Much of Ecology of Eden discusses the "Mountain" and the "Tower," Eisenberg's terms for wilderness and civilization, respectively. Arcadia, that perfect mix, lies somewhere in between. This reminded me of an earlier discussion this semester about what nature is. If humans are part of nature and human actions - including civilization - are therefore considered "natural," how can humanity be criticized? It seems that many would consider wilderness to be "true" nature to which humanity is opposed. This is the approach of Eisenberg, who considers how we must balance wilderness and civilization.
Does Eisenberg assume that civilization must exist? Human culture existed for millenia before the invention of civilization. Such cultures survived for incredibly long periods of time. Although they certainly had an impact on the rest of nature, their longevity suggests they must have been doing something right. Although the Native Americans on the east coast of America had no civilization, they lived in a fully humanized environment (although it was not humanized in the way familiar to Europeans). In the case of the Native Americans, I would consider their fully humanized situation to be desirable. Perhaps their fully humanized environment is sustainable, but ours (civilization) is self-destructive. Why, then, seek a balance between wilderness and civilization? If our civilization is inherently destructive, finding a balance seems a foolish task. Instead, maybe we should be fundamentally changing the nature of our civilization, perhaps even shifting away from civilization altogether.
One might say that our civilization is in the process of humanizing nature and that at some point in the future, we will succeed in fully humanizing the world. Just like changes no doubt took place when Native Americans introduced themselves to their environments, one might say that our culture is doing the same thing. But if this is the case, I have to wonder at what cost we are humanizing the world. Will people want to live in an asphalt world? Very likely not. So perhaps what I suggested in the previous paragraph stands - we need to seek alternatives to our civilization.
-Tyler Wake
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Attitudes toward nature
In another class of mine, "Cross Cultural Awareness," we are studying the set of assumptions and values that make Americans distinct. One of the most recent things we looked at was the American attitude toward nature, which can be understood better when one understands American values. Generally, we believe that nature is inanimate (only we are truly animated) and opposed to humanity. Over and over again, we see that nature is treated as something to be overcome or defeated. In our textbook we read, "Advocates of a giant dam on the Colorado River system spoke in the 1950s of that eternal problem of subduing the earth and of conquering the wilderness." Despite the growing environmental movement which seems to be moving in the direction of working with nature instead of opposing it, there is still a large group that takes an adversarial approach.
Just this evening, I was stuck with this attitude. Somebody was showing the trailer to a documentary called "Transcendent Man," a movie about Ray Kurzweil. One main idea is "singularity," a level of extremely high technological advancement. The individual showing the video began discussing the idea of man meshing with machine as a manifestation of singularity. Then, he said, computers could solve biological viruses. In this state, we would thus become true masters of nature. The very idea of "solving" viruses seemed very odd to me. Here we see an example of the idea that nature is something to be defeated. Also seen is the idea that technology itself is somehow opposed to nature, a black and white view that we can have either technology or nature, but never both.
This made me think of The Ecology of Eden because Eisenberg talks a lot about technology. For one thing, he has shown that technology can be quite destructive. But despite this, I don't think he is arguing against technology. Instead, he is seems to be arguing that we need to use technology in different, less destructive ways. If we can change the perception that nature is something to be defeated, perhaps we can do this.
-Tyler Wake
Just this evening, I was stuck with this attitude. Somebody was showing the trailer to a documentary called "Transcendent Man," a movie about Ray Kurzweil. One main idea is "singularity," a level of extremely high technological advancement. The individual showing the video began discussing the idea of man meshing with machine as a manifestation of singularity. Then, he said, computers could solve biological viruses. In this state, we would thus become true masters of nature. The very idea of "solving" viruses seemed very odd to me. Here we see an example of the idea that nature is something to be defeated. Also seen is the idea that technology itself is somehow opposed to nature, a black and white view that we can have either technology or nature, but never both.
This made me think of The Ecology of Eden because Eisenberg talks a lot about technology. For one thing, he has shown that technology can be quite destructive. But despite this, I don't think he is arguing against technology. Instead, he is seems to be arguing that we need to use technology in different, less destructive ways. If we can change the perception that nature is something to be defeated, perhaps we can do this.
-Tyler Wake
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Romans and Yurts
The last group's discussion of gardens reminded me of an article I just read in Sierra magazine on yurts. The group, in talking about gardens and Roman architecture, noted how walls served the Romans as protection, but not to separate the house's interior from the natural world. The barrier between the natural world and the interior world is thus less apparent. This was contrasted to the Greeks, who seemed to want to overcome or ignore the natural world.
Yurts are a form of portable housing used by nomads in central Asia. In a way, they are the Asian equivalent of teepees. The walls of both teepees and yurts are made from naturally available sources. Traditional yurts are made of wood and felt just as teepees are traditionally made of wood and hides. The article I read was written by an American who was won over by a modern yurt. Modern yurts are not really portable and may feature such modern amenities such as indoor plumbing, but retain the thin walls and circular structure of traditional yurts. The thing that captured my attention was how the writer described her closer connection to nature. She could hear "a rushing mountain creek, trees blowing in the wind, and the occasional coyote serenade" through the thin walls.
In this way, yurts may be a way in which a more Roman-like appreciation of nature is becoming apparent in American life. Instead of houses that boast about their ability to block out nature, perhaps we'll see houses that provide the functionality of a house in ways that let us better appreciate and integrate with the rest of nature.
-Tyler Wake
Yurts are a form of portable housing used by nomads in central Asia. In a way, they are the Asian equivalent of teepees. The walls of both teepees and yurts are made from naturally available sources. Traditional yurts are made of wood and felt just as teepees are traditionally made of wood and hides. The article I read was written by an American who was won over by a modern yurt. Modern yurts are not really portable and may feature such modern amenities such as indoor plumbing, but retain the thin walls and circular structure of traditional yurts. The thing that captured my attention was how the writer described her closer connection to nature. She could hear "a rushing mountain creek, trees blowing in the wind, and the occasional coyote serenade" through the thin walls.
In this way, yurts may be a way in which a more Roman-like appreciation of nature is becoming apparent in American life. Instead of houses that boast about their ability to block out nature, perhaps we'll see houses that provide the functionality of a house in ways that let us better appreciate and integrate with the rest of nature.
-Tyler Wake
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Leandra Jacobson 3/14/09- pictures
Several photos we reviewed in class were brought to mind in a discussion I had with my friend David today. There was a picture of an agriculturalist with a hole in his stomach, possibly interpreted as a missing of something, a loss in humans. There was also another picture of a man with a technological umbilical cord. The combination of these pictures creates a collective idea of a metaphorical wall we have built between us and nature through gradually removing ourselves and advancing in technology. This pertains, as I will show in the conclusion, to David’s and my discussion in that we were trying to decide what the term of the world coming into “existence” actually meant.
I watched a couple minutes of the show “17 and counting” today on the Discovery channel. The show is about a very strict religious family with 17, yes, 17 children and one more baby girl on the way. I probably watch 30 minutes of television a month so this was quite the shocking show to me. In this episode, the family visited a creation museum featuring intelligent design exhibits. All the children, and the two parents, professed their true and strong belief in that the world is 6,000 years old. To each his own and I respect all beliefs but I was compelled to ask David on his thoughts since he is one of the most opinionated and intelligent people I know, as well as having strict traditional Catholic foundations in his upbringing. He of course said that no logical person would actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, yet wordplay does come into importance here. There is a difference between the beginnings of the world, whether it is big bang or God, or the beginning being human presence as being the classification of the world coming into existence. In this, the importance of words is vital. If you look at humans as being the beginning of the world, it’s a very species centered ideal but understandable in our human nature. Without our presence, our spoilage, and our advancement, the world would be a much different place. In this we see how important the earth is to us, but how important we are to the earth as well. Do we need the earth to exist? Or can we go on living without technology, eventually able to leave the earthly umbilical cord behind? Will we be forever empty, holes in our hearts, estranged from nature? By our tendency to try and impossibly “play God” are we further reaching away from nature or getting closer to it? These are some of the questions we discussed.
I watched a couple minutes of the show “17 and counting” today on the Discovery channel. The show is about a very strict religious family with 17, yes, 17 children and one more baby girl on the way. I probably watch 30 minutes of television a month so this was quite the shocking show to me. In this episode, the family visited a creation museum featuring intelligent design exhibits. All the children, and the two parents, professed their true and strong belief in that the world is 6,000 years old. To each his own and I respect all beliefs but I was compelled to ask David on his thoughts since he is one of the most opinionated and intelligent people I know, as well as having strict traditional Catholic foundations in his upbringing. He of course said that no logical person would actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, yet wordplay does come into importance here. There is a difference between the beginnings of the world, whether it is big bang or God, or the beginning being human presence as being the classification of the world coming into existence. In this, the importance of words is vital. If you look at humans as being the beginning of the world, it’s a very species centered ideal but understandable in our human nature. Without our presence, our spoilage, and our advancement, the world would be a much different place. In this we see how important the earth is to us, but how important we are to the earth as well. Do we need the earth to exist? Or can we go on living without technology, eventually able to leave the earthly umbilical cord behind? Will we be forever empty, holes in our hearts, estranged from nature? By our tendency to try and impossibly “play God” are we further reaching away from nature or getting closer to it? These are some of the questions we discussed.
Leandra Jacobson 3/14/09
A photo by the graffiti artist Banksy was brought into class. I am familiar with this artist; my friend has a book of his works that I have browsed through. His art is combined in the natural human landscape pictorially or literally. The sides of buildings are his canvas, streets and houses are common places to find his insignia. In this integration with our habitat his art is accessible, confusing, and somewhat natural in its existence. We discussed in class what the boundaries of nature are, whether nature is classified by if it is from the earth or if what we create is considered nature. As advanced and progressive it develops, we seemed to come to an agreement that everything is arguably nature. What I would like to factor in is the division between what is considered to be nature, what is natural, and what is habitat. Our habitat is not natural, not the original state it was found in before human interaction; pure mother earth. With the developed human interaction then strikes a foundation for our natural habitat, whether it be caves or steel towers. Banksy’s art brings a connection with art to our natural habitat and nature. His graffiti shows magnificent landscapes among the dull cityscape.
One fascinating piece of his is found on the wall dividing Israel and Palestine. Here is the photograph:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=32450642&l=8e464&id=31806123
And this is a link to the actual video footage:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfZK7D6WqzR0&h=041e988449000a997a85d0616019fb20
On the dividing wall he has painted a hole, showing a view of paradise. Small children holding shovels crouch below, playing in the sand of the removed and imaginary beach paradise. It’s beautiful and disturbing imagery, creating the out of place effect Banksy places in his art accordingly. The violence associated with Israel and Palestinian conflict is symbolically recalled within the sight of this wall, just as a Nazi swastika cannot stand alone. These conjured thoughts are countered by these visions of peaceful nature, integrating this not-so looking earthly wall with nature. This peek into what could be, and what else out there, shows how his art ties nature, art, and our habitat into one.
One fascinating piece of his is found on the wall dividing Israel and Palestine. Here is the photograph:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=32450642&l=8e464&id=31806123
And this is a link to the actual video footage:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfZK7D6WqzR0&h=041e988449000a997a85d0616019fb20
On the dividing wall he has painted a hole, showing a view of paradise. Small children holding shovels crouch below, playing in the sand of the removed and imaginary beach paradise. It’s beautiful and disturbing imagery, creating the out of place effect Banksy places in his art accordingly. The violence associated with Israel and Palestinian conflict is symbolically recalled within the sight of this wall, just as a Nazi swastika cannot stand alone. These conjured thoughts are countered by these visions of peaceful nature, integrating this not-so looking earthly wall with nature. This peek into what could be, and what else out there, shows how his art ties nature, art, and our habitat into one.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Farming
Farming
Lauren Brooks
Before reading Ecology of Eden, I didn’t think a lot about farming and its impact on the world. Many people think that farming is easy, I know I did, don’t u just plant the food in the ground and it grows? Little did I realize that there is so much that goes into farming today and that there is also so much harm that is done in farming today.
While researching for our group project I learned a lot about the importance of soil in farming. Soil is actually alive with many organisms and animals that really take care of the soil and give it the nutrients and organic matter that it needs to grow food successfully. In today’s world we have decided to kick all of those organisms and animals out of the soil and try to recreate artificially what they are doing with the soil. However the sad news is that we can not duplicate these relationships. We are injecting foreign organism into the soil and its doing nothing to better farming. We need to take a break and let the soil do the job that we can not do and get back to a more natural and organic way of farming.
Lauren Brooks
Before reading Ecology of Eden, I didn’t think a lot about farming and its impact on the world. Many people think that farming is easy, I know I did, don’t u just plant the food in the ground and it grows? Little did I realize that there is so much that goes into farming today and that there is also so much harm that is done in farming today.
While researching for our group project I learned a lot about the importance of soil in farming. Soil is actually alive with many organisms and animals that really take care of the soil and give it the nutrients and organic matter that it needs to grow food successfully. In today’s world we have decided to kick all of those organisms and animals out of the soil and try to recreate artificially what they are doing with the soil. However the sad news is that we can not duplicate these relationships. We are injecting foreign organism into the soil and its doing nothing to better farming. We need to take a break and let the soil do the job that we can not do and get back to a more natural and organic way of farming.
Sacred Places
Sacred Places
Lauren Brooks
We talk a lot in class about special or sacred places and I was surprised to see this concept come up in my parents Sunday school class. They were discussing the wandering in the desert and the people’s thoughts of being abandon and really looking for this special place where God was. They felt they had been abandoned and that God was not really with them.
The common myth that the people were playing into was that the sacred is located in one geographical place, when in fact it is something that can be anywhere. The verse from Psalm 139:7-8 states that no matter what you can never be away from good, whether it’s high in the sky or out in the middle of the desert.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
I think back then it was harder for people to grasp this concept than it is for today’s people. So many people thought that God latterly dwelled in one place like the temple or on the mountain and that really should how inaccessible God was to the people. But today, God is seen everywhere and anywhere. He can be with you in your heart or in can be in the desert. God is everywhere.
Lauren Brooks
We talk a lot in class about special or sacred places and I was surprised to see this concept come up in my parents Sunday school class. They were discussing the wandering in the desert and the people’s thoughts of being abandon and really looking for this special place where God was. They felt they had been abandoned and that God was not really with them.
The common myth that the people were playing into was that the sacred is located in one geographical place, when in fact it is something that can be anywhere. The verse from Psalm 139:7-8 states that no matter what you can never be away from good, whether it’s high in the sky or out in the middle of the desert.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
I think back then it was harder for people to grasp this concept than it is for today’s people. So many people thought that God latterly dwelled in one place like the temple or on the mountain and that really should how inaccessible God was to the people. But today, God is seen everywhere and anywhere. He can be with you in your heart or in can be in the desert. God is everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
