responding to BLOG # 3 (feb. 8th)

(i did not know how to comment on blog #3, so i did it this way ha)
I agree as well. I feel like compromises have to be maked all the time, everyday by everyone. Compromises are not bad as long as the out come is beneficial and out ways what is compromised. For example, the benefit of knowing how a human body will react to a drug through experimentation of an animal definitely out ways the suffering. It is not selfish to want to make sure a drug works before giving it to millions of people. Although, in any situation of compromising there will be people whom oppose, but life is not fair. I feel like if the majority feel the same way then the compromise is going in the right direction

Voluntary Simplicity (by necessity)

Kohak makes a very valid point when he's busy condemning our consumer culture. He stresses that we are obsessed with buying the next great thing because we're hopelessly addicted to it like a drug. He uses the term "consumerism" to term the idea that consumption is the meaning of human life, and for so many, it seems to be. Instead of facing our problems, we go out and buy something, as if the act of consumption gives us purpose. Kind of sad, really. But how can one deny that our advertising culture is only exacerbating a problem we already have? We're so focused on having instead of being, and I think it's largely because we simply don't know how to be. People yearn for purpose, to feel useful and meaningful. When they feel purpose-driven in no other way, they can still consume, and advertisers think this is great,m and encourage us to go back to this obviously detrimental habit. How can we not term consumerism an addiction, when so many believe -perhaps unconsciously- that "increasing consumption will resolve all problems of personal life and of social existence alike?" And it's not even constrained to a personal level. Entire countries have this mentality and commonly term it as "progress." Why do we always need to be growing more, producing more, spending more? We know it can't go on forever. There is some maximum isn't there? A few hundred years ago, they termed this obsession manifest destiny. Now that we've run out of places to expand (because land and uninhabited space wasn't infinite) we've turned to something else to obsess over. Why is it that we must always be growing and never content with maintaining?
The idea of voluntary simplicity is something many Americans have a hard time grasping, but can be seen in glimpses of many European societies. The European approach to life seems to be decidedly slower-paced, more deliberate, and contented. I mean, children in French elementary schools are given at least an hour, if not two, for lunch. Nothing fancy or extravagant, but deliberate (compare that to the 20 minutes the average third grader is given to scarf down a lunchable). And the French government has a budget designated solely for flowers, not with the intention of being frivolous or anything, but because the people take pleasure in simple, beautiful things... like flowers. Now, I'm not saying the French have it all figured out by any stretch, but I think because their country is so much older than ours, that they've learned to be content with what they have, and not focused on expansion, consumption, growth, "progress", for its own sake. In reality, they have to be. Geographically, they have less room and, thus, a higher concentration of people. We have unplanned suburban development, urban sprawl, and room for annual crop rotation that The French, the English, the Italians just can't afford. Not everyone has a car (or two) simply because there isn't the room or resources. Heck, their refrigerators are even smaller (as are their waistlines, by the way). They have had to learn to be contented with less, and have obviously felt no deprivation because of it. Hopefully, our country will learn this at some point as well.

Affluenza

I thought it was interesting what Kohak said about Americans having the affluenza epidemic. Our society tends to overconsume with everything we do. As Kohak said, we think we have a moral duty to accumulate and consume ever more material goods. Many Americans think they need to keep with their neighbors by having more and bigger and flashier than they have. We judge each other by what we have, not by who we are, which is a major problem. Our needs are being replaced by our greed. We are not just satisfying our needs as the previous human perceptions did. We are going above and beyond that by shifting to consumerism. I am guilty of this, as well. I fulfill my basic needs, but I like to have other things that are not of necessity, such as nicer clothes, more "things", bigger car, etc. We see the world and nature as a means as raw materials to satisfy everything that we want, not need. We would rather have more than enough. In our soceity today, we have a problem realizing what is enough. We always think we never have enough, which leads to the society of overconsumption. People need to start looking at the consequences of our actions and how we are hurting the environment around us. We are using up many of our resources that we can never get back. Eventually, there may not be many resources left. Instead of consuming everything, we should think of ways to get these resources back. We need to take into consideration nature and how we are destroying it. Most Americans have more than enough, and we need to stop being so wasteful and overconsuming resources.

Blog #3

One part of the class that had an impact on me was the discussion of making compromises. As humans we make compromises every day. I feel that most people are pressured to take one side or the other. Either they refuse to participate in animal abuse or they are on the side that animals have no rights. I think we need to be realistic and make compromises. We need to satisfy our human needs, while thinking and protecting the animals needs and environment. People should think before they act. What are the consequences of my actions and how is it going to impact the environment? Americans are not going to give up their meat but maybe we can think of a more humane way of killing and raising the animals. In an ideal world animals would be treated with respect and there would be no cruelty to animals. We do not live in a ideal world. Animals are involved in experiments to help benefit us. For some reason I feel it is OK to experiment on a rat rather than a Gorilla. I do not like to think of animal experimentation but I think it necessary to test the product. I have a lot of gray areas in this subject. I do think it is unfair to the animals that they have to be tested on but I would not want to a drug if it has never been tested before. This problem makes me feel selfish but is there a solution??

Exotic Humans

Kohak made a very interesting point when he described humans as being animals that “stand out of nature”. Kohak, when quoting Everden, also described humans as ‘naturally exotic’. The implications of this idea are multilayered. Does this mean that humans can’t fit into nature? Can humans have no natural habitat? Do humans necessarily destroy habitats by our existence? Or have humans truly lost the ability to act naturally?
As Kohak likes to point, out humans are indeed animals. Therefore it only stands to reason that humans will prosper in certain climates more than others, however, humans live from pole to pole. Is there a one place for humans? Humans manage to live in Siberia and the Arctic primarily through the use of technology and artificial housing. The real question then is whether or not it is ‘unnatural’ to make these dwellings. Certainly we draw a distinction between what is artificial and what is natural. Nevertheless, many animals also make their own shelters, such as the beaver, bird nests, etc. Are these dwellings also artificial because they were not provided for by nature? We need to broaden our definition of artificial. Humans build structures perhaps through reason, but the drive and the need is instinctual and obvious. The same could be said of nesting birds, who build their nest out of the need of shelter.Wherever humans go the apex predator of the area is the first to suffer, such as wolves (North America), bears (Europe) etc. It is impossible for humans to live along side other animals in their own habitat, just as it is impossible for a bear to live with deer. Humans naturally scare animals, just as a bear would scare a deer. Certainly habitats suffer when humans do not control their consumption or the land itself, but since humans are such a versatile creature that can live anywhere it does not seem necessary to destroy these habitats. Humans may never frolic with the woodland creatures, but the forests do not need to be paved.

The Epiphany in Nature

I was interested in Kohak's idea that some cultures, for instance hunter-gatherer tribes, believe that nature is divine. His idea of the "Epiphany" when viewing nature reminded me a lot of Mircea Eliade, a Romanian religious historian and philospher. Eliade also believed that God could be expierenced in a nature. An example, would be when a hiker climbs to the top of mountian and sees the valleys and clouds below. This awe that would be expierenced by the hiker is similiar to that of Kohak's "epiphany" theory. I believe that if more people expierenced nature for its spiritual elements then they would be more connected and less likely to destory it. In modern western societies a lot of "leisure" activies consists of playing video games or being on the computer. If more individuals would turn away from technology for a little bit each day, I believe they would have a deeper connection with nature. This could be as simple as taking a walk through your nighborhood. The simple enjoyment of the sound of a song bird could be seen as a spiritual connection with nature that would help the indiviudal live a more ecofriendly life.

Kestrel Movie

I wonder if anyone else thought it was weird to see people walking down the street, working on a house, or just jogging down a country lane from an animals perpective. After watching that movie, I thought to myself how forgein human beings must be to the rest of the animal kingdom. the Kestrels went about their business because that was what was needed to survive. They had to hunt, protect their nest, and nuture their offspring just as we humans do but they never flew off into the sky for the fun of it. I think we need to realize how good we have it now. technology has helped us come a long way from the dark ages i think we'd all agree but technology also needs to be used responsibly. Just because we can drive doesn't always mean we should if you catch my drift. I just hope all these advances in technology dont make us lazy or take little things like drving for granted because if we do we will end up back in the dark ages. Responsible use of energy and resources will help us maintain this pretty much care free world we live in. If you're hungry, there's a grocery store with prepackaged food. If you're cold, there is a building with heat inside. if you want to go somewhere, there's a car or a bus that will take you. But once all of these things disappear you can be sure life wont be so easy. Who else that that bell was annoying...wonder how the kestrels felt about that??