Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Essential Knowledge
McKibben describes how the internet serves to isolate the world’s youth from surrounding environments; children play outside less frequently, and subsequently know less about surrounding bioregions. For example, such a child might have difficulty ascertaining the source of the drinking water consumed nearby: knowledge critical to the survival of the human race, which can be gained through local agricultural practices. McKibben’s plan calls for sustainable and dependable practices that build community and evolve locally, allowing for greater agriculture overall. The bioregional quiz emphasized how what ought to be commonplace knowledge is sometimes lost by way of social isolation. Local fauna and flora, extinct or otherwise, are no longer noted with much-deserved attention; even knowing the orientation of the cardinal direction "North" may render a challenge to the modern youth. Residents of a bioregion rarely know the full potential of the land contained therein, in terms of minerals, crops, and other resources that are commonly imported from other centralized sources. Though centralized agriculture appears to be efficient at the outset, the skill and knowledge generated by years of experience tilling the same soil and experimenting with a variety of plants cannot be replaced by universal methods and synthetic fertilizers. Even Nash’s “island civilizations” seem viable and beneficial when examined in the context of McKibben’s teachings and how little is known of the immediate environment by the common inhabitant.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Island Civilizations in Application
Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth and founder of 350.org, shares his views on what humanity as a whole must do in order to survive, as outlined in his new book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. One of the key points that McKibben makes is that climate change is no longer a philosophical concept in the distant future, as it was when he wrote his first book: The End of Nature. A startling indicator of this is that, by some estimates, the tropics have shifted by two degrees; a remarkable sign of global climate change.
Of course, my purpose in writing this post is not to summarize the podcast I just listened to (you can listen for yourself via the two links at the bottom of this post). Instead, I’d like to discuss the topic of unsustainable growth. We’ve touched on this topic before through the writing of Roderick Nash, but McKibben offers notably more realistic solutions than Nash’s "island civilization." McKibben stresses the importance of local and reliable alternatives to agriculture, government, and other aspects of society. As human populations, and subsequently consumption, increase, the impracticalities of centralized large-scale production, agriculture, etc. multiply exponentially, as does their respective environmental impacts. Whether it be the fact that universal methods do not translate well over different geographies, or that the transportation of everything by means of global trade creates massive pollution, it seems that it is most beneficial for individual populations to be locally sustained; this could also have been what Nash was hinting at with his rather vague schemes.
Locally implemented and moderated agriculture especially is beneficial to everyone. Larger cities can become self-sufficient, all the while creating more jobs, while small cities and rural areas could maintain diversity in their crops, rather than focusing solely on cash crops that rob the soil of its nutrients. This would also help cut back on synthetic fertilizers, which I have a personal grudge against after having watched the documentary: The Future of Food. Nevertheless, biodiversity is the key to the long-term survival of individual species (perhaps not just of food but ourselves as well) and this is not possible through modern factory farms, centrally-planned agriculture, and purely economically-driven thinking.
Well, that was my two cents and I encourage you to visit all of the links I have posted and write your views in a comment.
Hear the Bill McKibben podcast:
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
Of course, my purpose in writing this post is not to summarize the podcast I just listened to (you can listen for yourself via the two links at the bottom of this post). Instead, I’d like to discuss the topic of unsustainable growth. We’ve touched on this topic before through the writing of Roderick Nash, but McKibben offers notably more realistic solutions than Nash’s "island civilization." McKibben stresses the importance of local and reliable alternatives to agriculture, government, and other aspects of society. As human populations, and subsequently consumption, increase, the impracticalities of centralized large-scale production, agriculture, etc. multiply exponentially, as does their respective environmental impacts. Whether it be the fact that universal methods do not translate well over different geographies, or that the transportation of everything by means of global trade creates massive pollution, it seems that it is most beneficial for individual populations to be locally sustained; this could also have been what Nash was hinting at with his rather vague schemes.
Locally implemented and moderated agriculture especially is beneficial to everyone. Larger cities can become self-sufficient, all the while creating more jobs, while small cities and rural areas could maintain diversity in their crops, rather than focusing solely on cash crops that rob the soil of its nutrients. This would also help cut back on synthetic fertilizers, which I have a personal grudge against after having watched the documentary: The Future of Food. Nevertheless, biodiversity is the key to the long-term survival of individual species (perhaps not just of food but ourselves as well) and this is not possible through modern factory farms, centrally-planned agriculture, and purely economically-driven thinking.
Well, that was my two cents and I encourage you to visit all of the links I have posted and write your views in a comment.
Hear the Bill McKibben podcast:
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Water, Water... Nowhere?
“Water, water, every where,/ Nor any drop to drink” (Coleridge). Never
have the immortal words of poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge held greater
meaning than at present. Without water, there can be no life as we know
it, and it is for that reason that water scarcity is a major factor in
driving humanity toward “island civilizations” (Nash). The research
paper “Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of
water shortage over the last two millennia” (Kummu) explains how water
scarcity is directly correlated with population growth.
This study, in which geological evidence was used to approximate water resource availability between 0 A.D. and 2005 A.D., provides compelling data suggesting that increased rates of human population growth directly brought about water scarcity, both in individual regions and on the Earth as a whole.
This study, in which geological evidence was used to approximate water resource availability between 0 A.D. and 2005 A.D., provides compelling data suggesting that increased rates of human population growth directly brought about water scarcity, both in individual regions and on the Earth as a whole.
The
authors of this paper label increased trade, irrigation, and reservoir
capacity as key culprits of global water shortages. Despite the purpose
of these items being that of more efficiently utilizing limited water
resources, all three inhibit the natural movements of water. Trade,
especially of water or products containing water, such as produce, is
essentially the transferring of water from one region to another,
regardless of whether or not the receiving region is experiencing a
shortage of water. Irrigation delivers water to regions where it is
otherwise scarce, but, in doing so, removes water from other regions,
thereby making the source regions themselves more susceptible to water
shortages. This irrigated water is then ‘packaged’ in the form of
produce and shipped abroad, further displacing water supplies.
Reservoirs, whether for recreation, power generation, drinking, or
irrigation, cripple the natural flow of rivers, causing widespread water
shortages downstream, in addition to further propagating the
aforementioned water displacement by irrigation and subsequent trade.
A
personal theory of mine, though, I admit, I have no scientific data
with which to back it, is that at least a small portion of the world’s
water scarcity is caused by pipes and other plumbing. The real question
is: just how much water is trapped inside of metal pipes at any given
time? These pipes, over a large enough scale, act as a giant water
tower, storing water for later use. When applied to the entire world,
it seems that a fairly significant amount of water is effectively
isolated from the elementary water cycle at any given time. This water
cannot be consumed, does not contribute to lakes and other bodies of
water, and may even be responsible for ever-worsening global drought
conditions, as any water trapped in pipes would not be permitted to
evaporate or otherwise humidify the air. This ‘phantom water supply’
could easily be linked to water shortages attributed to population
growth in this paper; indeed, it is clearly shown that available water
resources did not drop drastically until very recently, particularly the
1900s, coinciding with the majority of global urbanization; about 2% of
world suffered from water shortage before 1900, when that amount jumped
to 9% and has since reached 35% in 2005 (Kummu). The Earth hasn’t lost
any of its water since then, and sea levels haven’t risen substantially
in that time, so where else could the water have gone?
On
another note, the human body is mostly water and as human populations
increase, even more water is removed from circulation at any given time,
this being merely a thought and by no means an argumentative statement.
And don’t even get me started on bottled water! Regardless, the point
is that water scarcity, brought upon by dislocation, is a major problem
associated with population growth and the current format of widespread
human civilization. If the issue is not soon resolved, it may become
necessary to cut down human populations and concentrate them in “island
civilizations” (Nash), where water supplies can be carefully regulated,
recycled, and otherwise sustained.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. “The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner.” Poetry X. Ed. Jough Dempsey. 7 Jul 2003. 22 Aug. 2012 <http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/624/>.
Kummu,
Matti, Philip J. Ward, Hans De Moel, and Olli Varis. "Is Physical Water
Scarcity a New Phenomenon? Global Assessment of Water Shortage over the
Last Two Millennia." Environmental Research Letters 5.3 (2010): n. pag. IOPscience. 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Aug. 2012. <http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034006/fulltext/>.
Nash, Roderick Frazier. “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millenium.” Environmental History. Published: 15 July 2010. 371-380.
Below is a column I clipped from the Technician today that further explains the importance of water in civilization, and the problems that come with its ever-increasing scarcity. I apologize for the somewhat awkward appearance of this huge picture shooting out of this blog post, but it was the only way to make the clipping legible.Monday, August 20, 2012
Summary/Response to Roderick Frazier Nash's "Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium"
Roderick Frazier Nash writes of his vision for a perfect world, where humans may “fulfill their evolutionary potential without compromising or eliminating the opportunity of other species [to do] the same” (371). Nash sells his prospect of benefiting infinitely without consequence, as outlined in his essay “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth,” by blaming outdated thinking as the primary culprit, relating his vision to past human endeavors, and treating the human race as a misbehaving child.
The very first argument that Nash makes is that against the concept of the “millennium” (371). He refers to it not as a measurement of the passing of time, but rather a “synthetic” (371) idea, given undeserved significance, with origins tied to an ambiguous religious date. This initial rant is not significant in and of itself, but Nash uses it as a segue to his principal argument of outdated human thinking. Nash states his point clearly and firmly: “we don’t do history very well” (372), and then proceeds to label himself as a “historian” (372) just three sentences later, thereby gilding his stance with authority and apparent justification. In teaching his views of history, Nash references the Bible as the source of anti-wilderness ideology stemming from the Garden of Eden and argues that “uncontrolled nature became the enemy” (372) of the stationary human settlements. He discusses the coming about of new words, such as ‘environmentalism,’ ‘pollution,’ and ‘deep ecology,’ and legislature, such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act, in addition to countless pieces of literature, all punctuating change in the human mentality toward nature, though Nash argues that the majority of these, and especially the legislative pieces, are oriented toward the human well-being and our “ten-thousand-year-old obsession with the control and modification of the planet” (374).
Periodically, Nash appeals to his target audience and tries to make it as relatable to past events, more often than not ones viewed positively in the human eye, as possible. I don’t blame him for doing so; in fact it is the first thing a good salesman considers, and Nash is, after all, attempting to sell his ideas to his readers. However, his choice of metaphors and other comparisons reveals Nash’s overwhelming bias. He directly ties “axes, rifles, and barbed wire,” commonly viewed as tools of destruction and oppression, with “railroads, dams, and freeways” (373), modern marvels that facilitate the lives of millions and make modern life possible. Nash later tackles the latter of these by stating that as much of the land in the United States is wilderness as is paved (375-376). Now, this is a valid argument, presumably with credible evidence behind it, but the way Nash lists “freeways” on the same level as “barbed wire” highlights his resentment toward the very veins of modern society. Nash also alludes to the civil rights movement, referring to “nature” as an “oppressed minority” (375), effectively evoking deep emotions felt by most in the form of a common crusade for justice. He also alludes to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning “[the endowed] rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (375) for nonhuman species.
“We are the most dangerous species of life on the planet, and every other species, even the earth itself, has cause to fear our power to exterminate” (371). It is no mistake that this line by Wallace Stegner was placed before the outset of the essay, as its words reverberate strongly throughout Nash’s writing. There are several points where it seems that Nash is playing the role of a kindergarten teacher scolding a misbehaving child. At one point, he states that the objective is to “share the spaceship on which all life travels together” (374), and later lectures: “we did not share well” (376), and through our “ingratitude and irresponsibility, we have abandoned and discarded this planet” (376). As punishment for not playing nicely with the Earth, Nash recommends that we be placed in contained settlements where we can do no further harm to nature; a timeout, if you will (377).
Though the solution posed by Nash is perfect in theory, like communism, it possesses several crippling flaws, again, like communism. Nash’s goal of a blind global following of an Orwellian “Earth First!” (377) program would difficult, if not impossible, to bring to fruition, as would be decreasing the human population, which would raise ethical concerns and would presumably involve sterilization and/or euthanasia in some form. The Achilles heel of Nash’s plan, however, is not the broad spectrum of issues associated with a centrally-planned, tightly-controlled socialism in which humans are isolated from the outside world, but rather the sheer nonsensical perfection of it all. Nash believes that a world in which all societies function as independent but united Greek city-states will bring about the end of all wars, but as history, which we humans “don’t do...very well” (372), and Nash, “as a historian” (372), fully understands, has shown us in an episode known as the Peloponnesian War, this idea of isolated city-states is by no means a viable end to war and is just another of Nash’s naive notions for a perfect world with all possible advantages and not a single disadvantage (377), which could only succeed if run by perfect humans.
Roderick Frazier Nash, “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium,” Environmental History 15 (July 2010): 371–380.
doi:10.1093/envhis/emq051
Advance Access publication on July 13, 2010
The very first argument that Nash makes is that against the concept of the “millennium” (371). He refers to it not as a measurement of the passing of time, but rather a “synthetic” (371) idea, given undeserved significance, with origins tied to an ambiguous religious date. This initial rant is not significant in and of itself, but Nash uses it as a segue to his principal argument of outdated human thinking. Nash states his point clearly and firmly: “we don’t do history very well” (372), and then proceeds to label himself as a “historian” (372) just three sentences later, thereby gilding his stance with authority and apparent justification. In teaching his views of history, Nash references the Bible as the source of anti-wilderness ideology stemming from the Garden of Eden and argues that “uncontrolled nature became the enemy” (372) of the stationary human settlements. He discusses the coming about of new words, such as ‘environmentalism,’ ‘pollution,’ and ‘deep ecology,’ and legislature, such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act, in addition to countless pieces of literature, all punctuating change in the human mentality toward nature, though Nash argues that the majority of these, and especially the legislative pieces, are oriented toward the human well-being and our “ten-thousand-year-old obsession with the control and modification of the planet” (374).
Periodically, Nash appeals to his target audience and tries to make it as relatable to past events, more often than not ones viewed positively in the human eye, as possible. I don’t blame him for doing so; in fact it is the first thing a good salesman considers, and Nash is, after all, attempting to sell his ideas to his readers. However, his choice of metaphors and other comparisons reveals Nash’s overwhelming bias. He directly ties “axes, rifles, and barbed wire,” commonly viewed as tools of destruction and oppression, with “railroads, dams, and freeways” (373), modern marvels that facilitate the lives of millions and make modern life possible. Nash later tackles the latter of these by stating that as much of the land in the United States is wilderness as is paved (375-376). Now, this is a valid argument, presumably with credible evidence behind it, but the way Nash lists “freeways” on the same level as “barbed wire” highlights his resentment toward the very veins of modern society. Nash also alludes to the civil rights movement, referring to “nature” as an “oppressed minority” (375), effectively evoking deep emotions felt by most in the form of a common crusade for justice. He also alludes to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning “[the endowed] rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (375) for nonhuman species.
“We are the most dangerous species of life on the planet, and every other species, even the earth itself, has cause to fear our power to exterminate” (371). It is no mistake that this line by Wallace Stegner was placed before the outset of the essay, as its words reverberate strongly throughout Nash’s writing. There are several points where it seems that Nash is playing the role of a kindergarten teacher scolding a misbehaving child. At one point, he states that the objective is to “share the spaceship on which all life travels together” (374), and later lectures: “we did not share well” (376), and through our “ingratitude and irresponsibility, we have abandoned and discarded this planet” (376). As punishment for not playing nicely with the Earth, Nash recommends that we be placed in contained settlements where we can do no further harm to nature; a timeout, if you will (377).
Though the solution posed by Nash is perfect in theory, like communism, it possesses several crippling flaws, again, like communism. Nash’s goal of a blind global following of an Orwellian “Earth First!” (377) program would difficult, if not impossible, to bring to fruition, as would be decreasing the human population, which would raise ethical concerns and would presumably involve sterilization and/or euthanasia in some form. The Achilles heel of Nash’s plan, however, is not the broad spectrum of issues associated with a centrally-planned, tightly-controlled socialism in which humans are isolated from the outside world, but rather the sheer nonsensical perfection of it all. Nash believes that a world in which all societies function as independent but united Greek city-states will bring about the end of all wars, but as history, which we humans “don’t do...very well” (372), and Nash, “as a historian” (372), fully understands, has shown us in an episode known as the Peloponnesian War, this idea of isolated city-states is by no means a viable end to war and is just another of Nash’s naive notions for a perfect world with all possible advantages and not a single disadvantage (377), which could only succeed if run by perfect humans.
Roderick Frazier Nash, “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium,” Environmental History 15 (July 2010): 371–380.
doi:10.1093/envhis/emq051
Advance Access publication on July 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)