1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
I think the thing that we face, is people not understanding the gravity of the global crisis. Some people are not as fortunate to be able to do some of the things that will help the world and others cannot be bothered. For the United States to use a lot of the energy, it should have more of a plan to help reverse all the damage its done to the world. The picture about Florida nearly having most of the state submerged under water, is very scary, but a reality we must face.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
This does ring true for a lot of people that i know, I think I also fit in that category, but I have been more environmentally conscious the past 4 year, than i have been in my whole entire life. I think most people think if they recycle their cans, bottles and newspapers. They dont take into consideration, that maybe they don't need to take a 30 minute shower every day, or they should turn the light off when they are not using the room. It needs to be taught
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Drew's Post
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Answer to 1: Climate Change, because it is the most far reaching and it will require our culture, our economy, and our society to change to stop it, or change to adapt to it. It also requires extreme diligence. Climate change is the "all-encompassing" environmental issue, because it seems that any environmental challenge one can think of, climate change or its solutions relates to it.
Answer to 2: I have to say it doesn't ring true at all for me. While the evidence he gives is interesting, he makes no constructive conclusion and ends up just complaining. I was also dismayed by his constant use of religious language such as "belief" and "sin" to describe his situation. Being "environmentally friendly" is not at all about belief or religion. It's about knowing the truth (the hard, testable, scientific realities) and then acting on it. In my mind, his conclusion should be something to the effect of "It shouldn't be this hard to be green, we must demand from our government, our neighbors, our families, ourselves that things must change so this can all be easier."
Being environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means to have reducing, reusing, and recycling integrated into life, as much as possible. But the problems are so large that they can't be solved with personal action alone, and so it takes lots of people all demanding something better. A few people living entirely off-grid and eating all locally grown organic vegan foods is not good enough to save the world. It takes everyone changing culture, economy, and society so they do not deplete the environment further.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Answer to 1: Climate Change, because it is the most far reaching and it will require our culture, our economy, and our society to change to stop it, or change to adapt to it. It also requires extreme diligence. Climate change is the "all-encompassing" environmental issue, because it seems that any environmental challenge one can think of, climate change or its solutions relates to it.
Answer to 2: I have to say it doesn't ring true at all for me. While the evidence he gives is interesting, he makes no constructive conclusion and ends up just complaining. I was also dismayed by his constant use of religious language such as "belief" and "sin" to describe his situation. Being "environmentally friendly" is not at all about belief or religion. It's about knowing the truth (the hard, testable, scientific realities) and then acting on it. In my mind, his conclusion should be something to the effect of "It shouldn't be this hard to be green, we must demand from our government, our neighbors, our families, ourselves that things must change so this can all be easier."
Being environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means to have reducing, reusing, and recycling integrated into life, as much as possible. But the problems are so large that they can't be solved with personal action alone, and so it takes lots of people all demanding something better. A few people living entirely off-grid and eating all locally grown organic vegan foods is not good enough to save the world. It takes everyone changing culture, economy, and society so they do not deplete the environment further.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reply to Question 2- Stanley Fish
I hate to admit it, but this article did resonate with me. While I understand the merits of recycling, organic and locally grown food, green cleaning products, energy consumption reduction, these things are far from my mind on a daily basis. I don't have a wife hounding me about my habits, but as I sit here and reflect on my behavior, I can claim no valid excuse. As Stanly says, I just want to go about my life as comfortably and conveniently as possible.
I suppose convenience is my excuse, or at least the best most prominent behavioral influence. I, and I think most other people, have way too much to do in the allotted time frame, and engaging in an environmentally beneficial lifestyle is not automatic. It requires time to separate the garbage, wash old cans and bottles, go to a less convenient and more expensive grocery store, or spend 45 minutes to walk to a location that would take 15 minutes by car.
It appears that in answering the second question, I also answer the first. The biggest threats to our environment are people like me with too much to do and too little time. At the very least, I don't plan to produce more people in my likeness.
Alli Gerhart
I suppose convenience is my excuse, or at least the best most prominent behavioral influence. I, and I think most other people, have way too much to do in the allotted time frame, and engaging in an environmentally beneficial lifestyle is not automatic. It requires time to separate the garbage, wash old cans and bottles, go to a less convenient and more expensive grocery store, or spend 45 minutes to walk to a location that would take 15 minutes by car.
It appears that in answering the second question, I also answer the first. The biggest threats to our environment are people like me with too much to do and too little time. At the very least, I don't plan to produce more people in my likeness.
Alli Gerhart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)