ENC1145: Writing About Nature

Americans’ Capitalist Nature
Capitalism: a Love Story is a film by Michael Moore that exposes the flaws in the economic system known as Capitalism. Capitalism has been proven to be more than just an economic system, but it has become a way of life, where production, development, progression, and most of all, money are the cornerstones. This film shows how Americans, both governmental, executive, and the average citizen have fallen into the trap where capitalism has hindered the lives of themselves or someone directly affected by their actions, and it tries to offer changes to be made to the system. The film focuses on corporate dominance across America along with the effects of Wall Street. Michael Moore goes around the country interviewing (often tormenting) people about the American sense of capitalism. He uses these to show the separation of the wealthy and the poor that capitalism causes. His solution can be described best by a man in the movie. He said, “It’s got to be some kind of a rebellion between the people that have nothing and the people that have it all.” (Capitalism) Moore uses this film to try to convey a message to America that capitalism isn’t the “only” way to live, and points out the biggest flaws in the system to do so.
Early in the movie, Michael Moore brings up that Vice President Jimmy Carter gave warnings about capitalism and America’s consumption patterns. Following these warnings came the election of Ronald Reagan, a staunch Republican. Under his rule, the government took on a corporate structure featuring tax cuts for the wealthy which resulted in an even larger gap between the rich and poor in America. His policies paralleled some of the policies corporations have towards their minimum wage employees and their ideals towards small businesses. The entire movie reflects several topics covered in class this year, such as The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet by John Bellamy Foster. In this book Foster brings up Marxist theories about socialism and furthers his arguments by criticizing capitalism. Foster brings up how capitalism is an evil that causes a degradation of nature along with an unequal distribution of wealth. This is generally the same thing Michael Moore attempted to do in this movie by picking out major flaws in the system and validating his arguments with stories about specific people who were affected by the story.
Moore brings said that since Barrack Obama was elected, the government has gotten better in the sense that it is run in a much more democratic fashion. Moore and Obama are both “for the people,” and this results in a much more beneficial environment for the middle and lower classes. Rather than the majority of wealth being controlled by a few people, they want to see a more equal distribution of the wealth. This goes along with many of Karl Marx’s theories about socialism that were brought up by Foster in The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet. While not becoming an entirely socialist society, both Moore and Obama would like to see some of its qualities attributed to our capitalism. Obama once exemplified merging socialist and capitalist thought when he said, “Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.” (Komrad Obama)

Works Cited

Capitalism: A Love Story. Dir. Michael Moore. 2009.

Foster, John Bellamy. The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet. Monthly
Review Press, 2009.

“Komrad Obama: ‘our Individual Salvation Depends on Our Collective Salvation. …’ (and More) :: Political
Issues :: Freedoms Zone.” Freedoms Zone::Blog. 8 June 2008. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2008/06/komrad_obama_our_individual_sa.php>.

This cartoon sends a message that we have been discussing in class all semester. When men try to dominate nature things always end up going wrong.

For some reason its not letting me link the site.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/A7PpJX/dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jpg

In chapter nine of Donna Haraway’s book “When Species Meet,” she discusses an object used by National Geographic for animal behavior research—the Crittercam. This Crittercam was used for a series of TV shows launched by the National Geographic Channel called Crittercam. The little video cameras were attached onto aquatic animals and the animals were able to create home movies. This chapter in Haraway’s book was written in order to create a tie between technology and nature and how technology can help us learn about nature from the point of view from someone, or something, which is living in it on a day-to-day basis. The main argument in this section of Haraway’s book is to realize that not only can technology allow us to learn about the natural world from the point of view of animals, but technology also can create the bond between animals and humans by us visually seeing their world from their eyes. Throughout the chapter, Haraway talks about the meaning of a camera as a “judge’s chamber.” It serves the purpose of a “judge’s chamber” because a video camera hold so much information about another’s life and is needed to be interpreted. Furthermore, Haraway introduces the Crittercam by giving the history behind its use with the National Geographic as a source for a TV series.
The reading from chapter nine of Donna Haraway’s “When Species Meet,” connects to our class as a whole in several ways. This chapter reinforces Haraway’s beliefs of “becoming with” nature and with wildlife. In our class, we typically came to a conclusion that it is hard to stop the amount of pollution and destruction that is going on in today’s society. We must work together in order for the better good of the planet. The Crittercam encourages this behavior of “becoming with” to learn and create that connection between man and animal. The Crittercam is placed on animals and home videos are created by the animals and viewed by people. Haraway states that the Crittercam is “the kind of insight that makes us know that situated human beings have epistemological—ethical obligations to the animals” (263). Essentially, Haraway means by “ethical obligations to the animals,” that the Crittercam gives humans a view on the inside of how animals perceive their world. By the audience viewing these Crittercams they can learn about the animals’ social structures and how their lives are affected (negatively or even positively) by humans. By using the Crittercam, it is harder for humans to emotionally detach themselves from the lives of their companion species. Haraway tells her readers that the remora is what ultimately gave scientists the idea for this Crittercam. The remora is a type of fish which latches on to other aquatic animals; they are typically seen in a commensalistic relationship with sharks.
In chapter one of Haraway’s book, she shows and discusses an illustration of a pack of wolves and another wolf joining the pack (13), but she has a tracking device on her. The caption says, “We found her wandering at the edge of the forest. She was raised by scientists.” In Haraway’s discussion of the picture, she states that “The found wolf is meeting other wolves, but she cannot take her welcome for granted….She brings science and technology into the open in this forest. The wolf pack is politely approached, not invaded, and these wolves will decide her fate” (14). This reinforces the idea of the Crittercam and how the use of it allows the closeness between species to become even closer by merely watching the video. It closes the gap because humans still have many problems “becoming with” with nature and this Crittercam helps humans understand the relationship between us and nature. The wolves in the illustration were skeptical at first of allowing this technological wolf in, but they did because she “politely approached,” the pack. The human species has yet to understand this concept.

Bibliography
Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

(Posted late, forgot we had to post it to the blog, sorry)

I decided to read chapter 20 from the book Belonging a Culture of Place written by Bell Hooks. In this chapter Bell Hooks focuses on the idea “becoming one with nature,” she talks about nature as being an escape from her problems. She describes nature as a “paradise” that is only temporary. Bell Hooks really seems to focus on the notion that the only place where she truly belongs is when she is one with nature. She describes her child hood years and her house where she grew up. She states “the house was fixed unchanging and the natural landscape adamantly growing,” (215) which sort of seems to drift from the perspective that humans/technology dominating nature. As the chapter unfolds it is evident those things are changing and that humans are demanding more from nature. She talks about how much it breaks her heart to see humans focusing so much on trying to find excuses or reasons to dominate nature. An interesting theme that was clear in this chapter is that she seems to feel that nature does not look at race, gender, or class and that nature is equal to all, which implies that race, gender, and class are all manmade. In this chapter she talks about where she lived when she was young, a teenage, an adult, and an elderly. The feel that the whole point of her going through her life is to demonstrate that she went back to the place where she started and decided that would be the place where she would die.

This chapter from Belonging a Culture of Place connects various themes discussed in class this semester. The theme that connects the most is “becoming one with nature”, and that trying to dominate nature is never go positive thing. Bell Hooks states that her father always told her “as long as man knows his place in nature everything will be right but when we forget and think he is god trouble comes,” (Hooks 216) this message is also present in Other Nature written by Stephanie Smith. The idea of trying to find ways to dominate nature in a way that is “neat for justifications” (Hooks 220), is something that Hook feel is wrong. We are trying to use nature and we are creating excuses to feel more powerful that nature but in the end nature is the one that takes its course.

Hooks elaborates on her long journey to find herself and to find a place where she belongs. She goes all around the country but ends up coming back to the same place where she started because she feels that she cannot escape people trying to dominate nature. She mentions how people try to use classification of races and class to give one more importance than the other in a hierarchal manner. In the end she mentions that everyone dies and that no matter how great at dominating nature everyone ends up dying. The underlying theme is that nature is above humans in the sense humans are not eternal. That we have all this technology but we cannot escape the nature of death.

Other Nature also talks about how horribly wrong things can go when we try to mess with genetics/natural course of things. In her book she uses genetics to show how once again a human trying to dominate nature to make the world a better place is not something that is not possible. When the scientists decided to mess with the natural course of reproduction they would not control it and things got out of hand. The specimen escaped and were starting evolving mutations that they would not control.

In class almost all the readings deal with “becoming one with nature,” in one way or another and that if we are not careful it will be the end of our species. I also wanted to add that in the book When Species Meet by Donna J. Haraway the idea of getting rid of hierarchical classification is something that was present in chapter 20 from Bell Hooks book. Haraway states that “90 percent of the cells are filled with the genomes of bacteria, fungi, protists, and such, some of which play in a symphony necessary to my being alive at all” (Haraway 3-4). This quote ties up all the readings together in the sense that she is stating that no matter how much we want to separate ourselves from nature we cannot do it. We are made up of thousands of different organisms and that if we choose to separate ourselves we would not be able to live. We need other organisms for our own survival. For instance, we would not be able to breathe without plants and plants would not be able to be alive without carbon dioxide. The message behind all of these readings is that nature cannot be messed with and that we all need each other to function properly.

Bibliography

When Species Meet, Donna J. Haraway, publisher by the Minnesota Press 2008

Hooks, bell. Belonging: A Culture of Place. New York: Routledge, 2009

Smith, Stephanie A. Other Nature. New York: TOR, 1995

Please comment on this post to leave your questions for Vicki about her presentation. Thanks!

Please leave your questions for Courtney as comments to this post. Thanks!

The subject of Noel Sturgeon’s chapter, “The Power Is Yours, Planeteers”, accentuates that the messages contained in environmentalism popular culture advertisements are actually counter to what environmental activists are fighting for.  Instead of showing a connection between how social inequality and environmental sustainability are related and intimately interconnected, patterns are promoted that uphold racial, gender and sexuality stereotypes.  By naturalizing these social inequalities, the environmental problems become disconnected from their source and cause, which is often times a corporation.  Sturgeon suggests university students and environmental activists look at the environmental emphasis on children’s culture with a critical eye.  The chapter illustrates how our images of nature depict social inequalities in a form that interferes with our ability to create solutions for environmental problems in a socially egalitarian way.

Sturgeon notes that the environmental theme found in children’s stories tends to focus less on environmentalism and more on promoting morally uplifting white children stories with the central message being that “the power is theirs to do what they will with the world”.  The idea that nature will be restored if the children, who do not identify with the white children, form materialistic oriented families is skewed. Furthermore, people of color or homophobic orientation are often portrayed stereotypically or as villains in the children stories when in reality the villains are often corporations or governmental and military based associations.  Sturgeon hopes that “the liberal, superficial, and individualist solutions presently offered [in children’s stories] to be rejected for collective, social, and revolutionary action”.  Instead of assigning the power to an individual or a group of individuals, it should be thought of on the basis of a unified, collected, participatory democracy instead of based on what is considered to be natural (Sturgeon 118-119).

Sturgeon brings up a common theme in children’s’ environmentalism popular culture– naturalization of the patriarchal white middle-class, nuclear family.  The argument that this form of a family is best for the environment contradicts the idea that extended families, healthy communities and sustainable practices are a few of the many the forms essential to create for a healthier environment.  The idea of this white, middle class nuclear family presented as normal, is consequential in that a variety of racial, class and economic institutions are necessary to solve our current social and environmental problems (Sturgeon 103-105).                                                                      
            This white nuclear family theme Sturgeon recognizes, reminds me of Judith Plant’s idea that our lives are not dictated by our jobs or wealth but instead by our families.  If we decentralize the idealistic power that the white nuclear family holds it would change our social institution to become more egalitarian (Plant 23).  Sturgeon believes that if we address this social inequality, it may help in raising concerns about the role inequalities play in the environment.  While Sturgeon has a valid point here, it is the normalization of all the social aspects together that are hampering the ability environmental problems to be solved.  Bell Hooks acknowledged the problematic nature of normalizing certain institutions when she stated: “Estrangement from our natural environment is the cultural contest wherein violence against the earth is accepted and normalized” (Hooks 26).

After reading this chapter, I felt that Sturgeon was effective in informing and persuading her audience about the role race, gender, and sexuality play in children’s environmentalist popular culture.  Sturgeon felt that by promoting stereotypical ideas gender, family, race, and ethnicity, it has a toxic effect. My prior preconceptions and notions before reading this chapter were that the appearance of environmentalism in children’s lives held a positive influence.  I feel that a worthwhile research endeavor would be to explore how children use their environmental framework as adult when they are put in a position in which they will need to address serious environmental issues such as global warming. I think that it would also be interesting to look into the reception these U.S. children’s products would have in different social and cultural situations or contexts.  The only aspect of the chapter that I would modify would be to introduce a solution to our current use of environmentalism for children.

Hooks, bell. Belonging: A Culture of Place. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Plant, Judith. Revaluing Home: Feminism and Bioregionalism. A Bioregional Reader. Philadelphia: The New Catalyst, 1987

Sturgeon, Noёl. Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2009.

The Jevons Paradox: Environment and Technology under Capitalism

Paul Samuelson was on one of the most influential American economists to date. In 1970, he was the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. He stated, “An intriguing paradox of the 1990s is that it isn’t called a decade of greed.” What might be more interesting is that he did not restructure his quote to refer to the progression of American society and capitalism through the first decade of the second millennium. John Foster in The Ecological Revolution addresses the fields of economics Samuelson lacks, employing the aid of William Jevons.

Foster elaborates on William Jevons in the chapter entitled “The Jevons Paradox”. Jevons was a British scholar who lived between the years 1835 and 1882. During his lifetime, he studied various forms of academia, but one of his most influential contributions was to economics. His economic discovery entitled, “Jevons Paradox” states, “increased efficiency in using a natural resource, such as coal, only generated increase demand for that resource, not decreased demand as one might expect” (Foster 124). Foster continues to analyze Jevons’ work and later criticizes him for a disregard to forfeit natural resources for England’s supremacy. Foster’s chastisement serves as a transition to his pivotal question; do we shift towards socio-ecological sustainability or do we prosper until resources run dry? This question appeals to both emotion and logic because of the implied devastation of Earth and the academic support of the Jevons Paradox. The intended audiences in this circumstance are capitalistic economies and natural resource consumers in general. With that understanding, it leaves the American society, in particular, a great deal to ponder.

American society embodies many of the qualities Foster referrers to in his chapter regarding the Jevons Paradox. As a nation, we consume a vast amount of natural resources per capita that is far greater then other nations, combined. With all of the literature we have read for class, I’ve never looked at the environment in an economical way. Furthermore, my application of the subject to nature would have been disenchanted and obtuse, having no education regarding the Jevons Paradox. For a majority of the semester, my consideration has always been that technology will eventually solve the problems associated with the environment. In part, I believed that the technological solution would stem from an improvement in efficiency. Through our readings this semester, it is evident that this thought process would be frowned upon. As Stephanie Smith said in class, she intended the trolls in Other Nature to resemble a machine that was running rampant. This speaks to the idea that technology will not save us; instead, it will play a predominant role in our destruction.

Foster’s appeal in this chapter was quite different then any other I had seen to date. Most of my analysis of information presented throughout class has had an application of business principles. In Foster’s other chapters, he discusses at length the concepts Marx’s believes in regarding nature and man’s domination over it. Personally, this chapter was the most effective in addressing technological remedies because it employed the use of economics, speaking to my business background. Foster references the automobile in the United States and the refrigerator to serve as specific examples of the Jevons Paradox. “The introduction of more energy-efficient automobiles in the United States, in the mid-1970s, did not decrease the demand for fuel because driving increased, and the number of cars on the road eventually doubled. Likewise, technological improvements in refrigeration merely resulted in more and larger refrigerators” (Foster 125). This example is eye opening and is truly a fact. With further consideration of the automobile, it is clear that improvements in efficiency have resulted in larger inefficiencies.

Change is a concept that has revolutionized the world we live in. It was the platform for the United States of America’s first black president. Change in technology was what enabled North America to be settled by Europeans. Change in laws and ideology is what gave women the right to vote. Change is not always necessary or beneficial, but it has played a predominant role in the structure of our society nonetheless. What needs to change now though is another ideology or concept. Foster wrote, “Today’s vested interests are counting on this built-in process of revolutionary technological change coupled with the proverbial magic of the market to solve the environmental problem when and where this becomes necessary” (256). Our interests should be invested in changing our interaction with nature, and changing it now.

Who Killed the Electric Car

Who Killed the Electric Car is an enlightening documentary about a product that could have potentially changed the negative output caused by gas emissions from automobiles. The electric car, later called the EV1 by GM, was first shown to the public in California in 1996. California had the worse air pollution in the United States causing one out of four 15 to 25 year olds severe lung lesions in San Diego in 1989, among other health problems. According to the film, every gallon of gas we burn 19 pounds is sent to the air. This leads to the smog alerts Californians have to protect themselves from every so often. So why do away with an innovation that could lesson or even stop gas emissions from cars?
When CARB, California Air Resources Board, was introduced to the EV1 they wanted it to become mandatory by a certain period for all car companies to produce electric cars. The ‘Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate’ in 1990 was meant to increase the percentage of electric cars made by automobile companies every year. Oil companies were silently outraged by a new technology that could shorten their income. They made ‘no-name’ activists groups that would go into council meetings and lobby against the cars and said company names that were supporting them (but in reality didn’t even know their names were being mentioned).
Oil companies, the first of many accused of killing the electric car, were in the end of the film found guilty. Car companies also played a large role. The ‘Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate’ was changed to car companies having to produce the consumer demand of EV1. GM spent $1 billion on its advertising campaign for four years, but claimed there was no demand. However, there was a waiting list that GM completely demolished by calling all 4,000 of potential consumers and telling them about the defaults of the EV1.
The government took the side of the car and oil companies and saw the potential loss of income for gasoline. Guilty. CARB, thanks to Alan Lloyd, was also found guilty for only letting supporters of the EV1 at the final board meeting speak for three minutes or less while car companies spoke for over 10 minutes. Lastly, consumers were found guilty for not being informed about the benefits of the EV1. Batteries were never the problem because there was already a longer lasting one in store.
The government, car companies, and oil companies did such a great job of keeping this new healthy way of living from even really leave the state of California. I had never known this was the true reason for the failure of electric cars. I had thought that there was a default in the manufacturing, not that it could potentially lose money for those already living comfortably. This documentary, among the others we have watched in our class, opens your eyes to how well the government can hide things from you.
I was astonished to see how controlling the car companies were, especially GM, about abolishing this product for good. Even after the ‘Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate’ was done away with, GM wouldn’t even let current owners of EV1’s keep their car. What kind of company goes out of its way to tow away every single one of its makes just to sit in a parking lot for a period of time before being taken to the dump and shredded. How sad it is to know that GM would rather create more waste then let their consumers enjoy their product. They even lied to the public about parts being recycled and the demand for them in general. John R. Dabels, a former EV Marketing Director for GM said,
“The person will go unnamed, but we were having lunch in the executive dining room in the GM Test Center one day and just the two of us and he leans over to me and says ‘Dabels, you know something? You’re my worse enemy.’ And I said ‘why’s that?’ and he said ‘well I’m out there lobbying to show there’s no demand for electric vehicles and you’re out there proving me wrong.’”
I could not help but think about Food, Inc. and how companies make political allies with those in office, the ones making the decisions. I didn’t have the knowledge about these ties with the government until watching these two films and An Inconvenient Truth. When shown what companies Senators and other politicians use to work for, it is made clear why it is hard to make a change. In Food, Inc. those working for the EPA had previously worked for food distributing companies.
Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth tried to spread his concern for what was happening to our environment, just as activists for the EV1 did in protests and lobbying. Who killed the Electric Car goes along with the theme in our class discussion of man dominating nature. It seems that we only care about what is beneficial to us, no matter how it harms the world we live in. However, the world we live in does affect the way we live. Hopefully those in decision-making positions will be able to see this connection soon, before it is too late.

Works Cited

Gore, Al, Script. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Paramount Classics: 2006, DVD.
Paine, Chris, Script. Who Killed the Electric Car?. Dir. Chris Paine. Sony Pictures Classics: 2006, DVD.
Schlosser, Eric, Script. Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Pictures Participant Media and River Road Entertainment: 2008, DVD.