I question anything that begins with 'theology', but that's only because I've read history books. The 'Open source' theology sounds much like it could be an ideal, but I have to wonder if it can work as a religion. What happens when a member disagrees with the rest in a way that the religion is adapting? Are they 'out'?
I really like the idea of a religion actually adapting to the times, but with how humanity increasingly pays for fads, perhaps a solid belief structure is actually the difference between a 'religion' and a 'scientology'.
At the same time, however, I've always maintained that Nationalism is simply a religion disguised as a governmental form. Governments seem to change very slowly to respond to changes, but at least they do change. Whether willingly or through revolution of one sort or the other. I think that a semi- solid core belief system with a working structure for change of the things that are proven disfunctional would be the way to go. However, that is very difficult to find...
Sorry I missed class today, I'm trying to get better from a flu that I'm pretty certain was given to me by my inlaws during Thanksgiving...
I wanted to give my availability to work on a Podcast, since I learned quite a bit during the last one, and I would like to learn more about the workings of the Center. I'm available at 3:30pm for the next two days, as long as I can ignore my health issues at the moment.
I also wanted to relay a story about capitalism that I was involved with over the holiday. In order to keep it short, I won't mention the number of bottles of wine that were consumed.
The argument centered around an insurance company that had dropped an elderly woman from their homeowners policy since she lived near the coast of NJ/NYC. This was after 30 years of her paying her premiums and nothing having changed except the massive hurricanes that destroyed the Gulf States. I argued that it was wrong for them to drop her simply on the chance that a Cat 5 hurricane would strike NYC, after 30 years of them taking her money and using it. However, other members of the family were disconcerted that I did not see this issue as simply a monetary policy. The company was only analyzing risk and protecting its money, and trying to make more. That seemed to be the important part of the story to them. As long as a company was trying to make money, it was alright. That they had used her money for 30 years to make more, just seemed to be part of the equation.
I know that this was a moral question without a correct answer, but I was confused that no one seemed to think of anything but the company trying to make more money.
This had me thinking more about the role of capitalism in everyday life. I think that we are brought up to see things in this way. We only expect companies to try to make money. We almost expect them to break the law to do so, and if they make quite a bit of money, then we're congratulatory. We often ignore their advertising, knowing that they'll say anything to make more money. While we claim not to like this, we continue to shop at Walmart, and buy all the little gadgets that companies will throw at us.
Perhaps this is just my attempt to find my own philosophy towards the issue, but I think that the NatCap article has found a way to bridge the gap, and perhaps that is needed, since we're in a society that thinks first of how to make money, and secondly, whether or not it is right to make money in such a way.
thanksgiving in Nashville
During the 11 hour drive to Nashville, I heard a program on NPR about customers cancelling their carbon debt by donating money to organizations that offer that function. Basically, when you purchase your plane ticket online, you can offset the amount of emissions that will be expended during your travel, by clicking on a key and adding $25, $50, etc to your bill.
The obvious problem that the show was addressing was knowing where that money was going, and whether or not they were actually helping. This had me think of a way that we could do something like this for the Center. What if we could get funds funneled to the Center in order to offset the Carbon emissions of others traveling around the Centre county area? From the sound of the NPR broadcast there really isn't much oversight of where these funds go, or if they are actually offsetting any of the emissions that they claim to. I wonder what it would take to make a company and get it attached to this idea to bring in funding to change lightbulbs/ insulated glass, or carpeting supplies, as were mentioned in the Natural Capitalism article...
Just a thought or two in between being run ragged by nieces and nephews...
11/15
After purchasing 9 of the energysmart lightbulbs and placing them around my apartment, I have to say that I’m quite pleased with them. While I have no idea if they’re going to save any money, I feel better about having them and trying to do a little bit to save some energy. While I had heard that they take a little while to ‘warm up’, I’ve found that they light everything up immediately (1/2 str. Lightbulb) and within 5-15 seconds, they’re fully lit. Personally, I think the ‘warm up’ fallacy has been exaggerated by the electric company.. hey, maybe I’m paranoid…
What I’ve also noticed is that I have this urge to start replacing the public lightbulbs in my building. The lightbulb in the laundry room is lit for much of the day, and I think that quite a bit of energy could be saved there… and maybe we should replace all of the lights in the laundry rooms around the block… how much is saved there… this is my little example of how much can be saved without sacrificing…
However, these lightbulbs did cost more money, but, if they work as long as they say that they do, they should ultimately save money over time. I’m sure that XMilitary can tell us better stories, but I did see a couple looking over the new lightbulbs briefly only to here the man say, “I’m not paying that much money for a lightbulb.” Keep in mind, this is ten bucks for three of them…
This being said, there is a sticker on the package of bulbs telling you that they’ll ultimately save $38 in energy costs. This made me think about how much we trust advertising, and how the spin of rhetoric needs to be applied to sustainability. While I’m a firm believer that the economic example can lead the way, this lightbulb problem illustrates that it will take more than just saving money to get people to switch to something new and ‘slightly’ different.
Who killed the electric car.... Well, given the list of suspects that was a bit too long, especially the number of which who were deemed 'guilty' at the end, I would have to conclude that the electric car was held down by a few people and beaten to death by a few others. while the movie was a bit too long for my taste and seemed to dwell a little too much on the strange love affair of these people for their cars, I am hoping that they were in love more with the idea of an electric car, much as a person can be more in love with the idea of being in love.
I really hate when I press 'tab' to start a new line and end up saving half of my response and thusly causing all of you to receive an extra email... I'm really very sorry about that, since I hate receiving any extra emails..
The largest bit of knowledge that I gleaned from the movie was how influential the role of government is within our sustainability argument. California's local government practically caused the electric car to come into existence, and later, destroyed the reason for car companies to continue to make them.
While I agree that the government cannot be counted on to help too much, obviously, they can completely derail some very good programs, so at least engaging the government is to our advantage. How to do so is difficult, and I believe that I'll have to think more about that for other postings...
I wanted to respond to the idea of work. From what I've experienced, I get less of a sense of 'work' when it's being done for my benefit, or my family's benefit, etc. When painting the house or replacing the roofing, or gathering firewood for the upcoming winter, I don't get as much of a sense of it being work. However, at my current job, and all the other ones that I've had, it is definitely 'work'. Sometimes, it's about putting the time in for something mostly meaningless, all for a paycheck. Other times, the physical nature of it, and injuries stemming from that make it even more of a hassle, or 'work'.
However, as I age, I'm noticing that even a few of the 'chores' that I used to enjoy, such as splitting firewood, have taken on more a work related sense, as they take a greater toll on my body. Granted, some of this may be occuring because of the 40 hours a week physical labor that I do already. I don't know. They still seem to be less like a job, and I believe that comes from the sense of putting in time. When it's a nice day and you're in a building for 8 hours of it, you would rather be outside loading haybales on a wagon, instead of running a machine inside, watching the sun go through its cycle. Speaking of which, it's pretty nice today, so I'm off to my balcony.
October 8, 2006
In watching ‘Inconvenient Truth’ I was struck by the differences between it and the ‘Peak Oil’ film that we had watched. There is a strong contrast between the blatant propaganda and the well presented propaganda of politicians. All politicians know how to spin things, but I believe that the content of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was so well presented as to be perceived as completely factual, and I actually believe that it mostly is. However, it is still being presented by a well known politician.
This is the problem that I’ve noticed. While Al Gore’s name gets the film attention and lends it the celebrity to be produced, it also lends ammunition to those who want to oppose it. His name stops people who need to see it from viewing it, and it also gives an excuse to ignore the results as propaganda and twisting of scientific knowledge.
While I’ve found it easy to argue that Gore really does not have anything to gain by lying in this film, since his political career is not advanced by this and he already has quite enough money, his name still brings a socialistic stigma to any conversation.
However, I think that this is well balanced by his celebrity. Even if he is ‘preaching to the choir’, so to say, having evidence to back our arguments will be invaluable. This is an educational film, and that is the most important thing right now.
September 21, 2006
I will post on the travesty that was ‘Peak Oil’ at a different time. For now, I was thinking about our last class discussion. When we were talking about the fear of evolution, I thought a lot about the answer of place that Cathy offered. We are placed high on our charts of life, being able to make tools, manipulate with our thumbs, and reason our way into, and out of, various problems. As was said, the connections that we’re finding with the various forms of life, which we have always considered much lower to us, is a bit disconcerting. This fear of knowledge is just one in a long list throughout history.
In the early days of humans, from the moments when we started ceremonial death rituals and on, there have been various ways to deal with those things that are unknown to us. As we learned, these ways have progressed. Initially, evil spirits inhabited people or objects and caused bad luck. Eventually, there were gods with small domains over all that persecuted and nurtured humanity. As the planting and growing of grain led to cities, new gods replaced the old ones, for a little bit more knowledge had been gained. That gained knowledge rendered the old ‘nymph of the barley glade’ useless, as we could plant our own and didn’t need to rely on her to watch over the crops that we had discovered as nomadic hunter/gatherers. And so on, until we’re in the 16th century and Copernicus is threatening that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and more knowledge strikes at a God. And apparently, that God did not place us in the center of the universe at all. If he didn’t do that, did he indeed create us? Are we special?
I think that the real problem for human evolution is, first of all, that it can’t be proven in a human lifetime, and secondly, that it takes one more notch off of our collective egos. It was fought viciously in the beginning of the 20th century, and now, just as Guttenberg’s Press put perhaps too much knowledge into human possession (hence the witchhunts), the internet is right there to solely spread every monologue against evolution to people who are eager to listen to the heads talking, telling them that they are special still.
That's all of my rant....
To those interested in the marmoset’s parenting habits, it's really quite interesting in how it perhaps knocks another block off of our emotional egos.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7827047
September 18, 2006
I'm just thinking of a few more ways to try to get the Center publicity. I have no idea what funds are available or what is permissible on PSU property, but a BBQ always grabs attention. I know I'm personally quite fond of grilled food, whether it be chicken or portobellas. Ads could be placed in the Collegian, or handbills could be printed at one of the numerous places around town. This would only be a short term idea to get a little recognition... for the long term, I would love to see us work out a plan for a sustainable education complex, in order to help people see that they don't have to give up 'the good life' in order to conserve the environment. A sustainable house, water treatment facility, or just a place with miniaturized exhibits detailing how plans could be implemented with our larger goals in mind. Anything to educate people on the problem, risk, and benefits of backing different types of sustainable energy, and what those different types are.
September 17, 2006
In thinking about ways to get the Center a bit more publicity, there are many things that we can look at. I was thinking along the lines of education, in order to perhaps open it up to some grants (www.grants.gov). Maybe, with some volunteers, we could host a few elem/middle/high school science classes with chance to teach a little about the center and conservation in general. This would expand our standing in the community and perhaps garner a few more volunteers, and with that, more recognition from Penn State. After perusing the gov grants briefly, there are a few about education and agriculture water systems, which may be a bit more research minded, but if we're learning how to write grants, could be good practice at the least.
September 14, 2006
I think that we just need to be realistic with our goals in sustainability. People aren't going to stop reproducing, and building houses and roads to get them back and forth to jobs. SUV's aren't going to disappear, because they're convenient.
However, the high gas prices are helping to actually put this subject on the map. Governments have begun considering protocols and Kyoto, while not as good as we would have liked, has at least given industry a standard, while also providing a market in carbon that economists can get behind. The European Union is doing a good job of paving the way for others to act later, led by industry and gov't.
Our voices are being heard by the green lobbies in DC, and the increasing amount of money being pushed into politics to help out with this. And while I hate to say it, for the issue alone, the sheer number of natural disasters is forcing people to notice. Gaia is far from being mute, as she sends flooding through the northeast, and burns California and the west to a crisp. The odd strong hurricane draws even more attention to the fact that something is going wrong and that it needs to be addressed. And this will begin to be addressed by businesses who lose money to these disasters and to the multi billion dollar insurance lobbies, who see their profits dwindling. Money has always forced issues, and I believe that we'll continue to see this one raised, as long as oil is high and being held in volatile countries... I was especially happy to see the progress of wind farms in Texas... Texas??? Who would have thought?
I'll get right into the definition that I wrote last week
After thinking a bit about the concept of sustainability, I’ve thought of it not in the popular sense of energy conservation and global warming, but more as an all encompassing philosophy. Right now, as society is changing so quickly due to the influx of information, sustaining individual lifestyles has become all important. This can be sustainment of religious purity, cultural states, popular lifestyles, or material objects, such as books, newspapers, and every other media that is currently downloaded directly to our ipods and consumed so quickly that we can’t keep our attention on it long enough to know what it was we were listening to.
Sustaining that connection to all of these sources pulls us in so many different directions that we can’t merely drive, bike, walk, hike somewhere without our all important cellphone to tell us what time it is, or our Blackberry to tell us what we’re supposed to be doing now… instead of thinking.
Sustainability is making sure that we can keep our lives the way we like them, the hell with anything else.. keeping our lives the way we know, to avoid the chaos around us that we can’t change.
This, of course, is the short definition…. I'll have more later...
September 13, 2006
When I began college so long ago, as a science major, I was convinced that there really wasn’t much left to discover. I was fairly naïve then, with thoughts that my advisor did know what was going on, and that ‘The Beast’ was decent beer. Hey, at least I never really thought that it was good beer…
I’ve picked up a few things since then, and reading __What is Life __has reminded me of how much we still don’t know. However, it also reminds me of how much we’re learning every day. Old Man was quite correct about how far into disorder we have come over the past century, even while knowledge is more available than ever before in history. Schrodinger predicting the discovery of DNA to having the code broken down in such a short time is a testament to how quickly knowledge is overtaking our ability to use it responsibly. This is how I see the Sustainable Earth argument taking shape. I believe that we can live here responsibly, if we’re given the chance. Life, however, gets in the way… we must metabolize, after all…
Now, being reminded of how much we’re learning pointed me in the direction of the small science blurbs that I read in the Economist each week. In speaking of symbiogenesis, I remembered the article about Volvox carteri, an alga that is made up of 2000 body cells, which move it around and 16 reproductive cells. The scientists, in the article, have isolated the gene that suppresses the protein that produces new chloroplasts. By limiting the energy capacity of the body cell, it cannot reproduce, and the multicellular organism begins to exist. I’m obviously butchering the article for this blurb, so if you want to check it out…
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7270230
Tune in next time for the parental urges of marmosets, nurturing and vasopressin receptors… What can I say, I’m in a strange mood tonight…
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.