Bildekor/a>

Hey sustainable sustainable students, it's the old man here, I wanted to let everyone know that Jeff and I finished the sustainable documentary, and would like to share it with all of you. Mobius, Jeff burned an extra copy of the film for you in case you wanted to go ahead and show it to the dean or deans in general. I am trying to figure out how to post this on Youtube.com. I found a friend of a friend who knows how (I couldn't believe how few people actually posted useless videos of themselves). So, the video should be up either tomorow or Thursday. I am going to title it "Penn State Sustainability" so that's what you can type into the search on Youtube. I hope your finals are going well, and that you all remain lovely and well over the break. Take it easy, my brothers and sisters.

“Sustainability,” as far as my environmental classes have shown thus far, is the ability for an ecosystem or any working system for that matter to find equilibrium between losses and gains within. An ecosystem needs sufficient time to replace, that which is removed from it, either naturally or in spaceship earth's case unnaturally. Sustainability has everything to do with humanity, society, and an exponentially growing population. I fear that this issue of working together to get back toward a certain balance with nature is an inconceivable one at this point. The world has grown so quickly in the last century, branching off into so many different societal values and ideologies that I cannot help but doubt any real effort to find that necessary balance. Excuses are not simply from individual people but entire social structures. Excuses have been built into people. Sustainability is going to have to be created, it cannot be returned to naturally.

(September 13, 2006)

I was equally enthusiastic about the section regarding life as a verb and not a noun or some profound answer to some complicated equation. Instead, life IS. "Life is distinguished not by its chemical constituents but by the behavior of its chemicals...But life on Earth is more like a verb. It repairs, maintains, re-creates, and outdoes itself" (Page 14). This is the type of "Bio-optimism" that I have been looking for, because what Margulis and Sagan are saying is grounded entirely in science and a desire for truth, but they offer these ideas in conjunction with humanity and its need for balance and sustainability.

Is life a material process? Is life to be determined or is it an evolving question of verbs and matter? Is life supposed to be understood, as 1 plus 1 equals 2? Do the winds and waves occur because of an eternal motion within and around the earth, or is there something more than what we can calculate and theorize? It seems most appropriate and certainly less stressful to find common ground among the two sides of the spectrum. Yes, this earth sustains itself and has done so for millions of years, but there has to be something greater than the oceans and mountains throughout the world, something must of given birth to these magnificently complex entities.

As we discussed in class, I think it's easy to see the earth as the center of the universe, and this is problematic for obvious reasons. Eugene Cernan discusses his view of the globe from orbit, "You pass through a sunrise and sunset every ninety minutes. When to leave Earth orbit...you can see from polo to pole and ocean to ocean without even turning your head." This is the sort of shrinking of the globe that I am interested in. I do not mean to take away from the magnificence of earth, but instead to develop the notion that as big as we are and as big as your own life may be to you, we are but a miniscule dot in space, we are infinitely delicate in this light and, for me at least, that shines new light on caring for the ecosystem that has given us life and sustained every organism on earth for millions of years.

Likewise, Nonprophet brought up the notion of lowering birth rates in other countries. In the United States I believe our birth rate is something like 1.5 children maybe more, but not by much. However, developing countries rely on manual labor from their children at a young age and because of higher death rates at young ages, the birth rate is something like 3.3, a huge increase when thinking globally. I would likewise like to add to Nonprophet's desire to think outside the box with sustainability and bring up a point that I previously argued against. In our first meeting at the Center for Sustainability here at beautiful Penn State I argued that one person very well could live off the land, off the grid, but that millions in a confined city could not. In thinking about my arguments I found a counter point soon after that class. I reasoned that cities were in fact created to conserve everything. Cities conserve space, water, food, waste, and energy.

The purpose of a city, at least initially, was to share in a tight community so that no food or water is wasted as it would have been on farms and in the country. I believe cities are in fact the first place we should begin to re-incorporate those intentions and ideas. Mentioning living roof tops gets me thinking about what the city offers as far as natural energy resources. Likewise, because of the tall buildings and narrow streets, a city offers us an ideal place to build wind mills. People want change, but not within their own lives, so make change around them that does affect them but without their knowing. Have Broadway lined with wind mills (as artsy fartsy as the "ritzy's" want them to be), allow these windmills to provide heat and air conditioning to the massive theatres, let the wealthy New Yorkers feel like they're saving the planet. Put cool lights on the mills, let them stand out and more importantly let them be visual entities for others to see and accept when they return to their own cities with newly installed windmills.

Nonprophet is certainly right about going beyond the political jargon, which inevitably places one inside a box. Let's invite people to be hip with sustainability, make it a necessary evil that they can cry about and eventually grow used to.

September 23, 2006

Of the few YouTube videos on sustainability, I found the biggest connection to Yale's Sustainable Food Project. The project is essentially a lot like Penn State's own initiative only with a lot more money from their university. The project managers discuss the concept of "seductive sustainability," the idea that doing the right thing can taste and feel good. The man talks about the same issues we discussed in the fire pit, this notion that sustainability, being green, means suffering. Obviously no average person wants to suffer in order to be sustainable, but if we could show people that being sustainable actually makes more sense then those average people will likely be much more inclined to try it. Many people have this crazy notion that if they become eco-friendly that they will be freezing in the winter and sweating profusely in the summer. They will likewise starve to death and their bodies will deteriorate due to lack of nutrition. This couldn't be further from the truth, the peaches I purchased from the farmers market last Friday were arguably the best peaches I've ever eaten, and it's those kind of realizations that need to occur on a large scale throughout the country.

I really like how much the two project leaders stressed the physical aspect of a sustainable farming. I think students can get a lot out of a book or discussion, but so much comes from the actual work needed to create a successful working system. So much of the work is pawned off to others while everyone else feels good about discussing the cause.

I noticed the one manager's interest toward a balanced dinner setting. She talks about how too many people eat on the go, in their cars, and by themselves. She brings up the importance of sitting down together to converse and share a meal. Ultimately, the video speaks to a lot of what the Center is trying to do, the importance of hands on education and physical work, as well as the need for discussion and promotion of the sustainable ideas. This is exactly the type of video I hope to produce with Jeff this semester. Our video will most likely be edgier and definitely funnier, but this serves as a great base example of the message we're trying to get across.

Peak Oil
It's funny how little I really know about what my father does when he goes to work everyday. In watching the Peak Oil documentary, as corny and over the top as it was, I couldn't help but be concerned and desired some discourse with my roomates and friends. However, that discourse did not come as my friends simply make fun of me for even mentioning an intelligent conversation, so I call me pop. My dad is a chemist for Rome and Haas, and for the last six months or so has been working in conjunction with a company in Washington state on a new more efficient fuel. The other company actually created the fuel, but it is my dad and his team's job to test the chemistry of that fuel under high and low pressures as well as high and low temperatures. Essentially, my dad is making sure that an abandoned car in the Arizona sun will not explode under such hot external conditions. Me being the idiot college student only concerned with my own unserious business totally overlooked what my dad is trying to do. My dad like so many scientists throughout this country is in fact concerned with peak oil and though he is not making any weird documentaries he is working hard to come up with future solutions down the road. He describes the process as a long term investment for the future of energy in this country and eventually the rest of the world. He's doing great work and although he needs no pat on the back for what he does, I am extremely excited to be aware of the work he is doing. Personally, I would have rather watched my dad and a few other normal scientists discuss peak oil in a bare room with no music or imagery.

Here's a paper I submitted to another class just recently, it's all about what I've learned thus far about the Center:

Brendan Magee
English 421
Matt Newcomb
September 21, 2006

October 10, 2006
Hey everyone, I told you all about the work my pop's is doing and finally have the link to the online story about his project. It's some really interesting stuff, and just one example of all the innovative good work that is being done to change our situation here on planet earth:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/ammonia_borane_.html

November 1, 2006 (All Saints Day! Go St. Brendan, patron saint of navigators).
Hey econauts, here's a book review I wrote about What Is Life? for another class, hope it's not a complete disaster in light of what we've discussed all semester:

A Symbiotic Summons: A Review of What is Life? by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan

In reading What Is Life? by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, I found myself captivated by the rigorous scientific dialogue from which the book derives its central diegesis, and likewise by the philosophic conclusions to each chapter, in which Margulis and Sagan offer dazzling answers to the questions of life that have only begun to be explored in the past century. What is Life? offers the reader a dense analysis of the wonders and woes of the history of life on this planet, the origins of species. The book is loaded with scientific terminology that proves to be difficult at first, but ultimately the authors find a way to keep the reader interested in light of this initial hurdle. Using fast-paced writing techniques Margulis and Sagan deliver a compelling history of life and death, thus tempting the reader to alter or further contemplate his or her preconceived notion of the essence of life’s history and the importance of the future of the human species on this planet.

The book begins with a review of Erwin Schrodinger’s original question roughly sixty years ago: what is life? “Schrodinger held that life is matter which, like a crystal—a strange, “aperiodic crystal”—repeats its structure as it grows” (Schrodinger 5). As odd as it may be to imagine in this day in age, Schrodinger was in fact among the first thinkers to take a step back from the picture and ask, ‘what exactly makes up life?’ Science in the 20th century was moving more quickly than ever before, in this way aspects of life could be identified and defined in a “life is…” statement. However, like Schrodinger, Margulis and Sagan find error in such concrete solutions and attempt to look more deeply at each individual answer in conjunction with the bigger picture like a network or crystallized structure.

The book continues down the road of life’s historic mysteries with these same sort of philosophic intentions calling to light the difference between mechanism and animism. Essentially, Margulis and Sagan use this section of the book to call attention to the recognition of life within the mechanic structures of the planet. Rivers, oceans, forests, mountains, and our very own atmosphere play a crucial role in the equation of life according to the authors, and cannot be defined as inanimate elements upon which animated entities stand. Instead, these seemingly mechanic elements exist as living matter in conjunction with life as we see it.

The book has nine chapters in all, with catchy titles such as "Once upon a Planet" and "Flesh of the Earth." It likewise inserts a “color plate” section in the middle of the book, which includes a myriad of stunning pictures from the smallest organism (Mycoplasma) to the largest ecological unit (the biosphere). What is Life? uses these illustrative tactics to keep the reader interested and to stir the reader out of complacency, thus forcing an appreciation for early life and the beginnings of symbiotic relationships here on planet earth.

Margulis and Sagan offer clear intentions to stir the pot, and shake things up within the world of science when they accuse both viruses and DNA of not being alive. Instead, the virus like DNA replicates itself. According to the authors, “DNA is an unquestioningly important molecule for life on Earth, but the molecule is not alive. DNA molecules replicate but they don't metabolize and they are not autopoietic. Replication is not nearly as fundamental characteristic of life as is autopoeisis” (Margulis 34). The authors drive in this way toward a theme of symbiosis as a cause for and basic means of life. DNA and viruses can account for random mutations in which an exact replica of itself is altered in some way. However, the authors claim that these random mutations cannot be identified as living. Instead, living matter is one that has at some point in its history depended upon another form of life for survival. Symbiosis can be defined as, “The intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship” (Google). This idea of dependence and mutual compensation lies at the very foundation of the book, and likewise introduces the human race into life’s great equation.

If you were planning on reading What is Life? don’t plan on a mind blowing explanation of life’s greatest mysteries, and don’t plan on an environmental ‘How to Save the Planet’ manual either. What the book can do for you, however, is offer you a guided approach to appreciating the history to the evolution of species on Earth. This book looks at the fuzz on the old fruit in the back of your refrigerator as a living symbol of the wealth of life that has prospered for billions of years and will continue to produce life long after the human race has run its natural or unnatural course. Bacteria have reined king on this planet for billions of years because this species has grown to adapt and work with the environment, can this be said for humans?

Margulis and Sagan force the reader to be conscious of growing trends in global warming, the dawn of an environmental retreat. They make no mention of rising tides or climate change, instead they offer you an extended examples of our past, some species learn to live with their environment, and some do not. Some species consume too slowly and cannot metabolize quickly enough, some species consume to quickly and completely eliminate their host organism. Dare we compare humans to the latter? Maybe you agree with the environmental movement, maybe you don’t. Either way this book is one that offers an answer to those that have wondered about the potential to exist on this planet. The potential is abundant, but the ability to create a symbiotic relationship with the environment around us becomes increasingly difficult as we grow. Darwin comes to mind during certain arguments in the book. In Origins of Species Darwin discusses the concept of exponential population growth on this planet, “There is no exception to the rule that every organic being increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny” (Darwin 117). Have humans consumed too quickly, or have we attained success as a species by progressing this far? Does balance even matter at this point? Can a species with an exponential growth rate exist for any real length of time?

We are but a mere blink in the eye of evolution, and our situation today looks alarmingly like that of those species that have come and gone before us. What is Life? discusses humans in terms of progress within a species. Is progress related to the development of the language among humans, or is it grounded in successful reproduction? Have bacteria made progress or simply learned to live in there given environment? Humans are a special species, our consciousness separates us from all else, but it likewise weakens us. Organisms working together in a symbiotic relationship and rely on a common effort, so that every part of the system benefits. Humans do not share a common effort, nor do we share a common concern for the planet on which we depend. We are not connected by a subconscious truth, but only language and proximity. Margulis and Sagan challenge our negligent species to learn from our roots, learn from the struggles this planet has faced and the ways in which the mighty bacterium has made its way through history to share its survival stories today. So, if you’re interested in a whirlwind history of what it means to survive as a species, then try the book. I am yet to find a more balanced and captivating description of the intricacies of life. Life is matter that chooses, according to the authors. Life chooses to continue onward in the face of extinction. Life subscribes to change within itself. It mutates and replicates those changes. The book seems to leave you with a change in conscience, and hopefully with a suggested change in the collective actions of the increasingly vulnerable human species.

November 1, 2006
Ghost of Chance Response

As I finished reading Burroughs' The Ghost of Chance I felt cracked out like I had, myself, taken some of the indri crystals. Burroughs writes with a sense of defeat and creates eerie images in my head. The concept of the lemur, the ghosted people and animals that have been displaced by homosapien growth and the misuse of time and energy seem too much for my imagination or my intellectual threshold. Is Mission and econaut? What chance is lost when Ghost dies, the chance for rebirth for reformation? Mission's settlement seems to be one of a return to innocence, where further destruction of lemurs is forbidden, and a return to harmony with the world is its main intention. "A deep cut, but he feels than if his hand itself were made of wood. He looks down in disbelief. The blood that drips out is not red but a pale yellow-green that gives off a reek of ammoniacal corruption, like rotten urine, the reek of man's sojourn on earth." Wow, Mission loves the lemurs and wants to protect their essence, but remains a man, a living testament to the atrocities we have committed during out history. Everything we've done in the face of "progress" is in vain as out actions have caused the world to rot, our progress is like an acid dripping slowly over the planet, affecting everything in its path, nothing has escaped its wrath. Burroughs accuses homosapiens of destroying and then rebuilding, healing our eternal insults with temporary bandages that create a facade of beauty, a castle built on sand. We discussed in class this idea of displacing our hate into animals, because they are without souls, because they are ugly or diseased. What a mess we've gotten ourselves into, we look into the mirror and see gods, but we are no gods, we are the disease, we are the hate that we displace on animals. "What is Panic? The realization that everything is alive." This is a magnificent concept for someone like myself. I am going to be departing on an adventure when I leave the secured sanctity of my parents, of this university, of my life to this point. I want to see the lemurs around me, the ghosts of history, and the crystallized structures of the past. I find myself panicking more and more as I think more and more about what surrounds me and of what came before me. Do I panic in the face of the abundance of life around me or when I like in the mirror as the awesomely horrible person I have developed into? What do I care about? I try to find something outstanding in the fact that everything is breathing around me, but I end up getting distracted, I end up giving up so that I can concentrate on something I know and am comfortable with. This Ghost of Chance surrounds me everyday and offers itself for the taking. When will I accept that change? When will we let go of fear for time and place, disease and death. When will we de-enslave ourselves to the advice of those that create fear? What does it all matter even, maybe I can go on my whole life and waste every single chance for fear of disease and death, that way I can go on fucking around unhappy and proud to be afraid. Maybe I won't do that because it's too easy. I want to face my fears, I want a Ghost in my life, and maybe I will get mine tomorrow.

November 7, 2006
Buckminster Fuller

I thought Fuller's introduction was a captivating one. He dedicated the beginning of his article toward science and latter part toward philosophical concepts. The whole womblanders idea was hilarious, and a great way to begin. I was particularly moved by his discussion on the millions of wavelengths traveling through us all at any given moment. He basically believes that we are all capable of so much, to the point that he suggests it's not impossible for us to have been transported in such a way to Earth from another point in space. Yes, this was a bit out there for me, but I think the point he was trying to make was relevant and powerful. Each baby born in this world is born into an increasingly complex, or intelligent as he says, world. I could not tell if he was bitter about the changes that have come about since his childhood. The fact that his granddaughter would see a thousand airplanes before she saw a single bird was an interesting thought, but a sad one as well. Is he OK with the changes? Is he against them entirely? Fuller likewise discusses our recent growth in globalization. The average man travels so much more of the earth, astronauts knock out about 6 million miles in one week, that's just fantastic to think about. I think he said before this century the average person covered 32,000 miles in their life, and that number has grown by leaps and bounds in this newly globalized world. However, as connected, as we may seem we are still grouped off from each other by language, race, and religion. Our consciousness is a blessing and a part of the cancer that destroys us (according to the Oankali in Dawn). I thought Fuller wrote the introduction quite well, with humor and with charm. I would be interested in some of the other works he's done.

11/16/06

First off, I didn't know that a Biosphere II had been created, and although it failed, I think that's a pretty cool idea. 33 Trillion dollars? How can we even calculate such a number, and what completed, but how do we go about changing people's minds about the concepts of a product, how do we transform ourselves in buyers of perpetual satisfaction? What is the purpose of creating such a thing, is it to scare people into recognizing the planet's worth in services? Natural capital, this is a cool concept, but does it fit into our energy hungry global society? This sounds an awful lot like sustainable development. Basically it seems as though companies world-wide (conglomerated as they've become) have done things a certain way for so long, accounting for their spending by looking at what they've used as opposed to concentrating on what they may have gained had they invested in the productiveness of natural capital. Reducing waste, is one thing, but reducing the commonality of the word waste and its practices is immensely more important to the future of this planet. Continuous satisfaction as opposed to purchased relief to be discarded after its "use" is Sure companies can replace old technologies with new ones for resource productiveness and save money down the road, but aren't we a society based in the present as far as capital is concerned. What can they get out of it presently that might entice them to invest further energy in long-term savings?

It's interesting to here about Schulham's innovations with the pipe system, so obvious but seemingly against the grain as far as the "textbook" is concerned. Is this the case with all environmental innovations, that thought they may be sitting in front of our faces; the status quo has made it such that we are blind to the obvious choices? This concept of whole-system thinking reminds me of this ideal of symbiosis, of community, of trade that keeps coming up over and over again. We are meant to work together all as one, not as segregated societies in a semi-globalized society. We need to step away from the bureaucratic structures that hinder real progress and form a working whole-system on a global scale. True progress begins within, but real solutions come for a collective system.

When I was in New York for a job interview recently, the dorm/apartment building my host lives in had wildly cool whole-system innovation-hall lights on every floor that dimmed after 30 seconds without movement. Wow, what a genius maneuver (oozing with sarcasm) but why didn’t something like that occur to me before I had experienced it first hand? I can’t imagine how much money they save on electricity, so why isn’t this commonplace in every apartment, home, office building, and classroom? I swear it took ten minutes to get over the fact that every time we walked into the hall the lights would flare up.

It’s good to hear about some changes in the auto-industry, but are people really going to be interested in light cars, aren’t we crazy about our solid blocks of SUV power? Aren’t we terrified out our children being obliterated by a car accident? I pray that the Hypercar redefines the market, but a car is not an iPod, it’s an expensive investment, hopefully rising oil prices will force the transfer among practical drivers. Again I’m seeing closed-loop manufacturing and thinking SUSTAINABILITY, it’s all the same really, just put back what you take, consume what you would otherwise waste. This Solenium product reminds my of my Pergo flooring at home, and the deck at my cousins house that was made from recycled plastics. It’s all coming together and these innovations need to be publicized and romanticized! Use a product that will last, isn’t susceptible to mold, stains, or constant upkeep. It’s not rocket science, all this stuff, it makes sense, but media keeps telling us to buy all this dumb shit that breaks and needs to be fixed every 6 months, if we just transitioned to a new mode of business then the media could continue to feed it’s mouth, but our system would ten fold more sustained. Everyone is afraid of losing money, consumers and big business alike, but these solutions would please everyone. Business can cut costs by resource productivity, creating sustainable products, and the consumer saves money because they don’t have to replace the product every six months. Is it just me or does all this make a lot of sense?

Forest of Visions-Response

OK, so this was actually really interesting for me to read, not that the previous books weren't (I'm in love with Dawn) but this one, so far, made me think about some stuff that is always on my mind, self growth and arriving at my goals. I Like Alverga's attitude, he is very gracious and excited about being on his mission to find the answers to his internal questions. Daime seems like an amazing experience, but as Alvegra says, "To arrive at the secret, one has to expand the heart as well as the consciousness," that right there gives me reason to believe I have a long way to go until I find my peace of mind and reach satisfaction with what I do and do not understand. I have personally experienced psychadelic drugs with friends and have had fine times on them for the most part, but one time I tripped in my back field with my two best friends and had a real experience. My heart was there the whole time, I was with the two people I care for most deeply and I hadn't a care in the world but to really scrape the most I could out of the experience. The Daime Works seem like something I would really have to prepare for, I like that fact that they dismiss it as a bullshit drug like ecstasy or LSD, it shows that the people who experience this are really ready for Alvergra's description of its powers. "My consciousness was a real junkyard, full of useless stuff, a junkyard with aspirations of becoming a sanctuary." This sadly hits me right in between the eyes when I read and really think about it. I am a wastoid at the end of the day, I mean I go to school, I have a job to look forward to, and make my own money here at Penn State, but woopt freakin do, I mean I don't do anything to move myself or those around me forward. I think about women, and how I can impress them with my jokes, but that doesn't matter at all at the end of the day, I'm still a bum, a static individual trying to regain the levity I possessed when I was younger. I am going to a new country next year to experience a culture that I cannot even fathom in my imagination. Is that self-serving to the fullest, or am I doing the right thing by abandoning convention and going for something beyond the pursuit of money? I have moments in which my temperament is "capable of great rapture" but they seem few and far between, what do I do to achieve the strength of heart to make any passion of mine my very own Daime Work?

 Create your own educational wiki!Help Add to Del.ici.ous Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to fUrl Add to SpurlPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS