Professor Svenson's showing of a part of his documentry entitled "Conflicting Prescriptions" has brought forth many interesting perspectives. Each person interviewed had many different ideas/ideals for and about the current situation and the future of the Lower 9th Ward. For many local residents, basic restructuring and rebuilding of homes and schools has become a high priority for restoring what was once such a unique community. Destroyed by hurricaine Katrina, the Lower 9th Ward has been wiped clean of the majority of physical structures above ground, but the roots in this area still run deep.
Focusing on the rebuilding of this community, it is clear to see that outside influences are infiltrating the area, bringing with them a sense of curiosity and creativity. Many people have come to this area thinking of the Lower 9th as a clean slate. This couldn't be farther from the truth. For an area dominated by African American residents, the ideal set forth to create the "Las Vegas of the South", or to turn the land into a North American replica of the Gardens of Versailles, is unimaginable.
True inequality shines through in this neighbourhood at this time. Those that left the area because they had nothing left rings true in the clearly evident unequal power relations that underly government funding. When a national disaster hits, there should be an immediate push to help the weakened part of the country, however there still remains very little in the way of assistance. Why hasn't more been done? Environmental injustice/inequality.
I would like to see how the Lower 9th Ward will look in 10, 25 and 50 years from now. It will be very interesting to see who will have had the most influence on this area in terms of the rebuilding of the land, or if it will remain a 'hotspot' for tourists. Of all the topics covered in this course, I feel that within the past 4 years this area has encompassed a great deal of these and still continues to.

From Farms to Factories

Today in class, Kelly and Kira presented on the hidden environmental problems associated with factory farming. They executed this topic with good precision and topped it off by entertaining us with "The Meatrix". This short film summed up the horrible underlying practices that occur in the process of food development. Kelly went into nice detail about the idea of 'double speak'. I find this to be a cleaver marketing attempt on behalf of the factory farmers as a way of hiding the truth from the public eye. Why is it that we hear what we want to? I don't understand how two things can mean the same thing, but give off a totally different impression of what is actually going on.

Society has gotten to the point in 'consumer society' that animals are no longer treated as a part of a natural process in providing nutritional substance to humans, but as a commodity to be mass produced, bought and sold. This eludes to the idea that these cows, pigs, and chickens are free from their "beingness" (as mentioned in the presentation) and treated as non-living objects. I think the implicatons of this can be pretty severe in terms of ethical treatment of animals, removal of jobs from local farmers/factory farms, threat of disease and other health realated illnesses (through use of antibiotic use that spawns resistant bacteria), decreased quality of food, pollution and so on. There seems to be more bad than good in terms of outcomes. Are we willing to sacrifice all these things and support industrial farming for the sake of a McDonald's burger or egg McMuffin? I would hope not.

The Sociology of Environmental Health

On February 12th, Nickolas Grim and Keltie Hammond gave a presentation to our class with regards to environmental health and other practices directly impacting humans. They brought in a guest speaker by the name of Susan Koswan. I thought this woman was such a great inspiration through all the work that she has accomplished. I think that banning pesticide use and founding the Dandelion festivals (as just a few of her vast accomplishments), shows that being environmentally friendly can happen, it just takes a bit of elbow grease. I didn't realize pesticide use has such negative implications on the growth of children (an interesting issue). Can we really put ourselves in such a position as to harm others for the sake of a nice looking lawn or for a bigger/rounder/redder tomato? Where are the ethical boundaries? And who has power to draw them?

I think it's interesting to note that harmful chemicals and toxins that humans are exposed to are produced by humans ourselves. We create that which directly harms us. So why do we continue to produce harmful chemicals that stunt our growth as a human race? and make a point to further innovate products that can kill? At first glance, pesticide use seems appropriate for reasons concerning the banishment of insects, bacteria and weeds that are not deemed 'sanitary' in terms of contact with human food. I would argue that long-term effects, both positive and negative should be more closely examined before pesticide use is approved. It makes little sense to continue to use pesticides when the consequences of its use are showing their true colours. Harm to human health and the environment should be enough proof to stop the use of pesticides. So why don't we stop?

Technological Change and the Environment

This week, Greg and Katelyn discussed the issue of technological change and it's impact on the environment, in particular, the e-waste phenomenon. As society and knowledge develop, so too does technology. Withdrawing resources from the environment to create such technologies is now having a detrimental effect on the environment and human health. The externalities of this human practice indicates that, particularly in the semi-periphery and the periphery, our consumer lifestyles in western society do not want to deal with waste. When so much of our technologies are made in China, it is sad to know that we use it and yet again they bear the burden of our 'left-overs'. Will society ever reach a plateau? or will we continue to think up more ideas for technological innovation?

I was sent an email a while back that had photographs and statistics of e-waste and other waste as a result of human consumption. The following link is the website of this photographer, Chris Jordan - check out the gallery titled "Intolerable Beauty". If the video shown in class wasn't enough of a visual slap in the face, this might hit home:

http://www.chrisjordan.com/

In the following video, this simple animation proves a bold fact: you can run, but you can't escape the flood of e-waste. There is only so many places where toxic electronics can be placed, and sooner or later, they are going to filter onto an international level...unless we run out of resources first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5AUttCYB4

This video demonstrates how a small warehouse is just the ''tip of the iceberg'' in terms of how many computers/televisions etc. are exposed of. It indicates that it only costs about $30 in the US to recycle a computer, but who really pays the price of discarded, toxic technologies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLKK-N0UhCY&feature=related

Enjoy!

Corporate Power and the Global Media

This past Thursday in class, Adam and Tasha presented "Corporate Power" to our class. I find it very uncomforting (but yet, oddly interesting) how such a large portion (50%) of the mass media is controlled by 23 corporations - as mentioned in the video "Manufacturing Consent". This brings me to the question: Who are the elites? Corporations' control over resources and dominant political institutions feed both the degradation of the environment and the perception that they are able to overexploit their surroundings at alarming rates, with no associated costs. A section of one video, I think it was "The Corporation", showed the insane amounts of money corporations were fined as a result of their actions. I think that to fine corporations that are swimming in their wealth is the wrong approach. To pay-off legal fines as a way of getting out of trouble doesn't help the environment, and it surely doesn't help to change their attitudes. There needs to be another approach.

Another idea discussed in the presentation/films was the idea of corporations buying out the "green image" as a way of portraying a sustainable image for their company. Not only is the validity of this image untrue in most cases, but is also a very strategic approach to increasing profit. Is society that uneducated that we continue to buy into this lie? or do we want to believe those with power are using it properly?

The State, Ecological Violence and US Imperialism

Simon gave a presentation on US imperialism, the state and ecological violence. I found that aspects of this presentation gave a clear overview of these topics in relation to environmental sociology. It was interesting how Simon was able to provide us with a brief description of his academic experience in third world countries and how these topics intersected with his encounters. It would have been nice to gain a more in depth perspective on his studies in direct relation to course material.

As Simon mentioned, the first fact of history is that humans live and write history. Socially, we live in a society that was founded from the roots of its origins. If in practicality we cannot separate our social struggles from our environment, then it seems pointless to even try. With this in mind, to successfully fulfill the basic needs of life, humans must decide how to utilize their surroundings as a part of it. What stood out is how the state is able to use its power to manipulate not only its core country, but other periphery/semi-periphery countries as well. This leads to both increased social and environmental injustices which continue to fuel global inequalities. A vicious cycle if you ask me.

A discussion on capitalism concluded that severe ecological consequences in general are produced as a result of the production of items to not only meet basic needs, but to surpass them. When economic expansion grows from the seeds of capitalism, there is a threshold that is created. “Ecological violence” was a term I found interesting. It seems to divert the perception of violence as human versus human, to a human versus nature debate. At what point will nature fight back? Can it?