Ishmael - Chapter 1 and 2

Okay, let's get this out of the way. Firstly, I have already read this book in high school. I didn't like it. That being said, I'm hoping this time around that I will have a better opinion of it.

One of the things I recall not liking about this book is the writing style. And unfortunately, this remains true. Quinn has a very pedantic style, quite on purpose I believe. He's clearly teaching us a lesson through the narrator. I mean, the narrator doesn't even have a name, they're meant to stand in for us. And at this point, I don't even like the narrator. They come across as very jaded about something and very selfish as well. Perhaps this is on purpose, but whenever I read the narrator's thoughts or actions, I can't help but think of that guy who sits on the bus next to you having a loud phone conversation and obnoxiously eating potato chips with his mouth open; rude and entitled.

I cannot believe this, but someone made t-shirts. 

I think the thing that really irks me about the style is the characters don't differ in voice. Ishmael and the narrator speak in the same overly-intellectual, superfluous way that is completely unlike how anyone speaks in real life. I'm not demanding completely realistic conversations, but if you're going to format your lesson-for-the-world as a novel, write it like a novel.

Speaking of that, this book is less of a novel and more of a fable at the present moment. We're just meant to accept the fact that the narrator can telepathically communicate with a gorilla. I mean, seriously? Again, I get where he's coming from, but it just rubs me the wrong way.

Also all this talk of Nazi Germany is weirding me out. And yes, I understand that Nazism is something almost everyone is familiar with, and can be an interesting study into the psychology of people (read more about that here) and all that. But, I find the example overused and franklu the way Ishmael almost justifies Hitler's regime unnerves me quite a lot.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not too keen on this book quite yet.

Write to you later.

Danielle K.

Eaarth - Backing Off

I really don't think there's a better title for this chapter than "Backing Off". It just exemplifies exactly what McKibben is talking about, scaling back on our demands, our lifestyles, and taking inventory on what you actually need and where that comes from.

Channel of distribution for your food

I think my favorite part in the chapter, (other than the revolutionary war history lesson, I love that stuff), was the bit about farmer's markets. (Learn more about our local farmer's market here by the way, they open back up in early May.) I love farmer's markets. I mean, fresh food, nice people, usually good weather, what else could you want? McKibben talks about these sort of community building events as essential to changing our mentality about our planet. Fostering relationships within communities not only improves the happiness of those communities, it also allows them to collectively make change for the better. Having a large chain of supply increases the chance for failure, and the size of the chain makes it more likely that the failure will have profound effects. If you buy your strawberries from Russia, or South Korea, or Italy, those strawberries have to be grown, packaged, shipped, and transported to your grocery store from across the ocean. Not only does the increase the energy needed to produce those strawberries, it also allows more things to go wrong in the process. Buying local not only gives your money to local businesses, it also shortens the supply chain. Not to mention that buying locally grown food is a great and healthy way to reduce your carbon footprint. Read more about the benefits of local food here.

I really agree with McKibben, that we need to get away from our "growth is good" and "this is the way we've always done it" mentalities and move to thinking about sustainably living on the planet we've created for ourselves, about maintaining and reducing what we have, and about changing the scale of our relationships.

So go say hi to your neighbor.

Write to you soon.

Danielle K.

Eaarth - High Tide

Well, the topic for today is the second chapter of Bill McKibben's Eaarth, and what issues that were raised concern us. Am I allowed to answer all of them? Seriously, what doesn't McKibben touch on here? Economic instability, major flooding leading to displaced peoples, increased spread of disease, resource wars, crumbling infrastructure, it all concerns me.

I think what I'd like to write about today is epidemiology, or the study of disease, its spread, and also its control. As McKibben mentioned, there's a stark contrast between disease in the global North and disease in the global South. Lower-income countries typically have more deaths in children, as well as more deaths from infectious disease, like malaria or dengue fever, rather than chronic disease, like heart disease. Read more about the differences here. Additionally, the amount of people who die of respiratory infections is significantly higher in low-income countries than in higher-income countries, which can be directly connected to the issue of proper heating and cooling, made even worse by the extreme fluctuations in temperature caused by global climate change.

It's things like this that really make you take a step back and think about how things got this way. In terms of the environment, the more sea levels rise and the more frequent flash floods and other disasters become, the more difficult it is for already poor countries to recover from these issues. This means these countries have less money and resources to spend on healthcare, and access to clean water, both of which affect the spread of disease significantly. Add to this the increase in vector animals like mosquitos because of rising global temperatures, and you've got yourself a perfect storm of crap.

Simply put, I'm concerned, as McKibben is, that these issues will just continue to pile on top of one another until we collapse under the pressure. It's a bleak picture, but one I think we all need to realize and accept if anything's ever going to get better.

Well that was depressing. Here's hoping a more positive chapter is on the way.

Write to you soon!

Danielle K.

Eaarth - A New World

I'm not usually the type of person to be very interested in statistics, but the startling statistics in Bill McKibben's book Eaarth really make me sit up and take notice. He presents the blunt truth that humanity has drastically altered our world. The Earth that used to exist before us is gone. We can never get it back.

The arctic ice melting over time

Just speaking about the carbon levels in the air, the ideal amount that McKibben puts forth is 350 parts per million. But as of 2007, we've past that point by about 40 ppm. Read more about that at 350.org. These carbon levels are wreaking havoc worldwide. Global temperatures are rising, causing ice melt in the poles, raising sea levels, creating droughts and food shortages, acidifying our oceans, and killing animals, just to name a few effects. People in every walk of life are effected, from farmers to businessmen.

Frankly, this is terrifying. McKibben points out that only a few years ago, this issue was primarily spoken about in the future tense, employing rhetoric about future generations and grandchildren to get people to take action. Unfortunately, we've come to realize that this is a problem for now, and it's only going to get worse if we don't do anything.

Our annual average carbon ppm as of 2013.

I'll be the first to say that McKibben's rhetoric is very effective, but as of yet, very few references to solutions have been brought forward. Given I've only read the first chapter of the book, this is to be expected. But a call to action without any steps to take is kind of like leaving water to boil without the intention of making
tea; pretty pointless.

I'm open to continuing this book, (I mean, I kind of have to for this class, but that's beside the point), but right now, all I'm getting out of it is a case of melancholy.

That's all for now, write to you soon!

Danielle K

Thoreau's Walking

Ah, Thoreau. What I can say about Thoreau that hasn't already been said?  Not much, but I'm certainly going to try.

Thoreau in 1854

In the mid-1800s, noted essayist and philosopher Henry David Thoreau wrote a lecture entitled Walking, (which can be found here), which he later delivered ten times. I think I shall begin here, with the nature of the piece. 

When I began reading Walking, I found the tone to be very didactic, almost patronizing at points. I later realized this piece sounded didactic because it is. It's a lecture, intended to be heard, not read. Which is why, I think, the personal anecdotes in this piece are more effective if read though the lens of a lecture. 

One of these personal examples that I particularly connect to is when Thoreau writes about is the idea of one's brain and one's body belonging in different places in nature. Of this, Thoreau says, 

"Of course it is of no use to direct our steps to the woods, if they do not carry us thither. I am alarmed when it happens that I have walked a mile into the woods bodily, without getting there in spirit... The thought of some work will run in my head and I am not where my body is—I am out of my senses. In my walks I would fain return to my senses. What business have I in the woods, if I am thinking of something out of the woods?" 

This is what I wish to write about today. Like Thoreau, I often see people attempting to artificially connect with nature; going out into their yards and breathing the air because they saw it on some early morning talk show. I'm not denying that the benefits of spending time outdoors are huge. In fact, see this article by Michael Hyatt for more on the effect of nature on your health, among other things. I will admit it is admirable that people are even trying to connect more with the outdoors, achieving a true connection with nature is difficult. I agree with Thoreau, in that I do not fully understand the purpose of actively being with nature if people aren't going to appreciate it. 

I think the thing that really gets me going here is that, typically, the people who watches these talk shows and take their advice, are also the people who drive gas-guzzling cars, leave the lights on and the faucets running, and don't bother to recycle. If they truly wanted to connect with nature, they would realize that their actions directly affect what is around them. We are all part of nature, as it is part of us. Don't take things for granted. 

Go out and take a walk.

Danielle K.

The Audit

This evening I read The Audit, a short story by Rachel May, who is a Coordinator of Sustainability Education at Syracuse University. Read more about her here. This story was originally published in an anthology called Winds of Change: Short Stories about Our Climate. You can find the full text of the story here.

A visual representation of environmental footprint by country.

Anyway, moving onto my thoughts. First, let me say that I find this sort of story very interesting, because it seems quite plausible in the near future. There are already many places people can calculate their carbon footprint, or the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds produced by an entity, such as individual person, a group of people, or a company. One of these is through the EPA, and can be found here. Personally, I think it would be a great idea to force people to consume less. An unfortunate truth of our society is that often the only way to make people do things is to use money as an incentive. 

Speaking about the story from an English perspective, it is clear that Bill, the protagonist, is a stand in for us, the audience. At one point, the whole idea of a Global Climate Audit is literally explained for him, and thus for us. I usually don't mind this in fiction, but for some reason it really bothered me here, as if the audience knows nothing about the outdoors. Maybe I just feel this way because we are all environmentally conscious, (why else would we be taking this class?), and I felt it unnecessary to hit me over the head with the beauty of nature.

The one thing this story brought up that I feel I need to speak about is lawns. It opens on our main character mowing his lawn for god's sake. I really don't like lawns as a concept. They're a waste of water and resources, as well as space that could be used for useful things, such as gardening. There is a strange stigma about using your front yard for anything that isn't a lawn for some reason. As Bill says, "These are the suburbs. Everyone's lawn has to look exactly the same." To which his son replies exactly what I was thinking, "That's weird."

A drought resistant lawn in California.

There is a lovely article from the New York Times written in 2013 about some Southwestern cities who pay their citizen's to rip out their wasteful lawns and replace them with plants that require less resources, especially water. If you're interested, you can read it here. 

Anyway, that's it for now. Write to you later!

Danielle K. 

Introduction

Hi there folks! Danielle K here.

Just thought I'd create a small introduction to myself as well as this blog. I'm Danielle, a sophomore at Western Michigan University. I'm studying technical theatre, emphasizing scenic design and technical direction. Basically, I design and build sets for theatre. I'm interested in environmental justice, and am a member of the Chicago Environmental Justice Network.

Here, I'll be posting my thoughts and feelings related to the book Eaarth, by Bill McKibben, as well as the novel Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, and any other things I feel like posting here. I'm excited to share my thoughts with everyone

That's all for now, and write to you soon!

Danielle K