Final Ideas

So I've been thinking about my final paper, and at first I wanted to do the Zapatista Movement because I saw a souvenir Zapatista doll that my friend bought for her dad in a gift shop in Chiapas... or Oaxaca I can't remember.

But then after reading about climate change and glaciers melting I started thinking about Nepal because I'm going there, and I found a book about melting glaciers in mountains and it said that Nepal is going to be especially vulnerable to this situation because of the lack of organization in their government. I knew a little bit about the monarchy being overthrown... and then I asked Zanto what I should do and she said the maoist party in nepal.... so I researched and Maoism and Nepal in our library and found this book called New Nepal: The Fault Lines, and its all about the unstable structure of the Nepalese government, and so far it seems really interesting. So I think I want to do that as my project. Shaky Nepalese Gov't? Political Instability in Nepal? I don't know exactly how to word it because I am still learning about it.

It relates to our coursework in how it was inspired. It was inspired by the article about Tajikistan. It has to do with why unequal effects of global warming are especially unequal. The people of Nepal will be hit especially hard by global warming if the government isn't able to stabilize and start working toward important goals of human rights as well as begin implementing strategies for global warming adaptation.

It relates to social sustainability in the area of people deciding for themselves. The government has undergone these monumental changes because the people want representation. Under the caste system many nepali people were under represented and when the maoists came, they pledged a system that would bring greater equality; however, the maoists strategies are violent and the system is dated. Mao was a corrupt leader. Maoism and communism to me ring two very different bells and strategies. The old government, the monarchy is not a system that can keep up with the new ideas of the world. The monarchy and maoism were the main forces in Nepal. This is about where I've gotten up to in my research so far.

But this problem addresses social sustainability in the area of communication and listening to the people. The people's voices are lost between the two powerful forces.

So far, I've looked at a book called Darkening Peaks: glacier retreat, science, and society; New Nepal: The Fault Lines; and a lot a lot a lot of youtube videos. 

Really interesting stuff. really complicated issues.

Thoughts on Social Sustainability

So what is social sustainability? I think a big part of it is letting the people speak for themselves. This means really good listening, and communication. I think social sustainability has a lot to do with truth. So what does truth mean? I think truth has to do with meaning what you say as best as you understand it. Which comes back to communication, but it has to do with trying one's best at understanding a complex situation. Actually, in math (sorry I used to be a math nerd), the truest solution is the one in its simplest form, which is actually really interesting to think about in terms of social sustainability.....

There are some simple concepts that are socially sustainable: Fairness (equality) is one of them. How to make something equal, well that becomes pretty complex, when one takes into consideration existing societal structures, complex natural cycles, etc. Unequal effects of global warming is not fair. Rich people eating while poor people starve is not fair.

Social sustainability has to promote a healthy environment because without a healthy environment, we are dead.

Social sustainability has to be adaptable to change. Basically it should follow the principles of permaculture :)

Social Sustainability = Sustainability = Life (that equation can be switched around because people aren't the most important in my view... I'ld rather the people go and the earth stay rather than the earth go and the people stay, personally, but I'm going on a tangent)

Death of Environmentalism

I think the problem with systems is that they often don't leave room for adaptation. Actually, we always kind of deal with this issue: the tradition vs. the youth. The healthiest forms of... i don't know what to even call it... but the healthiest things... leave room for new ideas. Like how the constitution is a living breathing document... I don't know how great an example that was but what I am trying to say is that its not sooo bad that environmentalism might be dead.

The article spoke about how we always try to make the environment into something separate from humans, and it is completely part of us. We are part of the environment the environment is part of us. People slowly are beginning to realize this. And since it an important step to improving the environment, if traditional environmentalism can't get on board with that, it won't continue being beneficial, it will actually probably be more harmful. In fact, at times the article talked about things where it seemed like the environmentalist party was trying to harm themselves.

Environmentalism isn't even necessarily a great word for the cause because it makes its seem like the environment is a separate issue. So maybe its time for a new name that is more suiting to the problem. An idiot proof name that doesn't allow people to think its a separate thing.

Communication is a huge issue. Words have a lot of baggage tied to them, and the baggage isn't necessarily the definition. We need to learn to communicate what we truly mean, which is hard to do sometimes. 

Global Warming Effects Those Who Contribute to it the Least

This article was definitely powerful to read. Especially when I read about how Tajikistan's "people emit less than 1 tonne of carbon dioxide per head, compared to nearly 20 tons by citizens of North America." Yet they are carrying the the brunt of the burden of Global Warming. Tajikistan is a country with an agriculturally based economy, and the 2-4 degree temperature rise effects these kinds of people the most severely. In the united states we have a lot of the technology to at least temporarily cope with these kinds of problems, but in agronomic nations it's not easy to have access to these technologies for financial reasons and especially when the weather is disrupting your source of income. Its just not fair that these people have to pay the consequences for our mistakes/ignorance/insensitivity half way across the world.
The weather is really important. I remember a conversation I had with someone when I went to Mexico who was telling me how these pathetic guys were going to try to pick me up by talking about the weather, and how stupid that was because the weather is always "beautiful." Of course this person meant it in a different way.... and I still think that's a dumb way to pick someone up....... hmmm it depends on how you're talking about it....
The weather is important to talk about because it affects people's survival. In an industrial and developed context we undermine it because we are so detached from our sources of life. And now that we have affected it so drastically we need to be thinking about it all the time because its affecting us.
We have to start adapting. We need a sense of urgency. We don't have that sense, at least it doesn't seem so among the people I mostly know. I think apathy and self insignificance is the new international pandemic.
I really liked some of the ideas the article mentioned. I love passive solar thermal control. I feel like it was using a lot of principles of permaculture. Permaculture is great because its all about being self sufficient and using principles of nature for growth.
I didn't completely understand the parts about money being put into global warming because I don't know how much government money is put into other things. I would like something to compare it with.
The part about the glaciers melting reminded me of time I spent trying to do some volunteer work in a town near Cuzco. I was supposed to be installing clean burning stoves in rural communities and helping to make water filters. Then I found out from one of the volunteers that the glacier supplying water to the community was expected to melt in 5 years. Definitely made my work seem futile, but people need to think about the big picture as well as the little picture.
I wish we could all just start over, but thats kind of impossible, we have to find a solution that goes with what we have and move on towards different ways from there.
Good luck world!

Interesting Chart Ma Mama Showed Me

View more statistics at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

"Its the Inequality, Stupid" haha I love it!

 

Privilege

Yes, completely, white people, especially white males have privileges that others do not, but I thought this was explained much better in the environmental racism chapter (I believe chapter 3) than in this article. The article stated that there are often many more contributing factors than race to the white privilege and I feel like "From The Ground Up" really hit on them. There is still segregation in our country, which usually keeps not white people suppressed financially. In our capitalist society, no money usually equals SOL.

I do think the article made some good points for a short article I was just expecting it to seem a little more profound...

And although I know that the points brought up were the most common situation around the United States, I found myself questioning a lot of points. I grew up in Queens, NY, which I believe may actually be the most diverse place in the world. I went to elementary school being one of the only white people. In middle school I was one of three white girls in a mainly latin american student body. My kindergarden teacher was black... after that I had mostly white teachers.

Once I was told by a "good" friend that I had only gotten an A in a class because I was white. I was really offended because I worked really hard in that class... but maybe she was right on a much deeper level than she realized.

I guess this article was a little hard to read because I don't want to be that subconsciously racist white person, but I guess I kind of will be until I start taking real action to help mitigate the negative effects on others from my privilege.

But we have to think about how white privilege works. The united states is mostly white people. As far as I know (and I could just be being completely ignorant), white being the main race is not caused by underlying racism. There is going to be a minority of people no matter where one goes.

So the attitude of the culture needs to change towards minorities. Minorities should be embraced and respected into the culture they are entering, and not just because they are a minority... and they shouldn't have to represent their race either. They should be embraced because they are a human being.

I don't think the bandage issue raised in the article was so terrible. Less people equals less demand. Yes flesh bandages should come in every color, but one also has to be realistic.... right.... ugh I don't know.

I think white privilege is more a cultural attitude problem than it is a factual problem, if that statement makes any sense. The fact is, yes there is affirmative action, but there was slavery and there is still racism, so why shouldn't there be an effort to balance out the injustices toward black people? And why should they be looked down upon for being helped out when most of their race has been put at an extreme disadvantage and white people have always had a power advantage? (Maybe my comment above wasn't quite true because people's attitudes effect facts of society...)

I think that in a predominantly white country, mathematically it is more probable to find a white person in any position, and I don't think that should be a bad thing... Of course, white people have gone over their fair share of probability in power positions for the number of people belonging to other races in our country, but when we talk about privilege if there were more black people in charge than whites, that would show that black people were superior in someway to have been able to outnumber the power positions in a predominantly white society.

I think once again this points to a flawed power system. People in power need to get off their high horses and realize they did not earn their privilege and that they need to make an effort to make things more racially fair. People also need to be more racially aware. A lot of black people don't act the same as white people. I think it would be stupid to assume that, but a lot of white people don't act like a lot of other white people. So, people need to accept each other for their differences and try really hard not to pass negative or delegitimizing judgements on people. We need to work together so that everyone gets what everyone needs, and it has to come from the people. If its not in the people's hearts it will never come true. There will still be institutionalized racism until people try to come together to make things truly just.

Food Security

I think I'm probably just dumb, but I thought food security would be about making sure that food supply was safe. I didn't realize that it would revolve more around making sure that everyone has enough food. I do understand how food banks in a way promote the continuation of social injustice because basically the rich get the good food and the poor get whatever is available for donation or cheaper. I think it is better than the poor starving, but there is an undertone (that once noticed becomes much louder) of the greedy champagne glass going on here.

I like the idea of communities becoming more self sufficient and trying to grow more of their own food in their homes. It would be great it there could be more community gardens and a local food initiative; however, I do understand that if a family is having trouble with its income, that they will probably also have trouble with taking time to grow their own food.

I've heard somewhere that people now spend more time working for their food than they did when they were living off the land. And what do we get for it? GM foods, corn fed cows, chickens raised in the dark... yea I watched food inc :). But we are working harder (or at least longer) to eat potentially worse food.... and often food that we can cook quickly so we don't have to work even longer for it.

Yes we are working for other "privileges" like housing and schooling and medical technology and transportation, but it seems like their are other ways than our exclusionary society to achieve those goals

In our intro to sustainability class we read about the Papa New Guinea Islanders and their bottom up approach. It worked really well for them because they all grew their own food, sometimes helping one another out, and they lived very democratically. Every decision that was made completely together. There were some people who had more influence just by the nature of their personality, but no one lived more extravagantly than anyone else. There were no rich people taking all the good food and leaving the rest to those who made less money than them.

We need stronger communities. People need to work together. Our exclusive society isn't going to get us very far. It will come back to bite us in the butt no doubt about it.

Also people need to stop popping out so many freaking babies. Unless everyone wants to eat hormone cows and GM corn we have to decrease the demand for food. The world cannot naturally support all the people who are coming to it, and it will become a very freaky GM hormone injected place if people keep shoving their mini-me's into the world. If every woman had 1 baby the population would 1/2. If every woman had 2 babies the population would stay the same. But probably no one is going to do that, so you have to think about all the babies other ladies and families are having. If you have 1 baby and adopt a kid you might be being neutral... but if you just adopt you're helping a little more, I think.