Envirolog

The main thing that I did not like about Michael Crichton’s speech was when he makes a point that if we were totally submerged in nature we would hate it. His example is the jungles of Borneo, saying we would hate being there because of all the ailments and bugs we would encounter. Maybe we would hate it, but maybe we would hate just because we are so unaccustomed to such a raw slice of nature. Many indigenous tribes still live in the deep rainforests so obviously they have found a way to adapt that they would not change for all the ipods in the world. In my opinion he took one of the worst examples and greatly exaggerated it. What if you lived in a quiet deciduous forest? How about a quant prairie? Would you still hate those? What I’m trying to say is he took the “worst� place and applied it to the entire world and all its people which I think is unfair.
I also did not like it how he demeaned so many indigenous cultures around the world. He once again fails to point out the positive things they excelled at. Actually they could do things that we have trouble replicating now even with modern technology. So what if they ate human brains, after all aren’t we animals too? That might be stretched but think of the atrocities we commit on a daily basis. Americans have an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ philosophy. If we can’t see where our McDonalds food is coming from we don’t care. Would you still eat there if you knew they practiced factory farming and were the single biggest contributor to the destruction of rainforests in Brazil?? Again what I’m trying to get across is indigenous cultures did many great things but once again he only mentions the negative things. The article focused on way to many negative aspects of nature and its people.

This is kind of random but it ties in slightly with what i was kind of talking about.
Click here to see whats wrong with McDonalds.

Posted by Pete Turner at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One thing that I didn’t like about the last article we read was how the author stereotyped certain sects of people. The author talks about environmentalism as some strange counterculture bullshit thing with tree huggers and extreme left-wing views. What I just said might be harsh. The author does make the point that environmentalists are so into “Mother Earth� some might be crossing the line to paganism. Whatever. I was raised in a liberal environmentally friendly family, yet religious family. I know many other diehard environmentalists and even several radical environmentalists and none of them to my knowledge even toes the line of paganism. That’s a crazy notion the author makes. Most people I know love nature because it is an escape for them from work by going hiking or camping, or just for its beauty. They respect its complexity and would like to at least be kind to it knowing it can really be a force to be reckoned with.
I also liked the point towards the end of the article when the religious official says, “To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin�. I like this because it will at least rally some behind environmentalism that normally would not have been behind it to begin with. If not it may make some think twice before they throw their trash on the ground or clear cut a forest. I know that was a huge jump but who knows, maybe it will do something. Religion could boost awareness in people who were previously too sheltered to the impact they were having on the environment. If it can do that it might even help to rid the world of the negative stereotypes and the taboo image of environmentalism in American politics.
To give you an idea that environmental groups aren't just radical tree huggers check out the Sierra Club's website, one of the largest environmental groups.

Posted by Pete Turner at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought David Abram’s take on nature was very thought provoking. He took a different stance and came at some very interesting points. He mentions that, “The deeply mysterious powers and entities with whom the shaman enters into a rapport are the same forces – plants, animals, and winds – that to literate, “civilized� Europeans are just so much scenery, the pleasant backdrop of our more pressing human concerns.� I can totally see where Mr. Abram is coming from. We see ourselves as being above nature and it is just something that’s there. However, the mountains and deciduous forests can be a nice background for the things we truly value in America, like football and the Spice Girls. I think this is a viewpoint many in this world, Americans especially share. It really is sad to put on so much value for things that aren’t worth it.
He writes earlier, “that which is viewed with the greatest awe and wonder by indigenous, oral cultures is, I suggest, none other than what we call nature itself.� Our culture has totally zapped out all the awe of nature. No longer are we amazed by the sun or how a tree grows because we actually do know and we are desensitized. Step back for a second, just take a step back and actually think about the sun. It is a massive ball of flames floating in space. How do we not worship this anymore? The sun is insane when you really think about it, but then again it’s just nature to us. It only serves as a backdrop to the more pressing concerns in our popular culture.

American Indian Tribal Dance

Posted by Pete Turner at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)