Piggyback Post #2

So I just read Marco's post about the Sustainability referendum on campus. I was reminded of a thought I had, maybe yesterday in class, but at any rate very recently in regards to the improvement of student and faculty participation in recycling and other sustainability causes on campus. My thought was this:

Convincing people that recycling is important through preaching is a real pain in the ass, and in the grand scheme I think it's pretty ineffective. Merely telling people that "recycling is important" does not provide enough incentive for people to change their existing behavior. Throwing away recyclables, littering - these are all behaviors that can be modified, but behavior modification tends to only result after some kind of reinforcement, be it negative or positive. Therefore, I thought of a program (yes, a program, contradictory to everything Quinn talks about) that could potentially change people's minds, and thereby their behavior. I thought of a club, or a branch of the Sustainability club, that would be tasked with something incredibly boring but also incredibly important. The members would stand alongside trashcans, which would also strategically be placed near the recycling containers (I think it's pretty damn stupid that they are not put side by side all the time - this seems like an easy way to facilitate the choice of where a disposable ought to do), and the members would essentially act as garbage police. When someone walks by, chucks a Coke bottle in the trash, the garbage police would pluck the bottle out and dispose of it in the appropriate recycling container. Hell, they could even heckle the waster a little if they so desired. If these garbage police were posted up for long enough and became a symbol of "Dispose of this shit correctly!" then the effect might actually be, well, effective. People might potentially begin to associate proper disposal with NOT getting heckled or hairy-eyeballed for chucking their plastics in the wrong bin.

As I am writing this I'm thinking about how 1984 this sounds, so creepy. Having people watch and correct your every wrong move - yeah, sounds a little uncomfortable. But discomfort elicits different behavior, which is what we want.

So, umm, yeah. That was my idea. Cheers.

It's Not Quite a Doodle

Here's something I wrote in class during Larry Merculieff's second visit. His emotional intelligence inspired something mildly poetic in me. So, here it be - Interpret at your own will.

Hello, my other self. This time I didn't ask for help.
Didn't think I need it. You showed up anyway.
Hello, my other self. I meant to keep you on the shelf.
Didn't want to see you. You showed up anyway.
In the morning, my other self, you'll ask me how that night felt.
Couldn't sleep through the morning, couldn't dream through the day.
In the morning, my other self, you'll ask me if I weathered well.
It's on this face I haven't shaved, that I couldn't save for anyone.

My eros, his name is my other half
Walks
With a hand in the back of my pocket
We lose the path.

Rolled up
Thanatos
Between thum and
Index
Glossary of dreams
Pinch, wake
Up.

Hey! Hey! My other self, I kept you from view.
Didn't know how they'd take you, I fucked it up without your help.
This time, like it always is, it's all on me.
Cracked the bell, just trying to ring clean.

Pictures from class!

HERE ARE SOME OF THE PICTURES I TOOK IN CLASS DURING OUR SCAVENGER HUNT.


1) Mother Culture's influence.

2) Signs of wildlife. "Nature"

3) Wildlife in the feathers.

4) Nature fighting back and winning... or at least looking cool.

Piggyback Posting

Okay, so I'm piggybacking off one of Alexa's posts which contained two videos of Quinn explaining his work and elaborating on his critical response. Watching one of the videos I was hugely surprised to hear that Quinn's most controversial topic in any of his work was his synthesis of the laws of ecology (which he referred to as the ABCs thereof) in Ishmael. Of all the really weighty issues he discusses in Ishmael, I feel like this is the most blatantly obvious, not something that would throw people up in arms. Apparently I was wrong about that. So, I had to think about why this would be so upsetting to people. Here is what I have tentatively concluded:

The ABCs of Ecology state that the world's inherent homeostatic system is infallible and always has been, working constatnly to even population and food balances so that neither tanks or explodes at any given time. The system is proprotional, fair, and self-sustaining, playing no favorites to either food availabilities or the life created by this food. Food and life are directly related, which is why for millions of years the system worked perfectly, never overpopulating the planet. There was always the right amount of food to sustain the right amount of life, and when food dwindled, so too did the life, which thereby allowed for more food to replenish, and thereby sustain more life. Highly cyclical stuff, which is why the system is perfect. I think of this system as an external locus of control, in that this is the way the world had worked for eons before agriculture. Agriculture, on the other hand, is an internal locus of control, because humans can manipulate the system from within to produce surplus food and thereby more life. However, here's the crux of my logic - we have chalked up agriculture to be the will of God. Man was set on the Earth and immediately he began to farm. So, the will of God, that's an external locus of control too, because the will to farm is derived from a higher power, something we cannot control from within.

I'm thinking that the reason the laws of ecology are so controversial, especially in their relation to religion, is that replacing the will of God (one external locus of control) with an age-old, infallible biological system (another external locus) forces people to resign God's intention. To diminish his influence. To admit that He didn't really have a Plan. To admit that we have been very, very wrong for a long time.

Now, no one really enjoys facing evidence that contradicts their long-standing schemas about life. No one really likes to get called the Dunce or have their face slapped by the backhand of truth, especially if the truth is obvious. That shit sucks. So, I can now understand why ecology would be such a controversial issue in Quinn's work. For me, this did not prove inflammatory at all, purely because of the kind of liberal, atheistic household I grew up in. But for a great, great deal of other people, I can see why this would be such a BIG DEAL.