First, in the Jensen piece, indeed a very harsh "manifesto" of sorts,
we are reminded very sarcastically that "non-humans" don't matter when
it comes to our desire for progress. Certainly, this is what we have
discussed at length in Artie's class this semester. There was also
mention of polar bears and what immediately came to mind was the photo
of one sitting atop of a tiny piece of ice which Artie so effectively
included in one of this PP presentations.
But I found myself
jarred by Jensen's vocabulary and the use of words like "dismemberment"
and "cult". His suggestion that path of the Jews towards the Final
Solution is a strong example of progress and his further classification
of progress as is a drug, an addiction were particular harsh and very
hard to move forward from with any sense of hope or positive feeling
with regards to human beings then and now. Indeed the Nazis, and Hitler
specifically, had a very sick sense of, and a total disregard for, life
and humanity to say the very, very least, but to call that Progress?
Well, I suppose my first reaction to the word is more on the side of
positive. I took a minute to look up the word in a dictionary (actually
not in a physical dictionary, as we have progressed toward
"dictionary.com") and surprisingly, I found the definition to be rather
"Jensen-esque." See for yourself here:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/progress
Regardless
of the truth that this definition and the Jensen piece provides, I
would prefer to have them with a drop of optimism. Is it possible to
acknowledge past transgressions, decisions, and overt wrongs with
regards to our treatment of the environment, and human beings and
proceed more carefully and thoughtfully toward a more sustainable
world? Is this not progress?
The Schellenberger &
Nordhaus piece was equally tough. The Venice scenario was an
interesting example that they provided and one I was not really aware
of.
Once again, themes from our classes with Artie were
sprinkled throughout, such as mention of deforestation, overfishing, and
Global Warming (specifically "Human Impact". The authors also pointed
to the Industrial Revolution and post WWII as prominent dates in the
history of our thinking and relationships towards resources, modernity,
and materialism. These were also mentions in Artie's class.
Discussion
of greenwashing in order for us to "express" our "higher moral status"
reminded me of many a discussion with Grazyna this semester.
As an aside, I also could not help but think that with the mention of the development
of our more "modern hands" and opposable thumbs, such were better
adapted for tool use...more specifically to TEXT! :)
On
The S & N piece in Orion Magazine, there were alot of terms being
thrown around such as "knowledge economy", "ecotheology" and
"modernization theology." I found myself tripping over these terms and
thoughts, but the overall message and the modern day parallel of Occupy
Wall Street and even the religious comparisons were quite compelling.
It is like sitting in church and having the priest go on and on about
the folks who are not coming to church on Sundays! Hello...I am
here...they are not...talk to me!!!
Indeed we have the higher
echelon of thought and commerce in our society feeding this fear based
frenzy of "doom and gloom" scenarios while jetting off to one of their 4
homes around the world or outsourcing goods and services to poor
countries instead of challenging our home base. None of it makes any
sense and indeed is wildly hypocritical!
The article goes on and
on, placing all blame and disregard for all "non-humans" square on our
shoulders. It is hard to dispute all of this, but again, were is the
hope? To say that "in attempting to solve these problems, we will
inevitably create new ones" is pretty harsh and defeatist. I suppose
this exemplifies how severe and huge these problems are, but that makes
me feel more bad about trying to do things less bad.
I read "The
Architect Has No Clothes" by Nora's suggestion prior to her having
assigned it. I found it to be a fascinating look at how we all see
things differently, but to qualify that with some science restores a bit more faith in me. It reminded me of the Gayle Epp piece and the MIT
study, and how you had 4 different people looking at a project, and
where the professional od design almost seemed the least clued in!
More
reference to the Industrial Revolution, and an alternative perception
of what other effects it has had on us and society since rather than the
typical positive raves it received when I was in school was a theme yet
again. It is interesting to see its significance be explored under the
filter of sustainability and design today.
I do, however, feel
that the authors were a little hard on Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe
and the whole Modernist movement. It seems an over simplification to
say that they stood dramatically apart from context almost for the sake
of being different. Was it not this architectural movement that spurred
on the invention of such modern marvels as the elevator and bridges?
Maybe
it is because I am a designer that I do not fall into the clutches of
the "emperor's new clothes" as I do not have a problem questioning
architects and their ignorance when it comes to total design. I look
around me and where I live and I see a lack of imagination, a lack of
research, and a lack of thought for humanity when I think of the
monstrosities they dub "McMansions." I see the failure of a planned
community, or "mini-urban center" that was fairly recently built in my
community without much thought to the environment, the people or to the
economy. Certainly aesthetics were not considered as well. But are we
missing the boat and trying to capture this idea of community and
neighborhood when that is not really what people want nowadays? I look
at Celebration, Florida as I mentioned in class and I do not see a
person or a child outside walking or playing.
