More Friedman sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html

Food & oil - sustainable combo?

Supermarket supply and oil dependence:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/19/dawson.cheap.food.danger/index.html?hpt=C2

Religious leaders' position on climate change

Very interesting ... makes me wonder if an emotonal/religious appeal might be more successful with some audiences than the limited appeal of scientific basis ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11857143

So cool what you can do with data.... and a little imagination

Map of the world ...

... drawn by plotting facebook connections between cities.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/visualizing-friendships/469716398919

http://www.geekosystem.com/facebook-connection-world-map/

/ep

"Military-Industrial Complex"

During my presentation on Carson, the evolution of the phrase "military-industrial complex" came up, and we noted that it was introduced in Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation. This article is an interesting take on how that iconic and prophetic phrase came to be inserted into the speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11eisenhower.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.jsonp

I found this article interesting and thought you all would too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/science/earth/11fossil.html?hp

Reflections on Freidman, Coffey, & Suzuki

Freidman and Coffey both emphasize ‘leap-frogging’ as natural and necessary steps to rapid advancement. Both demonstrate that an entirely new concept of, and structure for, energy creation and storage is necessary.

Friedman, Coffey, & Suzuki (and other authors we have read) believe that the technology is already there but there are various forces working against its implementation: economic, political, social. Coffey, as a scientist, did not promote a specific solution. Freidman advocates drastic changes in our economic structure; Suzuki insists that we must have the leadership (ie; the president) instigate and implement these changes.

Friedman’s quote of Henry Ford - “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse” – impresses the necessity of thinking out of the box, striking off in a completely new direction. All sources seem to agree, however, that there is not yet the political, economic, or social will on the part of enough people (a critical mass needed) to make a significant change and improve our chances of survival as a species.

It appears that we are doomed as long as special interests and corporations (concerned only with profit, as they are designed to be) control our decision-making bodies. The perilous combination of greed and hubris is dooming our planet, our survival.

All the reading we have done this semester has solidified my impression that without a sea change, a groundswell of popular movement, there will be little chance of recovery. We as a culture have become so complacent, so content to maintain the status quo, so devoid of a sense of responsibility to the environment (the ‘land ethic,’ or Suzuki’s sense of the sacredness of our interconnectedness with natural cycles) on an individual basis, that we are incapable of creating a popular movement to alter the course we have set for ourselves. Or are we?

Perhaps we simply lack the agents to convey to the public at large that they might consider forgoing their patriotic duty to shop/consume in favor of displaying the traditional American values of honor, respect, and stewardship for their land, their country, their earth. As Freidman promotes, we CAN still be an example for the rest of the world if we start making a demonstrable and national effort right now. How is it possible to motivate a nation of 350 million to make drastic changes? Perhaps those in the best position to convey the message most effectively to the public are those of us who are trained to analyze audience motives, values, and needs? Maybe rhetors CAN save the world.
:D

What About Beauty?

My group’s trip to Cochiti Dam left me thinking about beauty. Yes, the reservoir of water is beautiful, but the dam itself is so damn ugly. Gray concrete. A “beach” of gray gravel. No color, no trees, no fun.

I couldn’t help but think about beauty—and the lack of it—and my thoughts led me to the Presa de la Olla. The Presa de la Olla is a gorgeous dam built in the town of Guanajuato, a colonial gem in the highlands of central Mexico, my home for a year.

The dam was built in the 1740s, a time when construction was both functional and beautiful. Today, the reservoir is bordered by a lush green park—a favorite spot for locals and tourists alike. Visitors can participate in a variety of activities there—paddleboating and canoeing; running, walking, and cycling; bird- and wildlife-watching. And every year, hundreds of visitors flock to the dam for the annual Dia de la Apertura de la Presa. A public holiday, the Dia de la Apertura (or “Day of the Opening of the Floodgates”) has its origins in the 18th century, when people gathered to clean the dam. Nowadays, the holiday is purely festive: the park is filled with food stands, a state band plays traditional songs, and people eat, drink, and dance until well past nightfall.

Granted, this is a tradition dating from the 18th century—it seems unlikely that we could expect anything close to this in 21st-century New Mexico. But still, what happened to beauty? And fun? When my group visited Cochiti Dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer official there told us the dam was built for purely functional reasons—that the dam could also be used for recreation was an “afterthought.” Function first, fun much, much later.

And how fun is Cochiti? It’s a blast, as long as you like lying on a bed of gravel on a shadeless concrete beach, burning away under the desert sun. It’s a blast, as long as you own a boat and a truck to tow it with. It’s a blast, as long as you bring all your own food and chairs and tables for that comfy picnic on concrete.

Why is it that the fun in “functional” occurred to them as an afterthought? Humans are animals: we congregate around water. Always have, always will. We like to do things on or near the water: we fish in the water, we ride boats on the water, we swim in the water, we have picnics by the water, we lay in the sun by the water. We are water-seeking, water-loving creatures. Would it be so difficult, so economically unfeasible, to build a few picnic tables and benches? A food stand, maybe? Even a boat rental place? Would it be so outrageous to plan for a little fun?

And would it be so outrageous to plan for a little beauty? Is monochrome gray rock the one and only option? What about those gorgeous earth tones that make New Mexico one of the most beautiful places on the planet? What about beauty? Does it matter anymore?

*

For pictures of the Presa de la Olla and the Dia de la Apertura, see:
http://www.travelbymexico.com/guanajuato/atractivos/index.php?nom=kguaaperturapresa

David Suzuki, Fig Leafer

Re-Creating the Flood

Re-Creating the Flood

Every year the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge is home to the Festival of the Cranes. This week-long celebration honors the thousands of sandhill cranes that migrate there winter after winter, using it as their fairweather resting grounds.

A crucial spot along a major migratory flyway, the area has provided refuge to tens of thousands of birds—including sandhill cranes, Canada geese, snowgeese, and ducks—for millennia. The mighty Rio Grande flooded the arid plains year after year, creating the perfect marshy haven for these migratory birds.

And then, the river was dammed. The damming of the Rio Grande stopped the natural flooding of the river, altering forever, it seemed, the land these birds depended on for their livelihood. Until, in 1939, as part of President Roosevelt’s efforts to create a national wildlife refuge system, Bosque del Apache was founded. Its purpose: to provide habitat for wildlife.

Many first-time visitors assume that the Bosque del Apache refuge is a completely natural system; in fact, it is a completely man-made construct. Every aspect of the refuge is engineered and managed. Men, not God, control where and when the water flows, when the fields are flooded and drained, even where the birds fly, by controlling the amount and location of crops planted on the refuge.

In a sense, man is playing God: God creates the flood; man destroys the flood; man re-creates the flood. A risky game? Certainly an expensive one: each year millions are spent on re-creating what once was: a fertile floodplain, a warm winter home, a watery heaven/haven on this dry earth.

*

To find out more about the history of the Refuge, watch this short video produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBVVllM2ofA

Progressive energy use reduction in use now!

Using our competitive spirit to encourage energy efficiency:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/03/opower.energy/index.html?hpt=C2

Response to Christine's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" Question #4

Time's special report on the 50 Best Inventions of 2010 came out a couple of weeks ago. The full list can be found here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2029497,00.html

I was especially amused and inspired by two of the advancements in the field of clothing.

The first is a textile made from the bacteria usually used to turn green tea into the delicious and addictive fermented beverage kombucha. According to Time, Suzanne Lee, a researcher at London's Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, discovered that when the bacteria digests sugar, they "produce a mat of cellulose, which Lee figured out how to harvest and dry. The resulting fabric, which has a vaguely skinlike texture, can be molded and sewn into shirts and coats. It's not perfect yet; if it gets wet, it absorbs up to 98% of its weight and "gets heavy and gooey."

Pictured is a Members Only-esque jacket stitched from this "BioCouture" fabric.

The second invention is this plastic-fur coat:

As the article says, "Most of us toss those annoying plastic price-tag fasteners without a second thought, but Maison Martin Margiela Artisanal's coat gives 29,000 of them a new life. The French avant-garde fashion house — known for transforming shoelaces, combs and wigs into couture dresses — spent 42 hours embroidering the fasteners in a herringbone pattern on a leather coat, turning the disposable into a fashion statement: fake fake fur. "It's a message about sustainability, but done with humor," says Matilda McQuaid, a curator at Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, 'saying we should look at reusing our resources. We need to stop and think about what we immediately discard.' "

In case you're curious, here is a sampling of some of Maison Martin Margiela Artisanal's other designs.

The Shoelace Dress

The Comb Tunic

...and my favorite, The Tinsel Dress

Here's my leapfrog pitch:

MEMORANDIUM

DATE: Right NOW!

TO: All of the Fashion Forward Men and Women Out There Who Also Happen to Love the Planet

FROM: A Concerned Constituant

SUBJECT: Do you care what you wear?

Question: Where does polyester, acrylic, acetate, nylon, spandex, rayon, and latex all come from?

Answer: OIL! Unless you were interested in self-immolation, wouldn't drive to the gas station and drench yourself. Why then would you cover your head, torso, arms, and legs with a fiber produced from petroleum, an non-renewable resource?

Question: How green are your blue jeans?

Answer: Consider this: About 1,500 gallons of water are required to produce the 1.5 pounds of cotton used to make a single pair of jeans. If you're like most Americans, you have eight pairs of jeans in your closet. That's 12,000 gallons of water if you buy your jeans new. Additionally, the polluting doesn't stop there. http://www.onearth.org/article/how-green-are-your-jeans

Solution #1:

THRIFT!

or "borrow" clothes from your friends!

Solution #2:

Sustainable Fabrics like organically produced cotton, hemp, soy, bamboo, and linen.

or better yet!

Untraditional Fabrics! Lady Gaga is doing it! Why not you? Instead of throwing that plastic bag away, use it as a bathing suit. Collect all of the lint from your dryer to weave into a cozy winter hat and scarf. Why eat your food when you can wear it?

What a hunk!

This is what all the women in Paris were wearing this fall!