Monday, December 20, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
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
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11857143
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
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.
/ep
Saturday, December 11, 2010
"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.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)