Blog #14

What surprised you about the process of Environmental
Policy? Do you think that the U.S. Senate should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Why or why not. Why do you think creating and implementing environmental policy
is so difficult locally, nationally, and internationally? Should communities and
local government do more on a local level to create environmental policy? What
environmental issues would you like to see addressed by policy makers?


The process of Environmental Policy doesn't really surprise me at all because it is still the process of creating a law or rule which is tedious no matter what law you are trying to pass or enact.  I agree with our Senate's decision to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  The conditions we expected, which were to have third-world countries also sign and ratify, were not met therefore I think we have no obligation to a world policy when everyone else in the world is not participating.  We are still trying to knock down our amount of emissions even without signing the Kyoto Protocol.  I also believe that it may have given the United States a better green image if we have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and perhaps even more countries would have become involved if they had seen our country ratify the new policy.
It is difficult to implement and create any form of policy, not just environmental.  There are many obstacles that have to be conquered; majority of bills and proposals do not come close to becoming law.  Environmental policy may have more trouble because there are even more obstacles to consider.  By suppressing emissions, we may be inhibiting the production of some factories which in turn could halt production and cause people to lose jobs.  One could argue that the jobs and continued production of a certain useful good may be more important to our society than cutting emissions.
I am an advocate of the saying "Think Globally, Act Locally."  If a local community or local government can help to enact and enforce green policy on a smaller scale, then all of the small communities enforcing these policies add up to a much greener whole.  If we have problems here in South Carolina, we shouldn't be worried about what Georgia is doing, or worried about China, because we can't even solve these problems for ourselves.

Blog #13

What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?

I didn't really have a disposition either supporting or against ecofeminism because I didn't really know what it was about, other than the obvious women's rights.  I think it is an interesting idea; I agree that women are more closely associated with nature than men are and I believe that women should be free as women.  Women don't need to be considered equal to men but they are very important and deserve their own freedoms as well.  I don't think that men are greater than women, but the way our patriarchal society is set up allows for that idea to exist.
I think in an ideal society the ideas behind ecofeminism could work.  There is evidence that it used to work in the past; many deities were female and highly revered, such as fertility goddesses.  Our society would have to undergo a major transformation in the way we think about social structure and the way we view women. 
Dominance is all over the world.  Many people believe men are the dominant sex.  White people are viewed as the "dominant" race in Western culture, but in some Middle-Eastern countries white people are on the bottom of the totem pole.  Humans are viewed as dominant over nature in Western culture. It seems part of nature for dominance to exist; lions are the "king of the jungle," sharks are one of the dominant predators of the sea, humans are considered the dominant species on the Earth because of our intelligence. Also, North Korea thinks they will one day dominate us, but that will never happen.

Blog #11

I was raised with a Methodist background when I was growing up.  I attended pre-school at Trenholm Rd Methodist Church which is also where we attended church; my family did not attend church that often when I was a child, and once I was around the age of ten or so, we stopped going to church altogether pretty much.  My religious background does not affect my thoughts about spiritual ecology whatsoever.  I do not consider myself a religious person and therefore I am open to many new ideas.  Spiritual ecology is a concept that essentially states that all organisms on earth are connected spiritually.  Basically, you and me are connected to each other, who in turn are connected to our neighbor's dog, who is then connected to the bush in the front yard.  We then come full circle back to you and me because we are connected to the bush as well. 
The Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting concept.  It states that everything on the earth builds up one complete organism which is the earth itself; the earth is a living creature, and we are all essentially the cells that make the earth alive.  This is quite a radical concept, but intriguing nonetheless.  I agree with the idea that we are all connected and do make up something larger than what we see on the surface.  But I do not believe the earth is a living entity; we are just a part of the beautiful circle of life on earth.
I think we do most certainly live in a hyper-masculine culture.  The male gender has always been the dominant gender of our species since the beginning of history.  Today, I believe that this notion is changing dramatically.  We have women in many powerful positions in office in our government; for example, Hillary Clinton was recently the Secretary of State which is a coveted position.  Change is happening rapidly considering that women just got the right to vote less than 100 years ago. I could see men and women being completely equal in society one day.

Blog #10

What is Social Ecology? What are your reactions to the readings? What forms of hierarchy are in our world today? Are these hierarchies natural? Are there any better alternatives?


Social Ecology is basically the idea that social hierarchies are ultimately destroying the ecosystem, and that in order to change and to protect the environment we must abandon the traditional system of hierarchy.  I can agree with the idea that in Utopia we would be a classless species, however I do find it extremely impractical that humans will abandon the current hierarchy we have set in place.  I believe this because it is natural for humans to be in a hierarchy; it is all we have ever known.  If it were unnatural, as social ecology states, then why should we have to force change?
In American society today we have lower , middle, and upper class with much leeway; in our society, a person can start from the bottom and make their way to the top provided they are successful in their endeavors.  But a person can also be born in upper class and be very unsuccessful and ruin their status in society.  India has a caste system where you are locked into your social class at birth.  Asian culture has traditionally been centered around authority, honor, and respect for those who are deemed superior.  I believe this proves that it is human nature to have hierarchy. 
I do think that it could be achievable in the future, but we would have to be a much more intelligent, empathetic, and advanced species for it to work properly.

Blog #9

The views of deep ecology relate to everyone, as the the definition essentially states that every living thing is a part of nature, including humans.  I live a lifestyle fairly separate from nature; outside of doing any type of outdoor activity, I would say that I'm not exactly a part of nature.  I, much like many people in the world, live in a society extremely detached from nature and the natural way of the world.  I am most certainly guilty of being wasteful and exploiting the environment.  I try to be conscious about my actions, but it is almost as if having a master-slave relationship with everything else in the world is engrained in our brains.
I honestly agree with most, if not all, of the principles of deep ecology.  Humans are most certainly a part of nature.  However, I feel that civilization is a by-product of our intelligence, and some could argue is the pinnacle of human evolution.  I mostly disagree with this implication because I believe all living things are constantly evolving.  I also believe that, in our current state of evolution, we are learning that the continued exploitation of natural resources and other living creatures will ultimately be the demise of the entire human race.  As humans, we are absolutely in no current state to inhabit any extraterrestrial body; we could hardly make it to the moon and back.  Thus, we must change our ways and learn to respect nature as we are the most incredible product nature has ever produced.
The idea that we should respect all life seems like a no-brainer.  Life is the most beautiful thing in existence, and we should honor every aspect of it.  The third principle states that humans should only supply their "vital needs."  If we look at the rest of nature, it seems as though most living things simply do what the need to get by; humanity should embrace this concept because there are limited resources available to us, and at the rate we are going, there will not be much left for future generations.
I don't really have too many concerns with Deep Ecology because I agree with the idea for the most part. 

Blog #8

Blog#8: What are the preconditions necessary for using consensus decision making in a group or organization?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process?

There are many necessary conditions in order for consensus decision making to work in a group or an organization.  Firstly, the people in the group or organization should optimally share the same interests because if they have conflicting interests then it will be very hard for the group to come to a consensus and move forward.  Secondly, everyone needs to be open minded and willing to accept new ideas to achieve the shared goal or address the shared concern.  If not, people will constantly argue and would most likely be unable to again, come to a consensus.  It is also imperative that the group be smaller rather than larger when attempting to use consensus decision making.  This is important because as we saw with the Occupy Wall Street movement that consensus decision making does not really work that well when used with larger groups; people have different ideas and interests and are unwilling to listen.  Also in a larger group, many people may not really understand the concept of consensus decision making and therefore wouldn't know the prerequisites required in order for it to work properly.

I believe that consensus decision making is a great idea when used correctly.  It helps to resolve issues much easier and helps to resolve issues without creating as much hostility as conventional decision making.

Blog #7

Culture-jamming is essentially a social movement; culture-jamming "aims to the mental environment from the powerful grip of market-structured consciousness by reclaiming airwaves and public spaces to propagate ideas instead of plugging products"  (Bordwell).  I think culture-jamming is an interesting concept.  I agree with the fact that our society is highly consumer driven, and that advertisements are becoming increasingly present almost everywhere.  I also agree that people are walking advertisements.  Nearly everything we use or wear has a logo now and which is brilliant yet subtle way to advertise.  Culture-jamming is a step in the right direction in combating the powerful corporations that practically run American society.

Culture-jamming can take on many forms from organized protests to print "subvertisements" and television and video "uncommercials."  It is definitely a useful tool for activism, especially in today's world which is highly focused on social media.  With tools like Facebook and Twitter, culture-jamming is even more effective because videos and pictures are easily displayed and accessed this way. 

I thought the Adbusters website was pretty interesting.  Adbusters "are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society" (Adbusters).  There are many different spoof ads to look at which were pretty cool.  You could also look at their different campaigns and access a culture shop which had a lot of interesting things for sale.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JajJCcUUVgk