#maybe i wont post it...like ill do it as a catharsis

[pinayelf]

I have a lot of hcs abt amihan realizing she's bi and it takes a lot from my own personal experience but I'm apprehensive that it's a lil controversial...but I do kinda wanna write abt it

[samdyke]

top 5 scenes/episodes/arcs that deserved horriblebreakdownnatural go!

OKAY MICKEY I DID THINK ABT THIS A LOT and these are Not in any particular order but i have thoughts SO (below the cut bc its long)

1. sometime in s2 (after having met max for sure like seeing his powers be used for something violent & learning he also has psychokinetic abilities) sam shouldve had a full meltdown about his powers this is a PRIVATE MELTDOWN he goes to the woods or smth in the middle of the night and just loses it. full screaming at the sky “what the FUCK is HAPPENING TO ME” yes his psychic abilities would act up during this display and he would cause like. a crop circle or knock over trees and that would freak him out even more so hes like crying and trying to calm down because he’s terrified of what will happen if he Doesnt calm himself down. there’s a lot of choking down tears here because he just wants to be fucking normal, he tried so hard, and he has no idea what the hell is inside of him. he slips back into the motel before sunrise and dean never finds out about this one. like this post was Correct

2. okay this is SIMILAR but not the same hear me out. PRE swan song, as in the night between dean agreeing that sam can say yes and try to fling himself into the pit and it actually happening, sam shouldve been able to fully lose it. because holy fuck???? what the goddamn fuck is this? this breakdown potentially all happens at bobby’s house once again alone - he goes out to the scrapyard and looks up at the sky and prays to god to help him, asks why this is happening to him, why god wont do anything. please. please. there is, of course, no answer. this is sam’s last night as sam, and if things go well he’ll spend the rest of eternity locked in hell with lucifer; i think he’s entitled to a little screaming and crying and desperation

3. i gotta say like. fitz was right on the money with a post soul-fixed sam dean having a complete and utter meltdown like this. its just like......sam couldnt process for so long and dean was absolutely repressing everything for the year he lived with lisa and ben and to truthfully recognize what sam went through and everything.....horriblebreakdownatural MUST include both of them having a very late night hazy crying fit because once DEAN starts crying about how he never shouldve done it he shouldve said yes to michael or found another way sammy oh god you were so good im ao sorry you did it but i shouldve protected you i shouldve protected you then sam would also cry i think. they need this. its catharsis

4. i personally think dean should have had a breakdown after learning that mary was a hunter. not then and there in the past because goddamn no time (hah), but there’s no fucking way he would’ve been able to cope with thee mother mary, angelic perfect figment of comfort and home, the pure martyr for whom his entire life was ruined, was actually. a killer. a hunter. and she hated it. i think maybe he would be telling sam about it and it would hit suddenly and he would just feel sick, this is the kind of breakdown where you’re throwing up bile and you cant catch your breath and maybe youre crying?? but thats not the point its the absolute crushing weight and sickness when you learn that someyhing in your life has irrevocably changed in the worst way

5. cry harder repression boy: i want that tearful horrible painful breakdown from dean that we were all waiting for after despair. when he processes what cas said? and what that MEANS? oh i wanted the full breakdown here. this isnt something he can drink away because cas is fucking DEAD and cas loved him, he’s deaf Because he loved dean, like. i think that it would be jack asking where cas was that would actually seal this particular breakdown deal and dean would have to flee to go privately lose his shit which is of course not that private. think a prayer like purgatory 2.0 but 20x more desperate, which turns into threatening chuck because rage is the natural companion to grief

honorable mentions: sam after expelling gadreel (this would be horrible. imagining sam sobbing about killing kevin is genuinely making me ill), dean after leaving cas in purgatory (a prayer that turns to desperate painful screaming at the sky which sam hears but they never talk about), dean after getting cas BACK from purgatory (to cas), sam learning that he’s lucifer’s true vessel, at some point i think dean or sam shouldve had a car meltdown (u know screaming at the top of your lungs while barelling down the highway, crying, lots of obscenities).....theres def more but these simply came to mind. feel free to share w me your epic horriblebreakdownatural moment suggestions

[liquidstar]

Tell me about your ocs!! What's their names and ages? Do they have a story? What's theur relationship to one another?

THANK YOU FOR ASKING ANON sorry im answering late but i was busy all morning! but i appreciate it so 🥺 ty

i have a buuunch of different ocs and two totally different main ocverses/stories so i think it might be hard to answer all at once though 😅 but actually i do wanna answer with the main group of my newer ocverse bc i dont think i ever really posted abt exactly what all their dynamics are with each other!

just for context and to answer the first question, their story mainly takes place within a guild where they take on missions and eventually they sort of stumble ass backwards into a plot. the main five characters are polaris, saiph, bella, al, and mira! id talk more about them but ive posted abt them before so i dont wanna overexplain ;; i can link their more in depth personal posts if you want though!

but like, as for their relationships which i really do wanna get into, i typed a looot so im going to put it under the cut hehe:

polaris and saiph are besties but polaris wont admit it because shes trying way too hard to appear as more of a loner than she really wants to be. but saiph is like, completely adamant on being besties anyway so it somehow evens out, the fact that he doesnt leave is sort of what reassures her that they are friends after all. typical fire and ice dynamic, theres a balance between them.

polaris and bella are like. both very similar to each other with their tendencies to isolate and repress themselves but in different ways, which makes them sort of resent each other at first, but then at the same time theyre also both able to understand each other and actually help each other and be friends. or maybe...

polaris and al sort of have a relaxed friendship where there isnt as much pressure, al is sort of the reassuring cool factor that's needed for polaris to stay comfortable in the chaos of their group. al also considers her to be a good person to talk to, but since polaris doesnt understand social dynamics as well she had a hard time determining where the line between meddling and helping is. and maybe al feels a bit weird seeing saiph and polaris be besties and realizing that hes not content with having that same dynamic with saiph too... ill get into their whole mess later tho

polaris and mira generally get along very well, but contrary to al, mira's personality can be a bit overwhelming for polaris, its basically an extreme extrovert and an extreme introvert, but that kind of relationship is also one thats important to polaris coming out of her shell. probably because mira is hard to say no to (because half the time shed drag you along anyway).

saiph and bella also have opposite energies in a sense, saiph cant control his emotions while bella represses her emotions, hes always at a 10 when shes always at a 3. bella might find him annoying in a lighthearted sort of way, but she also finds a bit of a vicarious catharsis in his demeanor so she likes hanging out with him. and saiph sort of just looks up to her as their de facto team leader.

saiph and al are. the messiest bitches on planet earth. they both like each other but theyre both so fundamentally insecure in very similar but also different ways that theyre unable to actually, like, even conceptualize of the feelings being mutual. and despite their own feelings for each other their own issues clash a lot with each other- al wants to become strong enough so that he can protect people so they never have to protect him, the concept of people getting hurt on his behalf is terrifying to him. but saiph is incredibly reckless and self-sacrificial (in a way that borders on suicidal) and feels patronized and insulted if anyone tries to take on any of these burdens in his stead. so they clash heads a lot in this regard ESPECIALLY because its the person theyre respectively in love with.

anyway saiph and mira are siblings. though theyre not technically related they are siblings and theyd probably be offended if you ever questioned that fact. they grew up in the guild together, and since theyre close in age they really clung to each other. despite only being a little over a year older saiph still took on the classic protective older brother role, while mira is the cutsie and playfully annoying sister, and shed even play it up for his sake at times.

al and bella are sort of frenemies, in a lighthearted way though. neither of them really take it very far since theyre fairly levelheaded (most of the time), but they still bud heads because they both always feel the need to be in control of any given situation. bella is the team leader so naturally shes in charge, which can make al uneasy and sort of bicker with her, which in turn makes her frustrated at his incorporation. even outside of missions they keep their banter going, usually its light but that doesnt mean they never argue for real either. theyre still friends, but maybe they should voice that a bit more often too.

al and mira generally get along super well but he cannot keep up with her energy, but unlike polaris he like, fully encourages her chaos. she sort of sees him as a good person to just ramble to for hours on end because he’ll just sit and listen. he has no clue what shes talking about half the time but thats okay because he likes her spirit! and she helps balance out his somewhat more cynical characteristics a bit. 

bella and mira are besties. their personalities seem sort of opposite on the outside, but on the inside theyre both pretty similar! bella's more edgy demeanor is a facade after all, in her heart of hearts she really is soft, she likes cutsie and sweet things, and despite not showing it she really does like being shown affection. she has a lot in common with mira, so shes sort of able to be herself a bit more around her, she doesnt feel threatened and can put some walls down. they shop at hot topic and claires together.

[avpdpunpun]

i disappeared for 3/4ths a year here’s an update?

its been 4 months since my queue ran out and way longer since i wrote an actual post. 8 months about? i think i last posted when i impulse quit a job that was bad for my mental health and just kept getting worse.

sometimes i wonder when ppl who blog about mental illness disappear if they’ve died. there was a big user i used to follow who did, and i still occasionally think about it sometimes, so i figure its nice to post updates sometimes. and being able to look back on posts ive written and reflect on them/what state of mind i was in can be helpful even if it can be embarrassing/dangerous because its so easy to fall back into those thinking habits 

after quitting my job i did basically nothing for 6 months haha. at some point i managed to clean out my room which i had done the bare minimum on for years because of depression, took out more built up trash than i thought was possible to fit into my small space. its disgusting but the only thing i struggle to keep up with now at least is vacuuming and putting clothes away so my space is a lot cleaner and it makes me happier. your living space can really have an effect on your mood bless you marie kondo

after my post about having an anxiety attack taking my test i got my drivers license in march. i saw the same lady again after going somewhere else and i think she just let me pass because she felt bad haha. i never finished drivers ed and i still get anxiety about driving unfamiliar routes but my skills and confidence have improved a lot. i managed to drive 2 hours to a big city to visit a friend! i literally didnt have a choice in getting my license, but its still something i can be proud of. like, when i have to explain it to people, it feels extremely shitty that i didnt get it until i was 20, and only about 5 months ago too but... for someone who struggles as much as me, i have to be proud of it my small accomplishments or i’ll have nothing.

at some point something in my brain just snapped and i literally havent been able to cry? for a long time in those 6 months i felt like i was right on the edge of breaking down mentally but never actually crossing that line and it was honestly one of the weirdest things ive experienced. i almost wanted to have a breakdown again just to get rid of the feeling and reach a catharsis like... i used to be a fucking crybaby almost but i. cant. anymore. but i think ive mostly moved away from this point... still feel kinda weird tho.

i didnt end up signing up to a local school fo gen eds. its still on my mind for the vague future because there’s topics i want to learn about (psychology, natural resources, languages...) and maybe try to pursue for a career but really i just wanted a way to get out of my toxic house, even if it meant going into debt to live in a shitty dorm. 

in the last 30 days though life has been moving extremely quickly for me. i dont think i couldve lived with myself much longer being a useless adult basically living in my basement bedroom of my parents house, especially with my younger siblings getting nearer to adult milestones, plus my savings were starting to run out.

so literally next weekend, i’m moving out! and i make enough money right now that with the rough budget i have established, if its accurate, i’ll have a decent amount of wiggle room and hopefully wont be ruining my mental health just trying to make ends meet.

it took a long time of searching but i managed to find a job that hasnt made me suicidal and has slightly more than the MIT living wage for my area lol. im a janitor now! we’ll see how long it lasts but a lot of the factors from my last two jobs that contributed to my failing mental health are gone. i rarely have to interact with other people, and if i do its my coworkers, of who i tend to only see for minutes per day, or the other people working in the building i clean who at most i have to say hi and have a nice night to lol. i get to listen to music and podcasts for 8 hours and its very routine heavy. i have to clock out after the 8 hours is up so i literally cant be forced into overtime. a lot of people dont respect cleaning jobs like this but honestly who gives a fuck, its something i can handle mentally and support myself with. its still hard adjusting to 40 hours. i know its the standard, but the standard is rly tough for me, but i think i can do it long term.

all of this has been achieved through sheer self hatred and impulse alone, and im very nervous about moving in with 3 other people even if 1 of them ive known for 8 years, and i dont think its even properly hit me yet. literally cant register that i have to fend 100% for myself but also ill be away from my toxic family! i can bring my cat with me, who before this i got to see at MOST once a week!

a dude ive known online for two or more years is moving to my area too for college and he’s so sweet and kind, i feel better talking to him than i have 99% of people in my life and im so lucky to know him. ive been forced to talk about personal things i was kind of dreading (not his fault, just a result of our relationship going to go from online -> irl and things id have to address beforehand) and honestly i didnt even mind it that much when i just got it over with and talked about it to him! vulnerability is literally the thing i struggle with the most in interpersonal relationships and is a huge block for me in every way and in even the most mundane life situations but like... he’s honestly the best and im getting emotional writing this and its weird af because i straight up dont GET emotional about other people. ive absolutely developed a stupid fucking crush on him recently and i THINK hes been receptive to flirting and i cant tell if he flirts back because we already say i love you and are wholesome af but honestly no clue if he’s into (trans) dudes but honestly? even if it doesnt work out im so happy to be friends with him and im so excited to finally meet him!! i really think knowing him has helped me improve myself 

i’ve always thought that if i could literally just achieve the bare minimum in life that things would naturally get better. like i’m still mentally ill and get paranoid about peoples intentions and i think if my boss yelled at me id have an anxiety attack on the spot. im still depressed and hate that i have low energy and that it’s still rly hard doing basic chores. 

but like a huge part of my problem was that i felt like i literally couldn’t TRY to connect with people if i couldn’t face having to tell them bare info about myself, like “oh i cant drive” or “i dont have a job” or that i was living with my parents but not even making PROGRESS on getting out. like how could i make friends or go on dates if i literally couldnt contribute shit or admit these things i was so ashamed of? a lot of my self image was shaped by this because my entire life i havent been mentally well enough to do as well as i should have.

but like. i feel like im finally doing these basic things!! i dont have to hate myself so much anymore! i dont look badly on other mentally ill ppl who are less lucky than i/havent been able to do those things yet/might not ever and are still in the same situation i was 2 months ago but the self hatred is strong pls understand.

i dont know yet if i could afford twice yearly drs visits for meds or anything and probably not therapy. i dont even know what my insurance is yet haha. but i’ll see

i need to figure out at what point in my life im going to be able to never contact a single person in my family ever again, considering i’ll be a 20 min drive away and they will know the precise location of where i live, and if i’ll ever feel safe enough in society to start hrt but :^) you know :^) i can at least present more masculinely in the meantime!

i dont rly know how to conclude this... i’m not trying to brag either im just very nervous and excited about where my life might be going for the first time ever? maybe? in my entire life? i have no clue what to pursue after moving out, but i can figure it out. and just... that there’s hope even if youre as fucked up and mentally ill as i am lmao!

[homingpigecns]

i wanna play raku/en but i dont know if im ready to get rekt emotionally....... this is extremely hard for me

[mjackdaw]

in search of softness

(sorry for the long post but this Hell Site wont let me put a read more in for Some Reason) just finished the adventure zone finale and....jeez. cried myself a stomach ache rly glad i got into it last summer and got to watch it wrap up a calendar year later, nice coming in a circle thing?  but like, wow, im very glad it ended the way it did and it gave me all of those nice douglas adams and terry pratchett vibes and im glad this story exists in the world stories about the specific kind of found family that is like 

“the world is an absurd, unpredictable, and often inhospitable place but somewhere in it you will find Your People, and you will make a small and good and earnest and bright thing with those people, and that thing may be an actual tangible thing or maybe the thing is bringing those bonds into the world and those good vibes into existence. but, regardless, that thing will be Yours and you will be better for it and because that thing exists you will be able to stitch up all the wounds this bizarre and often terrible world has given you. the search for and the maintaining of Your True and Good Thing is what makes waking up to survive and push through another day worth it”  will always be my kryptonite  it has the same kind of vibe that i think some of the best night vale episodes had and i wish i had transcribed joseph fink’s answer to the q i asked at an interview panel once bc its that same thing. about people surviving the shitty times and making the good times regardless of whether the bad times are cancer or if they’re unknowable monsters.  what makes me call a story “kind” or “soft” has little to do with whether like the characters are nice (what a loaded word that i have lots of asterisks about) but like, if the story depicts that sort of thing and gives people material with which to tell themselves “yeah you know ill be okay”. works and stories are kind if they can do a kindness of fortification and catharsis and comfort to those who read them  i think tabletop rpgs can be really good at telling that kind of story and that’s why ive been drawn to them for over five years on one hand they are by definition a collaboratively crafted story. you and your fellow players build something together and share in it and can sometimes work through stuff  (i.e. my first dnd character for working through feelings of inadequacy/being not enough/ being too dumpy) but its also the case that like, because a lot of rpgs follow the structure of “these people coming together and being pulled into a shared narrative” they can be REALLY good for telling a story about a hurt and hurting group of people with their own baggage looking to find healing and hope and a happy ending and often finding that ending or at least support on their journey to that ending in each other  i think the best shadowrun, d&d / pathfinder/ dungeon world/ any-other-murderhobo-game, and also monsterhearts are good at this kind of narrative  (monsterhearts is especially good for helping characters grow together and begin to put a name to their feelings and their identities) i liked taz because it was a piece of rpg media that took this concept to heart. taz ends with people coming together and rebuilding and getting their just rewards and it really hits close to home. it gets this softness and hopefulness in a way i was afraid as a fifteen year old rpg narriatives never would and that honestly caused me to be was told i was stupid/dumb/didn’t get it because i wanted that kind of narriative.  im so glad to have met so many people thatre super important to me through taz because it let me find other people who got that softness  its super cool that starfinder began on the same day taz ended esp because as soon as starfinder was announced i began working on a starfinder inspired oc project w/ a dear dear person i met through taz 

[smallblanketfort]

today i want to talk about the phrase “it gets better”

because guess what. sometimes it doesn’t get Better. All the way better.

but guess what. it also does get Better. it gets better. kind of.

this post is dedicated to the boy who said that i am “proof it doesn’t get better.”

what i should have told him: fuck you. what i told him: gosh thanks sweetie, fuck you

what i should have said: you don’t know me. you don’t know where i have been, or where i am now, or where i want to be. what i said: don’t pretend to understand what you can’t know. how my mind is a labyrinth and i was locked in the center, in a small quiet room, the eye of the storm if you will.

what i should have said: true recovery is never linear, never a straight upwards slope. you are not a mathematical equation. you are human. you are nature. you breathe into your lungs what fuels forest fires. you are not a number that can be put into a grid, you are not a statistic, you are not a point on a line chart, you are a person. what i said: i broke open the door at the center of this labyrinth full of Doors. behind this door was a feather bed with memory foam pillows. it was almost comfortable. it was heavy. yeah, seriously, it was almost really comfortable, when i didnt mind the whole swallowed-by-my-bed thing, or the whole brain-encased-in-cement-like-pillow-that-grows-harder-and-harder-and-harder-to escape-the-longer thing. i looked like a beetle on its back. a beetle thinking about trying to get up, arms treading air hopelessly. i hope you laugh at that image. because yeah. it felt peaceful, and comfortable, and hilarious that i’d even think to struggle my way out of this silence. but i did. i did i did i did i did

BETTER WILL LOOK DIFFERENT ON EVERYONE.

for some, yeah. better will be a life totally free of mental illness. amazing. it could be you. it might not be. but it could be. the teenage brain is a complicated thing, and sometimes mental illnesses, like depression and anxiety, are the products of chemicals that over or under produce. the developing brain is capable of balancing itself out. scientifically speaking, there is a reasonably high chance that a teenager with depression or anxiety will recover in early to mid adulthood.

IT WILL GET BETTER.

for some, better will look a shit ton like worse. mental illness will stick around, it will be something you live with for a long time. this is more likely true if you develop a disorder in your later teens or early twenties (but no one can use this as an indicator). having said that, apparently even people with personality disorders have a chance of emergence after about ten years. sometimes a sticky mental illness will only arrive in bouts. it will not be constant. your life will know better seasons.

IT WILL STILL GET BETTER.

and a lot worse, but it will always always always always get better. if you have experienced joy, you will experience joy again. there’s no reason you won’t. if it was possible before. it happened. it was real, and so were you.

what i should have said: the better you become at lifting weights, the lighter they do not become. you run track, boy. you keep pushing to run further, faster. and this pain, your heaving lungs and shaking legs, you take it with you. it tells you if it was worth it... they always get you there. what i said: with every door i break down, comes another breed of monster. the further i get from the center, i think the labyrinth is more and more afraid of losing me to peace, to joy, to myself. it is a selfish thing, these walls, they love me more dearly than you ever will love anyone. the further i go, the tighter it grips into my shoulders, the more the void begs me to stay, the sharper the teeth of the wolves behind every door. when i kill a monster, i yank out its teeth, cracking blood over my hands, and i use the teeth like knives. i break down another door, and the new wolf smells blood. sometimes i can barely hear the murmur of the ocean, or see the slip of the mountains, but the glimpse through a threadlike crack in the wall is enough. i’m coming, i whisper to them. my strikes of light. im coming im coming im coming

sometimes better looks likes worse. sometimes better is learning exactly what is eating at you, what triggers you, what the root problem is, and confronting them with guns in your hands. it hurts. it’s a huge struggle. but in a way, this can be “better.” staring it in the face and fighting will always be better. talking about it will always be better. always. fighting always looks uglier. 

sometimes better looks ugly. like seeing the ugly. like letting others see your ugly. letting friends, family, strangers, or doctors or therapists see your ugly. sometimes better looks like being loved despite all your ugly. 

sometimes better looks like crouching on the floor, crying and begging god to heal you. at least you’re finally asking someone other than yourself.

BETTER LOOKS LIKE AT LEAST IM TRYING A LITTLE BIT.

what i should have said: TODAY FEELS LIKE SHIT. TELL ME IT DOES. GRIEVE WITH ME. I GOT UP THIS MORNING AND I WASHED MY HAIR. I EVEN PUT ON LOTION. IT SMELLED LIKE LAVENDER. I SMELL LIKE LAVENDER. I SMELL LIKE GROWING THINGS. I MADE MYSELF A CUP OF TEA AND WENT BACK TO BED. I DRANK TEA. IN BED. I EVEN GOT OUT MY NOTEBOOK. I DIDNT WRITE IN IT, BUT I THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT I’D WRITE. I GOT TO WORK. I GET TO WORK EVERY DAY. IT’S ALL THE INTERACTION I HAVE ENERGY FOR RIGHT NOW, BUT I DID IT. I DID IT I DID IT I DID IT I SLEPT FOR A WHOLE FIVE HOURS ISNT THAT GREAT? I KEPT BREATHING EVEN THOUGH IT FELT LIKE THEY WERE FILLED WITH CEMENT. ISNT THAT GREAT? ISNT THAT GREAT? IM ALIVE ISNT THAT GREAT? IM STILL HERE. WONT YOU CELEBRATE THAT WITH ME. WONT YOU TELL ME GOOD JOB. I SURVIVED. I PUT ON MY CHAPSTICK. MY LIPS AREN’T BLEEDING TODAY. I DID IT. I DID IT. I DID IT. what i said: ye u right 

sometimes better looks like understanding yourself, and knowing how to cope. sometimes better is not being able to get out of bed, but still being there to lie there. sometimes better is learning to avoid your triggers. sometimes better looks pathetic and ugly to the world around you, but it is contentedness in where you are, and giving yourself the grace to gently grow better.

sometimes better is only patience and grace and forgiveness and quiet mornings where you know you can start the clock over again.

sometimes better looks like ugly catharsis embraced. sometimes better looks like screaming. sometimes better looks like coping.

BETTER LOOKS LIKE SCARS.

this is not to say you need to hurt yourself, this is to say whatever hurt you have experienced, it is yours and you have felt it and it will heal in some way, somehow. even if it is visible. even if it is ugly. the ugly is beautiful, they tell stories of your resilience, stories of grace. you do not need physical scars to have a story. you only need the breath in your lungs.

IT GETS BETTER.

you figure out how to live. you learn how to cope. you let people surround you, one person, or five. you let your hands be held. you let them hold your shoulders up, when you can’t. you embrace them when they can’t imagine it. you exist for each other.

you don’t do It.

IT GETS BETTER.

you cannot see this future ahead of you. the future is an open highway at five in the morning, with the sun coming up. the earth is round, you can see the horizon. you never know. you never FUCKING know. yeah, dude. there might be a car crash waiting for you. or a beach. or a beautiful sunset. or a hitchhiker who changes your life. four years ago i was a junior in high school, and i had endless panic attacks over the future. i had absolutely no plan whatsoever, and i am still terrified. but i have a plan now. and it’s a good one. one i never ever saw coming. but it’s an open window in april. maybe it feels like sunshine, or a rainy baptism, or a brewing storm prickling my skin with electricity. sometimes the future almost kills me. i don;t know if i’ll go out the window, or if i’ll stay inside. i feel every emotion every day, and i am terrified, and i am hurt and bruised, but sometimes i’m glad i’m here to be terrified. i still want to die, every day, but every day that i stay, i prove to myself that i can. and the earth sometimes opens up the clouds while she rains, and there are rainbows across the sky. when i can’t find the rainbows, when im crying or panicking or lonely or suicidal: i rub my eyes, and there, i see a glimpse of the color. so maybe this is what god meant by promises. i don’t know. 

BETTER BELONGS TO YOU. DO NOT LET A SHITHEAD DICTATE WHAT IT SAYS.

boy, if you’re reading this, and it hurts, okay. now you almost know how it felt. i hope this helps you feel like you’re getting better. that you’re proof it gets better. because lord knows, we don’t need me to be the example for it to be true.

[yesintrotoenvironmentalstudies10]

Final blog post

1

After reading the first chapter of the textbook a few things stood out to me. First, and most simply of them all, is that though the United States only makes up about 4.3% of the world population use 30% of the world’s resources. This statistic was initially asinine but as I thought more about it, it became slightly more comprehensible. Being the largest developed nation in the world it makes sense that the US contributes so significantly to consumption. In an effort to defend my country from this blemish I came up with the hypothesis that this number may be so high due to the fact that much of our production is in high overhead industries such as auto production. We then export these cars to other countries which would cause us to bear the brunt of the resource consumption. Again, that’s my best attempt at defending the US, but it might be the case of aiming to defend the indefensible.

Further in the chapter I came across Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s IPAT model. the 1970s concept stated that environmental impact could be measured as the product of Population x Affluence x Technology. Population and affluence are always a positive (meaning having a poor effect on the environment) affect on the calculation and that technology could be positive and negative. What I found to be significant about the model is the fact that affluence in all instances is positive. This gave a good insight into the outlook people had on the environment in the 70s. Obviously the correlation of affluence and negative environmental impact is undeniable, as most all substantial environmental damage is carried out by wealthy nations. That being the case, in the last few years it’s been the prerogative of wealthy nations to be environmentally friendly. Scandinavian nations, who are among the wealthiest in the world have pioneered a myriad environmentalist prerogatives. This can be seen in statistics concerning carbon emissions per capita. Despite being much wealthier, the average Swede emits roughly half the amount of carbon that the average Libyan does on an annual basis. The Swede could afford to emit much more carbon if he or she felt inclined to, but wont because of their respect of the environment. This is common sense to anyone alive now but gives an interesting glimpse into the zeitgeist of the 1970’s. In that era no one would think to care for the environment, whereas now, a many people who are living wealthy lifestyles make some form of an effort to be ecofriendly.

The textbook soon addressed the issue of the large swaths of the developing world soon becoming much wealthier and the negative impact that will have on the environment. I found this to be a bit of an ethical timebomb as well as an ecological one. When places like Sub-Saharan Africa become wealthy are we, as Westerners really going to have the right to lecture them on why they should buy a Nissan Leaf over a Mercedes AMG. We have indulged ourselves in many luxuries that are unsustainable and some of us have worked at tapering back on some luxuries. That being the case, are people in the developing world supposed to bypass the window of hedonistic, reckless environmental abandon that many Westerners were able to enjoy. Maybe it’s the responsibility of the West to create green alternatives to those luxuries, so that people would not be forced to choose environmental consciousness over quality of experience.

Based on my ecological footprint quiz, there would need to be 7 Earths to sustain my living habits. My carbon footprint accounted for nearly 60% of my total ecological footprint. I feel that this number may be particularly high due to the fact that I fly quite often. My first blog post had a fairly callous response, explaining how I felt apathetic about the situation. As the semester has progressed my feeling is closer to actionable guilt, rather than apathy. I have learned so much in term of what is causing ecological damage, and what measures I can take to cut back at the damage that I am doing.

 Q: What is the easiest way to a have a significant impact on your ecological footprint?

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

“Where in the World Do People Emit the Most CO2?” Our World in Data, ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2.

  .

          2

My science education has been quite weak. I haven’t taken a science since being at Fordham and in high school I avoided taking any advanced sciences classes. I, for whatever reason always seemed to be sure that I wouldn’t pursue any future in science, a self-fulfilling prophecy. My years of pigheadedness came to an end, culminating in an “environmentalistic” type catharsis which occurred this summer. Sparing superfluous details, I decided that in my senior year I should take a science class to help remedy my scientific illiteracy. This was necessary given my mounting frustration from my inability to make sense of scientific journals that I had attempted to read.

My training in as a finance major has taught me two somewhat unique ways of approaching situations, first of which is to be open to any given outcome. Being rooted or making emotional type decisions can skew decision making and result in error. The other means of approaching problems that is taught to finance majors is leveraging data. The multiple statistics and calculus math classes we take train us to trust data over intuition. These heuristics are important in both science and finance. This is all to say that when approaching chapter 2, a scientific chapter I did not feel ill-equipped.

The first thing in chapter 2 that stuck with me was the excerpt about Easter Island. When I took biology in high school, I distinctly remember being taught the story of how the Polynesians, shortsightedly, used all of their natural resources at an unstainable rate until their island was uninhabitable. My teacher used this as a parable (of sorts) of the dependence humans have on fossil fuels and how it’ll eventually be our undoing. The textbooks clarification of the situation was shocking. I found it unbelievable that scientists were off about what point the island was colonized by 2,100 years. I was also shocked that the island was populated 800 years ago, and that this there is no records of this. It is unnerving how easy it was for portions of history to be completely lost through the eradication of the native people. For me, this narrative perfectly exemplifies how the bias of the era, can affect scientific thought. The old theory did not entertain the fact that European settlers could have contributed to the destruction of the island. It seems like a pretty easy conclusion to make when you look at the European effect on the Natives of North America. It has been widely understood for some time now that the diseases carried by the settlers contributed to the demise of many of the native populations. I suspect willful ignorance allowed narrative of the demise the Ester Island people to remain incorrect for so long.

I don’t know where I heard the joke, but I do remember at some point someone saying somewhere that the most environmentally friendly thing you could ever do is die. Though said in jest, it’s true (especially given the fact that there would need to be over 7 earths for the earth’s population to afford to live like me). This issue concerning population growth and environmental health was first championed by Thomas Malthus, who noted that human population seems to grow exponentially, while food production capacity seems to grow linearly. Though food production is no longer the most pressing threat as Malthus thought it would be in 1798, human population growth is as big of a threat to the future of humanity as it has ever been. As chapter 6 notes, through our use of technology, humans have essentially broken through any carrying capacity that we would naturally have. This has resulted in our rigorous growth since the scientific revolution. As things such as vertical farming and laboratory grown meat become more viable, it would be foolish to out any cap on the capacity of the human population. That being said, 82% of the world’s population live in “developing countries” and a billion people live on about $1.25 a day. The coming years may cause us to grapple with allowing the population to grow, when so many live in squalor.  

Population growth poses a significant threat, as the developing world becomes more numerous and wealthier. Demand for things such as cars and energy grows as these places become wealthier. Recalling my ecological footprint quiz, I now understand how environmentally unsustainable it would be if the entire world lived as I do (granted I am worse than most of the developed world).

The textbook gave detailed information into the nuances of population growth concerning all relevant factors. It did not, however, comment on the ethical issues encountered in the population problem. The textbook makes it abundantly clear that the population growth in the developed world will wreak havoc on the environment, but what I wondered is what can be done about this? It almost seems as if the advancement of the quality of life of the 82% of the earth’s population comes at the cost of the health of the environment. I feel that the crux of environmental science should be focusing on reconciling these seemingly mutually exclusive options.

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

           3

Not knowing that it was a Big History book, I had finished Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari this summer and thoroughly enjoyed it (enough to buy Harari’s next book). The book followed the history of humanity, weaving in modern developments in biology, anthropology, economics, environmental studies, geology and many other contemporary disciplines. The result was a 640 page book that chronicled the first Homo animals to present day. Big History allows for the reader to gain a sort of perspective that cannot be achieved using the traditional method of historical writing. Very rarely in Big History does the narrative get entrenched in a specific event, unless that event can be used to convey a more significant zeitgeist. This causes the reader to comprehend a more thematic feel for any given period rather than date specific or event specific narrative. Sapiens taught me not only new facts, but it also taught me new ways to think about time as well as gave me wide perspective on humanity and our choices.

In looking at some of the criticisms of Big History I see that many of them have qualms with the lack of humanism in its recounting. Frank Furedi, an outward critic of Big History takes issue of the scope of the study. In his 2013 essay ‘Big History’: the annihilation of human agency Furedi takes aim at the scientific lens that Big History implements. He argues, “You won’t only encounter humanity, in fact; Christian (a prominent Big Historian) is proud of the fact that on his Big History course the species Homo sapiens is not even mentioned until halfway through. Is this really humanist? It looks to me more like the reduction of humanity to a biological species, and a sign that we are becoming increasingly estranged from ideas of civilization, culture and community” Furedi invokes Hegel’s understanding of what makes history in saying that history, “begins at the point where rationality begins to enter into worldly existence’. He said the point of departure of history is when events begin to be interpreted and recorded as history. He said history requires concepts of individuality, rights and law, a ‘universally binding directive’, institutionalized through the State.” I had never thought too much into what really comprises a history, but now when confronted with two irreconcilable positions I find myself defending the perspective of Big History. Furedi, in his attack on the discipline, argues that Big History “self-consciously eradicates the conceptual distinction between nature and culture, between the material and the spiritual, between the human and the non-human.” and I agree with him. Big History aims to tell the history of time, irrespective of how Homo Sapiens find themselves weaving in and out it. Furedi’s qualms seems to be an amalgamation of the seemingly automatic reaction that one would have to removing the importance of humanity in terms of time, as well as a healthy skepticism of the sciences that are necessary in constructing a factually correct Big History. History, as we were all taught in school, is a telling of events from a perspective, that helps us come to a common understanding on an event. Young children in most the United States are taught that the United States Civil War was fought to end Slavery. Very rarely, but definitely in some instances, Students are taught that the war was fought on the grounds of states rights, and the Northern States being too aggressive with their Southern contemporaries. When this same event is taught with those different perspectives at the fulcrum, there can be friction when the subject is discussed between members of each camp. The two won’t disagree on the date of the Appomattox or the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation, but they will disagree on the fundamental grounds of the war. This problem highlights some issues that History has. When the answers can’t aren’t empirical, politics seeps in adds an opaqueness to something that we all wish to be binary. I see Big History as a means of overcoming the seemingly inherent need for politics in history. In reading Sapiens I realized that Harari rarely finds himself needing to take a political stance on any given event, but rather allows the massive amount of context and perspective of human respect to allow him to avoid taking political stances. He can say, with impunity, that the United States Civil War was a horrible blemish on the nation as well as evoke the context of the European humanist/ abolitionist movement to explain the war. Harari can also use statistics about the industrial development in the North vs the South as well as context of the state of the world trade economy and how that may have impacted the starting of the war. This Big History perspective allows for minimal political input as well as keeps a narrative flowing. The United States Civil War, though important to those in this country, is a relatively small blip in the history of the Earth. Knowing how the war fits into the history of everything is as important as knowing the details of the war itself. As our scientific capacity improve, and we are able to learn more about the events that happened in the “pre-historical” era of time, I see Big History becoming much more relevant. As improvements in carbon-dating and other sciences that aid in discovery of the past expand we will no longer be beholden to the fallibility of written history but will be allowed to know empirically about what has happened on the Earth.

 Q: Will big history ever become a commonly taught in public schools?

“Big History.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Dec. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History.

Furedi, Frank. “'Big History': the Annihilation of Human Agency.” Spiked Big History the Annihilation of Human Agency Comments, 24 July 2013, www.spiked-online.com/2013/07/24/big-history-the-annihilation-of-human-agency/.

Harari, Yuval Noaḥ. Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind. Harper Perennial, 2018.

      4

Understanding environmental worldviews are important because everyone falls into a view, and that view will dictate their decision making. Chapter 25 breaks down worldviews starting with a Human-Centered Environmental worldviews. These views focus primarily on the needs and wants of people and are predicated on the belief that the earth exists for our benefit. The book specified this worldview further into four subcategories: The No-problem School, The Free-market School, The Spaceship-earth School and The Stewardship Worldview. The No-problem school looks to take as little agency as possible for environmental damage because technology will take care of the problems later. The Free-market School believes that decision making should be conducted through the willing transactions between individuals with only regard for those participating in those markets. Since trees and dolphins don’t participate in the exchange of capital, their interests are neglected (unless market participants act on their behalf). The Spaceship-earth school takes on the belief that that the Earth is like a spaceship that we can learn to master and “provide a good life for everyone without overloading natural systems.” The Stewardship worldview has humans taking environmental responsibility for the planet. American farmer, philosopher, and poet Wendell Berry took issue with this view because as he believed, the earth doesn’t need saving. He, along with other scholars believe that the earth has flourished for 3.8 billion years despite many environmental fluctuations. To those who share Berry’s view “what needs saving and reform is the current human civilization that is degrading its life-support system and threatening up to half of the world’s species with extinction.” These Human Centric views, on their face seem to be the anthesis of environmentalism but I don’t see any reason to right ALL them off as inherently detrimental to the environment. The Spaceship Earth worldview seemed attractive to those who believe that our technologies will allow us to conquer nature completely. Based on human history, and our rapid technological growth in the last 400 odd years, I see no reason to believe that humans will not be able to wrangle the amount of carbon we emit and stop the damage done by our developed population. The key question is how quickly science will allow for this, and what will the ramifications of untreated pollution for years do on the natural environment as well as our health. Chapter 25 also takes on Life Centered and Earth Centered views. A Life Centered view believes “we have an ethical responsibility to avoid hastening the extinction of species through our activities. Those with an earth-centered worldview believe “that we have an ethical responsibility to take a wider view and preserve the earth’s biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the functioning of its life-support systems for the benefit of the earth’s life, now and in the future” A subcategory of the Earth-centered worldview would be the environmental wisdom worldview which takes the opposite stance of the Spaceship view in the way that it sees humans as animals who are beholden to the earth just the same any other creature. It seeks us work with nature rather than conquer it, as a means for preserving the natural world. I find this worldview to completely disregarding the nature of animals. Animals always seek to dominate the world around them to suit themselves. Beavers make damns woodpeckers ruin trees, early sapiens would burn down fields to find animals hiding within. The spaceship view makes sense to me because it doesn’t compromise progress/ growth for the sake of the environment, but rather seeks to reconcile the two. In researching Leopold’s Land Ethic (the hyperlink wouldn’t work but I went to a website devoted to his work), I found his concepts to be interesting. According to his website, land ethic is the belief that “the relationships between people and land are intertwined: care for people cannot be separated from care for the land. A land ethic is a moral code of conduct that grows out of these interconnected caring relationships.” I think this concept can be easily incorporated into the concept of full cost pricing. Because the abuse of land ends up being a direct affront to everyone else in form of negative externalities, Leopold’s concept can be enacted through the means of full-cost pricing.

 Q: What would it look like if everyone running for president had to give their environmental world view?

“The Land Ethic.” The Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

                5

Chapter 23 concerns environmentalism and economics. I found the portion titled Ways to Value Natural Capital to be particularly insightful, especially the developments made by Robert Costanza. His progress in quantifying the worth of services provided by the earth’s major biomes, found that they contribute at least $125 trillion of service per year. This figure is not the same as the value of the sale of the elements that make up those biomes but rather how the existence of those biomes gives us value through things such as the creation of oxygen. That 125$ trillion in value is nearly twice the world’s total spending on goods and services. The textbook points out that” according to neoclassical economists, a product or service has no economic value until it is sold in the marketplace, and thus because they are not sold in the marketplace, ecosystem services have no economic value.” This means that using traditional economics it is hard to have individuals respect or acknowledge the use they are getting from the natural world. I feel that its value could be better realized if it is seen in the same light as government. The government is integral to the cohesion of the economy by protecting peoples right to property and its involvement in the maintenance of the central bank. We, as taxed citizens, pay for the maintenance of the government so that we can conduct business peaceably. The maintenance of the environment is just as important in a business sense as the maintenance of the govement, so maybe, we should pay into the upkeep of the environment in the same way that we pay for the upkeep of the govement. Corporations that operate through the sale of these biomes (e.g. logging, farming etc.) are profiting off diminishing the 125$ trillion in value in free service the rest of humanity needs. Maybe a portion of the price of the positive externality that is removed should be built into the cost of buying their product, in an effort to collect back some of the damage done. For example, adding an additional 11% to a 5-dollar piece of lumber and taking that 55 cents to offset the damage done. The textbook discuses the possibility of discounting the future value of an ecological entity in an effort to quantify its value today, since many of these biological elements are finite and in many cases virtually irreplaceable. My suggestion is more of a negative interest rate to preserve the natural good. Later in the chapter the concepts of Paul Hawken are introduced who furthers the concept of valuing natural capital. Hawken an environmental champion, as well as a business man, believes in the importance of full-cost pricing, which is the concept of imbedding the ecological damage that a good does, into the cost of that good. On the subject of the current means of valuing goods Hawken said H “we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP, and patting ourselves on the back. I liked his stance on not compromising growth for the sake of environmentalism but rather reconciling the two. He advocates for the use of govement subsides and taxes to encourage environmentally conscious growth. On the future of the economy Hawken says: “We have the capacity to create a remarkably different economy: one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bringing forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work, and true security.” This shift “is based on the simple but powerful proposition that all natural capital must be valued. … If we have doubts about how to value a 500-yearold tree, we need only ask how much would it cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?” This quote reminds me of the previous weeks readings concerning environmental worldviews. I feel that quote can be seen as congruent with, along with other options, the Spaceship worldview. Hawken’s quote elicits the concept of mastering our earth as a means of maintaining its environmental health. Though it’s quite likely that he asked about the possibility of building a new river or atmosphere because they are seemingly impossible tasks, I think it is worth considering his proposition at face value. What if we do challenge ourselves to rebuild the damage that we have done to the atmosphere. What would that cost? Could that cost be funded by implementing a full-cost pricing type tax to the goods and services that cause its destruction in the first place?  

Q: What governing body could implement and administer the revenues associated with a full-cost tax on goods and services?

  Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

                 6

Chapter 6, an investigation into population growth, is something that I have always been interested in. In preparing to present on the subject I met with my two groupmates to discuss the chapter and the important elements. The one thing that we all found to be shocking was the correlation of women’s education and the number of children birthed. Poor women who cannot read often have an average of 5-7 children, compared to 2 or fewer children in societies where most women can read. This statistic on its face is quite upsetting but considering the improvement in female literacy, it has a silver lining.

For the sake of the presentation I specified on consumption and the steady state economy. In doing research I was surprised to see that there was a lot of literature on the subject from many of classic economists. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, started to take notice of the population progressions of foreign nations and how that effected their economy. He noticed that Holland seemed to be approaching population stagnation and this propeted him to opine on what the economic ramifications may be “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its soil and climate, and its situation with respect to other countries, allowed it to acquire; which could, therefore, advance no further, and which was not going backwards, both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low. In a country fully peopled in proportion to what either its territory could maintain or its stock employ, the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented. In a country fully stocked in proportion to all the business it had to transact, as great a quantity of stock would be employed in every particular branch as the nature and extent of the trade would admit. The competition, therefore, would everywhere be as great, and consequently the ordinary profit as low as possible.” His speculation on the health of a county that is “fully peopled” showed the apprehension he has at the prospect of labor prices racing to 0. He affirmed that “no country has ever yet arrived at this degree of opulence." But recognized the possibility that it would happen. He was right, and his home country, The United Kingdom is now birthing below the replacement rate.

Herman Daly, an esteemed ecological economist advocates for the steady state economy as a means for stopping the damage done to the environment. His tenants for the national economy are the following:

·       The first institution is to correct inequality to some extent by putting minimum and maximum limits on incomes, maximum limits on wealth, and then redistribute accordingly.

·       The second institution is to stabilise the population by issuing transferable reproduction licenses to all fertile women at a level corresponding with the general replacement fertility in society.

·       The third institution is to stabilise the level of capital by issuing and selling depletion quotas that impose quantitative restrictions on the flow of resources through the economy. Quotas effectively minimise the throughput of resources necessary to maintain any given level of capital (as opposed to taxes, that merely alter the prevailing price structure).

His approach is quite autocratic and would require a lot of ethically questionable initiatives. This is off putting to a lot of steady state proponents who see the movement as more grassroots.

 Kenneth Boulding gave the most intriguing analysis involving the steady state economy in his 1966 essay, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. Boulding explained how the flow of natural resources through the economy is a rough measure of the Gross national product (GNP); and, consequently, that society should start regarding the GNP as a cost to be minimized rather than a benefit to be maximized. This is because productivity correlates directly with ecological damage. His work caught my eye due to the title which, thanks to this class, I now know is congruent with my ecological worldview.

                          (Female literacy graph from Worldbank.org)

 Q: Will perspectives that put value more on quality of life over constant growth begin to enter mainstream politics?

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

            7

Chapter 9’s analysis of extinction rates gave me new insight into some of the issues involved in cataloging extinction. I was amazed to read that “we have identified only about 2 million of the world’s estimated 7 million to 10 million and perhaps as many as 100 million species.” The fact that that the estimate of number of species in the world is thought to be between 7 and 100 million shows how little is know about the ecological diversity on the planet. The first means discussed in the text for estimating future extinction rates is to study rates of mammals and birds of which we know the timeline of their extinction. Most of these extinctions have been since humans have been the dominant force on the planet and fossil records make carbondating possible. I wonder if this model can be augmented to adjust for the heartiness of a type of animal over another. For example, I know that large mammals are much more vulnerable to human interference than reptiles. Do scientists use reptile extinction metrics to speculate on timelines of reptile extinctions, or are all types of animals analyzed using the data of mammals and birds? Another approach used to model extinction is correlating habitat destruction with average extinction. For example, “Edward O. Wilson (see Individuals Matter 4.1, p. 81) and Robert MacArthur, suggests that, on average, a 90% loss of land habitat in a given area can cause the extinction of about 50% of the species living in that area.” Using this concept, you can extrapolate, and model future extinction based on expected habitat loss. Much like the first method, I wonder if models are tuned for the specific animals living within. For example, tropical rainforests may lose 70% of animals per 50% habitat destruction, but more hardy animals in northern boreal forests may only lose 20% of animals per 50% percent of habitat destruction. I guess the more data points that you have input in the model the more accurate it can become.

The case study in chapter 9 on honeybee population was shocking. “Over the past 50 years, the European honeybee population in the United States has been cut in half. Since colony collapse disorder (CCD) emerged in 2006 (Core Case Study), commercial beekeepers in the United States have lost 25–50% of their hives on average each year.” In reference to that quote the implications of that math are incredible. If you took an average of loss somewhere in the 30’s% per year (a figure somewhere in between the 25-50% range) you would have a loss in bee populations of over 90 percent when you take the compounded growth since 2006 until 2020. If this is true, the trend seems to point to inevitable extinction.

         Another takeaway from the honeybee case study is that of all of the known reasons that the bees are going extinct, almost all of them are unintended consequences of human action. The first reason listed is a mite that came from bees imported from South America. Another reason for the rapid decline is pesticides that are used on tobacco plants. “Evidence suggests that they can disrupt the nervous systems of bees and can decrease their ability to find their way back to their hives. These chemicals can also disrupt the immune systems of bees and make them vulnerable to the harmful effects of other threats.” Obviously, farmers did not treat their crops with a poison with intent of killing honeybees and I don’t know if they can even be to blame. These tobacco farmers were just acting in the best interest of their yield. How are these people who are only educated on farming supposed to know the chemical effects their pesticides will have on the bees that interact with them? The chemical manufactures on the other hand, should test how their product interacts with animals that will come in contact with it before releasing it. Their oversight is aiding in the eradication of an entire species. Another factor contributing to the decline of the specidces is stress from moving them. The stress makes the bees more “vulnerable to death from parasites, viruses, fungi, and pesticides.” To this I can only ask; why are people trying to move these bees?

In the video assigned for the week’s review, there were several troubling statistics. The one that resonated with me the most was “Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility if reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on earth” The phrases that was so worrisome about that was “abruptly and irreversibly”. The current sentiment concerning ecological harm is that we need to lessen up, little by little, until we come to a sustainable level of damage. If we continue with this mindset, it will result in one day, us crossing over into a level that, no matter our technological advancements, will cause irreversible damage. This idea directly conflicts with the idea of spaceship earth, which relies on technology to dig ourselves out of this mess.

 Q: Can chemical companies that have caused the destruction of the honeybee population be held accountable for the damage they’ve done?

Beats, Geo. “Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years - Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion, Dailymotion, 30 Sept. 2014, www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

               8

Chapter 11’s critical thinking section asks “Should fishers who harvest fish from a country’s publicly owned water be required to pay the government fees for the fish they catch? It also asks if I were a commercial fisherman if that would impact my thinking about those fees.

The first step in formulating an option on the circumstance should be understanding the roll of commercial fisherman and what they do in order to catch their fish. There are 4.4 million fishing boats on the world’s oceans, looking to service the growing global demand for fish. Fish and fish products constitute a fifth of the world’s animal protein consumption. Commercial fishing is a sophisticated industry that utilizes advanced technologies such as GPS and sonar, and commercial fishing fleets often use spotter planes and drones. The complex systems employed by these fishermen make them a quite formidable adversary to their pray, which has remained unchanged in equipment for years. Fisherman have begun to overfish many ecosystems causing government to have to take action to preserve their waters for generations to come.

         Commercial fisherman use trawlers which destroy the habitats at the bottom of the ocean and often capture entangled sea turtles. Fisherman also use purse-seine fishing, which is used to catch fish that dwell near the water’s surface. The nets used in this method often kill scores of dolphins. Other callus fishing techniques include long lining and drift net fishing, both of which lead to the death of unwanted fish, mammals and sea turtles. “According to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 57% of the world’s commercial fisheries have been fully exploited and the other 30% have been overfished.

The circumstance posed by commercial fishing poses two distinct problems, first being the negative externalities involved with the current methods of fishing. I don’t think any industry would be tolerated if they conducted themselves the horribly cavalier nature that fishermen have towards making their catch. If in order to harvest chicken, farmers found themselves shooting bald eagles and wolves, the public would likely protest that a more precise method should be implemented. Because we don’t live in the ocean, we don’t see these atrocities being committed but that does not make them any less real. Ethical fishing standards should be implemented to put an end to the needless deaths of other sea life, who are killed not to be eaten, but because they got in the way.

Another problem posed by commercial fishing is that much of the sea appears to be overfished. The book does not touch on the idea of whether the amount of fish demanded, can be responsibly sourced, or if that many fish exist in the ocean to source them responsibly? If enough fish did exist in the ocean to responsibly meet the global demand for them, would it involve fishermen sailing hundreds of miles out of their way, thus rising the input price of the fish for sale? If not, enough fish exist in the ocean to meet the demand, in a responsible means, then are fisherman to blame? This question illicitness arguments about the level of agency between drug dealers and the users who create the job of drug dealing. The fact that the drug dealer scenario doesn’t have a clear-cut answer, would lead me to believe that the fisherman circumstance wouldn’t either. Maybe the case is that the whole world can’t eat wild caught fish, in the quantities that they are used to. Maybe we should be consuming less than a fifth of our diets from fish protein. Just as, we, as a society cannot afford to get energy solely from petroleum without the negative externalities being overwhelming, maybe we need to think of fishing in the same way.

As for governments taxing fisherman for using their waters to conduct their business, that seems like a perfectly reasonable means to regulate the amount of fishing conducted, and thus stopping overfishing. This tax will be baked into the cost of the fish that we buy in the supermarket and will regulate the demand for fish. Though, this would not work for international waters, it could be a good way to regulate that in which you control. If we could only train fish to respect lines drawn in the sea floor.

  Q: If I get laid off before I even start my first job, should I become a fisherman?

-       Maybe I can learn to talk like they did in the Lighthouse

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

                   9

Symphony of the Soil seeks to show the nuance and complexity of one of the earths elements that we often overlook. Soil is not something that many people, even the more eco-conscious, tend to forget about. Not that everyone should wake up every morning thinking “thank god for soil and all of its complexities that allow for life on earth!” but I think its fair to say that most conversation surrounding ecological preservation center around the more dynamic things such as animals or trees. The movie opens with the narrator explaining that it is extremely rare for a planet to have soil. Framing from such a broad scope and building the narrative from soil, allows for the viewer to rethink their perspective of the earth. Thinking from the soil “up” is a more useful way to view the earth, because soil came first, and allows for the energy to flow through the ecological system. If not for soil, we could not have plants. If not for plants, animals would have nothing to eat.

Symphony of Soil did a good job of showing beautiful landscapes to keep the viewer captivated. Soil is obviously not the sexiest topic and watching an hour and 40 mins of pictures of dirt and laboratories would make it hard to stay captivated. The opening in Norway shows a sludge like material that comes from glaciers. This material has no organic matter at all, it is just minerals. For some reason I found this scene to be intoxicating and was really drawn to the look of the sludge. They then show moss and explain how the moss is really good at preserving fossils underneath because of the temperature it helps maintain as well as an acid that it releases. The movie juxtaposes this with the newest of dirt in Hawaii that has only been around for 50ish years.

The movie was made as a form of advocating for organic farming and the importance of preserving soil health. It shows how farmers can ethically work, in large scale and compares that to practices in the developing world. The movie also shows some of the questionable practices of big pharmaceutical corporations (eg Round-Up) and how they have negatively impacted the organic farming movement. The movie explains how over 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year and the average person ingests 4 pounds of them a year. This is shocking considering there isn’t a good understanding of what their effects are on the body.

 Koons Garcia, Deborah, director. Symphony of the Soil.

 P.S

Sorry for this being a little light this week. I am in the process of helping my parents move (great time to be doing that) as well as helping relatives who have contracted Covid with their food shopping and child care.

 Question: If it took my aunt 5 days to hear back for her Covid-19 test, do we have any chance at stopping this?

 10

Chapter 17 discussed environmental hazards and their effect on human health. It began with a case study on mercury. It explained the danger associated with mercury exposure and how it can permanently damage “the human nervous system, brain, kidneys, heart, and lungs”, and how “low levels of mercury can cause birth defects and brain damage in fetuses and young children.” Mercury is naturally released from rocks, soil, volcanoes and from the vaporization from the oceans, but these natural sources comprise of only a third of the mercury reaching the atmosphere in any given year. The remaining two-thirds are man-made, and are emitted through processes such as gold mining, coal burning, cement mixing, meatal smelting, and solid-waste incinerating. On a small scale, mercury can be released through the leaking of broken thermometers, light bulbs, and thermostats. Mercury is a element, which means it can not be broken down further, so it sits idle wherever its resting place is; be it soil, water or animal tissue. Fish are especially susceptible to poisoning through their contact with aquatic bacteria. These bacteria convert inorganic mercury compounds to highly toxic methylmercury. When a Tuna then eats the bacteria, it has the poisons enter its body and sit in its tissues. When humans proceed to eat that fish they ingest the mercury and because of the fact that its an element with no use in animals, it will then sit in our bodies, poisoning us. Ingestion of compromised fish is the source of 75% of all human exposure to mercury. The remaining quarter comes through the inhalation of mercury in a vaporized form. Living near a coal plant can be a significant source of poisoning and studies estimate “30,000 to 60,000 of the children born each year in the United States are likely to have reduced IQs and possible nervous system damage due to such exposure.”

This apprehension towards mercury exposure is a great example of the importance of an empirical approach to health, and the importance of scientific literacy. Reading this case study ushered my knowledge on foundations of latest wave of the anti-vax movement to the front of my mind. Robert F. Kennedy Jr- son of Bobby Kennedy- has seem to make it his life’s purpose to espouse the dangers of vaccines. Kennedy has become a hero of the anti-vax community with his persistent claims that vaccines contain deadly ingredients, particularly a mercury-based preservative known as thimerosal. He claims that the mercury-based toxins are the cause of diseases in children and can cause autism. His claims have ushered in a total rejection of inoculations across the board in some communities and have fueled insidious conspiracies that have mutated to accusations about Bill Gates and his role in the Covid-19 vaccine.

Kennedy is wrong in several ways, first being the use of thimerosal. No vaccines except some formulations of the flu vaccine contain thimerosal, and the type of mercury it uses is ethylmercury, which is cleared from the body quickly and harmlessly. Ethylmercury is formed when the body breaks down thimerosal. Low-level ethylmercury exposures from vaccines are very different from long-term methylmercury (the naturally occurring element) exposures because ethylmercury is broken down by the body differently and clears out of the blood more quickly.

When speaking about the dangers of vaccines, Kennedy uses the term “mercury” and talks about its dangers. As the textbook explained, mercury is a dangerous toxin and if there was liquid mercury in the shots that people receive, he would be right. By capitalizing on the similarities between ethylmercury and the element he was able to successfully fearmonger.

This phenomenon shows the importance of not just a semblance of scientific literacy, but rather the importance of trusting in experts. I don’t understand the mechanics of how ethylmercury passes through the body. I could read a scientific journal that would explain it, but I could never test the hypothesis myself. I, and the vast majority of society do not have the educational foundations needed to prove these things for ourselves, so we rely on scientists and their peer review process to do so. When scientists tell me that vaporized mercury released from coal plants damage the health of those around the plant, I believe it. When I am told that my seasonal flu shot is safe, I know that this has been peer reviewed and verified by many boards and agencies, so I believe it. The example of mercury and its use in and around humans is a perfect example of how the expertise of scientists allow for an element to be used for a health, while a close relative can be insidious.

 Q: Will the USA start making a conscious effort to find a malaria cure when the temperature rises enough for it to proliferate in our southern states?

 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf

https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/22/robert-kennedy-vaccine-safety/

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

               11

The effect of the pollution from the Mississippi rivers runoff is profound. All of the farming that goes on in the Mississippi river basin, eventually runs off into the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana and with it takes the nitrates and phosphates that essential for crop fertilizers. These nutrients cause the significant growth of phytoplankton which eventually die, sink to the bottom, and decompose. Their decomposition is carried out by bacteria, which in turn strip the oxygen from the water in the area. These areas of profound oxygen loss are called dead zones because of no animals can live in this low oxygen environment. Fast moving animals can afford to leave the vicinity but shellfish and bottom dwellers often suffocate as result. The size of the dead zone varies with the amount of water that flows through the Mississippi in any given year but in wet years, the dead zone can be as large as Massachusetts.

Dead zones aren’t unique to the Gulf of Mexico, there are around 400 dead zones found throughout the world, 200 of which are in the US. In their essence dead zones exist by introducing nitrogen faster than the cycle can naturally handle. The nitrogen is a naturally occurring element, but when it is artificially synthesized on a commercial level this can overwhelm the natural cycle.

This example of water pollution was especially interesting to me because it had really no obvious solution. Farmers need the fertilizers in order to produce the massive quantity that is needed to feed this nation. Some farming is done without chemicals, but the pricing often makes it inaccessible to much of the country.

For me, the shocking thing element of the situation was the size of the Mississippi river basin. It spans from the eastern Idaho boarder all the way to western New York, and as high as the Canadian border. This massive area is where a majority of American farming takes place.

 In the developing world, it is estimated that 80-90% of untreated sewage is discharged directly into waterways. In many circumstances people use that water for drinking as well as bathing and cleaning their clothes. In the United States, for water to be considered safe for drinking a half cup sample should contain no colonies of coliform bacteria. Raw sewage contains several million coliform bacteria per half cup. If a person’s drinking water may have, at some point made contact with raw sewage, it is pretty certain that that is no where close to the drinking standards that we aim to uphold and will likely lead to infection or sickness.

 The Colorado River is massively integral to life in the south western United States. The massive river flows 1,400 miles long and through seven states. It generates 14 major dams that provides power for roughly 40 million people or an eighth of the United States population. The river provides irrigation for 15% of the nation’s crops and livestock as well as 90% of the drinking water for Las Vegas, Nevada, and large amounts of the water used in Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego and Los Angeles. The dependence on the river comes at a cost. When a drought comes about, basins such as Lake Mead get drawn on to dangerous levels and the aquatic health of the river suffers. The damming of the river makes it difficult for large fish to thrive, and the rivers excessive use means that very little water flows through into the Gulf of California, as the river would naturally. The rising population of the southwest is causing strain on the river as a resource- as the population grows, the river remains the same. Interestingly, 41% of the freshwater used in the United States is used to cool electrical power plants. It is also interesting/ sad that 14% of household use of water is due to leaks, equal to the amount of water used for faucets.

 Q: Where does the most pollution in the Hudson come from?

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

                        12

When I signed up for this class, I made my final decision between taking this or Intro to Existentialism. Who knew they would be so similar?

 Discussions concerning the way in which the world will end, I often find to be of the same consequence as theological conjecture concerning the number of angels on the head of a pin. The world is dynamic, and the tools of the future, are unimaginable now. Making sweeping statements on the future is like gambling on if the 5 year old you see playing in the park in going to make it to the NBA. The analysis in the chapter was seemingly sound, who knows if it will hold up.  

 Concerning the consumption of fossil fuel, I recently had the opportunity to listen to a lecture conducted by the head of an energy focused private equity firm. The man considered himself an “oil expert” and the purpose of the lecture was to make sense of the recent negative price of oil. The man personally oversaw the operation of a fleet of oil rigs in Texas and explained how he dealt with the evaporation of demand in the oil market. The man lauded his shrewd hedge position that he had on the price of oil, touting his 170% protection compared to the industry average 38%. While I tried to decipher if I was listening to an oracle or a charlatan he had nonchalantly moved onto something that he seemed to find of little importance “ oil will hit its peak demand in 15ish years and then taper down. I have all of my assets deprecating on that assumption and am leveraged accordingly.” When I got to page 382 of the reading and learned what emission sacrifices were needed in order to say within 2 degrees Celsius of preindustrial temperatures, I hoped my lecturer was wrong. If he is right, we will most definitely surpass the 2-degree threshold.

The implications of us crossing the 3-degree barrier are well known. If we do not, through some synthetic means, remove the emissions from the atom0ostmphee, many lands will become unlivable. The ice caps will completely melt, and rising sea levels will make some current cities unlivable. Current farming strategy will be rendered useless, as extreme weather will become increasingly frequent.

So maybe its safe to assume that the world will warm those few degrees. What will that mean for our species and the world around us? As stated at the beginning of the chapter, we treat setbacks in a way that can be viewed as negative feedback loops. The chapter gave the example of if it becomes hot, we invent air conditioning. This strategy has worked for us in the past and I do not see why we will defect from it in the future. The one problem with this concept is illustrated by the problems associated with exponential growth. In the example of the bacteria in a petri dish, it is shown how blindsided we may be with exponential growth, given a finite landmass. If the population were to grow at an exponential pace, we would likely not be able to see the limit before we hit it. That being said, the population is not expected to grow exponentially, indefinitely. Most experts agree that population will naturally cap itself at around 11 billion around the year 2100. At that point, the global fertility rate will hover around 1.9, slightly below the replacement rate.

As for the exponential demand for energy, it will slowly remedy itself as it becomes more viable to use clean every year. The gross amount of energy should not be considered a problem, but rather the way that it’s derived. Solar panels become more efficient in their ability to capture the true amount of energy they are exposed to, as technology increases. If panels and turbines continue on their path of efficiency, they will eventually become a practical means for serving the global energy demand. If the deriving of energy becomes completely clean by the time that the population stops growing, yes significant damage will be done on the path to that point, but once there, the damage will stop.

So, if the climate is significantly altered, and the population is capped at 11 billion, what will the world look like in 100 years? I think its safe to assume that humans will still exist, in a society much like we live in today. Climate destruction will be met with technological solutions for deriving food and water. Miami may be underwater but that will only mean that Atlanta will grow. As famous Eco-Terrorist, Ted Kaczynski once pointed out people take the path of least resistance in most every situation, so unless goaded to do so, we will keep consuming in a way that will not palpably affect our lives.

 Q: Will pandemics become the new normal in a more globalized world?

“11.” The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, by Simon L. Lewis and Mark Maslin, Yale University Press, 2018.

[yesintrotoenvironmentalstudies10]

midterm

1

After reading the first chapter of the textbook a few things stood out to me. First, and most simply of them all, is that though the United States only makes up about 4.3% of the world population use 30% of the world’s resources. This statistic was initially asinine but as I thought more about it, it became slightly more comprehensible. Being the largest developed nation in the world it makes sense that the US contributes so significantly to consumption. In an effort to defend my country from this blemish I came up with the hypothesis that this number may be so high due to the fact that much of our production is in high overhead industries such as auto production. We then export these cars to other countries which would cause us to bear the brunt of the resource consumption. Again, that’s my best attempt at defending the US, but it might be the case of aiming to defend the indefensible.

Further in the chapter I came across Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s IPAT model. the 1970s concept stated that environmental impact could be measured as the product of Population x Affluence x Technology. Population and affluence are always a positive (meaning having a poor effect on the environment) affect on the calculation and that technology could be positive and negative. What I found to be significant about the model is the fact that affluence in all instances is positive. This gave a good insight into the outlook people had on the environment in the 70s. Obviously the correlation of affluence and negative environmental impact is undeniable, as most all substantial environmental damage is carried out by wealthy nations. That being the case, in the last few years it’s been the prerogative of wealthy nations to be environmentally friendly. Scandinavian nations, who are among the wealthiest in the world have pioneered a myriad environmentalist prerogatives. This can be seen in statistics concerning carbon emissions per capita. Despite being much wealthier, the average Swede emits roughly half the amount of carbon that the average Libyan does on an annual basis. The Swede could afford to emit much more carbon if he or she felt inclined to, but wont because of their respect of the environment. This is common sense to anyone alive now but gives an interesting glimpse into the zeitgeist of the 1970’s. In that era no one would think to care for the environment, whereas now, a many people who are living wealthy lifestyles make some form of an effort to be ecofriendly.

The textbook soon addressed the issue of the large swaths of the developing world soon becoming much wealthier and the negative impact that will have on the environment. I found this to be a bit of an ethical timebomb as well as an ecological one. When places like Sub-Saharan Africa become wealthy are we, as Westerners really going to have the right to lecture them on why they should buy a Nissan Leaf over a Mercedes AMG. We have indulged ourselves in many luxuries that are unsustainable and some of us have worked at tapering back on some luxuries. That being the case, are people in the developing world supposed to bypass the window of hedonistic, reckless environmental abandon that many Westerners were able to enjoy. Maybe it’s the responsibility of the West to create green alternatives to those luxuries, so that people would not be forced to choose environmental consciousness over quality of experience.

Based on my ecological footprint quiz, there would need to be 7 Earths to sustain my living habits. My carbon footprint accounted for nearly 60% of my total ecological footprint. I feel that this number may be particularly high due to the fact that I fly quite often. My first blog post had a fairly callous response, explaining how I felt apathetic about the situation. As the semester has progressed my feeling is closer to actionable guilt, rather than apathy. I have learned so much in term of what is causing ecological damage, and what measures I can take to cut back at the damage that I am doing.

 Q: What is the easiest way to a have a significant impact on your ecological footprint?

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

“Where in the World Do People Emit the Most CO2?” Our World in Data, ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2.

    2

My science education has been quite weak. I haven’t taken a science since being at Fordham and in high school I avoided taking any advanced sciences classes. I, for whatever reason always seemed to be sure that I wouldn’t pursue any future in science, a self-fulfilling prophecy. My years of pigheadedness came to an end, culminating in an “environmentalistic” type catharsis which occurred this summer. Sparing superfluous details, I decided that in my senior year I should take a science class to help remedy my scientific illiteracy. This was necessary given my mounting frustration from my inability to make sense of scientific journals that I had attempted to read.

My training in as a finance major has taught me two somewhat unique ways of approaching situations, first of which is to be open to any given outcome. Being rooted or making emotional type decisions can skew decision making and result in error. The other means of approaching problems that is taught to finance majors is leveraging data. The multiple statistics and calculus math classes we take train us to trust data over intuition. These heuristics are important in both science and finance. This is all to say that when approaching chapter 2, a scientific chapter I did not feel ill-equipped.

The first thing in chapter 2 that stuck with me was the excerpt about Easter Island. When I took biology in high school, I distinctly remember being taught the story of how the Polynesians, shortsightedly, used all of their natural resources at an unstainable rate until their island was uninhabitable. My teacher used this as a parable (of sorts) of the dependence humans have on fossil fuels and how it’ll eventually be our undoing. The textbooks clarification of the situation was shocking. I found it unbelievable that scientists were off about what point the island was colonized by 2,100 years. I was also shocked that the island was populated 800 years ago, and that this there is no records of this. It is unnerving how easy it was for portions of history to be completely lost through the eradication of the native people. For me, this narrative perfectly exemplifies how the bias of the era, can affect scientific thought. The old theory did not entertain the fact that European settlers could have contributed to the destruction of the island. It seems like a pretty easy conclusion to make when you look at the European effect on the Natives of North America. It has been widely understood for some time now that the diseases carried by the settlers contributed to the demise of many of the native populations. I suspect willful ignorance allowed narrative of the demise the Ester Island people to remain incorrect for so long.

I don’t know where I heard the joke, but I do remember at some point someone saying somewhere that the most environmentally friendly thing you could ever do is die. Though said in jest, it’s true (especially given the fact that there would need to be over 7 earths for the earth’s population to afford to live like me). This issue concerning population growth and environmental health was first championed by Thomas Malthus, who noted that human population seems to grow exponentially, while food production capacity seems to grow linearly. Though food production is no longer the most pressing threat as Malthus thought it would be in 1798, human population growth is as big of a threat to the future of humanity as it has ever been. As chapter 6 notes, through our use of technology, humans have essentially broken through any carrying capacity that we would naturally have. This has resulted in our rigorous growth since the scientific revolution. As things such as vertical farming and laboratory grown meat become more viable, it would be foolish to out any cap on the capacity of the human population. That being said, 82% of the world’s population live in “developing countries” and a billion people live on about $1.25 a day. The coming years may cause us to grapple with allowing the population to grow, when so many live in squalor.  

Population growth poses a significant threat, as the developing world becomes more numerous and wealthier. Demand for things such as cars and energy grows as these places become wealthier. Recalling my ecological footprint quiz, I now understand how environmentally unsustainable it would be if the entire world lived as I do (granted I am worse than most of the developed world).

The textbook gave detailed information into the nuances of population growth concerning all relevant factors. It did not, however, comment on the ethical issues encountered in the population problem. The textbook makes it abundantly clear that the population growth in the developed world will wreak havoc on the environment, but what I wondered is what can be done about this? It almost seems as if the advancement of the quality of life of the 82% of the earth’s population comes at the cost of the health of the environment. I feel that the crux of environmental science should be focusing on reconciling these seemingly mutually exclusive options.

 Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

3

Not knowing that it was a Big History book, I had finished Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari this summer and thoroughly enjoyed it (enough to buy Harari’s next book). The book followed the history of humanity, weaving in modern developments in biology, anthropology, economics, environmental studies, geology and many other contemporary disciplines. The result was a 640 page book that chronicled the first Homo animals to present day. Big History allows for the reader to gain a sort of perspective that cannot be achieved using the traditional method of historical writing. Very rarely in Big History does the narrative get entrenched in a specific event, unless that event can be used to convey a more significant zeitgeist. This causes the reader to comprehend a more thematic feel for any given period rather than date specific or event specific narrative. Sapiens taught me not only new facts, but it also taught me new ways to think about time as well as gave me wide perspective on humanity and our choices.

In looking at some of the criticisms of Big History I see that many of them have qualms with the lack of humanism in its recounting. Frank Furedi, an outward critic of Big History takes issue of the scope of the study. In his 2013 essay ‘Big History’: the annihilation of human agency Furedi takes aim at the scientific lens that Big History implements. He argues, “You won’t only encounter humanity, in fact; Christian (a prominent Big Historian) is proud of the fact that on his Big History course the species Homo sapiens is not even mentioned until halfway through. Is this really humanist? It looks to me more like the reduction of humanity to a biological species, and a sign that we are becoming increasingly estranged from ideas of civilization, culture and community” Furedi invokes Hegel’s understanding of what makes history in saying that history, “begins at the point where rationality begins to enter into worldly existence’. He said the point of departure of history is when events begin to be interpreted and recorded as history. He said history requires concepts of individuality, rights and law, a ‘universally binding directive’, institutionalized through the State.” I had never thought too much into what really comprises a history, but now when confronted with two irreconcilable positions I find myself defending the perspective of Big History. Furedi, in his attack on the discipline, argues that Big History “self-consciously eradicates the conceptual distinction between nature and culture, between the material and the spiritual, between the human and the non-human.” and I agree with him. Big History aims to tell the history of time, irrespective of how Homo Sapiens find themselves weaving in and out it. Furedi’s qualms seems to be an amalgamation of the seemingly automatic reaction that one would have to removing the importance of humanity in terms of time, as well as a healthy skepticism of the sciences that are necessary in constructing a factually correct Big History. History, as we were all taught in school, is a telling of events from a perspective, that helps us come to a common understanding on an event. Young children in most the United States are taught that the United States Civil War was fought to end Slavery. Very rarely, but definitely in some instances, Students are taught that the war was fought on the grounds of states rights, and the Northern States being too aggressive with their Southern contemporaries. When this same event is taught with those different perspectives at the fulcrum, there can be friction when the subject is discussed between members of each camp. The two won’t disagree on the date of the Appomattox or the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation, but they will disagree on the fundamental grounds of the war. This problem highlights some issues that History has. When the answers can’t aren’t empirical, politics seeps in adds an opaqueness to something that we all wish to be binary. I see Big History as a means of overcoming the seemingly inherent need for politics in history. In reading Sapiens I realized that Harari rarely finds himself needing to take a political stance on any given event, but rather allows the massive amount of context and perspective of human respect to allow him to avoid taking political stances. He can say, with impunity, that the United States Civil War was a horrible blemish on the nation as well as evoke the context of the European humanist/ abolitionist movement to explain the war. Harari can also use statistics about the industrial development in the North vs the South as well as context of the state of the world trade economy and how that may have impacted the starting of the war. This Big History perspective allows for minimal political input as well as keeps a narrative flowing. The United States Civil War, though important to those in this country, is a relatively small blip in the history of the Earth. Knowing how the war fits into the history of everything is as important as knowing the details of the war itself. As our scientific capacity improve, and we are able to learn more about the events that happened in the “pre-historical” era of time, I see Big History becoming much more relevant. As improvements in carbon-dating and other sciences that aid in discovery of the past expand we will no longer be beholden to the fallibility of written history but will be allowed to know empirically about what has happened on the Earth.

 Q: Will big history ever become a commonly taught in public schools?

“Big History.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Dec. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History.

Furedi, Frank. “'Big History': the Annihilation of Human Agency.” Spiked Big History the Annihilation of Human Agency Comments, 24 July 2013, www.spiked-online.com/2013/07/24/big-history-the-annihilation-of-human-agency/.

Harari, Yuval Noaḥ. Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind. Harper Perennial, 2018.

4

Understanding environmental worldviews are important because everyone falls into a view, and that view will dictate their decision making. Chapter 25 breaks down worldviews starting with a Human-Centered Environmental worldviews. These views focus primarily on the needs and wants of people and are predicated on the belief that the earth exists for our benefit. The book specified this worldview further into four subcategories: The No-problem School, The Free-market School, The Spaceship-earth School and The Stewardship Worldview. The No-problem school looks to take as little agency as possible for environmental damage because technology will take care of the problems later. The Free-market School believes that decision making should be conducted through the willing transactions between individuals with only regard for those participating in those markets. Since trees and dolphins don’t participate in the exchange of capital, their interests are neglected (unless market participants act on their behalf). The Spaceship-earth school takes on the belief that that the Earth is like a spaceship that we can learn to master and “provide a good life for everyone without overloading natural systems.” The Stewardship worldview has humans taking environmental responsibility for the planet. American farmer, philosopher, and poet Wendell Berry took issue with this view because as he believed, the earth doesn’t need saving. He, along with other scholars believe that the earth has flourished for 3.8 billion years despite many environmental fluctuations. To those who share Berry’s view “what needs saving and reform is the current human civilization that is degrading its life-support system and threatening up to half of the world’s species with extinction.” These Human Centric views, on their face seem to be the anthesis of environmentalism but I don’t see any reason to right ALL them off as inherently detrimental to the environment. The Spaceship Earth worldview seemed attractive to those who believe that our technologies will allow us to conquer nature completely. Based on human history, and our rapid technological growth in the last 400 odd years, I see no reason to believe that humans will not be able to wrangle the amount of carbon we emit and stop the damage done by our developed population. The key question is how quickly science will allow for this, and what will the ramifications of untreated pollution for years do on the natural environment as well as our health. Chapter 25 also takes on Life Centered and Earth Centered views. A Life Centered view believes “we have an ethical responsibility to avoid hastening the extinction of species through our activities. Those with an earth-centered worldview believe “that we have an ethical responsibility to take a wider view and preserve the earth’s biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the functioning of its life-support systems for the benefit of the earth’s life, now and in the future” A subcategory of the Earth-centered worldview would be the environmental wisdom worldview which takes the opposite stance of the Spaceship view in the way that it sees humans as animals who are beholden to the earth just the same any other creature. It seeks us work with nature rather than conquer it, as a means for preserving the natural world. I find this worldview to completely disregarding the nature of animals. Animals always seek to dominate the world around them to suit themselves. Beavers make damns woodpeckers ruin trees, early sapiens would burn down fields to find animals hiding within. The spaceship view makes sense to me because it doesn’t compromise progress/ growth for the sake of the environment, but rather seeks to reconcile the two. In researching Leopold’s Land Ethic (the hyperlink wouldn’t work but I went to a website devoted to his work), I found his concepts to be interesting. According to his website, land ethic is the belief that “the relationships between people and land are intertwined: care for people cannot be separated from care for the land. A land ethic is a moral code of conduct that grows out of these interconnected caring relationships.” I think this concept can be easily incorporated into the concept of full cost pricing. Because the abuse of land ends up being a direct affront to everyone else in form of negative externalities, Leopold’s concept can be enacted through the means of full-cost pricing.

 Q: What would it look like if everyone running for president had to give their environmental world view?

“The Land Ethic.” The Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

   5

Chapter 23 concerns environmentalism and economics. I found the portion titled Ways to Value Natural Capital to be particularly insightful, especially the developments made by Robert Costanza. His progress in quantifying the worth of services provided by the earth’s major biomes, found that they contribute at least $125 trillion of service per year. This figure is not the same as the value of the sale of the elements that make up those biomes but rather how the existence of those biomes gives us value through things such as the creation of oxygen. That 125$ trillion in value is nearly twice the world’s total spending on goods and services. The textbook points out that” according to neoclassical economists, a product or service has no economic value until it is sold in the marketplace, and thus because they are not sold in the marketplace, ecosystem services have no economic value.” This means that using traditional economics it is hard to have individuals respect or acknowledge the use they are getting from the natural world. I feel that its value could be better realized if it is seen in the same light as government. The government is integral to the cohesion of the economy by protecting peoples right to property and its involvement in the maintenance of the central bank. We, as taxed citizens, pay for the maintenance of the government so that we can conduct business peaceably. The maintenance of the environment is just as important in a business sense as the maintenance of the govement, so maybe, we should pay into the upkeep of the environment in the same way that we pay for the upkeep of the govement. Corporations that operate through the sale of these biomes (e.g. logging, farming etc.) are profiting off diminishing the 125$ trillion in value in free service the rest of humanity needs. Maybe a portion of the price of the positive externality that is removed should be built into the cost of buying their product, in an effort to collect back some of the damage done. For example, adding an additional 11% to a 5-dollar piece of lumber and taking that 55 cents to offset the damage done. The textbook discuses the possibility of discounting the future value of an ecological entity in an effort to quantify its value today, since many of these biological elements are finite and in many cases virtually irreplaceable. My suggestion is more of a negative interest rate to preserve the natural good. Later in the chapter the concepts of Paul Hawken are introduced who furthers the concept of valuing natural capital. Hawken an environmental champion, as well as a business man, believes in the importance of full-cost pricing, which is the concept of imbedding the ecological damage that a good does, into the cost of that good. On the subject of the current means of valuing goods Hawken said H “we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP, and patting ourselves on the back. I liked his stance on not compromising growth for the sake of environmentalism but rather reconciling the two. He advocates for the use of govement subsides and taxes to encourage environmentally conscious growth. On the future of the economy Hawken says: “We have the capacity to create a remarkably different economy: one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bringing forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work, and true security.” This shift “is based on the simple but powerful proposition that all natural capital must be valued. … If we have doubts about how to value a 500-yearold tree, we need only ask how much would it cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?” This quote reminds me of the previous weeks readings concerning environmental worldviews. I feel that quote can be seen as congruent with, along with other options, the Spaceship worldview. Hawken’s quote elicits the concept of mastering our earth as a means of maintaining its environmental health. Though it’s quite likely that he asked about the possibility of building a new river or atmosphere because they are seemingly impossible tasks, I think it is worth considering his proposition at face value. What if we do challenge ourselves to rebuild the damage that we have done to the atmosphere. What would that cost? Could that cost be funded by implementing a full-cost pricing type tax to the goods and services that cause its destruction in the first place?  

Q: What governing body could implement and administer the revenues associated with a full-cost tax on goods and services?

  Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

  6

Chapter 6, an investigation into population growth, is something that I have always been interested in. In preparing to present on the subject I met with my two groupmates to discuss the chapter and the important elements. The one thing that we all found to be shocking was the correlation of women’s education and the number of children birthed. Poor women who cannot read often have an average of 5-7 children, compared to 2 or fewer children in societies where most women can read. This statistic on its face is quite upsetting but considering the improvement in female literacy, it has a silver lining.

For the sake of the presentation I specified on consumption and the steady state economy. In doing research I was surprised to see that there was a lot of literature on the subject from many of classic economists. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, started to take notice of the population progressions of foreign nations and how that effected their economy. He noticed that Holland seemed to be approaching population stagnation and this propeted him to opine on what the economic ramifications may be “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its soil and climate, and its situation with respect to other countries, allowed it to acquire; which could, therefore, advance no further, and which was not going backwards, both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low. In a country fully peopled in proportion to what either its territory could maintain or its stock employ, the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented. In a country fully stocked in proportion to all the business it had to transact, as great a quantity of stock would be employed in every particular branch as the nature and extent of the trade would admit. The competition, therefore, would everywhere be as great, and consequently the ordinary profit as low as possible.” His speculation on the health of a county that is “fully peopled” showed the apprehension he has at the prospect of labor prices racing to 0. He affirmed that “no country has ever yet arrived at this degree of opulence." But recognized the possibility that it would happen. He was right, and his home country, The United Kingdom is now birthing below the replacement rate.

Herman Daly, an esteemed ecological economist advocates for the steady state economy as a means for stopping the damage done to the environment. His tenants for the national economy are the following:

·       The first institution is to correct inequality to some extent by putting minimum and maximum limits on incomes, maximum limits on wealth, and then redistribute accordingly.

·       The second institution is to stabilise the population by issuing transferable reproduction licenses to all fertile women at a level corresponding with the general replacement fertility in society.

·       The third institution is to stabilise the level of capital by issuing and selling depletion quotas that impose quantitative restrictions on the flow of resources through the economy. Quotas effectively minimise the throughput of resources necessary to maintain any given level of capital (as opposed to taxes, that merely alter the prevailing price structure).

His approach is quite autocratic and would require a lot of ethically questionable initiatives. This is off putting to a lot of steady state proponents who see the movement as more grassroots.

 Kenneth Boulding gave the most intriguing analysis involving the steady state economy in his 1966 essay, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. Boulding explained how the flow of natural resources through the economy is a rough measure of the Gross national product (GNP); and, consequently, that society should start regarding the GNP as a cost to be minimized rather than a benefit to be maximized. This is because productivity correlates directly with ecological damage. His work caught my eye due to the title which, thanks to this class, I now know is congruent with my ecological worldview.

                          (Female literacy graph from Worldbank.org)

 Q: Will perspectives that put value more on quality of life over constant growth begin to enter mainstream politics?

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

  7

Chapter 9’s analysis of extinction rates gave me new insight into some of the issues involved in cataloging extinction. I was amazed to read that “we have identified only about 2 million of the world’s estimated 7 million to 10 million and perhaps as many as 100 million species.” The fact that that the estimate of number of species in the world is thought to be between 7 and 100 million shows how little is know about the ecological diversity on the planet. The first means discussed in the text for estimating future extinction rates is to study rates of mammals and birds of which we know the timeline of their extinction. Most of these extinctions have been since humans have been the dominant force on the planet and fossil records make carbondating possible. I wonder if this model can be augmented to adjust for the heartiness of a type of animal over another. For example, I know that large mammals are much more vulnerable to human interference than reptiles. Do scientists use reptile extinction metrics to speculate on timelines of reptile extinctions, or are all types of animals analyzed using the data of mammals and birds? Another approach used to model extinction is correlating habitat destruction with average extinction. For example, “Edward O. Wilson (see Individuals Matter 4.1, p. 81) and Robert MacArthur, suggests that, on average, a 90% loss of land habitat in a given area can cause the extinction of about 50% of the species living in that area.” Using this concept, you can extrapolate, and model future extinction based on expected habitat loss. Much like the first method, I wonder if models are tuned for the specific animals living within. For example, tropical rainforests may lose 70% of animals per 50% habitat destruction, but more hardy animals in northern boreal forests may only lose 20% of animals per 50% percent of habitat destruction. I guess the more data points that you have input in the model the more accurate it can become.

The case study in chapter 9 on honeybee population was shocking. “Over the past 50 years, the European honeybee population in the United States has been cut in half. Since colony collapse disorder (CCD) emerged in 2006 (Core Case Study), commercial beekeepers in the United States have lost 25–50% of their hives on average each year.” In reference to that quote the implications of that math are incredible. If you took an average of loss somewhere in the 30’s% per year (a figure somewhere in between the 25-50% range) you would have a loss in bee populations of over 90 percent when you take the compounded growth since 2006 until 2020. If this is true, the trend seems to point to inevitable extinction.

           Another takeaway from the honeybee case study is that of all of the known reasons that the bees are going extinct, almost all of them are unintended consequences of human action. The first reason listed is a mite that came from bees imported from South America. Another reason for the rapid decline is pesticides that are used on tobacco plants. “Evidence suggests that they can disrupt the nervous systems of bees and can decrease their ability to find their way back to their hives. These chemicals can also disrupt the immune systems of bees and make them vulnerable to the harmful effects of other threats.” Obviously, farmers did not treat their crops with a poison with intent of killing honeybees and I don’t know if they can even be to blame. These tobacco farmers were just acting in the best interest of their yield. How are these people who are only educated on farming supposed to know the chemical effects their pesticides will have on the bees that interact with them? The chemical manufactures on the other hand, should test how their product interacts with animals that will come in contact with it before releasing it. Their oversight is aiding in the eradication of an entire species. Another factor contributing to the decline of the specidces is stress from moving them. The stress makes the bees more “vulnerable to death from parasites, viruses, fungi, and pesticides.” To this I can only ask; why are people trying to move these bees?

In the video assigned for the week’s review, there were several troubling statistics. The one that resonated with me the most was “Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility if reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on earth” The phrases that was so worrisome about that was “abruptly and irreversibly”. The current sentiment concerning ecological harm is that we need to lessen up, little by little, until we come to a sustainable level of damage. If we continue with this mindset, it will result in one day, us crossing over into a level that, no matter our technological advancements, will cause irreversible damage. This idea directly conflicts with the idea of spaceship earth, which relies on technology to dig ourselves out of this mess.

 Q: Can chemical companies that have caused the destruction of the honeybee population be held accountable for the damage they’ve done?

Beats, Geo. “Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years - Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion, Dailymotion, 30 Sept. 2014, www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning, 2018.

    Practicum:

My practicum project will consist of a self environmental audit. I am currently taking 5 classes, all of which meet once a week, as well as studying for a governmental exam that I will need to have before graduation in order to begin work as my contract stipulates. The preparation for this exam is arduous and in addition to my classes has made it difficult to do any form of extracurricular. I have begun preparing for the audit by taking note of my weekly eating habits and tracking where my food comes from. I have recently learned that the juice that I buy weekly comes from Egypt which is ecologically propitious. I will also attempt to model how my post-grad lifestyle will differ from the ecological footprint that I currently have and what steps I can take to be more ecologically neutral