Now that you've watched the video on climate change (http://grist.org/climate-energy/my-tedx-talk-on-climate-pimped-out/), I invite one of you to open discussion on the film itself or the content.
Climate Change Is Simple - Climate Sustainability Is Very Complicated
.... Why is this? Because government is involved.
Last year, in my Social Justice Essay, I addressed the possibility of “Environmental Education” to sustain the environment. Education, in my opinion, is the answer to everything because everyone has the capability to learn and everyone does. As we grow up, our mind absorbs subconsciously all of our surroundings: words, places, people.
"Environmental education refers to organized efforts to teach about how natural environments function and, particularly, how human beings can manage their behavior and ecosystems in order to live sustainably.” Through education, immersion and interaction within our natural surroundings, children will come to appreciate their world and learn why the environment is so vital for human survival and as well as the effect humans are having on the planet. Environmental education establishes a will to take action and to make smart decisions, instilling worldwide environmental values and the desire to create sustainability. - Fostering Sustainability, by Samanta Fleming
The problem with implying this system which seems so rational and basic is global leadership. Modern civilization that we have developed today is run by leaders that are meant to represent groupings of global society. These leaders, however, do not seem to base their decisions on the needs of humans, but rather the wants of the most money hungry. The first step to being able to incorporate innovative programs such as Eco Literacy is to change the power our un-representing representatives have. This is my question for you- how would we do that?
As early as the 18th century, the renowned philosopher Rousseau addressed how important it is that education focus on the environment. Though his reasoning was not necessarily related to environmental degradation, he knew that it is important for humans to understand nature for they are part of it and cannot isolate themselves from what sustains them and keeps them alive. “Study nature, not books” was stated by another famous philosopher, Louis Agassiz in the 19th century. Governments around the world have also long known about the importance of eco-literacy and have declared environmental education to be part of new national educational standards. In June, 1972, “The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment” was announced in Stockholm; it consisted of proclamations and principles "to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment." The Stockholm Declaration along with an International Workshop on Environmental Education held in Belgrade, Serbia aided in the formation of “The Belgrade Charter “ in October 1975, which added further guiding principles. Not long after, in 1977, “The Tbilisi Declaration” updated and clarified The Stockholm Declaration and The Belgrade Charter, noting “ the unanimous accord in the important role of environmental education in the preservation and improvement of the world's environment, as well as in the sound and balanced development of the world's communities."
Unfortunately, these recognitions are not being implemented at the same rate as our world is changing. As David Roberts said, we must peak our contribution to climate change in the next 5 to 10 years and after that we must decline it rapidly. Leading to another question for you guys: Do you think Environmental Education will be able to change future generations soon enough? We are running out of time and governments must apply these methods today, because tomorrow is too late... or is today to late?
One last question: What would responsible dictatorship look like and would it be acceptable in the circumstances of saving humankind?
The idea of benevolent dictatorship, in which an authoritarian leader exercises power for the benefit of the whole population rather than exclusively for the benefit of only a small portion of the population has been considered throughout history, although in my opinion those who claim the title often just pretend to act for the whole population. This may, to answer your question, be a time in which many are required; that, I think, is the greatest problem: there are too many countries which must change their behaviour, and none of them seem willing to be the first to act because of fears of how it would affect its particular economy. Horribly short sighted, as if we don't stop destroying the environment immediately, there won't be economies at all. Is it possible for one entire nation to demand change just because it's the right thing to do, even if its population might be worse off financially? What would it take?
Sam, and the rest of you, you might find this interesting. Realistic vision for how individual cities can make a difference in climate change. Perhaps we could start with Rossland?
Imagine closing your eyes for a fraction of a second and having your entire world go up in flames. Imagine your house having disintegrated into rubble; the life you knew and loved having disappeared in a sudden blitz of chaos and destruction. That, my friends, is the monster of climate change. Our earth, according to the man in the video, is declining at an unprecedented rate with every degree Celsius our globe increases in temperature.
The video, to be perfectly honest, put into perspective an issue to which I had never really paid attention for the better part of my life. I was one of those people who thought that climate change was, a) a myth, and b) easily resolvable.
I thought we had all the time in the world to deal with this issue and that the world would ultimately right itself. I now know better. This video has taught me that we can't keep ignoring this pertinent issue. We need to do something NOW if we want to have any hope of combatting this type of problem in the future. This needs to happen TOMORROW so we can fix the problems of our ancestors to NOT be so far gone by the time our effects finally catch up with our world. We, as beings of adaptation, need to take this seriously because we're only going to drive ourselves into the ground if we don't.
To respond to Sam's bit about how our political agenda of today doesn't reflect the needs of the human race, I must completely agree with that point. What we've seen in the politics of today is the crux of democracy. I disagree respectfully to Sam's idea, however, that our systems of today are unrepresentative. I think that, au contraire, our political systems are the most representative of their day, reflecting the wide-spread and uneducated view of our society towards the environment. The politics of today, in my opinion, are fruit of generations past who didn't acknowledge the necessity of, as Sam put it, environmental education. Our politics are representative of the political views of generations who didn't care about the environment, to put it bluntly.
That's why the duty of environmental restoration is going to fall on our generation...and to be honest, that worries me. We need to get the word out NOW, not tomorrow, not the day after, but NOW so that we can ultimately be united when it is our turn to take care of the country and of the world as a whole. The only frightening thing about that is by that time, according to the video we watched, it'll be much too late to do anything. It'll be irreversible before we can even address the issue in a meaningfully political way.
In terms of the idea of a benevolent dictatorship, I also believe that that is something that wouldn't end up working for us as a human race in the long run, because the idea of democracy that represents the needs of a specific country are too precious to everyone living in them that they wouldn't be willing to hand over their right to choose in exchange for the greater good. Ultimately, the idea of benevolence is relative, and is entirely dependant on culture. What one denomination of people find just and fair, another might find ruthless and dangerous. To unite an entire earth would mean to unite culture and language under a benevolent autocracy—something towards which I think people would be very, very resistant.
I wish I could of watched the whole think before the internet decided that I didn't need to see the whole thing, but from what I saw, I don't really like the look of the future. Our society has become over dependent on non sustainable resources, like oil. What ever happened to a dog being mans best friend, it got replaces, and not by another animal but by cars and trucks. People feel as if they need to go on vacation, or get the latest gadgets. Sports now include things like Nascar or Formula 1, and the Normal sports teams are flying across the globe to play. Today society has become a competely consumerism society and this is what is destroying us. We always feel like we need the newest things that come out and throwing away the old stuff. This is draining resources and polluting the environment. We are creating a toxic living space for ourselves. The air, land, and sea are becoming polluted, our resources are being depleated, we are overpopulating the planet, and we are making are selves more dependent on this corrupt and destructive system by poisoning and crippling our selves with modern food and pharmaceuticals.
People have become greed and they feel intitled to anything they want. We can not keep up living like we are or we are all screwed, and that is one of the best ways to say it. Humans need to stop their emissions now or we can are our selves to the indangered species list.
Sam made so great points about the government not serving our needs, and I completely agree. I know that this will probably never happen untill it is too late for us to change it. I know that people won't completely change right now but if we all did away with what we don't need we may be able to last a few more years.
Climate Change Is Simple - Climate Sustainability Is Very Complicated
ReplyDelete.... Why is this? Because government is involved.
Last year, in my Social Justice Essay, I addressed the possibility of “Environmental Education” to sustain the environment. Education, in my opinion, is the answer to everything because everyone has the capability to learn and everyone does. As we grow up, our mind absorbs subconsciously all of our surroundings: words, places, people.
"Environmental education refers to organized efforts to teach about how natural environments function and, particularly, how human beings can manage their behavior and ecosystems in order to live sustainably.” Through education, immersion and interaction within our natural surroundings, children will come to appreciate their world and learn why the environment is so vital for human survival and as well as the effect humans are having on the planet. Environmental education establishes a will to take action and to make smart decisions, instilling worldwide environmental values and the desire to create sustainability. - Fostering Sustainability, by Samanta Fleming
The problem with implying this system which seems so rational and basic is global leadership. Modern civilization that we have developed today is run by leaders that are meant to represent groupings of global society. These leaders, however, do not seem to base their decisions on the needs of humans, but rather the wants of the most money hungry. The first step to being able to incorporate innovative programs such as Eco Literacy is to change the power our un-representing representatives have. This is my question for you- how would we do that?
As early as the 18th century, the renowned philosopher Rousseau addressed how important it is that education focus on the environment. Though his reasoning was not necessarily related to environmental degradation, he knew that it is important for humans to understand nature for they are part of it and cannot isolate themselves from what sustains them and keeps them alive. “Study nature, not books” was stated by another famous philosopher, Louis Agassiz in the 19th century. Governments around the world have also long known about the importance of eco-literacy and have declared environmental education to be part of new national educational standards. In June, 1972, “The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment” was announced in Stockholm; it consisted of proclamations and principles "to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment." The Stockholm Declaration along with an International Workshop on Environmental Education held in Belgrade, Serbia aided in the formation of “The Belgrade Charter “ in October 1975, which added further guiding principles. Not long after, in 1977, “The Tbilisi Declaration” updated and clarified The Stockholm Declaration and The Belgrade Charter, noting “ the unanimous accord in the important role of environmental education in the preservation and improvement of the world's environment, as well as in the sound and balanced development of the world's communities."
Unfortunately, these recognitions are not being implemented at the same rate as our world is changing. As David Roberts said, we must peak our contribution to climate change in the next 5 to 10 years and after that we must decline it rapidly. Leading to another question for you guys: Do you think Environmental Education will be able to change future generations soon enough? We are running out of time and governments must apply these methods today, because tomorrow is too late... or is today to late?
One last question: What would responsible dictatorship look like and would it be acceptable in the circumstances of saving humankind?
The idea of benevolent dictatorship, in which an authoritarian leader exercises power for the benefit of the whole population rather than exclusively for the benefit of only a small portion of the population has been considered throughout history, although in my opinion those who claim the title often just pretend to act for the whole population. This may, to answer your question, be a time in which many are required; that, I think, is the greatest problem: there are too many countries which must change their behaviour, and none of them seem willing to be the first to act because of fears of how it would affect its particular economy. Horribly short sighted, as if we don't stop destroying the environment immediately, there won't be economies at all. Is it possible for one entire nation to demand change just because it's the right thing to do, even if its population might be worse off financially? What would it take?
DeleteSam, and the rest of you, you might find this interesting. Realistic vision for how individual cities can make a difference in climate change. Perhaps we could start with Rossland?
ReplyDeleteImagine closing your eyes for a fraction of a second and having your entire world go up in flames. Imagine your house having disintegrated into rubble; the life you knew and loved having disappeared in a sudden blitz of chaos and destruction. That, my friends, is the monster of climate change. Our earth, according to the man in the video, is declining at an unprecedented rate with every degree Celsius our globe increases in temperature.
ReplyDeleteThe video, to be perfectly honest, put into perspective an issue to which I had never really paid attention for the better part of my life. I was one of those people who thought that climate change was,
a) a myth,
and b) easily resolvable.
I thought we had all the time in the world to deal with this issue and that the world would ultimately right itself. I now know better. This video has taught me that we can't keep ignoring this pertinent issue. We need to do something NOW if we want to have any hope of combatting this type of problem in the future. This needs to happen TOMORROW so we can fix the problems of our ancestors to NOT be so far gone by the time our effects finally catch up with our world. We, as beings of adaptation, need to take this seriously because we're only going to drive ourselves into the ground if we don't.
To respond to Sam's bit about how our political agenda of today doesn't reflect the needs of the human race, I must completely agree with that point. What we've seen in the politics of today is the crux of democracy. I disagree respectfully to Sam's idea, however, that our systems of today are unrepresentative. I think that, au contraire, our political systems are the most representative of their day, reflecting the wide-spread and uneducated view of our society towards the environment. The politics of today, in my opinion, are fruit of generations past who didn't acknowledge the necessity of, as Sam put it, environmental education. Our politics are representative of the political views of generations who didn't care about the environment, to put it bluntly.
That's why the duty of environmental restoration is going to fall on our generation...and to be honest, that worries me. We need to get the word out NOW, not tomorrow, not the day after, but NOW so that we can ultimately be united when it is our turn to take care of the country and of the world as a whole. The only frightening thing about that is by that time, according to the video we watched, it'll be much too late to do anything. It'll be irreversible before we can even address the issue in a meaningfully political way.
In terms of the idea of a benevolent dictatorship, I also believe that that is something that wouldn't end up working for us as a human race in the long run, because the idea of democracy that represents the needs of a specific country are too precious to everyone living in them that they wouldn't be willing to hand over their right to choose in exchange for the greater good. Ultimately, the idea of benevolence is relative, and is entirely dependant on culture. What one denomination of people find just and fair, another might find ruthless and dangerous. To unite an entire earth would mean to unite culture and language under a benevolent autocracy—something towards which I think people would be very, very resistant.
I wish I could of watched the whole think before the internet decided that I didn't need to see the whole thing, but from what I saw, I don't really like the look of the future. Our society has become over dependent on non sustainable resources, like oil. What ever happened to a dog being mans best friend, it got replaces, and not by another animal but by cars and trucks. People feel as if they need to go on vacation, or get the latest gadgets. Sports now include things like Nascar or Formula 1, and the Normal sports teams are flying across the globe to play. Today society has become a competely consumerism society and this is what is destroying us. We always feel like we need the newest things that come out and throwing away the old stuff. This is draining resources and polluting the environment. We are creating a toxic living space for ourselves. The air, land, and sea are becoming polluted, our resources are being depleated, we are overpopulating the planet, and we are making are selves more dependent on this corrupt and destructive system by poisoning and crippling our selves with modern food and pharmaceuticals.
ReplyDeletePeople have become greed and they feel intitled to anything they want. We can not keep up living like we are or we are all screwed, and that is one of the best ways to say it.
Humans need to stop their emissions now or we can are our selves to the indangered species list.
Sam made so great points about the government not serving our needs, and I completely agree. I know that this will probably never happen untill it is too late for us to change it. I know that people won't completely change right now but if we all did away with what we don't need we may be able to last a few more years.