and they are hidden. 

The other thing that was pretty cool is how they build it.  They have to get a trailer and then build a house on top of it.  Oh, and they have to make sure that it won’t move in the middle of the night, or during a thunderstorm.  Also they have to make sure that it is sturdy enough to hold everything and that they outside won’t get ruined if there’s a huge snow storm or earthquake even.  It will probably be hard but if you are up for it then I support you no matter what!  It is a great thing and a pretty cool one at that.

This is at rue story about living small but exploring big.  It is a whole new world when you watch it and it kind of makes you wonder how they do it and how they make it work.  It can amaze you to just think about how people are okay with it; I know it amazed me when I watched this.

This Post Lacks a Creative Title

To start this post off, I’m going to let y’all in on a little secret, and it may just surprise you. I have no strong emotion towards climate change. Obviously, I wouldn’t have any positive emotions towards it: joy, happiness, exuberance. None of those would make sense. But, I don’t have any real negative emotions towards it as a whole either. I have no guilt, because it’s not my fault; no extra fear, because our world was never safe to begin with; no despair, because I have hope. The best emotional reaction I can give towards climate change is apathy; strange, considering my hopeful career as a climatologists or climate scientist. I should be the one who is consumed by some sort of passion towards this, since the new phenomena of weather that is occurring is the very reason I chose that field.

Margaret Klein claims in an online article (Links to an external site.) that “Many people claim not to have an emotional reaction to climate change. Some of these people who lack the education, exposure to fact-based media, or intellectual capacity to comprehend the threat of climate change, and thus truly have no emotional reaction to it.” Well, I certainly don’t fall into any of those categories. The courses I have taken in climatology, while not making me an expert by far in that field, also don’t allow me to declare ignorance of this fact. And I certainly feel that I have the capacity to understand the threat of climate change. My professor believes so, at the very least. According to Klein, that leaves only one other possibility: I’m in denial.

Klein states that “climate change apathy should be regarded in the same way as people who claim to have no reaction to their recent divorce, the death of a parent, or being raped.” Now, I haven’t experienced any of these (and by no means am I attempting to make light of these events), but I did have an uncle pass away not more than a few weeks ago. While this was a trying time for his wife and children, I didn’t respond much to the situation beyond the initial “this sucks” reaction. The same goes for climate change. Yes, there are a lot of bad things that could happen to the world, but no, I don’t feel anything towards it. It is a fact of the world, and therefore cannot be helped. My personality type doesn’t really mix well with emotion; to get me to do something, appeals to reason work a whole lot better. I know I’m not the only person like this, and I also know that there aren’t necessarily a lot of us around. Our lack of emotion doesn’t mean we don’t care. People don’t need emotion to take an action, nor is emotion necessary for someone to be passionate about something. So there is no need to be upset with someone for not having an emotional reaction to a situation; when it comes to science and similar fields, or any point when a cool head is better than an emotional one, lack of emotion is considered a good thing.

If you do want me to give an emotional reaction, or at least a passionate one, then just talk about geoengineering. The topic is just something that really interests me, and more importantly, the people who advocate it interest me. Someone who just brings up the topic as a possible scenario hasn’t done anything to provoke my ire. It is still considered a possible solution, if a not yet viable one. It would be unfair to all parties to not talk about it in a scientific discussion. Having to talk to someone who is defending it, however, is when I view the person in question as irksome. Bruno Latour told us to love our monsters, and monster is an apt name for what could happen if geoengineering is pursued. Any resultant disasters would most likely not be small in scope; the globe has over 7 billion people, and the purpose of geoengineering is to affect the whole globe. Ergo, there are over 7 billion people who could be negatively affected by geoengineering. That is a number of people that I am not comfortable jeopardizing. In addition, the way to correct geoengineering is, by design, more geoengineering. Logically, this move seems unwise; emotionally, it must be terrifying.

Blog #13: Why do emotions matter

            We’re back with yet another topic to discus, so get ready!  This past week we have been talking about emotions and how we feel about climate change as well as other issues that we live with daily. So tonight we are going to talk about how those emotions play a huge part in what we can do in our environment today to help those issues and hopefully try and stop them sooner rather then later. 

            When you hear the term deforestation what emotions do you feel right away?  I know for me I feel sad because when you think of it and how many trees we cut down on the daily and how much of all the rainforests we are destroying.  It is a sad thing when you realize how many homes we are tearing down every minute.  It makes you wonder what we would do if something like that were to happen to us and our homes how would we feel.  I also feel worried because of the fact that trees make oxygen and if we keep going at the rate that we are then how are we going to have enough oxygen to survive for centuries to come.  Just thinking about the next generation after us and how they are going to do it and if they will even have rainforests to go look at.  I’ve been to the amazons and it is just beautiful and everyone should have to opportunity to go look and one of the natural wonders that this world has to offer us.  There will be people that will not have that opportunity because of everything that we are doing now and what we have been doing. 

            Emotions can cause you to feel many things towards an issue and they might even help you realize things that you could do differently to help the issue.  It’s one of the little things that will help you realize how to live your life and how to be the best you can be! 

            Hopefully this made you think about how you feel towards deforestation and other issues.  Till next time readers.

Individual Inquiry #3: The Precautionary Principle

            I think that the precautionary principle is a good thing and could benefit us if we have enough people on board with it and helping everything/everyone out in carrying it forward.  When I think of climate change it worries me and kind of scares me thinking of the future so it is the perfect time to let people know about this principle.  We have proven that we are harming the environment with all the big companies and industries that we have now so since the precautionary principle says that “when an activity raises threats or harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”.  If we think something is harming us or our home then we have the right to help it and fix it.  That is why I think it is necessary now in days so that we don’t make things worst and hopefully start reversing the damage we have done.  Or at least start to if anything. 

            Even though there might be risks for the outcome of this principle and things might go wrong it is still worth a try.  There are risks for everything that we do and yet we still do them.  Same thing here its just us helping the things we really care about. 

            Its worth a try so why not just see if it works and go from there!

Individual Inquiry 3: Waffle House is for food, not policy

If we could see the future, the world would be a much better place. If a man (or woman) could see the results of his actions, then how often would politicians pass un-executable laws, or engineers build useless buildings, or a boss telling you to do something just for you to have to change it later? My guess is, they wouldn’t. But, foregoing the fact this world doesn’t exist, the biggest problem with this future seeing is the same as the problem that the precautionary principle gives us: that it gives inaction as a viable option for what to do in crises, and puts too much focus on finding the perfect solution instead of pursuing a doable one. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus describe the precautionary principle, “long evoked by greens to argue against any innovation unless it can be proven 100% safe,” a picture is already being created in my mind of a group of people blathering on about this possibility and that outcome, with no real solution reached. But life isn’t breakfast, so no waffles!

Now, I’m a pretty cynical person, but in this case, I feel my position is well supported. The main concept of the precautionary principle is that consequences of actions in complex systems are often unpredictable and irreversible and concludes that such actions should generally be opposed (Wikipedia, proactionary principle). Well, surprise, surprise, the era we live in (“late industrialism”) is characterized by complexity, according to Kim Furtun. Sounds like this principle isn’t off to a good start. Bruno Latour stated the principle was created so that “even in the absence of scientific certainty, decisions could be made.” If this was true, that would be great, but it’s not. Even Latour acknowledges that its implementation has not been perfect, and I would argue, doesn’t really help. It still allows inaction to be a possibility. Teddy Roosevelt has the best way of expressing my feelings on inaction: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Let me present a walkthrough of the flaws I find using a personal favorite subject of mine: geoengineering. I don’t like geoengineering, and I don’t want it to be implemented. People following the precautionary principle also more than likely don’t want to see geoengineering implemented. Yeah! We agree. We probably even have the same reasons for why it shouldn’t be done, in that there is no way of proving that it is safe without actually falling through with the procedures. The precautionary principle says that since we don’t know, we will not do anything about until more knowledge from the scientific community comes in. I think that it is a stupid idea to go and deliberately mess with the entire earth’s energy system. In my view, geoengineering is off the table. I don’t want to think about, and I will boldly detract any person who attempts to champion it towards me. But the proponents of the principle will stand around like blithering idiots, trusting in the moral superiority of their Latin oath Primum non nocere: First, do no harm. I’ll let SpongeBob show why this doesn’t work.

Now then, we need to look for a new decision making guideline. Unfortunately, there is no “don’t be stupid” principle. Even if there was, there would still be countless debates over whether or not it was being implemented correctly or if something should change about it or pedantic discussions about what “stupid” means. The late Theodore Roosevelt again lends his voice to what I believe is solid advice: “the only man who never makes mistakes is the man who never does anything.” So we must understand that nothing we can do to stop climate change, or increase biodiversity, or act in any a number of subjects, is going to turn out 100% every time. It is wishful thinking to believe it will turn out that well anytime. “To err is to human” as Alexander Pope says, and with those errors comes responsibility. Latour says to love our monsters, “accepting it as the normal duty of continuing to care for unwanted consequences” (emphasis his). So, in essence, the principle I would use is that you go and make a decision and stick with it, accepting all consequences from your actions, but never apologizing for being decisive. Mistakes will be made, and will have to be fixed, but leaders are noted for their decisiveness, and as such we must start extolling that virtue.

Tl;dr: Go make a decision. Stick to your guns. Be a (figuratively) man.

Blog 12: The lives that are effected

            Welcome back readers.  Tonight we are going to be touch on the subjects that are being effected because of all the trees that we are taking away.  Animals have homes in some trees and forests.  The trees are there to protect them and guard them from the world around them.  They are a huge part in their lives.  I know that if someone were to come by and just take my home away from me and destroy it I would be pretty shaken up about it and I would not like it at all.  The same goes for you guys too I would imagine. 

            If you really think about it there are so many different types of animals that loose their homes because they live in trees.  You have birds, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, probably some snakes or frogs, and all the insects along with many more not mentioned.  It is not just animals that loose something when we cut down these trees.  Up to 28,000 species are expected to become extinct by the next quarter of the century due to deforestation.  That’s 28,000 types of possibly really cool animals that the world will stop knowing about and just not even care about.  So many lives that will be lost within a very short amount of time.  That is the scary part of it al, well for me it is.  The world is so big and we probably haven’t even started seeing any of it and then you hear facts like that and you see it happening everyday that it makes you wonder what the next generations are going to do about it and how everything will be effected from that.  It is mid blowing to think about animals or even people getting extinct and how we have such a huge part in it and how we don’t really do anything to stop it from happening.

Did you know that there are more than 121 natural remedies in rainforests that can be used as medicine?  That is 121 options to get better and help those that are sick.  Also that are NATURAL and probably not found anywhere else.  Those are chances that people have that could help save them.  Just something to think about the next time you think about recycling but don’t or the next time you go a print something and use all that paper.  It’s the little things that can make the big difference in the long run! 

Until next week readers!

Grandma Loves Trees, Gives Grandson Epiphany

Not too far from my hometown is a place called the Overland Park Arboretum. It was never really my favorite place, but my Grandma loves it. Back when she could make trips there more often, she would always have a story or three about what happened at the place since I last saw her. I’m pretty sure that part of it reminded her of growing up on the farm. Tall trees, beautiful flowers, pretty ponds, flowing streams, tumbling waterfalls, and the joyful singing of birds. It is as if all the best parts of nature were put into one area, without the required effort to travel to many different places to see them.

In a similar vein, my family’s vacations often involved hitting as many national or state parks as were on the way; sometimes these parks became the way. Part of me hated it, feeling like we went to the same place over and over again. It is easy to differentiate between Yellowstone and the Everglades, but do The Grand Tetons and Lake Tahoe really seem that dissimilar? As I grew older though, I started to realize that these parks were no different from the Arboretum: they are just gigantic gardens. And in viewing them as such I feel we can spend less time arguing about nature vs. culture.

Most people don’t live in a garden, that’s not what they are there for. Gardens have the express purpose of showing off the beauty of the natural world, even if mankind created the garden as we perceive it. No one complains about the rose bushes around my house (except me when I had to mow, darn things scratched me every time), nor the azaleas and lilies my dad plants, about how there not native to here or how in nature they wouldn’t have grown in those neat little rows. But people can go on and on about how beautiful the lawn looks, how well the flowers are blooming, and so forth and so on.  But if national parks are just really big gardens, why do we get upset that there are people who manage them and try to keep them healthy? After all, I already stated gardens are supposed to look beautiful.

This were I tell you that not just national parks, but the whole world is in essence our garden. We as humans already do with the land around us as we see fit, whether that be building cities, creating farmland, or keeping it “untouched.” And in viewing the world in this way, the idea of nature and culture being separate becomes ridiculous, as if a garden is separate from the plot of land on which the house it surrounds was built. Of course not! So we must understand that, for better or worse, we can shape our environment. We own nature. Sure, we cannot stop terrible storms from forming or stop droughts from happening, but for the most part, the ball is in our court. So it is time to start acting like homeowners and gardeners, not outsiders to place they don’t belong.