obligatory
archives
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- October 2000
- February 2000
recent
I find it difficult to explain to people what I am studying in Sweden. If I take the time to explain it, people look confused a bit, then say "Oh, so your in environmental studies?". While it is to some extent true, I hate that. I hate it because labeling myself as a student of environmental studies is actually falling into the very trap I am studying to help people break out of... the idea that the world is so compartmentalized, that I am an environmentalist, and some people are businesspeople, others are programmers, others are doctors, etc... I feel like it perpetuates the idea that so long as there is someone specializing in "the environment" there is no need for everyone to have some basic knowledge about how our ecosystem works.
When asked what I study in lighter, less formal situations, ones where the person asking is not really trying to find out, rather, is simply making conversation, I have begun to answer some variation of "Sustainability... you know, how our way of life effects our future... basically, I am studying about saving the world and stuff..."
I find that that response has actually led to more interesting conversations. If I answer "Environmental studies" people turn off. Maybe it's because it's not part of their field of expertise, they feel it's not their concern, or they are afraid to appear ignorant discussing something they are not "trained" in. When I talk about saving the world, though, everyone has a stake. Everyone has a story, or at least they have heard a story somewhere.
I then follow-up trying to explain how my studies focus on how to help companies, organization, communities, individuals, etc... to make decisions based on a basic framework which we know is imperative to preserving quality of life, or even life itself, for ourselves, others in the world, and future generations. The biggest problem though is that people don't know this most basic framework. People aren't armed with the most basic understanding of how life and ecosystems work.
On the plane over here I was reading from David W. Orr's Earth in Mind. David Orr is a Professor of Environmental Studies, but understands how what he teaches is not something that should be reserved for specialists. In one of his essays, he proposes a college ranking system based not on the average salary of graduates, or how many celebrities it produced, but rather, on how ecologically literate it's graduates are. After all, anything else we study, be it economy, business, medicine, or literature, is dependent first on a healthy natural system to practice those specialties in. No good economy can be built on the ruins of a natural system. He proposes that no student should graduate from any educational institution without a basic comprehension of:
- the laws of thermodynamics
- the basic principles of ecology
- carrying capacity
- energetics
- least-cost, end-use analysis
- how to live well in a place
- limits of technology
- appropriate scale
- sustainable agriculture and forestry
- steady-state economics
- environmental ethics
The need for competency in all of these is obvious to me (regardless of my own current competence). I guess that many people feel that their field of study is somehow more "important" or useful than others, that the world would be much better off if everyone knew a little bit about it. I have felt that way about programming in the past. Seeing people waste time doing menial computer tasks that could be easily completed with even the most rudimentary programming knowledge, I have often wondered why everyone doesn't take a basic programming for non-programmers course. But I don't think this is the same thing... in the case of programming, the cost for not learning it is simply a tremendous waste of time. The cost of ecological illiteracy, on the other hand, is death to an ecosystem.
Orr's essay got me thinking about my own educational experience. Should I have been allowed to graduate? Should I be allowed to graduate in the spring with an MSW ( Masters in Saving the World )?
- the laws of thermodynamics I remember hearing about this in high school, but there was no attempt to make it relevant to my life. I take partial blame for not learning it then, but now that I do understand it, I am amazed that it was not stressed and incorporated into other courses.
- the basic principles of ecology I never even heard about this until a few years ago, well after graduating from University. Why was creative writing (which I loved ) a requisite for an undergraduate degree, but a basic understanding of how the ecosystem functions not?
- carrying capacity Again, no mention what so ever that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth, or what would happen if we do.
- energetics Looks like I have a bit of research to do before I get my masters, because I don't have a clue what this is now.
- least-cost, end-use analysis
- how to live well in a place Oh... would it have made my life better to learn about this? Instead, everything I learned was basically that we have to make do with the way things are. Don't rock the boat, play your part to help the economy because only through exponential growth can we overcome the boundaries of growth. Why didn't anyone ever present the idea of living well within those boundaries?
- limits of technology This is the big one. I can't count the number of people I know who believe (have actually stated) that they are not afraid of the damage they know our lifestyles do, because "someone will invent something to fix it". This goes together with the laws of thermodynamics.
- appropriate scale Perhaps this is not something that can be "taught" but it is surely something that should have been mentioned by at least one teacher in sixteen years of education.
- sustainable agriculture and forestry While I don't intend to become a farmer, I realize now that I should have a rudimentary understanding of this... if only to know where my life comes from, and what is and is not possible to sustain.
- steady-state economics I didn't even have any classes specifically about neoclassical, or any other type of economics, but the neoclassical view was implicit in everything else I learned. I can't even imagine why neoclassical is even taught as a regular course anymore now that we have a better understanding of the natural system economics relies on.
- environmental ethics
It seems that all of these are things that people used to understand without being explicitly taught. It's really a shame that our education makes us dumber.
Kevin, reading your post about your studies brought to mind Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael." I'm pretty sure you've read it, and while it has problems, it raises some interesting questions about sustainability and man's relationship with nature.
Kevin,
I commend you for following your passion. As frustrating as it can be at times to get people to really undersand what you are studying, I think it is important to keep fighting the good fight.
As a degreed and practicing environmental engineer I am pretty well versed on what you are talking about, so I would like to point out a few thoughts of my own.
Sustainability is not really about saving the world. It is more about saving ourselves and the species and resources around us.
If we (humans as a species) ever screw things up so badly that we end up causing our own extinction the Earth would get along just fine without us. (Even better actually) Granted we would take a lot of other species with us on our path to destrcution, but the Earth would be just fine.
More species have gone extinct over time than are on the planet right now. Extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary cycle. It is only when humans start upsetting the natural process that we risk magnifying the impacts.
Humans are just one of many species inhabiting this planet. We have no right to cause the extinction of other species due to our own greed for resources.
I know this is likely what you meant by saying "saving the world", but I just wanted to clarify a little more for those viewers who are not keyed in so closely to these types of issues.
--
On another note, how are you coping with the long dark winters? Michigan is somewhat similar, just not so extreme.
Gen, I have read Ishmael. As a matter of fact, I just recently finished My Ishmael (the sequel) as well. It does raise some interesting points. The most importnat for me though was not so much regarding our relationship with nature, but rather the importance of giving people a story that can illustrate success. It's one thing to just blab about how bad things are, but another to show alternatives... even if they do have some problems.
Jeff, Thanks for clarifying that. This is something I have written a little about in the past (here, here, and here). Trying to figure out just why I care, I think I have come to the conslusion that I really don't care if human race is to die out, but I would hate to be (and hate for my kids or grandkids... or anyone else for that matter) to be living in the mess that comes before we drive ourselves to extinction. The only way to prevent that is to keep the earth as a livible habitat for people. Doing this also means ensuring that it is a livable habitat for other life-forms, since we depend on them and the system... which gets me thinking... as important as even a "simple" earthworm is to human life, it's sad that it would appear that we have no significant benefit to the eathworm. If the goal was really to "save the world" I would be studying how to get rid of people as quickly as possible. But when people ask me what I study, it would be too difficult to explain all that, so instead I just say "Saving the world".
Winters: Actually, the winters are not that dark. It is much like Michigan. Even if the days were a little longer in Tokyo, sitting in an office from morning until well after the sun goes down means that most people in Tokyo, who see the sun only in the morning on their way to work, have even shorter days than we do here in Sweden.
I try to get some litteracy into minds. Some of them have a bit of a masochist nature: they keep coming back. If you like it, help spreading the word (please...)
galleries
