Progress VS. Nature

I oscillate between having complete faith in humanity, and believing we are entirely hopeless. This project, unfortunately, has enforced the latter. I tried, as I went into this topic, to have an open, non-biased take on the argument about “what is progress,” but have found myself utterly and vehemently opposed to the way things are and have been since the 20^th century. As a result of my research on Frontiers of the Future and Eating Animals, and further backed by Into the Wild, I have become ever more certain that our human progress drags us increasingly, interminably, incomprehensibly far from nature.

With the arguments laid out about the state of American Progress in 1937 by Lowell Thomas, I entered this project with a heightened understanding of the discovery-driven nature of my people. The video suggests that Americans were, at the time, an intelligent nation filled with scientists and engineers, always on the pursuit of innovation and breakthrough. Having explored the physical bounds of the continental U.S., Thomas states that “The frontiers of the future are not on any map; they are in the minds of men, and in the test tubes and laboratories of the great industries we have built up here in America” (National Industrial Counsel 1937). Thomas appears to imply that mankind has moved beyond the bounds that nature has constructed for us, and it is rather time to explore the apparently limitless facets of our human mind. Herein we not only see the characteristic American Exceptionalism that drives so much of our politics today, we also see a flamboyantly hefty claim that progress must be separate from nature.

Now, having identified a rift between technology and the natural world, the contents of my claim become possible to support. Among his other now-concerning statements, Lowell Thomas maintains that “in coal, we have found the colors of the rainbow and the perfume of nature’s sweetest flowers” (National Industrial Counsel). We know now, of course, that coal scars the natural landscape, creates smog and emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and that is research that has only recently become provable. More important - and more concerning - is the lack of concern for the possible consequences of using a new material. It appears that when the profitable nature of coal was discovered, the possible problems and limiting factors were entirely ignored. Humans have a tendency to act first, analyze later, and in this example we suffered for it. Interestingly enough, even Chris McCandless, who died fighting for his liberation from the Taker ways of our species, shot a moose before he realized that he had no idea what to do with it. In many ways, Chris embodied the archetype of rash human actions without mind for consequence, and perished in a (MAN-MADE) bus because of it. Finally, Eating Animals describes the appalling production of animals for the benefit not only of natural ‘survival,’ but for the benefit of the economy. The current trend among American eating is that we must produce without regard for the well-being of that which we consume. We go so far as to manipulate the lighting in a chicken factory farm in order to biologically trick the chickens into thinking it is springtime (i.e. egg-laying time) (Safran Foer 59). Our ‘ingenious’ use of technology allows us to produce more, faster, for cheaper. This is wrong. This is unnatural.

Lowell Thomas, Chris McCandless and Jonathan Safran Foer all show us that our human desire to explore and innovate and produce is incompatible with the simplistic, thoughtful natural world. KFC is the enemy of the chicken. Progress is the enemy of nature.

My Role in the Project

My role in this project was taking notes on Into the Wild, Eating Animals, and Frontiers of the Future. I spent a significant chunk of time analyzing these sources in relation to each other, making connections between them. I admit I have read Eating Animals in the past, but I still spent time skimming through to find text examples of appalling examples of technology use and interesting insights to the American eating habits. Reading this story a second time helped to remind me why I have tried to reduce my consumption of meat, and made me interested in continuing to do so in my college years, when I have more control over what I eat and how I eat it.

Also, I wrote the section of the rap that was “pro nature,” or more specifically that progress is bad for the preservation of the natural world. I confess I greatly enjoy writing rhymes, I find them entertaining in addition to being rather difficult. For next time, I would ideally make the instructions for the project clearer; they were eventually understandable when Mr. Wensman explained them a few times, but on paper they were tricky. In general I find group projects difficult because everyone has their own work habits, but in this case my group managed to divide our topic up into separate pieces that we could put together at the end.

Overall, I felt like I got a lot out of researching this topic with regards to the texts, but I wish there could have a been a little more time so it wasn’t quite so rushed.

Works Cited

·  Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating animals. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009. Print.

Frontiers of the Future. Dir. Lowell Thomas. Perf. Lowell Thomas. Prelinger Archives, 1937. Film.

Krakauer, Jon. Into the wild. New York: Anchor Books, 1997. Print.

Heroic Flowers

We’ll never know it all. Try as we might to research, analyze, or justify, some things will always remain unexplainable. While the death of Chris McCandless fascinates even the most experienced outdoorsmen and chemists alike, they – and us - will never know exactly what killed him. Understandably, this fact frustrates me to no end. McCandless should have survived; he should have made it out; he was so close. At the same time, however, the uncertainty also comforts me. Why does there have to be an explanation? Is it not be enough that the young man battled, explored and coexisted with nature while woefully unprepared, and - by some fluke of rare organisms or 22-letter amino acids - succumbed to its pre-eminence? By criticizing and over-analyzing his death, we take away from the inspiring charisma and moxie that embodied his life. The sociologist Brené Brown once said in her magnificent TED talk, “religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery, to certainty.” I believe this idea to be applicable to our analysis of Chris McCandless.  The enigmatic young man went to nature and mysteriously died, and for me that is enough. Let us rather focus on what he shows us about our relationship to nature. Let us rather focus on life.

The irony in the tale of McCandless bleeds through the pages of Into the Wild like a gutted boar, yet still I find I admire him. He gave his money to preventing world hunger, and he died of starvation (maybe). He went to nature, yet in a time of desperation found solace and safety in a man-made bus. As a Leaver, he couldn’t cross the river and became trapped in the wild, but a technological zip-line near him could have been his salvation. The subtle mistakes made along his journey led to his downfall, but not only did Chris McCandless never lose his hope, he never lost his happiness and staggering joie-de-vivre. As Shakespeare said, "And this, our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything." McCandless was able to find happiness through the world around him. By driving away, he evaded the broader constructs of a society built on pragmatism and reason, and instead chose to focus on the development of his own peace of mind. As Thoreau implores of us in Walden, “simplify, simplify, simplify.” Everything about Into the Wild implies that McCandless renounced his worldly possessions and brought it all back to the basics, and everything implies that he found happiness in doing so. Even while dying, he manages to admire the blueberries around him and the wonderful life he has had. We could learn a thing or two from him.

So what does McCandless teach us about our relationship to nature? The simple, ubiquitously discussed answer is that we are far-removed and will only destroy the world if we carry on as we are, and thus Chris’ actions are admirable and politically correct. Perhaps this is true, but a complex human such as Chris deserves a more complex conclusion. I believe that Chris shows us that nature is dangerous. It is difficult. It is uncontrollable and inexplainable. And for that we fear it, and we try to make it logical like we do with Chris’ death. But I believe this wholehearted adventurer shows us that the path to our happiness - the path to righteousness even - doesn’t necessarily correspond to the safe, explainable, or easy way. Sometimes, to find fulfillment, we have to do what’s difficult. Chris felt the Call of the Wild more acutely than anyone I have ever heard of. In his quest for his true path, he died, but he also managed to break the bonds of society and find nature in a way I wish I could. As George Carlin says, “I like it when a flower or a little tuft of grass grows through a crack in the concrete. It’s so fuckin’ heroic.” Chris was a hero and a martyr, and despite the obnoxious human tendency to criticize, I will never believe otherwise.

The Willmore Range, Alberta, CA

Disconnected from Nature- no "buts" about it

As I went about deciding on topics for this project, I came to realize that my daily, urban relationship to nature is prevalent, yet altogether tenuous and far-removed. Every day of the week I see trees, flowers, grass and other plants, yet rarely do I actively interact with these things in a fashion other than agreeable observance. In creating my Vines (which aren’t technically Vines; no smartphone…), I decided to focus on subjects that show a relationship to the outdoors/nature, but also evoke a sense of human involvement or interference. The first video of the birdfeeder illustrates this idea, with the desire to bring more birds to our backyard. I know not of a single human who dislikes the natural sounding, contented chirping of a chickadee, and my family is no exception. We want more birds. But here’s the kicker: for some reason, we dislike the squirrels. The squirrels are a natural, living being, struggling through an awful winter just the same as the birds, but we do not wish to encourage them. Perhaps it’s the scrounging, gnawing habits of the squirrels, or perhaps it’s their lack of color, but we cannot accept them the same as the birds.

The next video moves away from the topic of animals, and rather focuses on greener. My family has enclosed a few plants in chicken wire, obviously in order to prevent rabbits from killing them. I say obviously because, while not everyone does this, everyone knows what the enclosure does: keeps nature away from nature. Like the squirrels, the rabbits have an apparently abhorrent tendency to eat, and since we humans gravitate towards the idea of nature as a pristine being, we wish to guard our ornamental plants from the destructive wild. The irony herein is that by keeping food from animals, we are actually destroying them.

Finally, moving away from living things, the third video aims to show an interesting human relationship: as children (and now), we love to play outside, running through the woods, rolling in the grass, hiding in the shrubbery, etc. However, apparently these activities are dangerous and uncouth, so we build playgrounds and twirly-things for ameliorated enjoyment. In the case of SPA, we built a giant fake rock. We understand that kids will be kids (that is to say, they’ll climb on stuff), so we gave them a “safe-place” to do so. Perhaps there is an inherently more natural feeling of enjoyment when playing on something that resembles nature, so we simulate this idea with man-made plaster and concrete. Trees would be too “dangerous.” Playgrounds would not be “classy” enough. So a fake rock fits a man-made bill of societal-built ideals.

Overall, these videos aim to portray and exemplify an inherent desire we humans have to surround ourselves with natural depictions, but remove ourselves from the turmoil, concern and annoyance that nature actually entails.

Overpopulation: Be More Leaver-y

There’s too many of us. Such has been the message of my environmental science class, of Ishmael, of Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and of Dan Brown’s Inferno. The works I’ve encountered in the last 8 months by environmentalists, mystery writers and earnest students alike has showed me that the fundamental problem with humans is that we always find ways to make more humans.

            In my environmental science class last semester I encountered an article that cites Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson. Wilson calculated based on the available arid land that if every single person were to convert to vegetarianism now, the world could have enough food for 10 billion people. However, if we continue to live the American meat-etarian diet, the world would have enough food for 2.5 billion people. What concerns me is the fact that we currently are in the middle of these two figures and in general show no sign of curbing neither our consumption nor the global population.

http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

            To further our problems, many of our belief systems encourage population growth even to this day. We all know the debate of Planned Parenthood vs. Prolife from an ethical standpoint (i.e. should we have a say over women’s bodies), but we don’t even think about the population side. Similarly, there are plenty of environmental organizations that try to promote green energy, biking, coral reefs, forests, arable land, pandas, polar bears, etc., but I don’t believe this is the heart of the issue. The problems spawn from human spawning. We don’t destroy forests for pastures because we’re inherently evil and have an implacable vendetta against Brazilian trees, we destroy forests because we are prolific and actually need more pastures to sustain us. It’s a simple supply and demand: more people means we need more energy, means we build more oil pipelines and frack more gas. This enters the heart of Ishmael and the idea that as Takers, we “grow without limit” (Quinn, 163). The pipeline will probably disrupt some species of migrating elk and the gas burn-offs might screw over the polar bears, but hey we have more population so we must supply more energy.

            To me, the most frustrating part of this discussion is that we have ways to make a change, but can’t. The W.H.O. says there are 222 million women worldwide who would use contraception if they had access to it. So for goodness sake why don’t we send more condoms!? The American meat industry is one of the most wasteful practices on the planet, so why don’t we eat less meat!? I know the answers to these questions, and I know the discussion is drastically more convoluted than the black and white I make it out to be, but there are solutions, and we – always our Taker selves - ignore them. Before, I didn’t like the titles “Takers” and “Leavers.” A recent epiphany (like 4 seconds ago), however,  just revealed to me that we are Takers because we reap the benefits of Earth and never give anything back.

            Dan Brown’s novel Inferno tells the tale of Robert Langdon, who is recruited by the W.H.O. to track down Bertrand Zobrist, who aims to spread a virus…

http://www.jofletcherbooks.com/2012/11/here-be-spoilers/

It so happens that this virus is released, and makes one third of the women of the world infertile. While this is a drastic measure, I find myself drawn to it, like I’m drawn to the unbelievably persnickety rigidity of Jainism and its environmental sustainability. If the world is at a point where I’m attracted to a lifestyle where carrots are off-limits (eating them kills the whole plant), then there must be something wrong. In general, I believe that the little things do matter. But maybe we’re at the point where we really do need to become Leavers again.

Change your ways, old sport?

I struggle to keep up. It seems to me that every day there’s a chicer iPhone, a funnier website, or a gorier video game. Perhaps it’s my incompetence with technology, but I - for some mystical reason – never seem to discover these delicacies of the modern age until the current of their apparent ubiquity drags me into the mainstream. When my parents asked me about memes a few years ago and I didn’t have an answer, I was terrified (my parents had started hearing about something and I still wasn’t sure what it was?!). Aside from my eternal pursuit (and frustrating behind-ness) of the technological band-wagon, I feel conflicted. While class videos, dystopian authors and luddites make me wary with their incessant warnings of the dangers of the screened life, a part of me cannot help but long for a greater role in the brainchild of my generation.

            I rarely remember lines from movies and books, but Nick Carraway’s comment from Gatsby is the closest thing I’ve ever come to finding a prayer. As he experiences the debauchery of downtown New York, Nick eloquently reflects that he feels, “within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.” As I think about my relationship to technology, this quote springs to mind. I feel enthralled, driven, possessed even by the power of technology. I’m hooked by the sexiness of Googleglass, the modernity of SIGHT systems, and the humanity of robotics. I am fascinated by the advancement and intellectual improvement of our species. We always innovate. We always create. For example, we now have telescopes with such a high degree of magnification that we can actually see over 13.6 billion years into the past. Research has shown that our human genes can store digital data in as much capacity as to store yottabytes of information (10²⁴ bytes). If I want to learn about bees, I can watch a TED talk recording by the world’s leading entomologist Marla Spivak with just a few clicks. This is tip of the iceberg, and this is awesome. To me, technology is the “project of humanity” addressed in Steve Fullers TED talk, and I am a part of it. I am within.

            But I fear what it will do. After reading Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, I became painfully aware of my own faults. In the past I have noticed not always being able to focus for long stretches on a novel. Now, however, knowing that my inability to do so might be as a result of my technological lifestyle, I am afraid. Sedentary lifestyles are increasing. E-waste is accumulating. The humans in WALL-E have lost bone structure because of their obesity. The televisions in Bendito the Machine II possess and destroy aboriginal society. A man actually hacks a human woman in SIGHT. Are these dystopian predictions really all that far removed from the truth? Will this be the result of our commitment to human ingenuity? I do not know, and have only become more uncertain through class discussion. I am without.

            What scares me above all is the effect technology has on my desires. I want the power of a Smartphone. I want to experience the world through Googleglass. I want to watch Sail Cat.

Taken from Reddit.com

            I mostly agree with Nick Carraway. It’s an indubitably exciting and terrifying Brave New World. My question: is it really inexhaustible? Obviously there are pros and cons to our technological propensities, but since I lack certainty, for now I am content to live just a step behind my classmates.