The Beauty of Silence

Reading Kelly's post, I was struck by how similar it was to the experience I was thinking about writing on. The time was late last February. Having been studying in Europe I went to Morocco for part of my spring break. I had initially planned on spending my time in Fez with the vague notion that I might take a day trip or two to surrounding attractions. But fortune smiled on my traveling companions and I and we found ourselves offered a discounted trip to and overnight camping stay in the Sahara Desert. We jumped on the opportunity and set off on a trip I will never forget.

From the outset I was floored, Having lived on the east coast my whole life I have never seen a desert of any sort and I was more use to the Appalachian variety of mountains. The eight hour trip there included it all, miles of orchards, mountain forest home to monkeys, high glacial prairie dotted by herds of sheep, rocky desert akin to the American southwest, the great Atlas Mountain range, winding red -walled canyons, palms valleys and finally the ocean of dunes that is the Sahara.

I was literally overwhelmed by the sensory experience, however up until this point we had yet to abandon civilization. A sweeping vista would be interrupted by a cell phone tower. The glacial praire was dotted with shanties belonging to the marginalized and impoverished Berber minority. I don't mean to understate the beauty of what I saw that day but only to emphasize the extent which humans have changed our world.

It was the Sahara that broke the mold. That evening we rode camels into the dunes and watched the sunset. After a dinner prepared by our Berber hosts we setup a small fire. Two young men who take care of the camp ground played drums for us as we asked each other questions about what our respective lives were like (they had never been to a city, seen TV, or gone to school but knew of Bob Marley). I stayed up as late as I could, staring into the vast night sky, appreciating a canvass of stars that one could never see in a developed country. I would describe it as a dark night, but the intensity of the star and moonlight substituted for the dull incandescent glow of a city and cast silhouettes onto the surrounding dunes.

The silence was deafening, there was no high way, no planes, no electric generators, nothing at all but the wind and the sand and occasional grumpy bleat of a camel. That morning my friends and I awoke before the crack of dune, climbed up one of the nearby dunes and huddled together under blankets as the sun rose over a distant ridge of rocks. It was without a doubt the most stunning and unique twenty four hours of my entire life.

I can still feel what it was like to be there as a type down these words. The experience was so visceral, so unlike what the average American experiences in their fast paced technologically obsessed life that I can remember the smallest details of the trip where it's a stretch to remember what I did the two weekends ago. When I compare my story to Kelly's I see a connection in that the experiences were made so profound by the distance from modern civilization.

The absence of the modern is itself a thing of beauty, but it is nearly impossible to find. One must travel to the least hospitable environments on the planet to remove themselves from lands impacted by humans and even then success is not guaranteed (my sunset view from the dunes was briefly interrupted by a land rover speeding across the horizon).

We have profoundly, and in some cases irreversible, changed our planet. We have turned ourselves into living gods. We change the course of rivers, level mountains, clear forests and do so at every increasing rates. Our impact has massively negative consequences for biodiversity, climate stability and ultimately our own well being. We are animals and as much a part of Earth as any other species. We are responsible to mitigate the damage that we have wrought, or as the old cliche goes, "you break it you buy it". We may survive without a healthy bio-sphere made up of myriad diverse species and vast wilderness, but we will loss a part of who we are. Our connection to nature is as important as any social bonds or creature comforts we hold onto and is essential to a healthy state of mind. We were a part of nature but we are becoming its master, I only hope that we learn to be benevolent.

Pico Turquino

While I was studying abroad in Cuba this past spring, my friend and I spent two days hiking in the Sierra Maestra mountains. The mountains are in the eastern part of the country, and they hold a lot of historical significance for the revolution. It was here that Fidel Castro hid out for the better part of a year building up the resistance and support made the overthrow of Batista possible. Obviously, one of the reasons this spot was chosen was due to the geographical layout and the ideal protection the mountains provided.

The hike starts at sea level. We spent the night before sleeping on the floor of a shack with the Caribbean sea in front of us and the mountains to our back. Our hike began at sun rise- due to the fact that the mountains are so important to the country's history, you have to have a guide. Thus, the three of us set out for 11 kilometer hike to the top of Pico Turquino, the highest mountain in Cuba. Within 3 km, we stopped at pretty much the only farm in the area to have some fruit and so our guide could talk to his friends. After a while we continued on. The experience of hiking there is indescribable. If you turned around you saw the cliffs and the sea, and all ahead of you were the peaks of various smaller mountains. By the time we reached the 8th km, we were already walking through clouds and unable to see but white when looking out. We reached the summit by early afternoon and then hiked another 5 km to where we'd spend the night.

We stayed in a small cleared area with some field workers who maintained the area. Pico Turquino was directly behind us and it was as though we were spending the night in a small valley surrounded completely by mountains looming over us. We continued early the next morning and hiked 8 miles to our next destination. On the way there, we passed through a few seeminly different ecosystems. It went from barren dry rock, and then a ravine with a stream and dozens of banana trees as we continued our descent. Finally, after the 8km, we had 3 more to go in order to get to Fidel's command center. Once, again, it was just the three of us and we spent over an hour walking through where Fidel and other revolutionaries organized before taking Havana. In Kelly's post she explains that one of the significant parts of her experience was being alone. I'd have to agree that the fact that it was me and two other people in the middle of the mountains made the hike that much more meaningful and personal.

I also strongly agree with Kelly as far as why we should save nature. By this point, everyone knows we need to maintain the ecosystems and the natural services that earth provides in order to survive. However, if we approach it from this way it almost seems like we're only trying to save nature to save ourselves-it's just another mechanism in production to serve human interests. Too often the intrinsic value of nature is completely forgotten or disregarded. I like that Kelly talked about harmony and the behavior of people when their in nature- I hadn't thought about it but I completely agree that interactions and just the overall way of being is transformed when people spend time outdoors.

Why Nature

In March 2010 I decided to run a 24 hour 250k relay race from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea. The last thing I expected was for it to be an amazing environmental experience, but it was one of the most amazing experiences I've had in nature. Maybe it was the fact that I had already run 10kilometers and it was 3 in the morning, but there was something extremely beautiful about running in the middle of the desert, surrounded by huge cliffs, and being able to look up and see more stars than I ever imagined. During this round of running, there were no other runners near me. I was alone. The air felt cleaner than I ever imagined, even though I could feel the sand particles in my throat. It felt pure. All I could think about was how beautiful and peaceful the world was at the moment. It was a stark contrast to living in Amman, Jordan, which is over developed and full of poverty. But just a few hours away was this amazing desert, completely undisturbed by humans except for a single highway that connects Amman to the Sinai. For some reason, I didn't even notice that road while I was running. What was under my feet was the least important thing to me. What I cared about were the amazing mountains and the vast sky. Everything felt right.

This is why I feel like people need to save nature. I could go into all the scientific reasons why we should save biodiversity, but to be frank that is not why I care about what we are doing the natural world. I believe in harmony and I don't think that modern human society embodies it the way it should, but when you see people in nature that seems to change. Any time I've spent time camping, in Bedouin villages, on small farms, or in an ecovillage I always found that people have more respect for each other. They live in harmony, with themselves, the people around them, and their environment. Things feel peaceful and in a world full of hustling and hate, that's what is needed most. By destroying our environment and raping the land of all its treasures changes who we are. We start thinking that taking what we want, being selfish, and dominating all that is around us is good, even though that is the worst way to live. I want to save nature to save humanity from itself, regardless of how silly and idealistic that sounds.

Cookstove Changeout Promises Health Benefits to Worlds Poor

Hundreds of millions of the worlds poor are exposed to toxic emissions from inefficient and antiquated cookstoves. Hillary Clinton recently announced a new initiative that aims to modernize the cooking methods for millions of people in the developing world. The emissions from said stoves are closy correlated to infant moratality rates and pneumonia.

The program aims to "create cleaner, healthier, environmentally sound and locally adapted stoves that women will want". The program aims to promote local markets by funding development of cleaner cookstoves. as one official was quoted as saying, "If local tastes are not consulted, [the stoves] will stack up and not be used. That’s why a market-based approach is needed,” Over 2 million deaths a year are attributed to exposure to fumes produced by commonly used cookstoves. Learning from previous failed aid attempts, the program does not claim to have a blanket solution and instead takes local and cultural prefrences into account, providing different stoves in differnt regions.

The health benefits promised by the program are obvious but the program could also lead to environmental benefits. In many cases deforestation and degradation of agricultural land are closely tied to subsistence charcoal production. Modern stoves often rely on alternative fuels such as wood pellets or solar power. If succesful the initiative could act as a framework for future efforts and fostering sustainability in the deveoping world.

Bethesda Court Hotel

Interested in learning about "green companies" in the DC/MD area, I decided to do a quick google search. One of the first that came up was the Bethesda Court Hotel, whose website can be found by following this link http://www.bethesdacourtwashdc.com/green_hotel/. There the hotel describes its green initiatives:

• 100% smoke free environment, for the health of guests and air supply
• Project Planet linen reuse program, which allows guests the option to reuse their towels and sheets in order to conserve water, energy and detergent
• Recycling Program, to encourage the recycling of all paper, plastic, cardboard and aluminum products
• Green Natura program, ensuring all bath amenity containers are biodegradable and all packaging is made from recycled materials
• Energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, located in every hotel lighting fixture
• Pedestrian-friendly location, within walking distance to the Metro and area attractions

While many hotel guests most likely follow at least some of these measures at home, such as recycling or using energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs, it's probably a safe bet that there is less focus on reducing environmental impact while traveling. Often times when one is traveling and staying in a hotel, it's for vacation or some other type of luxurious purpose. But really, who needs clean, new sheets every single night, or five new towels every morning. Although these measures are fairly simple, I'd think they make a sizable impact- at least within the context of the hotel itself. Just by using the same sheets for a few days in a row, one noticeably reduced the amount of laundry done and thus energy used. While ideas like this won't save the planet, it certainly helps in raising awareness and incorporating greener behaviors into a busy lifestyle.

If Not Cap & Trade, Then What?

Many proponents of the environmental movement were upset when the Cap and Trade bill fell through in Congress. While it certainly wasn't the best news for environmentalists, this article from the New York Times suggests that it there might be a better option for reducing our dependance on dirty energy.

The author, David Leonhardt, lays out a few reasons why we should stop counting on cap and trade. First of all, we have to ask when Congress will even take another shot at it. Then, we have to wonder how effective it would even be in causing change. Although cap and trade would force companies to reduce their energy use, it would probably be in smaller ways rather than ways that encourage groundbreaking innovation in clean energy. What fast growing developing nations need are groundbreaking innovation.

What could promote this innovation is direct investment into making clean energy technologies more affordable. A surprising number of people agree. The conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Brookings Institute are releasing a joint proposal to greatly increase federal spending on clean energy innovation, and to moreover toughen regulation for the use of this money. In other words, more money would be put into research and development into clean energy technologies that are actually working to make clean energy cheaper than the dirty alternative.

The article suggests that, historically, this has been able to work. The military has helped develop and promote a lot of new technologies, and they may be doing the same with clean energy.

While I'm still skeptical as to whether technology of any kind can "save us," I think this article shows us a little ray of hope. First of all, it shows bipartisan work towards a goal that can benefit us all. While this may not ultimately be the solution we need, the fact that unexpected people are working together is an important step.

Second, more investment put into clean energy could help in developing the infrastructure we so desperately need in order to get clean energy off and running. Some companies are already discussing investing significant amounts of money into this, but more federal spending on innovation could make a big difference.

Finally, more people are likely to something that will hopefully decrease the cost of clean energy than anything that causes an increase in oil prices.

In the end, I think the most promising thing about this article is the fact that we're trying something to get us off the path we are currently on. It might not work, but at least we're trying something new.

Food for Thought

Out of the many personal choices I make concerning the impact of my lifestyle on myself and the world around me I consider the food I consume to be among the most important. I have been conscious of my diet since reading Fast Food Nation a number of years ago and have made great efforts to expand my knowledge of the impact food has on our planet. I try to follow a number of self imposed foods when I eat...

Eat Local: Although it is not always possible, I try to eat food produced locally as often as I can. This means trip to farmers markets (although this becomes difficult during the winter) and purchasing food at the super market that is labeled as local. This has a number of benefits, the largest being reduced fossil fuel consumption due to shorter transportation times. It also tends to support local economies and small farmers/businesses. Additionally local tends to mean fresh, which has obvious benefits to health and flavor.

Eat Organic: This one can be risky since the market is flooded with faux organic products and the government guidelines are very lax. However, purchasing truly organic food has hugely positive environmental effects. Petro-chemical based fertilizers and pesticides are a huge source of our oil consumption and thus carbon emissions.

Don't Eat Processed: Processed food has many negative effects on both personal health and the environment. Ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, unbleached wheat flour and the many other multi-syllabic ingredients out there are tied closely to the increasing rates of obesity, and diabetes. They are also a direct result of the over subsidization of corn and food chemicals. Each of these are big contributors to the environmental damage caused by our food production.

To Do: Vegetarianism is an excellent personal decision that can halve the impact of ones diet (meat is by far the most damaging food to produce) and improve health. I have dabbled in vegetarianism before, especially when I was living with three other vegetarians. I did not find reducing my consumption of meat to be difficult, in fact I enjoyed trying new types of food to substitute protein in my diet. I am sorry to say that I did not continue my experiment in vegetarianism, I wrong I hope to right in the near future.

Following these rules can be very beneficial to the world. However it's hard to live perfectly. This last weekend would be a perfect example. My diet was, to say the least, atrocious this weekend. I broke all my rules and I splurged. My meals all included meat, many of the ingredients were processed and nothing was organic. By far the worst would have to be a chicken hoogie I pruchased as a Wawa on the way home, which included white bread, meat and vegetables probably grown half way around the world. Splurging is okay once in awhile, but it's definitely a good idea to avoid making it a habit as it is neither sustainable nor good for the planet.

A Hearty Bowl of Realization

As a major foodie, I think a lot about what I eat. Because of this, there are many different factors that come into play when making my food choices:

1. Nutrition: having been raised by doctors, I always consider how good (or bad) for me the food I'm about to eat is. This certainly isn't to say I always eat healthy foods; I just always think about how the food I'm eating is going to affect my body, both now and in the long term.
2. Cost: as a college student trying to live on a budget, cost is often a factor in my food purchases. It's sometimes hard to justify buying the fresh produce for example, when the frozen is much cheaper. The cost factor comes into play a lot during the organic versus not organic choice as well.
3. Convenience: also as a college student, one of the biggest things I lack is time. Because of this, I will often consider the convenience of foods. Frozen foods or preprocessed foods are great for this, but they don't necessarily match up with some of my other considerations, like nutrition or environmental issues. Personally, I would much rather cook fresh food every day, but my schedule just doesn't allow it. Convenience affects my daily food choices as well as my food shopping choices. When I'm trying to decide what to eat during the day, it usually comes down to what's in the fridge.
4. Taste/Cravings: probably one of the biggest factors in my food choices is what I want to eat. As I mentioned before, I love food a lot so I have a hard time ignoring my cravings. I never seem to be satisfied until I've eaten what I want. In attempts to justify this, I always quote the idea that you have cravings because your body knows what nutrients it needs. Sure this probably isn't entirely true, but I still tend to eat what I want.
5. Environmental issues: I commonly consider this factor when making my food choices, but it tends to get drowned under all the other considerations. I've know so much of the information about how our food choices affect the environment. I do my best to eat in a way that harms the environment least. But at the same time, it's difficult to do. Our current food system is so engrained that I feel trapped in it sometimes.

It's almost impossible to satisfy all of these considerations at once. Different ones win out at different times. For example, my decision to eat mostly vegetarian was driven by nutrition and environmental factors. When I drive to the grocery store and buy off-brand products, cost and convenience are winning over. But when I make it to the farmers market, nutrition and environment (and just sheer enjoyment) are on top. The motives underlying my food decisions vary so often, I constantly struggled to figure out what is most important when deciding what to eat.

Of the foods I've eaten in the past couple days, the one that probably has the greatest environmental impact was the bowl of cereal I had for breakfast this morning: Berry Berry Kix with Silk Soymilk and bananas on top. As I was sitting there eating my cereal I looked at the ingredients, which consisted of three different forms of corn (whole grain corn, corn meal, and corn syrup) as well as a bunch of different sweeteners. It was essentially a puffed piece of sweetened corn, which is one of our biggest industrial agriculture products. The soymilk is made primarily of soybeans. Although the package claims they are non-GMO beans, they were still likely harvested in an industrial way. Finally, the banana was probably imported from some far off tropical place. My meal was not at all local, small scale, or organic. For such a seemingly simple meal, it was very representative of our dependence on factory farming and on the luxury of being able to import goods from far away, both at a high environmental cost.

In a world where so many underlie our food decisions and even a simple meal can cause so much harm, the real question is, what can we eat?

My food choices

When I'm hungry the first question that always runs through my head is “how much should I eat?” Not because I'm concerned about over eating or anything, but because I often don't know when the next time I'll be able to eat is. I need to know how many hours I'll be sitting in class, studying, waiting tables, biking, etc. I need to know if I have snacks to pack (or if I'll even be in a situation in which I can eat a snack) and if not I need to determine what is heavy and will sustain me for the next 6 hours or more. Sometimes I also find that I'm hungry, but I'm suppose to meet my friends for dinner in a few an hour, so I need to know what is light.

After determining how much to eat, my next step is what to eat. My fridge is usually pretty bare. I like to eat fresh and I don't like to buy things that end up rotting. I also dumpster dive, so what I have available also depends on my free time. I live behind Firehook Bakery in Cleveland Park, so it's basically guarantied that I have a blueberry muffin, croissant, donut, vegetable sandwich, and some loaves of bread somewhere (if my housemates didn't get them first). If I've had enough time, I'll also make my way to Trader Joe's in Bathesda, usually supplying me with eggs, vegetables,fruit, bread, hummus, some pastries, cereal, and whatever else happens to have “expired” or gotten dented. Dumpster diving has definitely shaped the way I look at food. The amount of food I see in dumpsters, no matter how many times I see it, always upsets me. So when I eat, I like to eat knowing that what I have isn't getting logged into a computer so that the store can buy more. They already buy too much. I've also found that sometimes I get a little twinge of guilt when I do buy food and sit down to eat it. As a joke, when my friend sees me eating something I've purchased he enjoys telling me that I'm eating the seeds of capitalism and thus, helping to end the world. Of course, it's an exaggeration, but there is something about eating food that would normally be left to rot (all the food I get from the dumpster is usually weeks away from actually expiring) in a landfill somewhere and then replaced with more food that would also end up rotting, that feels good. I'm also a vegetarian, so that is definitely something I find myself thinking about when I go out to eat or buy something on campus quick between classes. Other than these thoughts, I don't think much else about what I eat, except whether or not it tastes good.

Over the past few days I've eaten mostly pastries and sandwiches from Firehook, but I did buy a sandwich and some chips yesterday for lunch from the cafe in Ward. My guess is that those chips had the greatest environmental impact. First, they were made in a factory producing tons of other little bags of chips. Plus I'm sure the potatoes were cut using a machine that uses energy. Not to mention it was packaged, which took a lot of energy and materials to produce. Then, the chips had to be shipped to AU. From what I know about Firehook (I've never actually gone into the place), most of the food is prepared there. They also use a lot of organic foods, which decreases the environmental impact. Thinking about those chips now makes me feel a little guilty, but they were really tasty, so I'm sure I'll buy them again. But I'll probably wait a few weeks.

A Double Edged Sword

Technology can save us from an environmental catastrophe as it has done in the past. It can also cause unimaginable damage to the planet as we have seen time and again. What's important is how the technology is implemented in practice. Technology is essential to our 21st century world. Providing food, fresh water and shelter to the vast majority of people on the planet is a task that is just not possible without modern technology.

However, the methods we use to provide these essential services to people are wrecking the planet. This does not have to be the case, if technology was properly managed and sustainably implemented then you wouldn't see the level on unnatural desertification, fish stock decline, deforestation and climate change (and that just skims the surface. If these seemingly benign technologies are the origin of some of our biggest problems then it is terrifying to think about the repercussions of "luxury technologies" such as electronics, bio-engineering, vehicles etc...

The sheer amount of resources consumed to provide these goods, not to mention the slew of toxic chemicals created and the numerous other issues surrounding 21st century industry makes technology seem like an evil that needs to be purged. This is not necessarily the case. Technology has saved us from some serious problems in the past (i.e advances in medicine, crop production, transportation and energy). If developed wisely, with environmental and social justice a necessity, then it can lead into a sustainable, technologically advanced future. However I fear we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We need technology, there are not enough people seriously willing to give up their current lifestyles. Developing efficient, low impact technologies is the best way to ensure that we will sustain the Earth's ecosystems. The unknown consequences and repercussions of these technologies may be just as bad as the problems they were designed to solve, unfortunately we have no other choice, we can only hope and advocate for oversight and good management.

The Technology Tool

Present day technology is something that never ceases to amaze and intrigue me. Yet many times, it also somewhat terrifies me. The things we are able to do today are incredible compared even to just a couple years ago. The rate a which technology is changing is increasing rapidly...

...and so are our environmental problems. Global climate change seems to be more prevalent every day. Pollution and resource depletion is a growing issue. Our technology may be advancing, but it's not helping us save the earth (or ourselves).

That's because technology cannot save us. Technology is inanimate (at least presently it is--as more research goes into robots and artificial intelligence, that could be changing). Technology is simply a tool. Like any tool, whether it is helpful or harmful depends on how it is used.

Let's look at my laptop as an example. My dear macbook has the power to be very beneficial. With it, I could:

• Look up information very quickly to improve my understanding of environmental issues
• Learn news immediately after it happens, including things that will affect the global environment
• Gain access to works by environmental thinkers that I may never have read before
• Run computer programs that could help me quickly model environmental changes
• Get in immediate contact with people across the world in a variety of ways, opening up the door for conversations about environmental issues I never would have had
• Compile information on environmental issues easily and compactly
• Share my thoughts, beliefs, and discoveries with others (like you, reading this blog)

Technologies like my computer have the power to speed up the spread of ideas and make communication easier, perhaps making it easier to teach people about environmental issues and what they can do. Technology has the power to help us do great things.

But with great power, comes great possibility of problems. My computer also:

• Uses valuable resources in it's construction that are very difficult and harmful to extract from the computer in order to be reused
• Is built, as part of our system of consumption, to become obsolete or outdated relatively quickly
• Quickly spread lots of false information about the environment
• Serve as a venue for more consumption, as online shopping explodes
• Waste a lot of valuable time that could be used for coming up with the ideas that could save us

While this is a hugely simplified example, it represents the key idea that we cannot rely on technology to save us. Only we can save ourselves from the mess that we have gotten into. We can only rely on ourselves. Technology can certainly speed up the process and make it easier. Whether the process is helpful or harmful is completely up to us.

Should we depend on technology?

As I mentioned last week, in general we are obsessed with technology and we want things to be easy. When there is a problem, we often look to technology to fix it. Environmental problems are no different.

When the ocean stopped providing us with the fish it used to, we created fish farms. Now that the climate isn't providing us the way it used to, I think it is inevitable to look to technology to fix it. However, this is not addressing the root causes of the environmental issue and it is dangerous to think that this alone can save us.

The main thing that got us into this climate change mess is the desire for more. Consumption is the problem. Wanting things to be easy is the problem. Finding new technology to live in a world of climate change is not addressing these issues, therefore it is doubtful that technology alone can solve all the problems. We still need to consume less. Plus, making technology uses materials that probably needs to be extracted from the Earth. It'll also produce waste to make them. Even more importantly, we cannot know for sure how a new technology will affect the environment and sadly, we cannot afford to experiment.

There needs to be a change in the way we think. Production is our number one priority, but should it be? Do we really need to come up with absurd environment saving technologies (like putting sulfur into the atmosphere or making artificial trees) in order to keep our economy growing and keep up on toxic lifestyle? I don't think so. We can afford to produce less. We don't need to drive, fly, or buy so much. Consuming less meat and buying less things means producing less harmful substances.

Of course, creating new technology isn't a bad thing and will be necessary. We should switch to more solar, wind, and water power. But it needs to be coupled with a change in lifestyle. Otherwise we're only addressing the symptoms and not the problem, which will only mean we'll have more work to do in the future.

DQ 4

I become a little more worried each time I hear talk of how technology is the answer to the environmental situation. Maybe it’s because I’m terrible with modern technology, (as evidenced by the fact that it’s taken me a month to figure out how to become an author of the blog) but I think at best, the “solution” is really just a band-aid. Innovations will certainly increase efficiency and perhaps turn the process into more of a graceful decline than a death spiral, but it won’t truly fix anything. I think many people like to think that technology could be a solution because it’s like a security blanket; it helps us to sleep at night not feeling bad that the air conditioner is on or that we forgot to turn the lights off. In short, relying on modern science doesn’t force us to accept a major lifestyle change, which, let’s face it, would be an extreme affront to mainstream American society.
On that note, one really interesting juxtaposition I’ve noticed this fall is our IEP class contrasted with an International Communications class I’m taking. The IC class is more specifically about means of communication (which I didn’t realize before signing up). To put things into context, several of our readings have been about the history/evolution of the telegraph up to the personal computer. My professor is basically a technology genius and he completely supports the theory that technology can save us all. Just this past week, he made a comment about how we must get technology to developing countries in order for the planet to be able to support a population of almost 7 billion people. I suppose that one could agree with this statement or shake their head in disbelief depending on their approach. However, as we’ve discussed in class, I think that increased technology means the potential for increased overuse of resources. It is my opinion that any gain we make by more efficient technology will most likely be countered by more depletion due to conventional wisdom that technology is our answer.