Reading-
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Though defining collapse is an arbitrary phenomena, it stands by a "drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time,"(*). We observe past societies in hope to find solutions applicable to our modern world, yet it is naive believe that this is in fact possible. Our processes of environmental damage may be quite similar, the exploitation of Earth's finite resources ["deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinisation, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and increased per capita impact of people." now "human-caused climate change, build-up of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, and full human utilization of Earth's photosynthetic capacity,"(*)], but our society today follows an even more convoluted path. We dwell on the mysteries which lie behind monumental ruins, we believe in the might of the society which left it behind, yet we forget this abandonment was forged by a collapse perhaps paired with environmental damage, an unintended ecocide of sorts. Diamond shares a framework he has created of contributing factors to collapse; first environmental damage linked with the respective environment's fragility or resilience. Second, climate change, not exclusive to global warming, the good and bad decades of climate have led to the rise and fall of societies. Third, hostile neighbours, where lies the curiosity of what has weakened whom, providing the example of: the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, did the barbarians improve themselves or their tactics or was Rome weakened by some social or environmental factor? Fourth, friendly trade partners, or lack thereof, where societies may be weakened through high interdependence of one another (*). Finally, the last factor which Diamond notes always proves significant, in comparison to the others, society's responses to its environmental problems, dependent of the political, economic, and social institutions and cultural values present in the area. He defines and contrasts environmentalist, who know current environmental problems are serious and should be attended to immediately. And non-environmentalists who adhere to big business and economics (*). Diamond has encountered different opinions for his work/relations with big businesses, even so he says "my view is that, if environmentalists aren't willing to engage with big businesses, which are among the most powerful forces in the modern world, it won't be possible to solve the world's environmental problems,"(*)...
Though defining collapse is an arbitrary phenomena, it stands by a "drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time,"(*). We observe past societies in hope to find solutions applicable to our modern world, yet it is naive believe that this is in fact possible. Our processes of environmental damage may be quite similar, the exploitation of Earth's finite resources ["deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinisation, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and increased per capita impact of people." now "human-caused climate change, build-up of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, and full human utilization of Earth's photosynthetic capacity,"(*)], but our society today follows an even more convoluted path. We dwell on the mysteries which lie behind monumental ruins, we believe in the might of the society which left it behind, yet we forget this abandonment was forged by a collapse perhaps paired with environmental damage, an unintended ecocide of sorts. Diamond shares a framework he has created of contributing factors to collapse; first environmental damage linked with the respective environment's fragility or resilience. Second, climate change, not exclusive to global warming, the good and bad decades of climate have led to the rise and fall of societies. Third, hostile neighbours, where lies the curiosity of what has weakened whom, providing the example of: the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, did the barbarians improve themselves or their tactics or was Rome weakened by some social or environmental factor? Fourth, friendly trade partners, or lack thereof, where societies may be weakened through high interdependence of one another (*). Finally, the last factor which Diamond notes always proves significant, in comparison to the others, society's responses to its environmental problems, dependent of the political, economic, and social institutions and cultural values present in the area. He defines and contrasts environmentalist, who know current environmental problems are serious and should be attended to immediately. And non-environmentalists who adhere to big business and economics (*). Diamond has encountered different opinions for his work/relations with big businesses, even so he says "my view is that, if environmentalists aren't willing to engage with big businesses, which are among the most powerful forces in the modern world, it won't be possible to solve the world's environmental problems,"(*)...
Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse? Is ours?
"Of course it's not true that all societies are doomed to collapse because of environmental damage: in the past some societies did while others didn't; the real question is why only some societies proved fragile, and what distinguished those that collapsed from those that didn't,"(*) and the simple answer is their societal responses to environmental problems. Collapses have never been known to be solely attributed to environmental damage. We are capable of preventing our collapse, as the past societies of the Icelanders and Tikopia Islanders have done and now continue to live on. The Icelanders adopted rigorous measures of environmental protection and the Tikopia Islanders micromanaged resources and regulated their population growth. No more can we view the environment as a separate entity from us, it is illogical to think that our actions will forever by sustained by the environment. In the past "a society that was depleting its environmental resources could absorb the losses as long as the climate was benign,"(*) the climate is no more benign, the repercussions of our unsustainable and inexplicable actions have radiated all throughout the globe, reaching extremes. We do have the potential, the knowledge and technology now that allows no room for excuses, our collapse is in fact our choice whether the people decide to acknowledge it or not. But the quicker they do, the faster we can shift our societal view to one that benefits the environment, and if they need another reason, this view will be one that benefits them just as well.
* citation for Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond (S 38)
"Of course it's not true that all societies are doomed to collapse because of environmental damage: in the past some societies did while others didn't; the real question is why only some societies proved fragile, and what distinguished those that collapsed from those that didn't,"(*) and the simple answer is their societal responses to environmental problems. Collapses have never been known to be solely attributed to environmental damage. We are capable of preventing our collapse, as the past societies of the Icelanders and Tikopia Islanders have done and now continue to live on. The Icelanders adopted rigorous measures of environmental protection and the Tikopia Islanders micromanaged resources and regulated their population growth. No more can we view the environment as a separate entity from us, it is illogical to think that our actions will forever by sustained by the environment. In the past "a society that was depleting its environmental resources could absorb the losses as long as the climate was benign,"(*) the climate is no more benign, the repercussions of our unsustainable and inexplicable actions have radiated all throughout the globe, reaching extremes. We do have the potential, the knowledge and technology now that allows no room for excuses, our collapse is in fact our choice whether the people decide to acknowledge it or not. But the quicker they do, the faster we can shift our societal view to one that benefits the environment, and if they need another reason, this view will be one that benefits them just as well.
* citation for Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond (S 38)
Human Carrying Capacity
Beginning with the case study of Easter Island, the most isolated island and the island that was home to the civilization that "undercut their own ecological foundations"(*). There exists credible archaeological and historical data evidence that suggest downfalls such as exploitation of resources, introduction of invasive species, alongside the, once precious, abandoned moai--giant statues. The human population experienced a severe exponential increase followed by an expected steep fall and a slow gradual recovery. Professor Cohen mentions Paul Bahn a writer and archeologist and John Flenley an ecologist and geographer who synthesized a model of Easter Island and the story of its collapse, though most is hypothesis it reflects what did in fact occur (*). Including: deforestation, famine, warfare, collapse of civilization, and population decline (*). Most importantly, they proposed this statement, open to an everlasting lush realm of thoughts, "we consider that Easter Island was a microcosm which provides a model for the whole planet,"(*). Cohen follows the case study by questioning the verisimilitude of "carrying capacity" and what it beholds "a number or range of numbers, presented as a constraint independent of human choices, is an inadequate answer to the question [of how many people can the Earth support]"(*). "If human choices somehow failed to prevent population size from approaching absolute upper limits, then gradually worsening conditions for human and other life on Earth would first prompt and eventually enforce human choices to stop such an approach,"(*) choices and constraints are concepts that are chained together when it comes to the concept of carrying capacity, one does not exist without the other. Cohen emphasizes on the difficulty of creating an intelligible, yet complicated and credible model of carrying capacity, listing a growing list of factors that need to be accounted for. "Estimates of the Earth's human carrying capacity are conditional on the current choices and on natural constraints, all of which may change as time passes,"(*). Cohen then addresses equilibrium equating each state to human positions: supine passive equilibrium (lying), constant control equilibrium (standing), sustained motion equilibrium (walking), simplification and control of the environment steady equilibrium (running). Respectively, from before we created fire to a basic mastery of the environment (fire, agriculture...), and cultivation (social, mental, physical), finally, our machine driven society. "There is no choice but to try to control the direction, speed, risks, duration and purposes of our falling forward,"(*).
What is "carrying capacity"?
A number that does not exist. It would be wrong to say it is a concept that we can simply calculate and make a model of, at best it would just be a result of parameterization--the process of defining a set of data necessary for a relevant specification of a model. As a number it is incomprehensible, "if an absolute numerical upper limit to human numbers on the Earth exists, it lies beyond the bounds that human beings would willingly tolerate,"(*) yet as a concept it is highly relevant and pertinent to our society. "The constraints on the Earth's human carrying capacity are just as real as the wide range of choices within those boundaries,"(*) even if carrying capacity could be perfectly defined it would constantly be changing due to human choices, and the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth. "This view of estimates of human carrying capacity as conditional and changing differs sharply from a common view that there is no one right number for all time,"(*) acknowledging the concept of carrying capacity that it is applicable to our society is an important step to adequately deciding and allocating our choices in order to act for a sustainable environment. Carrying capacity is a framework to present our severe negative impacts on Earth, it is a tool for environmentalist support and a leading mechanism for those uneducated people to understand the repercussions of our living.
Beginning with the case study of Easter Island, the most isolated island and the island that was home to the civilization that "undercut their own ecological foundations"(*). There exists credible archaeological and historical data evidence that suggest downfalls such as exploitation of resources, introduction of invasive species, alongside the, once precious, abandoned moai--giant statues. The human population experienced a severe exponential increase followed by an expected steep fall and a slow gradual recovery. Professor Cohen mentions Paul Bahn a writer and archeologist and John Flenley an ecologist and geographer who synthesized a model of Easter Island and the story of its collapse, though most is hypothesis it reflects what did in fact occur (*). Including: deforestation, famine, warfare, collapse of civilization, and population decline (*). Most importantly, they proposed this statement, open to an everlasting lush realm of thoughts, "we consider that Easter Island was a microcosm which provides a model for the whole planet,"(*). Cohen follows the case study by questioning the verisimilitude of "carrying capacity" and what it beholds "a number or range of numbers, presented as a constraint independent of human choices, is an inadequate answer to the question [of how many people can the Earth support]"(*). "If human choices somehow failed to prevent population size from approaching absolute upper limits, then gradually worsening conditions for human and other life on Earth would first prompt and eventually enforce human choices to stop such an approach,"(*) choices and constraints are concepts that are chained together when it comes to the concept of carrying capacity, one does not exist without the other. Cohen emphasizes on the difficulty of creating an intelligible, yet complicated and credible model of carrying capacity, listing a growing list of factors that need to be accounted for. "Estimates of the Earth's human carrying capacity are conditional on the current choices and on natural constraints, all of which may change as time passes,"(*). Cohen then addresses equilibrium equating each state to human positions: supine passive equilibrium (lying), constant control equilibrium (standing), sustained motion equilibrium (walking), simplification and control of the environment steady equilibrium (running). Respectively, from before we created fire to a basic mastery of the environment (fire, agriculture...), and cultivation (social, mental, physical), finally, our machine driven society. "There is no choice but to try to control the direction, speed, risks, duration and purposes of our falling forward,"(*).
What is "carrying capacity"?
A number that does not exist. It would be wrong to say it is a concept that we can simply calculate and make a model of, at best it would just be a result of parameterization--the process of defining a set of data necessary for a relevant specification of a model. As a number it is incomprehensible, "if an absolute numerical upper limit to human numbers on the Earth exists, it lies beyond the bounds that human beings would willingly tolerate,"(*) yet as a concept it is highly relevant and pertinent to our society. "The constraints on the Earth's human carrying capacity are just as real as the wide range of choices within those boundaries,"(*) even if carrying capacity could be perfectly defined it would constantly be changing due to human choices, and the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth. "This view of estimates of human carrying capacity as conditional and changing differs sharply from a common view that there is no one right number for all time,"(*) acknowledging the concept of carrying capacity that it is applicable to our society is an important step to adequately deciding and allocating our choices in order to act for a sustainable environment. Carrying capacity is a framework to present our severe negative impacts on Earth, it is a tool for environmentalist support and a leading mechanism for those uneducated people to understand the repercussions of our living.
* citation for Human Carrying Capacity by Joel E. Cohen (S 35)
Tragedy of the Commons
"I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win"...every way in which I "win" involves abandonment of the game,"(*) tragedy of the commons is an inevitable game of ruins, we fool ourselves by neglecting its existence in order to go on with our worry-free lives. People simply want "avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy,"(*) and that we all know isn't truly possible, consequences will be given. The concept of Adam Smith's invisible hand, that individuals work on their own interests to benefit a community, and as the following exemplifies, with our society, that isn't possible either. Professor Hardin explores the development of tragedy itself and the event of tragedy of the commons: there is pasture to raise cattle, reasonable growth because leveling of population (beast and man), followed by social stability which increased potential of gains, leading to unsustainable use of resources (extensive land grazing), and the conclusion is, "freedom in a commons brings ruin to all,"(*) it's the ability to deny the truth as the society suffers. "Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his heard without limit- in a world that is limited," we would require constant refreshed education to unbind humans from this system, yet at best even now man displays no more than ambivalent understanding. We also suffer from a philosophy of the commons in preaching to the freedom of the seas and the inexhaustible resources of the oceans, even though logically we know that is hardly true. We devalue the commons (ex. National Parks) through overpopulation of humans, constant popularity visitations and lack of true appreciation for the commons brings about ruins of its intrinsic essence. Pollution tragedy is a consequence of population also, individuals from our society are "locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independently,"(*). The concept of private property is laughable, there are no barriers to environmental consequences, there is no equal or even just distributions of punishment, we are desperate for progressive environmental protection actions. "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action,"(*) this unfortunately is pursued and promoted. To openly deny the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is environmental progress of a kind. Harding accentuates the self-limiting ability of the conscience. Those who behold one will be outrun by those reckless people who don't. He introduced coercion by stating "the only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected,"(*) we unavoidably use "coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons" and it needn't be enjoyable, just preferable. It may be an unjust legal system, but for now there exists nothing superior. "The commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density," something we lost a long time ago, when we welcomed abandonment of the commons and restrictions on food gathering, waste disposal, even the idea of pleasure (sound)... We accept and pursue the abandoning of the commons in the act of breeding itself, in least we have to try a build a society with a proper conscience with help from responsible parenthood, and we need to ensure the education of this concept. "The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short," (*).
List some examples of resources held in common by all the citizens of society that have suffered by overuse:
-Forests
-Oceans (including ocean garbage gyres)
-Greenlands
-Tundras
-Coastal estuaries
-Corals
-Any species other than humans (including microorganisms)
-Minerals and nutrients
-Biogeochemical cycles
-Earth's atmosphere (air pollution & ozone depletion)
-Earth's cryosphere
-Earth's photosynthetic ability
-Earth's albedo
-Earth's biodiversity and resilience
-Roads and modes of transportation
"I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win"...every way in which I "win" involves abandonment of the game,"(*) tragedy of the commons is an inevitable game of ruins, we fool ourselves by neglecting its existence in order to go on with our worry-free lives. People simply want "avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy,"(*) and that we all know isn't truly possible, consequences will be given. The concept of Adam Smith's invisible hand, that individuals work on their own interests to benefit a community, and as the following exemplifies, with our society, that isn't possible either. Professor Hardin explores the development of tragedy itself and the event of tragedy of the commons: there is pasture to raise cattle, reasonable growth because leveling of population (beast and man), followed by social stability which increased potential of gains, leading to unsustainable use of resources (extensive land grazing), and the conclusion is, "freedom in a commons brings ruin to all,"(*) it's the ability to deny the truth as the society suffers. "Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his heard without limit- in a world that is limited," we would require constant refreshed education to unbind humans from this system, yet at best even now man displays no more than ambivalent understanding. We also suffer from a philosophy of the commons in preaching to the freedom of the seas and the inexhaustible resources of the oceans, even though logically we know that is hardly true. We devalue the commons (ex. National Parks) through overpopulation of humans, constant popularity visitations and lack of true appreciation for the commons brings about ruins of its intrinsic essence. Pollution tragedy is a consequence of population also, individuals from our society are "locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independently,"(*). The concept of private property is laughable, there are no barriers to environmental consequences, there is no equal or even just distributions of punishment, we are desperate for progressive environmental protection actions. "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action,"(*) this unfortunately is pursued and promoted. To openly deny the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is environmental progress of a kind. Harding accentuates the self-limiting ability of the conscience. Those who behold one will be outrun by those reckless people who don't. He introduced coercion by stating "the only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected,"(*) we unavoidably use "coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons" and it needn't be enjoyable, just preferable. It may be an unjust legal system, but for now there exists nothing superior. "The commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density," something we lost a long time ago, when we welcomed abandonment of the commons and restrictions on food gathering, waste disposal, even the idea of pleasure (sound)... We accept and pursue the abandoning of the commons in the act of breeding itself, in least we have to try a build a society with a proper conscience with help from responsible parenthood, and we need to ensure the education of this concept. "The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short," (*).
List some examples of resources held in common by all the citizens of society that have suffered by overuse:
-Forests
-Oceans (including ocean garbage gyres)
-Greenlands
-Tundras
-Coastal estuaries
-Corals
-Any species other than humans (including microorganisms)
-Minerals and nutrients
-Biogeochemical cycles
-Earth's atmosphere (air pollution & ozone depletion)
-Earth's cryosphere
-Earth's photosynthetic ability
-Earth's albedo
-Earth's biodiversity and resilience
-Roads and modes of transportation
* citation for Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin (S 7)
Activity-
Ted Talk: A Wide-Angle View of Fragile Earth by Yann Arthus-Bertrand
{watch here}
Mr. Arthus-Bertrand artistically explores our impacts on the planet, listing the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands oil, the destruction of corals and sea biodiversity, the North Pole melt, Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its ice, over-exploitation of the fish stock, the 50 000 sqft of deforestation per year, and the event environmental refugees. 1/6th of our people don't have enough to eat... In Africa corn is the main produce, here in America we use corn for livestock feed and oil. Arthus-Bertrand explores the "voice of people" through his project Six Billion Others, asking questions about life (to most, family is their answer). "We don't want to believe what we know", our resources are finite and even so, they are exploited. He screens a teaser of his film Home {watch here: English or French} which encompasses our journey on earth, from members to conquerors, from sustainable exploration to exponential exploitation, our society is growing at a faster pace than Earth can sustain. "It's too late to be pessimistic," we can all be part of a solution.
It comes to no surprise that people have actively decided to ignore a global problem, the over-exploitation of Earth's finite resources, they are choosing not to acknowledge what can quite possibly bring an end to human life. Moreover we are extremely inefficient in using the resources we do exploit, making our faults even greater than we can imagine. We destroy magnificent unique creations of Earth that we cannot replicate no matter how much we may try, these geobiochemical cycles in all forms and everything it encompasses in its realm are priceless and are essential to our survival. The absence of human appreciation of nature is what I surmise to be the reason for such exponential damage to our environment. Not enough of us know what is happening to the environment and how severe the consequences are, to us and to every species out there that we may not even know exist. We indirectly control the survival of any species out there, through habitat destruction and fragmentation, over-exploitation, and human population growth; inclusive to our actions which led to climate change and the impacts of climate change itself (sea level rise, depletion of the soil matrix, destruction of coral reefs, depletion of freshwater, altered wind currents, rain cycles, and geography of climates, increased frequency and severity of environmental disasters, loss of biodiversity...). "Our environment doesn't have borders. Wherever we are, our actions have repercussions on the whole Earth,"(Home film) we need to redirect our visions towards aid for the environment.
{watch here}
Mr. Arthus-Bertrand artistically explores our impacts on the planet, listing the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands oil, the destruction of corals and sea biodiversity, the North Pole melt, Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its ice, over-exploitation of the fish stock, the 50 000 sqft of deforestation per year, and the event environmental refugees. 1/6th of our people don't have enough to eat... In Africa corn is the main produce, here in America we use corn for livestock feed and oil. Arthus-Bertrand explores the "voice of people" through his project Six Billion Others, asking questions about life (to most, family is their answer). "We don't want to believe what we know", our resources are finite and even so, they are exploited. He screens a teaser of his film Home {watch here: English or French} which encompasses our journey on earth, from members to conquerors, from sustainable exploration to exponential exploitation, our society is growing at a faster pace than Earth can sustain. "It's too late to be pessimistic," we can all be part of a solution.
It comes to no surprise that people have actively decided to ignore a global problem, the over-exploitation of Earth's finite resources, they are choosing not to acknowledge what can quite possibly bring an end to human life. Moreover we are extremely inefficient in using the resources we do exploit, making our faults even greater than we can imagine. We destroy magnificent unique creations of Earth that we cannot replicate no matter how much we may try, these geobiochemical cycles in all forms and everything it encompasses in its realm are priceless and are essential to our survival. The absence of human appreciation of nature is what I surmise to be the reason for such exponential damage to our environment. Not enough of us know what is happening to the environment and how severe the consequences are, to us and to every species out there that we may not even know exist. We indirectly control the survival of any species out there, through habitat destruction and fragmentation, over-exploitation, and human population growth; inclusive to our actions which led to climate change and the impacts of climate change itself (sea level rise, depletion of the soil matrix, destruction of coral reefs, depletion of freshwater, altered wind currents, rain cycles, and geography of climates, increased frequency and severity of environmental disasters, loss of biodiversity...). "Our environment doesn't have borders. Wherever we are, our actions have repercussions on the whole Earth,"(Home film) we need to redirect our visions towards aid for the environment.
In-Class Blog Reflections-
Critical Thinking:
How does the media do in each of their areas [of the critical thinking criteria]?
Clarity varies across the realms of the media, it's rather dependent on the network through which the respective media piece is portrayed. How they present the piece may also be dependent on their own interests, if for example they aren't particularly agreeing with the true importance of the piece they may not make an effort to share it with clarity.
With accuracy, as members of a distant public of certain media pieces we hope that the media is true and factually correct. However that may be, there have certainly been instances where it hasn't been so, varying from one slight fact being incorrect to substantial inaccuracy in the respective piece. This is linked to where they receive their information from, and whether their source is credible or not; this is highly influential to the accuracy of it. In some cases, inaccuracy may also be linked to the biases of the source, they may be on the opposing side of an issue.
Precision is rather variant in media, as it is dependent on the importance of the media piece and how much time and effort the media is willing to spend. Importance is sometimes inconsistent amongst different media and its outlets, as is time and effort. A local issue may receive more media precision than it would outside of the local lines, as the local media is willing to spend more time and effort because of the piece's local importance. However, if something alarming happened locally, it may, almost, evenly spread across state lines with approximately consistent precision.
The lines of relevance are somewhat blurred in our society due to the effects of the 'popular culture' phenomena. Some part of a media piece may be classified as quite irrelevant but may still receive screen time because of its popular culture aspect. However, most credible and highly regarded media sources deal with relevance rather adequately.
Bias is an influencing quality that is ultimately found in the entirety of the Critical Thinking Criteria when it comes to media and it most prominently resides in breadth. Like clarity, it is highly dependent on the network through which the media piece is presented. Certain networks are known for holding a certain bias, whether it is on a political stance or otherwise, they uphold a point of view that respects their own interests thus sometimes exposing a tunnel vision mindedness. Yet there certainly exists networks that are capable and willing of providing, at least, adequate breadth.
Depth relies grandly on the urgency or popular relevance of the media piece. It will be presented with an amount of depth that respectively matches its societal importance. For example, an event that has caused a country, or even global uproar will receive an effective dose of depth, whereas an event deemed rather small by the public will not be presented with a depth as large as the precedent.
With a credible media source the area of logic should most likely be adequate, if not better. As a member of the media public I would like to believe that a media piece written illogically would not be published as so and would be reviewed until it is adequate to be presented to a public. And if an illogical media piece would be screened I would think a low count of views and/or acknowledgment would amount to how inadequate it was.
Connect/Disconnect:
What promotes human connection to nature?
Nature itself is a wondrous creation which is so incredibly easy to get lost in, the act of purely looking at an area of greenery, a mountain, a river ...can forge a connection between a human and the environment which for some is an unbreakable magnificent bond. Being introduced to knowledge of the environment in an educational form can for some initiate a newfound respect, interest, and passion for nature. Though I've always had respect for the environment and enjoyed the beauty of nature, being taught and educated of its works by my high school environmental studies teacher nature has made it become part of my life and I look upon it with my highest regards. I also believe that sheer appreciation of life, and all of its existent forms, can form a connection to nature and everything that resides within its realm.
Nature itself is a wondrous creation which is so incredibly easy to get lost in, the act of purely looking at an area of greenery, a mountain, a river ...can forge a connection between a human and the environment which for some is an unbreakable magnificent bond. Being introduced to knowledge of the environment in an educational form can for some initiate a newfound respect, interest, and passion for nature. Though I've always had respect for the environment and enjoyed the beauty of nature, being taught and educated of its works by my high school environmental studies teacher nature has made it become part of my life and I look upon it with my highest regards. I also believe that sheer appreciation of life, and all of its existent forms, can form a connection to nature and everything that resides within its realm.
What promotes disconnection from nature?
Most prominently, the simple answer would be technology. It is important to note that technology does possess the potential to promote a connection, however in our current society it does more harm. The invasion of the popular culture phenomena has created people who are insensible and careless about things that are not "popular" nor hold the popular standard. Unfortunately, nature and the environment are as of now not particularly popular. When seeing a news piece or photographs of disasters and serious damage that have occurred to our environment, on any kind of media outlet, it has allowed people to be distant from the issue as it is not in front of them but rather on an electronic object. The extent of the urban sprawl and the infrastructure that comes from it has also desensitized individuals from nature, as they cannot find a proper view of it, it has been replaced with skyscrapers, houses, roads... This has also led people to prefer cities to a lush nature, a disconnection.
Most prominently, the simple answer would be technology. It is important to note that technology does possess the potential to promote a connection, however in our current society it does more harm. The invasion of the popular culture phenomena has created people who are insensible and careless about things that are not "popular" nor hold the popular standard. Unfortunately, nature and the environment are as of now not particularly popular. When seeing a news piece or photographs of disasters and serious damage that have occurred to our environment, on any kind of media outlet, it has allowed people to be distant from the issue as it is not in front of them but rather on an electronic object. The extent of the urban sprawl and the infrastructure that comes from it has also desensitized individuals from nature, as they cannot find a proper view of it, it has been replaced with skyscrapers, houses, roads... This has also led people to prefer cities to a lush nature, a disconnection.
Is there a danger to a growing disconnect from nature?
Yes isn't a strong enough word to answer this question, we've already been part of this concept of dangers for a long while, whether it be as an observer or as member of it. In our society we could say that businessman/industries are an exquisite example of a disconnect from nature that has led to dangers. From excessive unsustainable agriculture, to extensive unsustainable extraction of oil and natural gas, and unsustainable inefficient energy use; all also encompassing endless amounts of unethical decisions. The societal focus has always been profits, money and as much of it that could possibly gained. In other words, exploitation of the environment and even the people, and as much of it that is considered "ethical" and "legal" in its respective areas. This monetary tunnel vision has only grown exponentially, as have the dangers it has created to our environment. It seems that some people have forgotten the saying "everything is well in moderation," nature has not received a single drop of time to recover from our faults and yet, we effortlessly keep destroying it. Regrettably, we exploit, we destroy, we kill, with no retribution whatsoever, these people are not being punished, or punished nearly enough, for the harm they have caused to our nature. As this commercialized, industrial society grows, so will the dangers and their magnitude of severity, reaching an environmental tipping point.
Environmental Ethics:
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Bio-centric? Eco-centric?
I've never been aware of my passion for nature until a few years back, although I am confident it did reside within me and I just needed to find it somehow, before this time I surmise my views shifted between all three centers. As my passion for nature and what it beholds has become increasingly fervid I rest conflicted between my eco-centrism and bio-centrism, backed by a deep ecologist view. I believe in the equity of all living and non-living forms, and the importance in the integrity of ecological system, I am an ecobio-centrist. The idea that in order to support the wholesome integrity of ecological systems you have to devalue each single organism to me is jarring. A system's connections and functions cannot exist without each living and non-living form it is home to. Each single parts function together to form a whole, a functioning self-sufficient system, one cannot be without the other. I believe that humans have overstepped the boundaries ever since the Industrial Revolution, giving birth to an infinity more of careless acts towards the environment. The day we started to value ourselves more than any other life form is the day we became conquerors, unjust dictators of our own worlds. We've received no consequences, no, we've given them to third world countries who have done nothing to deserve it, much less to have to deal with our faults. I live to embrace nature's intrinsic value in all of its forms, to value and appreciate its magnificent richness and diversity, and to implement changes in human interference of this world.
Yes isn't a strong enough word to answer this question, we've already been part of this concept of dangers for a long while, whether it be as an observer or as member of it. In our society we could say that businessman/industries are an exquisite example of a disconnect from nature that has led to dangers. From excessive unsustainable agriculture, to extensive unsustainable extraction of oil and natural gas, and unsustainable inefficient energy use; all also encompassing endless amounts of unethical decisions. The societal focus has always been profits, money and as much of it that could possibly gained. In other words, exploitation of the environment and even the people, and as much of it that is considered "ethical" and "legal" in its respective areas. This monetary tunnel vision has only grown exponentially, as have the dangers it has created to our environment. It seems that some people have forgotten the saying "everything is well in moderation," nature has not received a single drop of time to recover from our faults and yet, we effortlessly keep destroying it. Regrettably, we exploit, we destroy, we kill, with no retribution whatsoever, these people are not being punished, or punished nearly enough, for the harm they have caused to our nature. As this commercialized, industrial society grows, so will the dangers and their magnitude of severity, reaching an environmental tipping point.
Environmental Ethics:
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Bio-centric? Eco-centric?
I've never been aware of my passion for nature until a few years back, although I am confident it did reside within me and I just needed to find it somehow, before this time I surmise my views shifted between all three centers. As my passion for nature and what it beholds has become increasingly fervid I rest conflicted between my eco-centrism and bio-centrism, backed by a deep ecologist view. I believe in the equity of all living and non-living forms, and the importance in the integrity of ecological system, I am an ecobio-centrist. The idea that in order to support the wholesome integrity of ecological systems you have to devalue each single organism to me is jarring. A system's connections and functions cannot exist without each living and non-living form it is home to. Each single parts function together to form a whole, a functioning self-sufficient system, one cannot be without the other. I believe that humans have overstepped the boundaries ever since the Industrial Revolution, giving birth to an infinity more of careless acts towards the environment. The day we started to value ourselves more than any other life form is the day we became conquerors, unjust dictators of our own worlds. We've received no consequences, no, we've given them to third world countries who have done nothing to deserve it, much less to have to deal with our faults. I live to embrace nature's intrinsic value in all of its forms, to value and appreciate its magnificent richness and diversity, and to implement changes in human interference of this world.
