World Water Wars

Scary website.

Which kind of bear is best?

Since 1996, Grizzly bears have been encroaching on the Polar bear's territory. Polar bears have been threatened by extinction from global warning for many years. But now, some studies hypothesize that the Polar bear will disappear even more quickly because of the Grizzly bear encroachment.

Going Green?

I have been considering the green movement a lot lately. I realize that a lot of times it can be trendy and not overly beneficial, however I have come to think that any positive change is good. It is good that going green is popular. It is better than no one knowing or caring about the environment. I am under the impression that the green movement is often mocked for dealing with trivial environmental issues and not addressing the real problem. It is very easy to say what is wrong with the environment. I notice that a lot of times, however, solutions to these problems are not posed. While the small things, like turning of lights and conserving water and being aware of what you are eating, don't fix the problem, they are moving in that direction...

Also, I really liked this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71hz9wNsgs&feature=related

Land Ethic

While on break, one of the first questions I was asked by everyone was what I was doing in school. When discussing this class and our Land Ethic assignment, everyone I talked to was very interested and the discussion opened up so much more.

The first person I spoke to about this was my boyfriend's sister; an avid environmentalist, lover of Thoreau and Emerson and one who looks very carefully at what she grows, eats and feeds to herself, husband and three little boys. She was very interested by the idea of having a single ethic, something she disagreed about. She thought that you could weave many together so as to embrace other ideas and create your own. I agreed with this point as well and think it is important to learn more about other ethics as to build onto your own and become more knowledgeable about what are the discussions going around. For Andrea, her ethic centered around the idea of the world being a temple for us and therefore our our bodies are a temple as well. In believing this, Andrea chooses to embrace nature as much as she can. She grows some of her own vegetables and herbs and cooks organically. She is always reading up on new ways to cook, new opportunities to give back to the land and new technology that is helping the environment. She is also a big believer in Thoreau's idea of "Our lives are fittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify, simplify." By simplifying our lives, one can see what is important and regain a closer relationship to Nature.

When talking to my parents about land ethics, they found the idea a little more difficult. My parents believe that there is something about us growing up that makes us lose this idea of nature. This is something that I talked to them about in discussing my own land ethic, so we continued on about this notion. They also believe that Nature is a way to become closer to God and one's on religion. With my parents being the uber-Catholics they are, they are big fans on outdoor retreats where one brings together this Nature and Faith. Many of my parent's friends had this same idea as well and would build their land ethic around this spirituality.

I enjoyed so much the conversations I had with people about their own land ethics or the notion of having one all together. It was really rewarded to share mine and get feed back as well as get ideas from other people's. Just thought I would share.

New Species Found... Janelle, you'll like this one!

Perhaps we are in our 6th Mass Extinction event, yet perhaps not. Maybe what new species are emerging (or that we are just now discovering) are simply a reflection of the constant evolution of the life-forms on our planet. Out with the old, in with the new, right? And now, ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce... the "Squidworm!"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101124/sc_afp/scienceoceansbiodiversity

A Reaction to Don Lepan's Animals

During our class discussion someone mentioned an issue they had with the book Animals and the "ordering of priorities." I thought that was a good way to describe my thoughts about the text. I was heavily influenced by the book because I believed it was based on a plausible situation, something that could potentially occur if we continue down the path we are on. Without this belief, I don't think the book would have the same effect. For me, the main point of the novel that really stood out was the assignment of value to different creatures, and the extreme seperation between "human" and "non-human" species. It has never occured to me before that the line drawn between human and non-human animals could be blurred and changed over time depending on politics and economic need. That is a truly scary thought. The horrific images of the slaughter house took a second seat to the idea of society's shifting concept of "human." I can recognize that one important point to take out of the reading of this novel is that the way we treat animals as a mere means for slaughter is unnacceptable and the conditions they live in in factory farms are deplorable. However, I think the most striking point illustrated through Sam's story is that of how assigning value to creatures based on their level of "humanness" is a faulty system ridden with error. Ultimately, we must go back to the question of what defines human, and can this definition change over time like it did in Sam's case? Another very important point made is what gives those deemed to be "human" the right to treat non-humans as lesser beings with little or no rights? But I believe the second question easily follows once we acknowledge the issues behind creating seperations between non-human and human animals.

about Le Pan's alternate ending

I just finished reading the "happy ending" of Animals. Which isn't so happy, though Sam escapes by a hair the fate he almost shared with the rest, the line is still very long. My emotionality is relieved that Sam is saved, but I didn't feel the same necessary heavy dread I did after the original version's ending. And I guess what this version really changes is the line between mongrel and human is delineated very clearly, as being deaf is no longer incriminating of mongrelness and Zayne accepts Sam as a child. And I am not sure that I like this and its potential effect on the reader. If Sam is human and the human is at least saved, I don't think there will be as much sympathy for the regular-type mongrels. They are mongrels, after all.

What do you guys think?

"What will they sell us next--air??"

in light of water deprivation,

http://worldwaterwars.com/

Miscommunication and Mass-hysteria

All day and night, people have been talking about the water situation. Whether letting this out through Facebook statuses, treading topics on Twitter or simple communication through friends, it has been on most's mind. I think this situation is a perfect example of the types of things that happen when enviromental issues occur, no matter how big or small.

Many Facebook statues I read followed the lines of "there is no more water in New Orleans," "Since there is no more water, than I miswell drink alcohol," and "Why is a port city is there no water."

Actually, there is water in the city so saying that there is none is abolutely ridiculous. There simple a boil-water advisory; stress on the word advisory. The state is by no means saying that one must boil their water or they will immediately die. They are advising, not mandating. Simply using common sense will keep you safe and sound.

This morning when getting ready, I actually found it interesting to not use tap water of any kind unless boiled or none at all. It put in perspective for me what it is like to have such a luxery. There are many that don't have clean water every day of their life and yet use it as a necessity to survive. I found it an interesting experiment in something that I never really took the time to think about sadly.

I feel that in these types of situations, knowing the facts is key. Don't necessarily believe everything you hear. I heard people in the library today saying they heard that sewage was in the water. This is a misinformed statement that is all hersay. Also, by knowing the facts and using common sense you can stay safe and avoid giving into this panic of confusion.

The same could be said for things like viruses, recalls of food, air pollution on health or other issues. The reports from city and state officials shoudl be read and the procautions taken.

Reflections

I was so surprised that Don LePan was not at all the man who I had envisioned in my mind! For whatever reason, probably because his views came through so clearly in the book, I had expected him to be much more assertive and "forceful" in his methodology behind the text. I guess just as you can't judge a book by its cover, you can't generalize about an author from the name printed on the page!

I really enjoyed LePan's visit. He clarified a lot of points in the book that we actually may have been over-thinking in class, and his simplification of the text's message really helped drive that message home for me.

It was so interesting to hear that certain things that we the readers picked up on were entirely unintentional, such as Broderick's relationship to Sam, etc.

And as far as the word chattel goes, I have to say that I do think that it would have been an interesting "play on words" had it been intended to mean "child-cattle;" however, for those of us who were aware that this word has been in existence for quite some time, I think that that particular argument is difficult to buy. I think sometimes we read too much into the text, which, as analytical readers, I supposed we are called to do to an extent. However, one of the biggest lessons I learned from LePan was that taking things at their face value might be all that is necessary in order to best understand the message. As he said, it's best not to blow things out of proportion... when it comes down to shower-heads and melting glaciers, we are called to act responsibly in accord with what really matters.

Hierarchy

I know that a few people have already discussed the impact of hierarchy into society and the environment, but I was to address it too.

The first is the hierarchy of animals. I remember reading Brianna's post on eating insect. We don't have a problem with eating manufactured farm animals, but most people consider eating free and natural insects disgusting. Many people in other countries are fine with eating insects and many other types of animals especially when they are deficient of certain minerals. Maybe we should start eating more insects, there are so many of them and they are a good source of proteins. I like what Don Le Pan said about how we give meats from food animals the names of poultry, beef, or pork, but we don't do that with other animals. I've spoken to some friends about eating odd foods, or what we consider odd and coming from Vietnam, there is the stereotype that Asian people eat dogs and cats. Though I have never and never intend to, people in my region of the world do, but it's not as much as you would think. It's a very small number of people. And I'm sorry if this upsets or offend some people, but lately I've been thinking what rights do people have in saying they can't eat dogs or cats if they want to. There are so many stray dogs on the streets and if people are hungry and need to eat, then they should be able to if they wanted to. I'm not encouraging people to get dogs as pets and eat them, but if there are places that accepts that, then who are we to say that is immoral to eat dogs. What is the difference between eating a dog and eating a pig, or a rabbit or guinea pig that are also popular pets too? Also, there are so many laws to protect cats and dogs, especially if they are killed are abused, but what about other animals. I'm not saying that our main pets like dogs and cats aren't important, but what about extension of those same rights to other animals. Don't the animals that we will eat deserve rights too?

The other issue is with the hierarchy of humans and animals, how we like to separate the two things as if they are animals and plants. I talked to a friend yesterday and she said that if she was driving and she had to hit a baby or an animal to avoid the other, she would hit the baby instead of the animal and she was very serious about it. I don't know exactly how I feel about that per se, but I wonder if that actually happen how would she be trailed? I'm sure she would be sentence for a long time hitting the by and not hitting the animal instead. As for animal rights, I think that it is more important for us to turn our attention to people. In order to elevate the attention to animals, we need to place more on people because we are the ones that can make the changes necessary to give animals more rights and freedom. I think showing animals on tv and the cruelty they endure in factory farms aren't enough and they haven't made as much impact as we would like. So now we have to get people to make the difference, how so? I'm not sure. I know a lot of people say we need to concentrate on the animals, but in order to do so, more concentration needs to be focus on people because that's the only way we can change them. Animals and plants aren't the ones doing anything wrong, we are.

A Few Words on Chattel and Cattle

I don't claim to be an expert on the writing process. I'm only beginning what I hope will be my future career. But I can say that from my experience now, I would guess that about 40% of writing is unconscious. This is why Roland Bathes' "The Death of the Author" makes sense, I think-- people always want to ask authors "Did you intend this? Did you intend that?" Heck, I've been asked that question on numerous occasions in my high school workshop. Half the time the answer was no-- but I can't convince myself that that actually matters. Once a connection is on the paper, it's on the paper. Who cares what the author intended, really? It's always very interesting to talk to the person who wrote a book, but the act is comparable to having a conversation with the parents of someone you like and respect-- it's always interesting to see how a being was formed or created, but I don't feel like the identity of a book or story or poem or essay should be tied inextricably to the person who wrote it.

Here is what I think may have happened: LePan might have been trying to think of a word for mongrels in factory farms. He had been thinking about factory farming. The word "cattle" had been floating around in his head. Because the word was somewhere in what Freud would refer to, I think, as the foreconscious (I'm only Freudian when it's convenient) the word "chattel" suggested itself easily. A mental path had been paved for it, as it were.

For me, a large part of the writing process is having someone point out to me the unconscious connection I've made, at which point I can harness it and use it to my own advantage. These unconscious connections occur frighteningly often-- for me, anyway-- these intuitive leaps from one word to another, sentences which don't seem to belong but just "feel right". The advent of the word "chattel" in animals may well have been dependent on a similar phenomenon.

Not very well thought out. I need sleep; sorry.

Exciting Visit From Don Lepan

I was so excited to have the chance to discuss Animals with its writer Don Lepan in class today. He wrote a spectacular book and I wanted to know what went in into the process of its creation and gain a better perspective of its land ethic. I was extremely surprised that a lot of the environmental messages were non-intentional and purely coincidental. Its almost unbelievable because I found the novel's agenda to be very broad and carefully constructed. The word chattle is so similar to cattle. The concept of assigning value based on differences that are often inconsequential and from a specific human perspective and the idea that something like this could happen to us one day seem to have been very deliberate. I have concluded that these brilliantly subtle messages were delivered subconsciously out of an inner awareness of the bleakness of our environmental situation.

The British and Happy Endings

I was very interested with the fact that Animals has yet to get a publisher in Britain so I went to go find if there was anything on this. Though this article was from 2006, it does focus on the Brit's need for a happy ending. I found it interesting and thought maybe this could be the reason. Check it out.

Also,

Here is a very interesting article on Animals.


Of Mongrels and Men

Naming

Something that I found interesting in class discussion yesterday was our constant need to name things and organize them into group after group after group. This is something that I feel has come up in all of the works we have read and I am ashamed to admit, something I never thought of before. As a little girl, I was incredibly fond of renaming all my Barbies with each outfit change and the different names my sister and I would come up with for ourselves when playing "pretend". As I got older, I would rename all my friends with nicknames and the places we would go. I never thought of this constant need to name things, know the meaning and the origin of the word as a bad thing. In our class discussion about naming animals, I thought of something though that sort of put it in place for me. In a Christian or Jewish standpoint, God gave the naming work to humans; it was a right and something He only gave to them. For those that don't know, God creates land animals and man (Adam) on the sixth day. Genesis 2:18-21 states that God brought the animals to Adam and whatever he named them would forever be there name. Right here, man has the privilege to name any and every animal what he desires. Even if our Hebrew schools and Sunday schools did not directly teach us that it is man that can name everything, we are taught Genesis over and over as children. The stories are ingrained in our heads and I certainly remember learning over and over that Adam got to name all the animals. This could certainly be one of the reasons subconsciously that we feel this right to name everything around us and especially that which is "below" us. Like Schwartz said, we never name our parents and yet they name us whatever they feel like. We name our dogs, but maybe they are thinking, "ugh really? Thats all ya got?" Very interesting this naming business.

Pacific Life must have read Animals

animal crushing

In fourth grade, I was traumatized after watching a female classmate throw her goldfish that she had just won at the fair on the ground and crush it to death with her foot.

I had no idea this was a "thing" until I read this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/animal-crush-video-ban-house-passed_n_783938.html

Thankfully, the House has passed a ban on creating/posting videos of people crushing animals on film. (However, when this was proposed in 1999, it was not passed). If you decide to look further into this issue, please search with caution. Some images are extremely disturbing.

How can we treat humans as "humans" if we cannot even treat animals as "animals"? And, what does this even mean?

Furthermore, the legislation makes exceptions for films depicting hunting, trapping and fishing. Should it?

LePan's Skyscraper Art

I looked a bit more into LePan's work as a artist and have more information to consider when we discuss his "Land Ethic". While Animals is a destructive and grotesque look into the back corners of American "Land Life", his art work says otherwise.

His paintings are various depictions of Skyscraper Art. This art, he states in his web page are back in full consciousness since the tragedy of 9/11. His Skyscraper Art I feel is a coveting act of nostalgia for American industry. His paintings are images of major human constructs such as Wrigley Field in Chicago and The Brooklyn Bridge. There are several other images that portray cities as a whole, New York and even Toronto, Canada for example.

I'm not sure how you will review them, but I see them as a honoring of "human life" (as best a definition I can give for now).

*This is my favorite, 'Darkness in America' (1997)

LePan's Blog

Hey everyone, I found Don LePan's personal blog on Animals.

Check it out.

ANIMALS

So what do you all think of that book so far? It took me a minute or two to get used to the "interjections" by the author, but this book is growing on me for sure. I find it really interesting that lePan personifies Sam in such a way that it really makes him seem human... this totally gives a different perspective of "pet" as opposed to what we are used to.

Death of Chocolate

http://news.discovery.com/earth/chocolate-supply-threatened-by-cocoa-crisis.html

I was reading this article about how our chocolate source, the cocoa plant, is being depleted. Chocolate is my favorite food. I eat it every night before bed. I especially like dark chocolate. Dark chocolate has become very trendy over the past few years. Dark chocolate requires more cocoa than regular chocolate. Therefor, this trend has increased the demand for cocoa more than ever. cocoa trees are native to the American rain forests. In order to produce more cocoa, cocoa trees are being planted in groves under direct sunlight. This practice reduces the trees' lifespan to about thirty years and calls for more forest to be cut down for growing more trees. It has been predicted that eventually chocolate prices will rise and chocolate will become a rare luxury like saffron. That makes me a little sad.

Werner Fever

The Pacific Trash Vortex post reminded me of this video I saw a few months ago when I was going through a phase of Werner Herzog mania. It is from "FutureStates" which is an online series of short films consisting of what the state of the country and world is imagined to be in a few generations. This one is my favorite, mostly because it is narrated by Werner Herzog, but also because I find it incredibly emotional considering its protagonist is a plastic bag. Check it out:

http://www.futurestates.tv/episodes/plastic-bag

Also, see "Herzog on the obscenity of the jungle" for his take on the chaotic nature of the universe and the rain forest's "harmony of overwhelming and collective murder." He accepts and even embraces the grotesque underbelly of Nature, "but against his better judgement" he says. After mulling over the concept of the difference between killing and death from 'Northern Exposure' yesterday, I was tracing this fine line in my mind and trying to understand what it is about the dying part that is so irreconcilable. I came to a less-than-solid conclusion that perhaps the killing is how we are "animal" (semi-erotic acts of adrenaline, reflex, blood-thirst) and our age old dilemma with death is how we are "human." Now, I trip over my own argument here when I consider other species of animals such as elephants and otters that also mourn their dead--does this somehow make them "human" too? So really, I guess most put most simplistically, killing is instinctual and natural (and loved by Herzog) and contemplation of death is a symptom of consciousness, the ego's anxiety of its own inevitable destruction, and also natural. And I suppose then if you can peacefully accept your own death and loss of ego and not see it as a bad thing, this is also a way to morally reconcile hunting or killing (but beware of slippery slope to inter-species assassination, not necessarily that it is worse to kill a member of your own species than of another but that the latter serves a function and obeys the food chain). I'll stop fumbling over my thoughts now and let you indulge in this odd but dear German man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQyQnXrLb0

Interesting Land Ethic

Just now in my Worldviews and Ethics course, we were talking about Aristotle. After class discussion and such we watched a video of Nic Marks, a British jack of all trades. He helped in founding the New Economics Foundation (I believe) and is the founder of NEF's Centre for Well-Being. He is most proud though of his Happy Planet Index; an incredibly difficult and yet easy way to look at the world, economics, happiness and the environment. At first when I learned about what he was creating and frankly, the way he pronounces Costa Rica, I along with my class thought he was kind of ridiculous. Yet, when I started to think a little more about what he is proposing, I found that is was an interesting land ethic. Marks is proposing that we stop looking at the world negatively, something that the media has popularized with all this apocalypse talk, and just live, produce and work for happiness. Happiness, to Marks, does not cost the world anything. If we just focus on this happiness than we can make things strictly efficient and it will better everyone. While, as a pessimist, I believe this to be unobtainable, idealistic and naive, it does form a land ethic of a certain kind. Marks focuses this idea mostly on the economy but he also hit on the previous stated points as well. Below are some of his videos and the link to his website, everyone should check it out. It may even affect or shape someone else's land ethic.

Website

Video

New Economics Foundation

Inner Peace/Place

So this post will be more of a ramble and not sure if it will be too informative, but I just felt compelled to share it. I don't know what it was - whether I was a bit loopy yesterday, had a great dinner out, with a combination of watching Joel (the doctor) last appearance on Northern Exposure, or maybe I was super happy cause my jacket just came in the mail. ANYWAYS, I had this crazy dream last night and something just clicked and it really made sense, though now I can't reiterate it back fully, but I will try.

First I looked up Northern Exposure and the last episode that Joel (the doctor) appeared in. SPOILER ALERT!!!!

So in Joel's final episode, apparently he had been in the wilderness cause he loved it so much (you can ask Janelle more about this). Well, in the episode, he and that woman are in the snow and he is looking for the fable "Jewel City" of the North, and he just ends up seeing New York through the now and wilderness. So he goes and about to go further so he can get back to New York and he wants her to go with him and she says that is for him and her place is in Alaska. They hug and say goodbye. Later they show her getting a postcard from him and it was a picture of Staten Island with New York in the background and on the back he wrote "New York is a State of Mind" and you see him on a ferry about to reach NYC.

Back to my dream! I know I was in Green Lit, and someone was talking to me about this and I'm going to paraphrase our conversation even though I can't remember exactly what we were talking about or in the context: (it was with a female classmate, but I just can't remember exactly who it was)
Girl: You know sometimes you just have to find your own place to have time to yourself.
Me: I guess it's good to have some peace.
Girl: Well, it's kind of the same thing, when you look for inner peace, you have an inner place. We have a sense of place when we feel or put some symbolism of peace into it, but it is peace that is a state of mind and when you find it or acquire it, you find your place.

So I'm not doing a great job of remembering the whole thing, but something clicked in my dream and in my dream, I told myself I had to post this one the blog. We probably already mention this when we talked about place, but it really resonated in my during the dream. A lot of time we don't often talk about our sense of home or place with psychical attributes, but instead a feeling or a memory. So I wonder if we identify with place because of the peace it brings us and that's why we cling onto it so much. Then on the flip side you have those who are looking for peace. Like in the show Joel found his peace in the wilderness and it lead him back to NYC, which was his 'place/home'. So when we are looking for the inner peace, once we get of some peace within ourselves, we have found our 'place' per se. That is where we have peace and comfortable with things. Well, sorry for the ramble, just thought I should post this.

I want this.

So very badly do I want this.

Pacific Trash Vortex

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation

I came across a perfect example of how our land ethic has changed over the last 50 years. Our approach to overfull land fills and garbage pollution in the 50's consisted of dumping large amounts of garbage into the ocean. The idea of diluting the problem of pollution seemed to take care of the issue. However, many years later, we have a large expanse of water filled with circulating trash, killing fish, sea turtles, and other marine life. Back then people thought that the ocean was so vast and deep that any amount of garbage wouldn't even make a dent. Now we have a much clearer understanding of just how much our actions have had an affect on our world. The link above shows the paths of circulating trash in the ocean. National Geograpahic also has some disturbing pictures of the trash, mostly netted together casting a dangerous potential trap for sea life.

Night Canoeing

Last Friday, I joined Dr. White on his annual Fall Canoe Trip. It was open to all students so the group was made up of people with all kinds of different majors. Some people were experienced canoe-ers and others had never picked up a paddle. But, overall it was the perfect group.

We drove about an hour northwest to the swamp area between Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Maurepas. Dividing up into two's, we paddled beneath I-55 into the swamp. Dr. White explained the flora and fauna and pointed out which plants were native to the area and which plants were not. For a while, we paddled up a man-made canal heading toward Lake Maurepas. Then, we turned off into a Cypress forest were the tall trees nearly blocked out the setting sun. We passed an abandoned fishing camp that was making its way beneath the waters and one by one we made our way through the forest. Exiting the trees, the sun set and we stopped to eat on the marshes.

Dr. White asked the group, "Is this wilderness?" I knew the answer was no. At some points along the trip, you could hear cars passing on the interstate. But, beside the occasional noise, the man-made canal, and the intruding plant species, it looked like wilderness and it felt like wilderness. In fact if that wasn't wilderness, then what is??

The best part of the trip began after the sun set. Without flashlights (Edward Abbey would be proud), we made our way back through the Cypress forest in the dark. I've canoed many times, but never at night. It was a humbling experience. Exiting the forest, the skies opened up to reveal hundreds of stars. Our guide pointed out all of the visible constellations as I laid on my back in the canoe--just yards away from three alligators.

I recommend that everyone go on this trip before you graduate. It was free and, more importantly, freeing.

Sexually Confused Bugs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11694374

Female insect pheromones are being sprayed on male insects to encourage mating between two males rather than with insect females. This is supposedly the solution to the use of pesticides because it means that the pests harming crops will not be reproducing. The problem is that even with the use of pheromones, pesticides are still needed to keep the insect population under control when dealing with crops. Also, no one really knows how the use of pheromones to alter insect sexuality will affect the ecosystem. This is just another addition to the pattern of humans hurting the environment by trying to fix the environment that they have destroyed.

This should technically be a comment on Tien's post...

But it's going to be long, and if I put it here I get one of those little hashmarks next to my name on Janelle's spreadsheet. Hashmarks are positive.

I was actually considering making an "Octavia Butler post", but I wasn't sure if it was relevant. And then it occured to me that my issue with Octavia Butler is directly related to the ecological thought, in addition to the debate over whether or not The Word for World is Forest counts as a land ethic. That was sort of lofty and not-very-well-thought-out statement, and for the rest of this post I'm going to be attempting to justify it. So! Let's begin.

I think my issue with Octavia Butler, other than the fact that all of her books (which I have read) are the same, is that she seems to place an overwhelming emphasis on what is "natural", to the exclusion of all else. For instance, in the second book I read by Octavia Butler-- Fledgling, in case any Butler fans are interested-- once the Ina (vaguely vampiric creature) found out she was Ina, the question became "How can I be a good Ina?" There was no questioning of her identity, which I found tremendously confusing. If I were put in a position where I discovered I belonged to some vaguely vampiric race known as the Ina, my reaction would be "Am I really Ina? Do I want to be Ina? What are Ina, anyway?" But whenever anyone called into question the character's Ina-ness, she became offended and yelled at them. I feel like we all ought to call into question our identification with the rest of our species at some point. It's part of growing up. And in a position where those around you are questioning your relation to your species, if you aren't asking the same question yourself you're just blind. This girl, who I believe was named Shori, discovered her species and immediately said "Oh, okay. Let me integrate myself into your society. Let me find a mate and set up a household." It was bizarre, at least to me.

Dawn has a bit more of a conflict because the Oankali want to call into question the nature of species, Tim Morton style, and the humans, for reasons I've never been entirely sure of, don't want this. They want to retain their "humanity", whatever that is. The more violently they fight for it, the more worthless it appears-- anyone who reads this book and doesn't side with the Oankali is someone I don't understand remotely.

And I'm not going to claim that Butler's treatment of the Oankali isn't appropriately sympathetic. What has always confused me about all of Butler's work, again, is the lack of questioning. The humans just know they're human. It never seems to be an issue for them that they might not be-- although for years a species was considered to be defined by its inability to produce fertile young with other species (I think the definition has evolved thanks to animals like the wholphin and lazy biologists who don't want to have to reclassify everything, but to the best of my knowledge a better working definition hasn't surfaced). They never feel like it is their own bodies which have betrayed them (if "betrayed" is even accurate) when they become more Oankali-like-- it is entirely the Oankali's fault. They are unable to reconcile the alterations to their body with their "identity". The Oankali-ness is "inauthentic" and not really them-- though if an addiction to Oankali makes one less human, I've come across a lot of substance abusers who are apparently some kind of alien. Identity is fluid. It changes, and there's no point in saying "this is what I'm supposed to be, so let me be a 'good' version of it". You aren't supposed to be anything. Identity and the boundaries of things can always be questioned. This idea isn't exactly new. Kierkegaard said it in 1849: "Man is not yet a self." Over a hundred years later, Tim Morton echoed this statement: "Being a person means never being sure that you're one." So the unquestioning acceptance of Butler's characters of what they have always been told that they are, of what they believe that they are, even when the situation itself seems to contradict the static nature of species and identity, I find confusing and discomfiting.

There's an equally discomfiting theme which occurs in Dawn and Fledgling (I've read something else by her but I can't for the life of me remember what it was, or anything other than my boredom at reading the same book a third time) which seems to suggest that sex is something that happens when you leave two beings who are capable of reproducing in a room together. In the case of Ooloi and Ina, when you're at an age at which it is possible to breed and you're in a room with someone who it is possible to breed with, you either have to leave or breed with them or suffer massive discomfort. The ooloi have to be secluded and the Ina have to live in separate male and female colonies. I also don't feel like this leaves any room for intersex or queer beings, which increases my discomfort-- for me feminism doesn't really work unless it contains some sort of gender fluidity. And Tim Morton's The Ecological Thought seems to refute this overly driven and purposeful version of reproductive behavior in a way I find extremely elegant: "Individuals and species don't abstractly 'want' to survive to preserve their form: only macromolecular replicators 'want' that. From the replicators' viewpoint, if it doesn't kill you ('satisficing'), you can keep it, whatever it is. A vast profusion of gender and sex performances can arise. As far as evolution goes, they can stay that way."

In my understanding of it, The Ecological Thought comes down to this: complicate things further. The more complicated something is, the closer it is to the truth, which is in all probability more complicated than anything we're capable of currently thinking.

This is getting long, so I'm going to just kind of summarize my thoughts: I think the reason "anything can be a land ethic" is that the definition of "land ethic" is so complicated, by virtue of its existence, that it cannot be defined. Doesn't mean it doesn't have a definition (though it might not). If it does have a definition, because it exists, we should know we aren't capable of understanding it. Existence is mind-bogglingly complicated, which is why the ecological thought boggles our minds. To say "this is a land ethic", you would have to understand what the "this" was and what a "land ethic" was, and that's assuming you know what it is to "is".

EDIT: I'm not implying that I think Butler is a homophobe or a horrible writer. I think she's none of the above. I just think her ideas are sort of simplistic.

Determinism 101?

Ok so I am REALLY struggling with this idea that 1) we're at "fault" for the things that happen in the world 2) things are going to happen whether we like it or not because we're doing things right now that will have future implications that we will then want to "fix" 3) that somehow we will one day not have to "fix" things because we will automatically just choose the "right" so there will be nothing to fix.

1) If we choose the "right" then why does that mean there will be nothing to fix? We will still be implicated in things that happen around us (aka seeing a homeless person on the street, or getting hit by a car accidentally, etc), and will therefore be at "fault" for the things that happen, even if we "chose" the right.

2) We will still have to make choices. Choices don't go away. I do not think there is just a way that we will "automatically" do the right thing without thinking... we will still be choosing... it will be a choice to do the right thing

3) Why does "doing the right thing" matter anyway, if all we're supposed to do (not do?) is think rather than do (acc'd to Morton) Thinking IS doing. You're doing something by thinking, are you not?

4) I can't get past the idea that the "ecological thought" equals some sort of "utopian" world (which we know technically can't exist) in which everyone will just "automatically" do the right thing? What is the "right thing?"

5) Where do Serial Killers come in? I'd venture to say their idea of the "right thing" is a bit different than yours or mine.

Octavia Butler - Dawn

So as Sarah and Cait have been talking about in class, if you like The Word for World is Forest, then you would really love Octavia Butler's Dawn. Like both of them have said, I too was a bit skeptical about reading science fiction novel last semester. Not that I hated science fiction, but I just felt it wasn't my genre as some would say they don't care for 19th century Russian fiction or something. I don't think I've really read too many science friction books unless you count The Animorphs series as one. [Correction: I just looked it up and apparently that series was classified as Science Fiction novels] Well, I guess I do love science fiction because that was one of my favorite book series.

Dawn, the back summary said something on the lines of it's the future, and earth is being destroyed. A woman finds herself on a spaceship 200 years later and she now has to figure out what this alien species want from her as they groom her a certain way for a project. This book was amazing and I'm not doing justice by explaining it. I feel like it examine prejudices, power struggle, alienation, and many other topics of the late 1980's. I highly recommend this as a reading. I'm only halfway through Le Guin's novel, and it just reminds me of Dawn.

yowl

Before and since Halloween I have been pondering why is it people like to dress as other animals and how this could be significant in the context of the mesh and strange strangers. Upon first thought, I found it simply odd and funny that humans experience what I like to call "species envy"--that at the other end of the spectrum from a superior stance that many hold in relation to our fellow creatures is this subtler whine of a few who long to "do as the animals do." I wondered and doubted that there were any other animals who experienced this phenomenon, the desire to be the other ("and fly away"). While there may not be (but perhaps could be) another animal with such a wish, there are some that engage in imitation of others, such as moths with eye spots on their wings, or the lyre bird, that imitates the sounds of other birds and animals, going even as far as imitating the ominous sound of a chainsaw cutting down nearby trees. But when we find these characteristics and behaviors in animals, it is for a purpose of survival or communication. When we masquerade as animals, what is the underlying purpose, and what is it that we are consciously or subconsciously communicating? There is the more apparent element of primitive sexual appeal (ain't she a fox?), or, somewhat like rituals of cannibalism, dressing as an animal may evoke its power and transfer it to the costumed person ("Bear Power" was a privilege of few Zuni priests). But may imitating animals also be a manifestation of an underlying sense of loss in our perceived divorce from the Animal Kingdom? Is it a symptom of the separation we feel from the mesh?

Field Trip?

There is an article in the living section of this morning's Times-Picayune about a new art exhibit on display through February 27, 2011, at the Contemporary Arts Center titled, Elements of Nature:Selections From The Frederick R. Weisman Art Foundation.

The exhibit features contemporary works from 105 artists expressing their unique interpretations of the relationship between man and the environment.

The article states that students are offered a discount for admission into the exhibit. The cost is $3.00 per student. The exhibit is open Thur.-Sun. from 11 am-4 pm. For more info contact the CAC at, (504)528-3805. The exhibits seem really cool, maybe a field trip opportunity in the future?

Hyperobjects Presentation

Hey if you want to review my presentation, I uploaded it here. And I uploaded two of my classes with you here.

Rocks Speak Out on Each Rock a Word

I just posted this. I think you will enjoy it. Some thoughts and questions on Ursula Le Guin to follow.

Hyperobjects 2.0: Oil Remix mp3

Hi everyone! Here's the talk. I'm afraid the recorder only caught the first exchange in the q&a, which was EXCELLENT by the way. Thanks so much for all your questions. You can hear similar-ish answers if you visit my blog and look for the first “Hyperobjects” mp3.

alone in a world of wounds?

Professor Morton,

Today I asked you if you thought that thinking The Ecological Thought 

separates you from others who are not thinking it. 

The Thought preaches connectedness, 

but can perhaps be pessimistically seen as disconnecting.

I just found a quote from Aldo Leopold 

that speaks to this separation from others. He said,

"One of the penalties of an ecological education 

is that one lives alone in a world of wounds."

You disagree, right?

Which Way to Water

In the ever growing debate on how to drink your water, here is a new product. For those that want their filtered water and reusable water bottles, the Water Bobble is your best choice. I saw this in a magazine I was reading and then looked up the website. This reusable water bottle has a filter on the top so you can have the best of both worlds. They also come in very fun colors and are fairly cheap, a 1L bottle is only $12. The sizes range from 13 oz "Babies", 18.5 oz and then the 1L. Replacement filters can be bought for $6.95. The bottles can be bought at The Water Bobble.