Field Trip Reflection

I've been to the Peppermill Resort in Reno once before the sustainability trip. I didn't know the resort practiced sustainable methods to run the hotel prior to the trip, let alone how many sustainable practices they actually do. Being the only (known) resort to use geothermal energy to run most of the hotel is impressive enough, let alone all of their other projects they incorporate. Two of my notaable favorites were the donating of unused soaps to the less fortunate and their recylcing of food waste to make compost. I also found it really interesting and productive how the Peppermill turned to sustainable practices to save money and keep the resort running when it was going through troubles. The 2nd portion of the field trip was definitely my favorite. Being in the hybrid geodesic structure was incredible. Since my family just recently moved to 2 acres of land and will be building a house soon, and learning about sustainable structured homes is on my families agenda. Actually touring a (what I believe to be) revolutionary home structure was awesome, especially since in a way it was a surprise. Overall the entire field trip was a great start to my day and I'm really happy that I was able to learn everything that I did that day.

Quantity vs Quality

There are two main types of measurements that is looked at when researching-- quantity and quality. It seems like we as humans gravitate towards putting quantity over quality. It's better to have more of something no matter the capability of said thing. We long for more money, clothes, material goods, time, friends, etc. We want more we want more! BUT WHY?! Isn't it better to have one really good item or thing rather than multiple versions of a worse product? I see "mass-produced" everything now and nothing works! Our main sources of energy through fossil fuels and mass production of low-nutrient & highly processed food are two great examples. Making more of something with less quality encourages a wasteful cycle we humans have for some reason inhabited into our everyday life. Why worry about keeping something for a long extended period of time when there are thousands more just like it? Why spend $20 on buying less food that's actually useful to our bodies like fresh produce and free-rage protein when we can instead double what we purchase by buying chips, cookies, candy, and soda? Before westernization, Hawai'i didn't rely on having unreasonable amounts of tools, food, and power. It was more important to have a few well-crafted tools than an entire house full of easily breakable ones. Before western influence, many cultures relied on quality over quantity and most cultures thrived with this in mind. It's no coincidence that our society is unstable because we don't stress the importance of the right things. If our views changed to stressing the importance of quality and not just quantity, we wouldn't be as wasteful, careless, and stressed when the low quality things fall apart. Why not stress the importance of quality from now on? Because the idea is there, the importance is just not stressed enough.

Just a Thought...

According to the Malthusian Theory, there are two types of "checks" that play a role in guiding population growth. First there are the preventative checks which monitor the rate of population through "moral restraint". Examples include birth control, restriction from marriage at an early age, and having smaller families). Second there are positive checks which monitor population rates through shortening human life spans. Examples include war, famine, disease, and genocide. Today in 2015, the world inhabits around 7 billion people. Now, that's a lot of people when you take into account the capacity the earth is able to provide for us 7 billion people. One of the biggest pressures we put on the world is extraction of food. Malthus even said that a species can only survive if it avoids over harvesting its food source. With the population and food demand so high, corporations turned to science to solve our problems (because it always works out so well). One main "issue" trying to be solved is having the ability for plants to withstand destructive elements (like bugs or weather) so the food can grow no matter the surrounding environment. Chemicals and pesticides have been huge contributors to growing higher amounts of food. Some say it's harmless to ingest chemicals with the sole purpose to kill other organisms and others aren't so convinced. The black and white facts are, no matter how deep you get in this topic or which side you stand on, billions of people today are sick and one of the most well known ways to prevent yourself from getting sick is "eating right". Obviously the term "eating right" means eating a well balanced diet which fulfills your nutrient requirements, but could it also mean eating food that isn't groomed with chemicals and literal bug poison from the time of planting to harvesting? In my opinion... OBVIOUSLY! And with the amount of food that uses unnatural pesticides through the developmental process of that food, it's safe to say billions of people consume toxic chemicals regularly. In addition, with those big name corporations that provide our lovely chemically enriched food (and most of our food in general) not wanting to share with the public which foods are grown with or without chemicals, or the reports of the effects those toxins do to the human body, it's hard to place good judgement on what to buy/eat. It's one thing to raise food with harmful toxins, it's another thing to hide the effects of what consuming that food will do. So am I safe to say that the food industry today is actually an intentional huge positive check influencing our population? Our population is so big that we have resorted to secretly killing off as many people as possible without their awareness simply from what they had on their plates? Around 2.8 million adults die every year due to obesity (EASO.org). About 3.1 million children die every year due to malnutrition and starvation (stophungerno.org). Around 14 million people are diagnosed with cancer and about 8 million die from the disease a year (cdc.gov)(Of course not all cancer is food related). Food used to be the source of nutrition, energy, and growth and now it's slowly killing as many people as possible. What once was a necessity to sustain our life in a healthy manner, is now a solid staircase to millions of death globally. How do we fix food "checking" or population by killing us off? Would it be a more efficient world if what we ate didn't contain harmful toxins and didn't add to our already long list of disease? Or am I just imagining all of this...

FOOOOD

"A species-- human or otherwise-- can flourish only if it avoids over harvesting it's food sources." Seems simple enough to understand right? And yet such a simply understood concept wasn't/isn't fully understood by some people. We have already well past our limit of over harvesting food sources, and now are at the point of cramming animals so tight in captivity they don't develop the bones and marrow to be able to walk. Seeds are modified with DNA from other organisms like fish or scorpions to withstand harsher environments and cut the growth rate in half while ruining the soil and surrounding life. This concept has been around for generations and yet we as humans manage to push our environment far past the limit. It's clear today how well we have ruined our system of agriculture and the corruption that has come along with it. And there are ideas floating around to slowly fix our food industry, but how much worse does it need to get before serious action is implemented? People have risen and stood together in attempt to overcome corporate influence in food growth but really, how bad will it get before the government realizes they probably should stop undercutting national health facts in regard to corporate's generous donations? Or before the laboratories decide to spend more time testing the effects of pesticide poison instead of mixing DNA with other species? It's obvious the people's voice doesn't matter nearly enough as long as there are mouths eating the food, so what needs to change?

Industrial Revolution

It is well known that the Industrial Revolution set the progression of machinery. It enabled faster ways of production and transportation, but at what cost? Schools don't teach you every side of the story because "the winner writes history", but what are the other sides of the Industrial Revolution? According to the book, Sustainability: A History, the amount of work decrease by the thousands, conditions for workers became dangerous, destroyed global eco-systems, caused the extinction of many species, facilitated rampant population growth, and put immense pressure on climate systems. None of these have been featured in any history class I've taken which brings me to wonder, "what was the other side of the industrial revolution like?". I can only imagine that if I was living in that time, I wouldn't have taken this type of change lightly if I understood at least two of the negative impacts. What did the people think of the Industrial Revolution at the time of it happening? Were there people who were against the revolution? What did they think and/or do?

Rousseau, the True Homie

By now it's no surprise that there were advocates promoting environmental sustainability for a good amount of time. Through forestry, there have been countries like Japan and Germany who have seen potential for deforestation on a large scale but pulled back and set huge efforts towards re-growth. The real intriguing factor of this reading was Rousseau. He had the idea that society should be advancing through bettering our morals, rather than through technology or science. I think this man had the right idea because as humans, our core isn't our technological abilities or who holds the most power among nations, it's our morals. It's caring and supporting one another, including our earth and surroundings. Rousseau had a deep love for raw nature. He didn't see nature as only a resource for human survival but instead saw the beauty in just the simplicity of it on it's own. My question is, how do we get more people in big power to have this raw love for our environment too? Far too many people who have serious abilities to change the world don't see how important nature is besides that if which can benefit the human race. It seems like many people higher in political power don't realize the beauty of the environment and I believe that if more political figures have a love for the environment, more action will be done towards saving it. So how do we get people with the mindset of caring for the environment further than just for the benefit of humans up in political power?

European's Early Modern Period of Sustainability

This reading I found myself drawn to the environmental aspect of sustainability. I always find it interesting that when looking for sources of origin to understand some type of problem/social issue (in general) I keep stumbling across two topics: Christianity and War. During the 1500-1800 era when Christianity became more popular, the mindset of experiencing nature as it's own spiritual awakening began to fade with the combination of Christianity and science growing among the mass. Nature and humans once worked together cohesively with gratitude and respect until the idea that humans are the greatest creation and every other thing placed on the earth is to benefit mankind. To make things clear also, I am in no way blaming the start of unsustainable practices on the spread of Christianity; I just find it a reoccurring coincidence that I keep finding Christianity to be a root in some societal issue. In addition, thousands and thousands of great trees were chopped down without a second thought because just like today, war's consumed countless resources. It took 2,000 to 3,000 trees to make ONE ship for the benefit of war. About "25 million hectares of woodland and 40 million hectares of grassland between 1700 and 1850" were removed by Europeans according to Deforesting the Earth by Michael Williams. How could the beauty of nature just slip away from our sight? To tear down over 61 million acres of forest in 150 years and keep on the same blind path to where the third largest state of the US is in a deadly drought because there aren't enough trees to create clouds to produce rain? How is it that so many big decisions are made with a narrow objective and don't consider every little possibility that could result from it? Why is it that mankind is only kind to man; and more importantly, how do we as a race learn to help every form of life grow stronger to be durable as a whole, rather than tearing anything and everything down so us humans can be at the top?