Blog #10

Prompt: "What is Social Ecology? What are your reactions to the readings? What forms of hierarchy are in our world today? Are these hierarchies natural? Are there any better alternatives?"

I’m not sure if I fully grasp what Social Ecology is all about so I’m looking forward to class discussion. But, from what I gathered, social ecology is about restructuring our current social paradigms to a system where there is a more level playing field. Social ecology addresses the demonization of nature and the separation of humans from nature for the sake of dominating nature.

In terms of the readings I had a hard time with the “what is social ecology” one because there were so many words in quotations and I just couldn’t really follow the train of thought very well. But from that paper I liked the idea of restructuring our view of nature and changing it so the natural world is not viewed as something cold and separate and unimportant intrinsically. I think the paper went too far when it was trying to counter the survival of the fittest theory. I do believe that in nature survival of the fittest and competition for resources is a main driving factor. Symbiosis is also important, and maybe it should be more emphasized, but that doesn’t de-value the instinctual need to fight for survival, especially in a world of dwindling natural resources.

I enjoyed the paper about the third world countries. There are obvious correlations between super consumerism in the developed world and poverty and need in developing countries. It is a radical idea that their misfortune is completely reliant upon our frivolous lifestyle, but I think it would be good for people to read that at least to get them thinking. My only problem with the paper is that it only talked about need in third world counties but there is also plenty of instances in the US where people are going without necessities.

I think you can find hierarchies just about everywhere. From dynamics in a high school to developing vs. developed nations. I think that within the story that we are all accustomed to, hierarchies are part of the status quo. I don’t know how things would be structured without hierarchies, I would be interested to hear other peoples’ ideas for different social structures. 

Blog #9

Prompt: "Explain your view on deep ecology. How can you relate these views to your lifestyle or society? Which principle do you agree most with and which do you agree least with? Why? What concerns do you have about Deep Ecology? "

My view on Deep Ecology is that it is all about viewing things holistically. No one person or species is better than the rest and you have to look at the whole picture in order to improve the quality of the lives of everyone/everything involved. I think that generally that is true when looking at just about any problem faced either in my daily life or by society as a whole. Looking at only part of the picture usually leads to incomplete solutions.

The principle that I liked the most is “Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes”. I’m a big believer in the power of small (or large!) personal changes. It is easy to get discouraged by the magnitude of a problem and to take no action at all, but then nothing is ever going to change. If you believe in the principles of deep ecology and think that there is room for improvement in yourself and in others when it comes to our relationship with the rest of the world, then it only makes sense for you to do something about it!

A concern I have of Deep Ecology is its perception. Most people probably do not want to read about how human population needs to decrease and that humans do not inherently have the right to dominate anything else in nature because everything has value. 

Blog #8

Prompt: "What are the preconditions necessary for using consensus decision making in a group or organization?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process?"

From what I gather, there are two key points when it comes to consensus decision-making. The first thing necessity is that everyone has the same or very similar goals. It would be impossible to come to a decision if people did not have the same ideals in mind. The point of consensus decision-making is that everyone wants to achieve the same things; it is the path to get there that needs to be decided upon. A second necessity is trust. When working in a group and using consensus decision-making, you must trust that those around you are trying to reach the same goals and you must trust that they know what they are talking about.

I think that the concept of consensus decision-making is great. But I think in order for it to fully work at its highest potential, you would have to be in a situation where you had the two necessities I talked about earlier. I don’t think I personally have been in many group decision-making processes where we even had those two things. Trust is something that must develop over time which I think is a weakness for this system because it seems to me like you would already have to have relationships with the people in the group before being able to use consensus decision-making. One thing from one of the papers that I really liked was when she was talking about blocking. Estes said that you should only block a decision when you have an instinctual reaction that this is wrong and you wouldn’t want to lead your friends down that path. Therefore, the decision making process isn’t about ego or showing off or knowing the most, its about what is best for the entire group. 

Blog #6

 Prompt: "What are your reactions to your GTP reading?  What are your preliminary ideas for leading a class meeting focused on this topic?" 

These papers were not exactly what I was expecting for ecofeminism. I expected to read about how patriarchal society is designed to put down women and subsequently that mindset is used also to degrade and over-use nature and its resources. That general concept was discussed in the papers, but they tended to have a more historical viewpoint than I was expecting. Ecofeminism is about a viewpoint and how that has shaped society so it does make sense to look back in history and see how these ideas were shaped. It was very interesting to read about people’s theories on how relationships between men and women and nature formed over time. But I am most interested in how those viewpoints can change in the future. The part of one of the papers I found intriguing was the one that talked about empowering women in developing countries. The author touched on how women’s reproductive rights are viewed as something to be controlled which is always a touchy subject but definitely an interesting one. I would like to look more into papers surrounding topics like that. I think that the way to change a lot of what ecofeminists take issue with is through the empowerment of women, and especially the empowerment of women in developing nations where the environment tends to be an integral, tangible part of everyday life.