Here is a quiz that is featured in today’s NY times. I was shocked by how few answers I answered correctly…and I’m an EVST major. Maybe you’ll have better luck!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/science/paris-climate-change-talks-quiz.html?_r=0
You’d think that after seeing this film for a second time that I’d be less interested and not overwhelmed, but that was proven false on Monday. Seeing it through older eyes and with more environmental knowledge under my belt, I was even more moved and transfixed by the cult film. My heart rate increased, I was greatly affected by the music, and I had a hard time peeling my eyes from the screen. It’s hard to describe my initial reaction, but after reading my blog post from last year’s class, I had similar feelings of being overwhelmed and angry. This time I was less angry. Does that mean I’ve come to terms with the film and/or with society? There are so many grand and memorable moments that create an out of body experience. In the first section of the movie we are presented with tons of beautiful nature shots and pans along with intensifying Hopi music. The combination of the two make the scene so intense and pure that my thoughts are racing a mile a minute even though I’m only looking at a waterfall or the desert. When normally looking at these things, we are peaceful and calm.
I’m curious to know why the director chose to use lower and slower music during some scenes. What do these moments offer? One scene where this occurred was a shot of the dam, so were the film makers giving us a second to breathe to take in the human impacts on the land? A different scene that was difficult to watch was the plane moving slowly towards the camera. It was happening at an uncomfortable pace, but coupled with intense music made it almost unbearable. The film overall gives the idea that humans through industrialization/machines/technology have altered this landscape so quickly after so many years of it being pristine. We are made aware of tribal peoples at the beginning and end through the cave paintings. This gives the message that the land was taken away from these people and then absolutely slaughtered by our industry. I don’t like to think about it because it happened so long ago and there is little to do about it now.
The built environment has allowed Americans to recreate indoors, shop indoors, move from city to city indoors, and basically do everything with a roof above our heads. Our views of the moon are obstructed due to buildings and bright city lights, and there is no way of escaping what we’ve created/built. We move too quickly through life, and that is displayed when the cars are moving north/south/east/west in the city in sped up time. The lights are moving so fast before our eyes, like a video game or TV cartoon. You feel as if there is no way out, you’re trapped in this maze. So what does this film want to accomplish? I left feeling overwhelmed and exhausted after enduring this 1.5 hour sensory overload. The end of the film ends with words, the five Hopi definitions for Koyaanisquatsi which are almost an environmental call to action. Number 5 is the most intriguing which says “A state of life that calls for another way of living”. We aren’t told how to alter our ways, but this movie instills so much fear that maybe it can be possible? Is this film capable of changing our life styles?
Last semester in Professor Toia’s drawing class we were exposed to some of his art collection, and this included his spore art works. Here is a description from a gallery he was featured in:
“Over the past decade, Toia has cultivated his interest in mushrooms and the physical capture of their spores. His spore drawings are unique examples of his partnership with nature. Decades ago, he saw his first scientific spore print. In a controlled environment, a mycologist allows a mushroom to drop its spores for the purpose of scientific study. Toia’s spore drawings are deliberately executed under less controlled conditions. His manipulations combined with chance occurrences lead to surprising results and unworldly imagery. Only a few of his numerous attempts pass his rigorous standards of approval for his art.” http://kimfostergallery.com/jim-toia/
How do we dissect this form of artwork? How natural is it? Is Toia’s art more natural than other’s spore art because he depends on mother nature for a worthy piece? (such as shape of mushroom, how much spore it drops, and the way air flows over the piece to give the paper its detail)
“Some have attempted to justify wildlife conservation in terms of meat, others in terms of personal pleasure, others in terms of cash, still others in the interest of science, education, agriculture, art, public health, and even military preparedness. But few have so far clearly realized and expressed the whole truth, that all these things are but factors in a broad social value, and that wildlife, like golf, is a social asset.” (Leopold 226-227)
Leopold brings the idea to the surface that regardless of who you are or what you believe in (whether its hunting or conservation biology), we all see wildlife as an asset. We are consumers. He points to the differences in types of consumers throughout the last few chapters to emphasize that there are conservationists and also hunters who disregard the future of wildlife. There is no way around the truth that wildlife is a social asset, but there is the opportunity to educate for the future of wildlife so that all can enjoy this asset for as long as possible.
“We fancy that industry supports us, forgetting what supports industry.” (Leopold 212)
We have lost touch with nature through the mechanization and gadgets of this time, according to Leopold. I think this quote is very relevant to our field trip to Cabela’s because of the amount of merchandise in the store to assist hunters or fishermen in unnecessary and trifling ways.
After spending multiple hours at both Hawk Mountain and Cabela’s this past Saturday, and after much time thinking about the relationships they have to each other, to people, and to the environment, I was able to compartmentalize each place’s role in society. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary didn’t seem like an unusual site to visit for our class (which might generalize that everyone in our class is interested in nature and its conservation) but Cabela’s was equally as important for our class to see –how the “other half lives”. My initial feeling of both places, Hawk Mountain fitting our stereotype while Cabela’s did not, was slowly broken down after the time spent at each location.
Hawk Mountain is considered a “traffic bottleneck” for birds migrating south for winter, according to Rachel Carson. At first, back in the day when conservation was a rare word to come by, hunters abused this vantage point until the 1930’s when it was converted into a sanctuary to stop the killing of raptors. This spot is very popular amongst bird watchers, students, boy scout troops, environmentalists etc. because the scene is awe-inspiring. At first I wasn’t too enthused by the bitter cold and the craggy rocks, but I was soon convinced of the beauty of the spot. This spot proves that those birds’ migration have been unaffected by humans over thousands of years, and the Sanctuary’s existence allows for them to continue on. Those of us perched on the mountainside were learning, teaching, and observing with each other, which is reminiscent of other experience’s I’ve had in nature but never in a department store. The people on the mountain were young and old, from near and far, and most had the same goal of being there- to watch the raptors drift with the exceptional winds provided by the landscape. Maybe some were forced to be there or just wanted views of the autumn landscape, but everyone was seeing and hearing the same things. No one is intentionally excluded from experiencing Hawk Mountain Sanctuary while that didn’t seem the case in Cabela’s.
The health and abundance of birds of prey in the US is a reflection of the country’s regard and regulations for human and environmental health. Herbicides and pesticides were not regulated, which means that they weren’t tested before widely implemented across massive regions. It was apparent at this time that the United States’ love for industry prevailed and the environment lost. Cabela’s reminds me of that time, it seems caught in the past while the rest of the nation is moving forward. Cabela’s average consumer would be on Hawk Mountain pre-1930’s conservation movement. Today’s Hawk Mountain sanctuary hiker would rarely be seen in a Cabela’s store. Although the stores are filled with merchandise from hunting to camping to home décor, the taxidermy and store environment cater to an audience that views nature through different lenses. The audience might not always be there for nature, which was the issue my group encountered while roaming the store. So many guns, so many people buying guns, and so little regard for who and what they’re buying. This statement is bold, but we were shocked at the quantity of handguns Cabela’s sold because they are a recreation store that promotes hunting, not defending oneself.
Both locations are considered great establishments, using nature to further their establishments. Both locations are also very dependent on the animals. If Hawk Mountain didn’t serve the birds during migration, no one would fund the organization. If hunted animals went extinct, much of Cabela’s business would flounder. I believe that Cabela’s relationship with Hawk Mountain isn’t direct, but Cabela’s supports hunters who shoot animals, which may include birds of prey. Hunting is a past time and it built this country’s industry in the 16th and 17th centuries, yet in today’s situation I believe that sport hunting of animals with low populations falls below the importance of animal and nature conservation.
This is a film that I first saw in Andy’s Environment and Film class last year. It left a very lasting impression on me, especially as an EVST student. This film has no dialogue but it doesn’t need it. The way the information is conveyed is very different, using time-lapse and slow motion, but the message is even stronger. The beginning of the film is just of nature (i.e the ocean, wildlife, etc), then it shows images of human’s impact on the land. Towards the end we see city life and people in the city. The last scene brought me to tears, and I hope you get the chance to see the entire film at some point because it can be an enlightening, angering, and enjoyable film all at the same time.
Last class we discussed the sandhill crane because of its long history, so during the Dillard reading I was happy to see a section on monarch butterflies. Their history is noted in this quote from Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: “Each successive swarm repeats this mysterious dogleg movement, year after year. Entomologists actually think that the butterflies might be “remembering” the position of a long-gone, looming glacier.” (258)
I am convinced that butterflies, let alone most species, can see and feel a history that we cannot. The monarchs and cranes could easily achieve a Story of Place assignment.
The pond metaphors-too great to note all (seasons, man, gun firer), but here is a passage that I enjoyed from Spring in Walden: “The pond began to boom about an hour after sunrise, when it felt the influence of the sun’s rays slanted upon it from over the hills; it stretched itself and yawned like a waking man with a gradually increasing tumult, which was kept up three or four hours.” (326)
“Whichever way we turned, it seemed that the heavens and the earth had met together, since he enhanced the beauty of the landscape. A blue-robed man, whose fittest roof is the overarching sky which reflects his serenity. I do not see how he can never die; Nature cannot spare him.” (Thoreau 292)
This was the last visitor from “Former Inhabitants”, a philosopher who Thoreau admired and praised for his take on life and his role in nature. He seemed to make a great impression on Thoreau and could have even changed his outlook.
“The “forest” we think of today is home to redwoods and spotted owls, or government-designated “wilderness” preserves and national parks. The forest is a long way away, over the horizon, or way up north. Only it isn’t. It’s right outside your window.”
So, is the forest we see today equally as important as the one that existed in the 16th and 17th centuries? Have we lost something or have we gained something? The transformation from forests to farms then back to forests has not been understood by many Americans living today, so what would they say on that fact?
In today’s New York Times there is an article on the remodel of a community playground, but most important point is that Mayor Bill de Blasio is channelling $130 million into low-income community parks and an additional $36 million will pay for new infrastructure to prevent storm water runoff.
This park will rearrange the organization of amenities to better accommodate the health and happiness of the community; they will move the basketball courts to the center of the park where there will be less residual noise to affect apartment building tenants and move the playground away from the highway, which will hopefully decrease children’s exposure to fuel emissions–asthma is an issue in this area in the area. And lastly, the play structure and its foundation will be shades of blues and greens to evoke nature.
However, none of these plans will happen soon because the plans have not yet been submitted to the city’s public design commission and then to the parks department, but completion expected by 2017! See proposed plan in article photos.
From The World Without Us – “With no more people, there won’t be salt. There will, however, be rust and quite a bit of it, when no one is painting the bridges.” (42)
This is specifically speaking of New York City’s bridges that will continue thriving if they are maintained. Similar to most structures in NYC, without the human maintaining them, they will quickly deteriorate at the hand of nature.
From Walden – “At length, having come up fifty rods off, he uttered one of those prolonged howls, as if calling on the god of loons to aid him, and immediately there came a wind from the east and rippled the surface, and filled the whole air with misty rain, and I was impressed if it were the prayer of the loon answered, and his god was angry with me; and so I left him disappearing far away on the tumultuous surface.” (258)
Thoreau in this section believes that the loon he is ‘playing’ with can understand human instinct and the loon ‘himself’ is capable of “calling on the god of loons”. The loon “laughs” and “balks” at Thoreau, so he makes the loon feel like a human almost, yet make sure to distinguish that the loon is an animal and calls upon a different god to answer his prayers.