If anybody's looking for good causes to donate to, or just wanting to see some good-news sort of sustainability achievements, check this out:

SELF

Hmm, looking at the sustainable videogames angle, I think that it's a lot easier than it sounds. Obviously there's basically every Final Fantasy ever made already arguing for sustainablity and respect for the ecosystem, but even something alonf the lines of SIMCity should work fine. Even given our current technology, if we were just willing to put the work and money into changing over our power grid, we could get quite far in sustainability and green energy. In a videogame, possibly positing a little better tech, since you get to start from scratch and build up the city you could get a fully sustainable green-energy city or several up and running. It would be a pretty rewarding way of presenting the sustainability issue, as well, since your city would pretty much run itself once you got the mechanisms in place.

Open Source Sustainability Game - The sound of one project launching...

__________________________________________________________________________________

Oddly enough, even though I'm not working anymore, I have no time to do anything. Which would be why I quit, but I was rather hoping for some relenting of the sensation that there wasn't time enough to do anything. Well, I got two reading assignments, two writing assignments, half of another writing assignment, a bit of novella, and pretty much nothing else done. Too bad for my real story.

Onto the Forest of visions. This is proving an...interesting read, but I have to admit that it feels in form and content a great deal like a Fairytale. It's chock-full of enlightened phrases and a nicely reverential regard for community responsibility and social compassion. But it still makes me think I'm reading a hagiographical, highly spiritualized mythology combining Christian and animistic beliefs. Which I suppose it is. It does interest me, though, how necessary the spiritual element seems to be in this demonstrated living of the sort of simple (truth, tranquility, trust) existence most of us wish to have. These people have claimed this for themselves by opening themselves up; yes, through means of a drug, but more importantly, this is an "other-dimensional" or spiritual analogue for the way these people open themseves up to one another and the world around them. Such a simple thing to do, yet we see how difficult it is in our world, where we aren't in the middle of a jungle that reminds us of our connection to the rest of the world and living in a manner that seeks to increase that connection. Not to mention totally tripping on a substance that has the same escapist properties as intense religious fanatics profess. Often while using similar substances. Not quite as unfrightening as it could be, bearing that in mind, but one assumes the peaceable basis of the belief system (or the fact that mind-altering substances are a regular part of services) will go far in preventing any rampant stupidity.

Anyway, it's about time for class.

_________________________________________________________________________________

In another weird twist, Wal-Mart is actually extremely pushing not only the energy-saving lightbulbs (their website tells all about them), but also "An Inconvenient Truth". It comes with an energy-saving lightbulb in the Wal-Mart package, but that could be the case everywhere (I haven't found it anywhere else, so it must not be as prominently displayed, or I'm just inobservant--most likely the latter). In fact, Wal-Mart employees are being offered a special deal on the "Inconveniet Truth" package, and the signs for the deal are next to other energy-related signs in the breakroom and elsewhere. Apparently it has become a very big deal to Wal-Mart (I would guess in part because of PR demands and in part because of certain new leadership) that it not only present a more environmentally-friendly image but also encourage its employees to engage in environmentally-friendly practises. There's a poster up listing things employees can do to save themselves mone and benefit the evironment. Included are such hints as changing to the new lightbulbs, of course, but it's a long list with numerous tips (organic foods and insulating homes least among them) and a message prompting employees to benefit themselves and the environment.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, right, I remember why I didn't read the Bucky attachments...I can't open them. They don't exist as links or separate entities in my mailbox, just words. But I do think that if my life reached the point where I had to accept something horrific like a lost child or stop living, then yeah, I would need something bigger than myself to make it all worthwhile. Something to strive for.

________________________________________________________________________________

I have to admit that today's discussion seemed particularly apropos (aside from being accused of naively believing the world "worked that way and followed the law" when what I said was that people can use law training to manipulate contracts and other people...that was just weird ;-P). It probably seemed so because I had been thinking about how the mention of the word conspiracy even once colored the entire movie as less reliable, possibly fanatical, definitely suspicious. No matter how well-made or true the arguments, once that word is thrown in there, it has the deleterious effect of making them all sound like attempts at justification or defensiveness; like a further buying into a paranoid delusion rather than an effort to elucidate a subject.

Aside from that, the points regarding contributors to the death of the electric vehicle seemed valid enough: for automobile and fuel companies, silly lengths were gone to in order to deprive people of electric cars for ecumenical reasons; for consumers, complacency and buying into advertised needs in vehicles shrank the market; for political organizations, money, business allegiances, and other ties diverted support. There were valid complaints about the vehicles--limited range, charging/recharging time, sparse charging stations--but it sounds short-sighted and selfish for companies to deny the public the availability and publicity of this item such that those who want it could get it, and others can learn about it.

Currently, however, we're well on our way to remedying the faults of the first really modern electric vehicles, the most recent to be killed. It will be awhile, but like most changes that truly take root, the next generation of fully electric vehicles will likely phase in grdually and because of consumer demand. Hybrid vehicles allow the petroleum-fuels-based industries to still benefit, while providing a motivation for more efficient batteries with longer range, longer charges, and quicker filling. The infrastructure for these hybrid gas-electric vehicles will enable a transition into full-electric vehicles if they should be wanted. Hopefully by that time the negatives of electric vehicles will be basically eradicated, making it stand out as a truly workable option for environmental protection and consumer luxury.

___________________________________________________________________

Organic versus systemic learning is an issue that could easily take up its own semester-long class with no true workable resolution. Not so much because people don't know what works--there's solid evidence for all sorts of learning tactics that are generally successful--but because:

a) people can't agree what works BEST;

b) it's impossible to get the funding to give everyone what works best or even well;

c) it's hard to convince those with the money to spread it out to help those without get good educations, teachers, books, even proper buildings and food

d) there's a popular misapprehension that learning is somehow testable, left over from times when head size was thought to determine characteristics including intellect

e) and d is generally because the people with the power and money to implement plans and garner public support don't pay attention to or can't understand the evidence of what actually works.

But the truth is, while organic learning is the ideal (all tests suggest children learn best by immersion, can learn more from video games or other tasks they take up willingly than from assignments, and use imitation to learn instinctively and adeptly), it is an impossibility to leave that as the only method. To do so in schools would require an absurd number of teachers; to leave it to the parents would limit students to learning within the time, skills, intelligence, education, and morality of their parents. And considering that testing remains the manner in which most funding is doled out, it can't exactly be cut off as an endpoint of much of the education. Politicians like to see results; so do many taxpayers, so they only want money going where they see it doing something, however pointless what they see may be.

But despite the difficulties of banishing dependence upon a wholly systemic style of teaching, and tests, or implementing widescale organic "teaching" where it would be most effetive, the options organic learning points to are available for what we're doing. Kids who are exposed to places where they can see the effects of sustainable living will take an interest in it, and that can lead to gradual changes from within; that's why so many of us seem to take an interest in engaging children, I think. But to effect change now, anything from simply giving people opportunities to experience altered fuel, lighting, and power sources can leave an impression with them no amount of informing could match. Hopefully the information we're getting out there will pique an interest in some so that they want to seek out more sustainable and ecology-friendly methods in their own living.

___________________________________________

ArizonaCitrus--I know it may be a wholly different realm of permissions-obtaining and work, but you two might want to consider talking to people about getting the Centre added on signs pointing people towards things on campus. And getting the place uncovered on the campus map.

______________________________

The Al Gore propoganda was significantly better done than the first film. Part of this was no doubt due to its relative subtlety; it didn't suffer from any of the flagrant in-your-face flashy tactics that screamed "listen to me" (and may have made us feel like doing anything but). Despite the ubiquitous sensation of politically charged motivation due to the film's creator, and mentions of political battles and incidents, the actual presented focus seemed to primarily be the environment. The film was bookended with scenes from nature and of the world rather than opening with obvious negative glimpses of political figures. It was the right tack to take, keeping the issue what it should be. While Gore's personal anecdotes provided a human element, they did sometimes seem to be superfluous, just as some of the statements were too grandiose or presumptuous, lacking the evidence that could make a believer out of a fence-sitter. Of course, as has been remarked already, those watching the video are most likely sympathetic to begin with; the rest might have been turned off by the presentor or the issue. Presenting a minor definition and overview of the greenhouse effect and global warming is enough to make sure everybody has enough data to feel like they're not merely being fed a point of view but not so much that those who know the issues feel talked down to or put off. He also correctly points out the issue so many have with balancing economy and environment, yet, again, presents no viable options for solving this perception issue or any of the other issues brought up in the film.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Today's Wal-Mart Report:

(yeah, I know I've worked for what are possibly considered the most evil corporations in the country; friends close, enemies closer, influential money-wielders in the sights at all times)

OK, nothing really to report, but I do think it's amusing that, while the newspapers are full of anti-WalMart gripes, the corporation itself is acting to change its supplies over to energy-efficient versions. This is not a criticism but a commentary: if those with the money start doing things to help sustainability, those who have always supported it should take the credit for the about-face and do whatever they can to make sure the positive attitude toward sustainment goes as deep in action as possible. That way the money is supporting the cause, those who support the cause aren't looking like jerks for complaining that the people whose ethics they loathe are, or whatever reason, doing more than the rest of us could as far as spreading the message in little everyday ways.

As of now, Wal-Mart is still far from green, but they are at least putting on a better show. There is a variety of energy-efficient lighting; heating systems that save energy are the norm; recycling and recylced products are being pushed; and organic foods are a trend being immensely supported (regardless of the costs of Wal-Mart involving itself in this, which include mega-corporation-production). So, small steps, possibly insincere and/or insufficient, but at least the visibility on these is high and they're the types of steps that people can take and feel good about helping the environment. The major benefit is that Wal-Mart taking steps toward sustainability makes it a high-profile issue that other organizations and corporations may feel required to act upon as well or be considered negligent and behind the curve

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, about the video. I think that is a classic example of how important presentation can be. How many of us spent quite a bit of time snickering at the teetering camera, wondering if there was some sort of hand fetish behind the cameraperson's focus, or just plain tuning everything out to avoid an epileptic fit as Bush and other propoganda scenes flashed too rapidly? That kind of thing can obscure a message for a sympathetic audience, ruin it for a neutral one, and entrench an opposing viewpoint for those already antagonistic. Better not to put the film out than to produce it with such amateur directing and filming. That said, the parts of the message that did shine through were clear and unchanging. Whether that's good or ill. The points made were sensible, and the initial evidence following the up-front propoganda was supportive; it's a good idea to present some varying factions' experts and differing data to clarify a point. But the manner in which the old man made the point and the constant reiteration of the same issues, the same lines without new support or supposedly new support saying the exact same thing, was a little grating. The politicisation of the viewpoint in the film should have been avoided if the message was intended to be widely accessible, and it would make more sense to flash dried up oil fields than dried up presidents--not that either was particularly relevant to an issue regarding worldwide energy shortages (that would primarily affect the most modernised nations). It felt like there was a kernel of worthwhile information in the video, but it was buried within a mess of bad presentation and technique; the filmmaker could have benefited from a class in argument.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

To ApatheticAvatar, the Stryker is actually named in honor of two servicemembers; you can learn the basics about the combat vehicle at GlobalSecurity or wikipedia. It's actually a good idea, execution aside, in that it combines heavy firepower and defense with high mobility and a lightweight capacity to cross most terrains, however treacherous. This machine is less about blowing people up than it is about permitting our guys to win with the least possible losses. Needless to say, I'm biased; I have insider knowledge about these machines and connections to the people in them. But I'm not even pretending the government spends its money responsibly, just stating the fact that this particular project had its issues but was reasonable in its intentions and methods. That said, you bring up some excellent points. Absolutely we as a nation need to take more interest in where our government's money is spent. And yes, getting funding to the people producing advances in sustainability so their products can become more inexpensive and common (i.e. accessible) is a vital step in making sustainability work. Visibility is another one; when people see these things working, they'll want them. A simple but far from easy answer would be to gain the attention of government (such as military) groups in sustainability issues; if it will benefit their operations, they'll push the funding and the research for us. It's easier said than done, though. We would first require an example of what certain aspects of sustainability could do for them, something convincing enough for these groups to back further research. So again, in my opinion it comes down to PR; first we need a good product/system, then we need to put it out there effectively.

Kelly brings up another side of some of the important issues in sustainability, also related to presentation. We need to be aware not only of what we're putting out there, but how. For those sympathetic with the issue to begin with, there may be certain expectations, attitudes and unspoken assumptions that color speech. These can turn off those who simply want to help the environment or live comfortably (or both together) but might be leery of the fanaticism or cliquism which may be perceived amongst people whose orldview is vastly different. As students, we might enjoy seeing a different perspective on the world and encountering ideas that help us view the world in new ways whether or not we agree with the perspectives. But however engaging the ideas, most peopole don't want to have their understandings overturned, to be talked down to, or to be made to feel either stupid or as if there's some weird club they're glad not to be a part of. Hence our role as PR agents takes on even more meaning, as we'll be presenting sustainability not only in a meaningful but also accessible manner for as many people as possible.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Old Man hits the tip of the iceburg far more directly than the rest of us have, I think, in pointing out that, if it is to work, sustainability must be enacted where we live, how we live, and in a manner conducive to continuing and even improving that lifestyle. Windmills in cities providing extra power at a low price, gardens on roofs providing temperature stability and possibly even inexpensive food, better insulation leading to lower energy usage and costs, these are some of the bet ways towards sustainability. The equilibrium of energy in energy out may be better reached through other means, but simple and easily incorporated steps like this are things will likely be the most efective simply because they can be done without inconvenience, even with an increase of convenience. That is an important step in sustainability discourse--making the actions required for sustinability not merely palatable, but desirable, to the general populace, the ones controlling the money, even the policymakers. Yes, we might want to go all the way and create to some idyllic utopia where humankind and the rest of the world interact in mutually beneficial ways, but we are far more effective to instead focus our efforts on small changes and on consistently making these reasonable steps toward sustainability as rewarding as possible. Perhaps the best thing we can do toward saving the world is to make "sustainability" synonomous with the things that matter to people, whether profit, comfort, savings, gain, respect, or all of the above and more.

While it should go without saying, I do hope nobody considers anything in these pages personal. I suspect we are all far too mature for that, but I figured I had better preface some likely critical-sounding commentary with the reminder that this is all opinion and I am only offering it as I believe it to be important to tackling the issue of sustainability in the real world with tenable solutions. I would love to hear any disagreement with me and its reasons, if only to broaden my own thinking. That said, I thoroughly disagree with a great deal of what ArizonaCitrus said, beginning with the primary contention that sustainability is "an attempt to revert back to a simpler way of living". Taken at a biological level, that would imply that sustainability is the equivalent of devolution. But I don't merely disagree with the notion that "sustainability" is a retreat into our pasts, but also that "a simpler way of living" was really that much better for the world. Absolutely, if nobody in the world had cars or cattle or fire or powered electricity or waste disposal pits, the world would be cleaner. But in order for such a world to be viable, we would also need to cut the population down to the point where we didn't need mass waste disposal, electricity, cookfires, or livestock. And by the time we hit that population (or depopulation) point, having all those things and more wouldn't be bad anymore because there wouldn't be enough of us to do significant damage.

But that's actually why I think that a simpler way of life is not the answer. We have more people, more stuff, more luxury; this isn't going to just go away. People are unlikely to readily give up any of these things (particularly life). And less technologically-advanced methods were often even more environmentally destructive, just on so much smaller a scale it didn't seem as bad (either we had less of the technology or fewer of us). Without the advancements of technology, we would in fact be doing far more damage than we are, as today's huge SUVs actually produce less harmful pollutants than the smallest and cleanest cars of yeteryear (check out this month's Scientific American for evidence). Yes, technology allows for these more destructive vehicles, but it also allows them to be less destructive than they could be. So it seems like it would be most reasonable to give those controlling technology convincing reasons to prioritize sustainability rather than vilifying them and telling those who benefit from their advancements to give up those pleasures or be evil destroyers of the world. It's all well and good to say that people need to focus on sustainability over (insert anything from high-tech goodies to convenience here), or even to do it oneself. A few people will listen. But not enough to save the planet. The rest will just tune out the people who make them feel bad, and continue to ignore the needs of the environment. Couching the argument in these all-or-nothing terms, forcing people to choose comfort or saving the environment instead of giving them the opportunity to further both, guarantees the environment will lose now, and so will the rest of us in the long run.

On a final and tangential note, I am not so certain any of our ancestors learned "to use nature's resources in a responsible and productive way." At each stage, our ancestors in general did what was best for them: they made fire to keep warm and cook food, they used every part of the animal because catches were rare, they burned down entire forests to provide better hunting grounds, they didn't hunt out entire populations because they needed to eat later too, and they eventually made ever more complex technologies and tools to make life easier. Given our tools and resources, they would have done exactly what we do now. What we need to do is not try to be more like those in our past--who had inferior tools and therefore less potential to do both good and harm--but try to make the best use of our tools and potential so that we are helping the environment enough to counteract or even counter our harm of it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Am I the only one who didn't realize Penn State University is working on some nice nanotechnology to vastly improve solar cell retention and energy derivation?

This is of course nothing profound on my part, but in addition to providing that tiny blurb of information, this month's Scientific American magazine focuses extensively on a potluck of disaster-reduction methods for saving our environment from its downward spiral into sauna. Basically, EnergyPlanB gives an overview of the results of all that discussion in the magazine, minus the key contentions behind them of course. I'm certain a lot of the points we've already come up with individually after less than a week are mirrored in their recommendations of combining several small (and even wide-sweeping, although not so economically drastic as to frighten off anyone with a genuine concern for the world) changes across the board in order to achieve a significant stay on the deterioration without requiring any real deprivation. Unless that term can rightfully be applied to those businesses which would have to spend a little more on their initial investments in order to have emission-reduction maximized from the start; but that, to me, seems about as short-sighted a position a not using Compact flourescent bulbs that typically save 70% or more on energy bills because they cost $4 more per bulb to start out. Of course, the popularity of both views explains why the magazine considers their plan to require certain minimal lawful supports (fines for overpollution and such extended a bit).

Most of the strategies presented had a heavy focus on increasing efficiency, which additionally received its own article, a purely beneficial equation. Greater production costs in order to preserve environmental equilibriumn as much as possibe will almost certainly be a requirement, particularly at first; but with less energy expended to get the same result, plus excess energy recycled for further uses, the ongoing benefits far outweigh the initial costs. For me, the series of articles most clearly accentuate how important public relations are in the fight for sustainability. And spin may be the most important aspect of that; it looks like it might be our job in this class to basically brainstorm ways and implementation for ensuring anyone from our neighbors to our neighboring companies, schools, governmental organizations, and whatever else expect and demand the benefits of sustainability rather than avoiding the self-deprivations too often assumed in discussions of sustainability. If we can help to publicize the benefits of current efforts at utainable living in the right place, we could do a lot of good. If nothing else, the Scientific American articles provide a hint of various directions in which to seek success stories that might make people feel as if it is in remaining aloof from efforts at sustainability that they are being shortchanged, not the opposite.