Dear God... Wait, dear Mother Nature...

I was baptized Methodist, I had a First Communion and a Catholic Church, and I went through the Confirmation process as a Methodist.  In essence, I am one big religious hodgepodge.  I came to St. Ben’s identifying with the Methodist religion; however, I will leave more feeling more spiritual than anything.

I find myself experiencing feelings of confinement when in conversations or events of religious nature, partly because I have yet to find a complete doctrine that I feel comfortable with.  To me, spirituality allows me to be more holistic and at peace with myself.  Spirituality is more centering and I believe fully experiencing spirituality brings me closer to nature.  Over winter break I went dogsledding with a group of students/ Sisters from these institutions in Ely, Minnesota at the resort of a Johnnie Alum, Paul Schurke.  Throughout the five days we were there, we prayed the Monastic rhythm and spent a considerable amount of time outside meditating.  I learned a lot in that time.  I arrived at the trip with a very anthropocentric view of nature.  But after simply being in nature, I am more holistic. 

Through conversations with Paul, we learned of the possible plans to break in to the Boundary Waters for development and drilling.  I had never been to the Boundary Waters before but after going, I would strongly advocate against the development in any part of it!  I was able to appreciate what it means to be a human in my times meditating in the Boundary Waters.  We came in and left no trace of our brief appearance – a pattern I wish the human race in general can make happen more frequently.  

So although I know that there is a larger power up there, I don't know if I can say it's the same God that is recognized by other religions.  For now I think I'm better celebrating Mother Nature. 

One banana, two banana

                I was very impressed with the pollution group’s presentation.  Pollution is a very pertinent issue to all generations and often when it is talked about, the argument is very one-sided and flat out scary.  The pollution group managed to provide us with information about many different types of and sides to the pollution issue.  Focusing on many different types of pollution will help us see what areas of our lives we can change in order to help decrease the amount of pollution we are generating.

Laura’s banana segment was great!  I guess I always thought that since it’s a banana, it has to be healthy and have a healthy and safe history.  Not true.  After learning about the interactions between bananas and plastic bags it almost makes me want to seriously consider not eating the bananas that come from there!

My trip to Hawaii was enlightening for the reason I brought up in class.  Their state-wide plastic bag ban has really taken off over there.  The citizens are used to it – the tourists are another story – but I think we can learn a lot from the implementation of that program.  How easy would it be to keep reusable bags in your car or purse for use when you go to the grocery store?  So easy!  Although I have to admit there are lots of things that I do with paper bags: use as recycling bags in the house, making crafts with the kids at daycare, etc. that I would no longer be able to do.  But for the sake of my planet, that’s a risk I would be willing to take!

Brown chicken, brown cow

The in-class debate about the use of GMO’s helped me look at superfoods, or frankenfoods, through a new lens.  Until the presentation, I honestly believed that we needed to be producing more food.  However, after listening to the presentation I realize that we just need to be more mindful consumers.  Thinking at our school alone, we waste hundreds of pig barrels of food each year.

Western societies eat way too much beef.  Beef is an extremely inefficient food to produce, as it uses a lot of water and produces by-products of methane gas.  As an alternative, the group encouraged us to eat less beef and increase our consumption of more efficient foods such as greens, vegetables, and fruit.  Even small steps such as making meat an accessory to your meal instead of the main course can get us thinking in the right direction.  Now I don’t know that I could go as far as becoming completely vegan or vegetarian; however, I would be willing to take some steps to decrease the amount of meat I consume.  

My roommate’s boyfriend sells dog food and he informed me that there are 143 million chickens every year for the pet industry alone.  That’s 143 million chickens that 3^rd world countries could be eating!

Obviously, ignorance plays a key role in this issue.  A common solution to combat ignorance is education; however, I strongly believe that the issues of food production, GMO’s, and hunger are not going to see a change unless something drastic happens to our country such as a famine or a parasite infection that wipes out a large percentage of our cattle.

Not just human populations!

Putting together our presentation on population was very insightful.  Admittedly, I narrow-mindedly thought that population involved humans only.  It was not until other group members began suggesting animal and other populations for parts of our presentation that I realized the flaws in my thinking.  If you polled the class however, I doubt I was the only one who thought that way.  Our anthropocentric nature is to consider ourselves first.  Very seldom do we consider populations of plants and animals before our own. 

Looking into the zebra mussel population raised interesting ethical dilemmas for me.  Even after listening to the discussion points brought up by the small groups, I still am unsure as to where I stand on the issue.  Yes it is hard to give the zebra mussels rights.  After all, they are only zebra mussels.  But it was because of human intervention that they are here in the first place!  They are not intentionally choking out native species and causing recreational nightmares.  They are doing what they do best, living!  Jessey pointed out that the human population could be considered invasive and that seems to illustrate that it is not our position to determine how the zebra mussel population should be controlled.  It is likely social ecologists would relegate our interventions.  Their understanding of our domination over other species would likely be considered when determining how to appropriately control the zebra mussels population.

It is obvious that the zebra mussel population cannot be controlled by predators here (in the United States).  My suggestion is very anthropocentric.  I think the policy and regulations are moving in the right direction.  Referring to the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, invasive species do need to be carefully tracked and monitored.

Well hello climate change! It's me, an American.

Climate change is real.  Although scientists haven’t been able to piece together many individual answers, the big picture is complete.  Climate change is a normal pattern for the Earth to go through.  Throughout the existence of the Earth, the temperature has fluctuated from extreme to extreme on both ends.  However, the temperature increase our planet is going through seems expedited by human behaviors and lifestyles.

What I find appealing about the climate change debate is how preventable or sustainable this problem is.  As discussed in class, individuals can make a difference in the ‘carbon footprint’ they leave.  I do not write this blog with the ultimate solution to climate change.  As a society we need to encourage the discussions that bring people of multiple viewpoints together.  We tend to gravitate towards those who have the same or similar viewpoints as ourselves; meaning, we may be losing out on opportunities to cultivate ideas from both sides.

So what do I have to say to the skeptics and contrarians?  I would tell them to practice open mindedness and explore the science behind climate change.  It is extremely difficult to reach absolute conclusions in science because many of the mediums are changing.  Scientists do their very best to create models that explain climate change and predict future happenings.  That is not to say that that the numbers they find are null and void. 

It seems that we have reached a point in the climate change progression that we cannot prevent climate change.  Instead, we need to work with the resources and knowledge we have to adapt our lifestyles and behavior to make them more sound with what is best for us and the environment.

A Grizzly Interpretation of Treadwell's Lifestyle

Honestly, I did try really hard to interpret the documentary, Grizzly Man, with an open mind.  I found that really hard to do.  Timothy Treadwell lived a confused, controversial, and lonely life.  I was unable to see which ethical lens Treadwell would most likely identify with.  His unique relationship with animals in combination with his deep hatred and resentment for the human population negates him from many of the traditional ethical theories we have learned about.  Treadwell would not fit in with deep ecologists as they believe and support the untouched natural world.  Through his research, it seemed as though he only found sanctity in the grizzly bears and foxes.

Although I may seem a bit critical of Treadwell’s life choices, I do think that he managed to do something very few humans ever can do.  He managed to surrender all obligations to human civilization and live in conjunction with a species that met the needs that he had.

Do I agree with Treadwell’s lifestyle?  No.  Would it be one that I would ever choose?  No.  Ultimately, I believe that he caused more harm to the bears than help.  He humanized the bears which is very dangerous.  In the scene where the other filmmakers were throwing stones at the bear, he had an opportunity to step in and stand up for the bear but he didn’t.  Yes, he exposed many hours of natural footage of the bears but in the long run if he really believed the bears needed protecting, he should have left them unexposed.  

A Common Ground for the Extremes

Both deep ecology and ‘Into the Wild’ are extreme in their field.  Deep ecology represents a radical environmental viewpoint; and ‘Into the Wild’ depicts a young man’s escape from the life box he felt he was trapped in. 

            Alex Supertramp, as he dubbed himself, grew up in a very affluent home.  He followed the traditional life path for many men his age.  He graduated from high school with good grades and soared through college.  Upon graduation he fled to the unknown.  Jumping from state to state, he befriended homeless people and old men to survive.  There was more than anger and rebellion that was driving him to establish this new life.  He was trying not to be found!

It is clear that Pojman and Pojman find humor and little validity to deep ecology.  Described as ‘an ideological toxic dump’ (167), the meaning in the title deep ecology seems to undermine everything environmentalism stands for.  The vocabulary used to describe the philosophy is extreme.  They describe famines as ‘nature’s population control’ and argue against immigration into the United States as to ‘protect our ecological resources’ (167).    

Reading about deep ecology reminded me of the speaker we had on campus last week.  She criticized environmentalism.  “I have a real problem with environmentalism because you portray such a strong hatred for the human race”, she said.  I hesitate to even say this but I think deep ecology is the type of environmentalism Ann has a problem with; and for the matter, I do too!  I have a problem with a theory that magnifies the destruction by humans on the Earth.  Deep ecology lessens the superiority of humans (169).  However, Pojman hits the nail on the head when they point out a hole in deep ecology – the failure to account for the ‘social nature’ of humans.  We are products of the relationships we make – something most animal species cannot form.  I could see Alexander Supertramp as a deep ecologist.  He enters the wild to become one with nature.  The culmination of his life represents a tie between deep ecology and ‘Into the Wild’.  Nature took its course and Alexander Supertramp was taken home.