Open Blog #1: "Busyness" and Green Values

 "Busyness" and Green Values

This semester, I have been reflecting on how I spend my time, and how I make those decisions. So, when my friend posted this article, “The ‘Busy’ Trap” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/the-busy-trap/?smid=fb-share on facebook, I was eager to read it. However, she did not just post this article publicly, but to a smaller group of our friends who are working on writing a book as a senior thesis project, the topic of which will focus on the experience of students in the Honors College, and the title is "How to be Overcommitted and Underprepared." Clearly, this perspective will provide a glimpse into the "busyness" of student life. However, this "busyness" is challenged in this article, and I feel that green values also challenge this notion of "busyness." Here are my initial reactions to this article:

This author is very insightful, and I seek to be as reflective of my own life as he is, and then to act on what I find. I am very much inclined to agree with this author, but first I need to reevaluate and reflect on my own "busyness" so as not to be a hypocrite!

 I wonder to what degree that this facade/sense of busyness is an American (or certain sub-group of American culture) phenomenon? I'm thinking of Spanish siestas, long Italian mealtimes, French kids going home for lunch...I’m sure there are many more examples of other cultural practices that encourage time spent with loved ones and away from work and “busyness.”

I feel that evaluating this dimension of student life, the perception of "busyness", could be an invaluable asset to this senior thesis book, or at the very least, a wonderful way for college students, and really all readers, to pause and reflect.

I love the vitamin D reference- we just discussed that in my nutrition class! Also, I love "idle dreaming!" 

The concept of a standard wage seems awfully similar to a practice proposed within the framework of green values: the value that everyone deserves work and a living wage.

The entire idea of forgetting our cultural perception of “busyness” seems essential to living a life of green values, especially the following values in particular:

“Humans are naturally cooperative:” No need for that treadmill of work and competition…

“Spiritual quality of life and loving relationships are more important than material possessions. We reject the latter, and live simply:” The author makes the point that time is more valuable to him than money is. I agree with this concept, and I feel that I should work towards more actively living this.  

“You solve by synthesis; you must take a holistic view:” This seems easier to do when the mind has a chance to be idle, as described in the article (references to great achievements, such as Newton’s contributions to science). 

Blog #13

What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What do forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?

Before I did the readings, my idea of ecofeminism was that it was a combination of feminism and the concepts we had talked about relating to deep and spiritual ecology. My understanding of feminism is that women are equal in dignity to men, and there should be no disparity in how women and men are treated. A main issue that comes to mind when I think of feminism, or just issues of injustice in general, is the gender pay gap. There is no reason for a woman doing the same job, with all the same qualifications as a man to be paid less, and vice versa. And yet, this happens. I thought (before the reading) that this could intersect with ecological and green values through the general value of equality and valuing what society tends to under-value: women and nature.

After I read, I had a clearer understanding of what ecofeminism is. My understanding of it now is that it ties together the dominance of women and nature in conceptualizing that both must be respected and not though of as “other” or inferior.

I thought it was interesting to think of women as more in tune with nature because of our biology. I think that concept has a sort of beautiful, mystical nature to it. However, I’m not sure if I agree with one ecofeminist’s view that men are less connected to nature. This seems like it is not furthering the goals of ecofeminism for harmony with nature. 

Some forms of dominance that I see are humans dominating nature, men dominating women, the rich dominating the poor, and the unethical dominating the innocent. 

Blog #12

Would you join the Green Party or not?  What aspects of green values do you believe should be ideally incorporated into a "green" party?  Do these align, do you think, with the Green Party? Also, are the Earth First! activists justified in their actions? 

I think that instead of answering whether or not I would join the Green Party, I would like to reply with whether or not I would consider their views just as important as the views of the Democratic and Republican parties. This is because I have not “joined” one of these other two dominant parties, and instead I prefer to independently consider the ideologies and stances on the issues of the parties instead of joining a party. So, to answer my version of your question, yes, I would and in fact do consider the Green Party’s views to be just as important, and I would and have considered voting for a candidate of the Green Party. I believe that ideally, all green values would be incorporated into a green party, but specifically, the ones that fit within the current way that society is structured. Not to say that the party couldn’t seek to change this structure, but that certain values seem to have been created to radically change current American society. So, the green party would have to acknowledge that they are working towards achieving these ideals without directly skipping over the process. For example, the value of the state having as little power as possible is something that cannot happen overnight, and also something that I am not comfortable with unless the green party could show me how this can happen effectively and safely. I beleive the Green Party has based their values off of green values, so they align for the most part.

As for the Earth First! activists, I do not agree with their actions. While I understand that they are claiming to be nonviolent and only attacking inanimate objects, they are showing a disregard to the people who they are affecting. Instead, I think that they should be showing a “love your neighbor” approach or at least a “catch more flies with honey than vinegar” approach. I feel that they are not in line with green values, especially the ones about solving problems holistically and through synthesis. This form of activism does not seem to have been considered from all perspectives. For example, what if your monkeywrenching is misplaced and strands an innocent person, or regardless of whether the targeted person is guilty, will the activists win friends through these acts? Is it even successful?  

Blog #11

Blog Questions:

1.       What religion were you raised with and how does that affect your view of spiritual ecology?

2.       What are your opinions on the Gaia Hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree?

3.       Do you believe we live in a hyper-masculine culture? If so, how do you see it changing?

I am Catholic. I was raised as a Catholic with an understanding of and an appreciation for Islam, since that is my father’s faith. I think that my spiritual background, if one can call it that, has affected my perspective on life as well as my view of spiritual ecology.  My belief, stated as it relates to spiritual ecology, is that we are all connected through our similarities and human dignity, and there is a higher power, God, who has created the universe, giving us humans a responsibility to protect and nurture the natural environment. This relates to spiritual ecology because I think both ideologies emphasize the importance of viewing problems holistically, with the natural world an inextricable component, and that achieving peace can only happen when the natural environment is respected. This is a main point of Pope Benedict’s message for the World Day of Peace 2010. In fact, my faith lead me to pursue an academic path and career that is linked to the environment.

I feel that the Gaia Hypothesis is very interesting, and I had never considered that life is what influences the atmosphere. I am inclined to agree with the interesting, beautiful notion that the entire earth is alive. Also, in reading the article on the Gaia hypothesis, I felt that the main argument was that all of these conditions that make life optimal are so unlikely that there must be some powerful force at play. I believe that this is God’s work. I also feel that the hypothesis makes it a more beautiful concept to care for and to be an interconnected part of the earth, which is in contrast to the view that we are at the mercy of some hostile, savage environment.

 However, since this is called a hypothesis, it is implied that this can be tested through experimentation and potentially become a theory. Is this possible?

From my understanding from the readings, I would say that we live in a hyper-masculine culture. But perhaps I am susceptible to the persuasive arguments of the author. I think that this culture is already changing because of the shifting of perceived roles of men and women.

Also, I took the quiz on “What Spirit Animal Are You?” and I got a Bear, but when I read the description, I did not really think that it described me. And when I asked my sister to take it she got a Crow, and ironically, the website says that Crows and Bears should “watch out for” the other. 

Blog #10

What is Social Ecology? What are your reactions to the readings? What forms of hierarchy are in our world today? Are these hierarchies natural? Are there any better alternatives?

Social ecology emphasizes an egalitarian and democratic philosophy for society that is without hierarchies or submission to “the market.” My reaction to the reading is that I like the idea of social ecology, and I feel that society would benefit from adopting the basic philosophy presented in the articles. I like that the Bookchin article acknowledges that social ecology exists as a context for modern developments and technology, so that these things do not preclude adoption of social ecological ideals.
Some forms of hierarchy that I see in our world today are manifested in issues as serious as the gender pay gap and as mundane as the student body elections taking place this week... However, an important hierarchy that is highlighted in the readings is the difference between American society and third-world countries. Particularly noted is how our resource consumption is not only unsustainable but excludes the participation of others in our way of life.
I feel like these hierarchies may not be natural, but that they originate from a part of our human nature. My beliefs are in line with the green value that people are innately good and cooperative, but I also think that there is something innate that makes us susceptible to temptation and driven to compete. Human nature can be contradictory and paradoxical. Perhaps hierarchies come about because of people acting on this motivation for competition, which we see in the natural world. 
I believe that there are better alternatives. The Milbrath article presents a great alternative in the New Environment Paradigm. One example presented in the Trainer reading would be for affluent countries to commit to “de-development,” but I am not sure how I feel about that term. I agree that affluent countries must make resource use sustainable, which will involve sacrificing common, “convenient” practices, but wouldn’t this process be helping society reach a higher state of ethical development?

Blog #9

Explain your view on deep ecology.
How can you relate these views to your lifestyle or society? Which principle do you agree most with and which do you agree least with? Why? What concerns do you have about Deep
Ecology? 

My view on deep ecology is that we, as humans, are fundamentally connected to and members of the natural world. However, I do realize that my lifestyle probably reflects more of a shallow ecology view, since I say things like “protect the environment” as if it were a separate entity from me. Also, I feel like I have this altruistic, separating attitude towards most environmental issues. Even the fact that I just called them environmental issues signifies this. I agree with a lot of the principles of deep ecology, but I would not say that I transform these beliefs into action very often. However, I am now realizing the importance of pairing learning with action, which we are doing in this class through our green action projects. So, I suppose that my involvement in the Food Systems Team, the Green Learning Community, and my studying Environmental Health are all ways that I am drawing closer to relating my views to my lifestyle. I agree most with the principle of diversity and symbiosis, because I feel that all people should work together and that each person is valuable and equal in dignity. However, the principle that I agree with least is the local autonomy and decentralization. I think that this principle is important, but that it is an ideal, and in our current society, we cannot effectively achieve this because of the social structure set in place. I am mainly concerned that deep ecology will be unable to go mainstream, because shallow ecology is so embedded in our language.

Blog #8

What are the preconditions necessary for using consensus decision making in a group or organization?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process?

The preconditions necessary for using consensus decision making relate to creating an environment of openness. Butler suggests that large groups and those without disruptions are good for this process. I understand that having a large group enter this process would be valuable, but I also feel that in this situation it is important that each member would feel empowered enough and comfortable to speak up. Of course the conditions that Butler lists are all important. From these listed principles, my interpretation is that each member must trust and respect one another, and feel a commitment to the purpose of the group so that they feel that they must share their own important ideas and skills by actively participating.

As for the process itself, there are many benefits to the members or users, but there are challenges as well. Some of the strengths of the process are that those involved in the process all have a say in the decision, as opposed to just one person. While one person or a smaller group might be able to make a decision more efficiently, it may not reflect the wishes of the group. The principles of this process ensure a strong community founded on respect and trust, but this will only work if all members are committed. The “block” process may be either a strength or weakness, since time is not wasted on an issue, but it may not be resolved, which is a problem. But it is not a large problem since it is rare, according to Caroline Estes.