1. At this point, you should have a list of communities we have encountered this semester and notes about how they interact--i.e. what are the occasions of their interaction and what kind of communication they engage in. As the first part of this question, give me your lists, first of
A) the communities; and then
B) the occasions for and content of their interaction.
For example: "Social and deep ecologists engage each other in academic essays where they argue over who has the better environmental ethics"; or "in general, visitors to the many south western national parks go to interact physically and mentally, even emotionally with a frontier-oriented 'text' of the wilderness."
2. Now consult the "Principles of Critical Reasoning" posted below and
A) what are the sound/unsound reasoning practices operating in the occasions for communication you describe above? (Who is using mythical thinking? Who is avoiding responsibility? Who relies on the better experts or evidence? Etc.)
B) now consider how these practice, good and bad, strengthen or weaken the communities that employ them. Here you might ask what is at stake in the debate? Who wins and who loses? What are the real world results of these communities' interaction? How might we improve the results of unsound practices?
Be ready to discuss your responses in class on Friday.
1. The Farming Community in Gas Land and the large companies that use the farmers land for extraction. These two communities only interact when the large companies need something from the farmers. They only interact with the farmers to persuade them to give up their land, health, and freedom of speech. Once the large companies receive their wishes they do not respond to the landowners complaints and avoid any responsibility for illnesses caused by hydraulic fracturing. The unsound practice occurring in this situation is that the company exploits the knowledge, wealth, and land of these farmers. The farmers do not know that their land will be harmed, so they are more vulnerable. These practices strengthen the companies, but weaken other communities besides the farmers. The farmers are affected financially, emotionally, and their health is compromised. The environment is its own community in play here that is severely affected. Rivers and lakes are contaminated, and animals constantly are dying because of the toxic chemicals released by the fracturing.
ReplyDelete2. The malibu community interacts with the downtown community. These two communities only interact when the people in Malibu need to extract resources from the people that live in downtown. When there is a fire that needs response in Malibu, the people will petition to have sources transferred to them, rather than the individuals living in the tenement houses. This is unsound in part of the individuals living in Malibu because they feel entitled because they are wealthier. This is an unsound practice because the people in downtown are compromised just because they do not live in a place that society deems "beautiful." Once again, the "environment" is also affected by the Malibu fires, and many homes burn down. This environment that people recognize as malibu consists of luxurious homes, the beach, and mountains. Since these mountains are indigenous to the fires, they are not technically negatively affected by them. Instead, the mountains need the fires to live. But since humans created their own artificial environment, that environment is negatively affected. Also the people that live in the tenement houses are also affected negatively. The people living in malibu essentially "win" due to their excess resources, but in the end, both communities lose because they will both experience burnt down homes and lost possessions.
3. Consumers of Wilderness and the environment. These two communities interact when people want a new, riveting experience. But the environment is negatively affected because every single time a human enters "wilderness" it is altered and no longer pure wilderness. Humans unintentionally avoid responsibility because people do not think changing wilderness in order to experience wilderness is necessarily a bad thing. The environment on the other hand is compromised because animals are re-located and become invaded with people. Because humans immediately change the environment when they step foot into wilderness, there is no true solution to this. Most people want to and will continue to crave an inspiring experience with the natural world, and will only do so if they are guaranteed a safe and pleasurable time.
The main point to these three examples is that two communities cannot just be examined because other communities are consequently affected by the other two.
1) The Malibu residents pressure the government to enact policies by using their social status and wealth. The Malibu residents exhibit barriers to entry. This strengthens the Malibu community because it gives them the exclusiveness and locks out those who may have differing ideas. It reveals a corruption that results in the wealthy always winning, not only in the policies regarding the environment, but also in many of the other American policies.
ReplyDelete2) The tenement residents of Los Angeles are victimized by the corrupt political system through the harsh living conditions they are powerless to overcome. The result of this is scape-goating, where the tenement residents are being blamed for the conditions that they live in because of their wealth. As a result, many of these residents live in buildings where fires are frequent, but the buildings are not well protected. The residents lose to the government because they do not have the money to influence the decisions made regarding their living conditions. As a result, there are more victims and injuries to these fires.
3) The victims of the fracking industry suffer health risks due to the dominant big businesses’ ability to silence their concerns. The fallacies at play here are dependence on “experts” and ignoring tradition. In this conflict, the victims’ health is at risk, but because the big businesses continually overshadow the “small farmers” and their removal from political affairs, the businesses continue to win. The result of this interaction is a false version of democracy, where only the bigger, more-involved citizens are being heard, while others are having their thoughts silenced.
4) Visitors of national parks visit the parks in hopes to find a spiritual connection, but instead experience a human-orchestrated version of nature. This is a prime example of metaphysical/mythical thinking. This practice ultimately weakens the communities that employ them because there is a continuous, gradual loss of the pristine, untouched nature that once existed. In this debate, the biotic community loses as it becomes more underappreciated and masked for what it truly is. We could improve this unsound practice by first trying to be a less consumerist society and then begin to return the national parks back to the reservoirs of nature, as they were originally intended.
1A) From McKenzie's Class: residents of LA, Santa Barbara, Riverside, and Ventura
ReplyDeleteEast coast residents affected by acid rain
The native species affected by imported species in Florida and California
Trash industry
Indian families forced into unpayable debts
The African poor farmers who are introduced to new crops and techniques from the industrial world
From this class: The organisms of the "meadow across the creek"
Deep, social ecologists
Malibu residents with the perfect beach life; contrasted with the plant grower (as Didion highlights)
Rich and poor residents of Malibu and downtown LA, respectively
Environmental extremists
Rural residents, executives who are profiled in Gasland
Residents who leased their land; residents who are suffering from others' leasing nearby
Consumers/visitors of the "wilderness" in natural parks; Native Americans and animals that live near those areas
1B) Residents of different Southern Californian cities are less likely to interact and sacrifice personal resources to clean up pollution in another city, even if they were the ones who originally produced the other city's pollution.
Native species are often threatened by the introduction of foreign species (this applies to both crops and wild animals), with competition for food rapidly increasing as a result
The waste management industry has to increasingly strain the Earth to store waste; note the children who are harmed by having nowhere else to play except on top of landfills, as well as the contrast between American and Chinese trash deposits.
Large companies or governments often go into third-world countries to provide a "solution" to a resource shortage; but either not knowing the natives' climate and culture in introducing a crop, or deliberately abusing the poor (making them dependent on a foreign product such as baby formula, or dividing up lands and creating unpayable debts) can occur.
Deep and social ecologists both have an idea of the need for people having a deeper sense of appreciation for the Earth and its people; they've simply flipped the order of importance between natural and human interests.
Rich, well-to-do Malibu residents only interact with nature when it's not optimal (a cold day at the beach or fires approaching homes), whereas the plant grower in Didion's discussion and the poor tenement residents of LA in Davis' discussion are dependent upon, and therefore much more connected to, nature's elements.
As shown in Gasland, people get angry about an issue only when it adversely affects them, blaming not their consumerism or gullibility but rather their neighbors who leased for hydrofracturing or the executives carrying out the corporate abuse. Note that at this very time when residents reach out the most is when executives seem the least responsive.
Native Americans seem to be pushed out of American history; it takes major efforts to get them included in the stories shown to national park tourists. Tourists come to interact with nature on a consuming basis, and these two major contrasting groups of people rarely actually talk to each other.
2) Bradford and Josh Fox are particular strong in developing logical ideas, while Joan Didion also does a good job with this in a more poetic form.
ReplyDeleteDeep ecologists often appear to appeal too much to the metaphysical and naïve romanticism, whereas social ecologists such as Bookchin are often stubborn and stuck in their certain opinion, causing factual discord. This drives the two groups apart instead of leading them to realize how similar their concerns really are. It would help for them to list realistic goals, their own strengths and shortcomings, and sit down together to create campaigns for policy change that help ecology as a whole.
As much as I sympathize with them, Mike Davis and Josh Fox, as well as the less-honorable Murray Bookchin, self-select their evidence to support their view. Josh Fox in particular uses an undue amount of data to back up an overuse of emotions with people. It's tough in his position to effect change since the corporate powers show no desire to respond or change views, but a less assailant position on hydrofracturing could help his cause.
The natural gas corporations' executives that were profiled in Gasland are guilty of apathy, avoiding conflict (in not answering questions in private interviews and Congressional hearings), diffusion of responsibility (in the endless holds and voicemails resulting from communication attempts), and ulterior motives of profit (since they'll only spend money for common citizens if it keeps the citizens quiet or if it gives them a clean image in the media or amongst congressmen). Common citizens are also often apathetic until things go wrong and quick to scapegoat their neighbors who leased their land for hydrofracturing. Corporate executives would do well to be more transparent and use language to encourage and reward (rather than alienate) their clients; common citizens would benefit from realizing the limitations of a social crisis like natural gas and realizing there is no one fix-all solution. Progress can be made as long as corporations make themselves available for communication and open to criticism and change (admittedly, this last ideal is often a stretch).
1. A) deep ecologist, social ecologist, Malibu community , government, Hydrofracking community, farming community, National Park Service, visitors to the park
ReplyDeleteB) Social ecologist and deep ecologist interact in the understanding of ethics of ecology and the viewpoints for the ecology. National Park Service and visitors to the Park interact to experience the wilderness that National Park Service is trying to provide. National Park Service and deep ecologist interact how National Park Service is trying to reduce influence of technology and humans. Hydrofracking community and government interact to discuss the environmental influence of fracking and how it influences the community. They discuss to debate whether to stop fracking. Malibu community and government interact to reduce wild fire influence on the community. Malibu community and deep ecologist interact as they both have spiritual connection to the environment.
2. A) Who is sharing similar idea or understanding of ecology? Who has similar purpose of preserving environment or deteriorating environment? What is the reasons for the people who are deteriorating environment? Who avoids the responsibility for it? What kind of expectation do each community have for the environment?
B) Normally people who win are the people who have power with the government. Those people usually have capitalist values with profits. Even though National Park Service preserves nature, in the beginning when the nature was made, they have designed the nature to commercialize and to use as a product. They were selling the experience of wilderness to the visitors. Hydrofracking companies are continuing their business as it makes profit from the consumption from the customers. The result of these community's interaction can cause slight change that can lead to greater change or not even cause any change. People have diffusion of responsibility for the environmental changes. People do not really have personal connections as the deep ecologists explains and that changes in environment do not influence directly to the general population. People who do have direct influence from the environment such as the hydrofracking community may change their action to help the environment, but people in other places, such as California do not feel such great responsibility of hydrofracking. It is important to increase the awareness and provide slight solution for everyone to follow, since great number of slight change can lead to greater change.
Malibu residents and the downtown residents come together when both of their hometowns are on fire and the fires were threatening the lives of hundreds of civilians. Even though they literally don’t come together as a whole community they still undergo the same disaster of a fire causing chaos in their communities. Both Malibu and downtown needed resources and assistance to control the fires and protect the lives of the residents, but the Malibu residents seemed to have gotten more resources than the downtown residents. These practices weaken the entire Los Angeles community as a whole because the class discrimination is evident in the response of the fire department toward both communities. In this particular case the Malibu residents receive better resources than the downtown residents therefore having less damage and less deaths. If the downtown fires were attended with the same response as the Malibu fires were than the damage of both communities would have been kept as the same level instead of having more damage in one community than the other. One way to resolve this practice is to treat all communities the same without giving one particular community more resources or better treatment than the other. All communities should be treated the same because all the residents deserve all the same treatment and is not fair that citizens living in low-income communities like in downtown have more risks threatening their lives. If all communities would be treated equally than it can facilitate both communities interacting with one another because one community will not feel more superior then the other.
ReplyDeleteIn the film Gasland, the communities of both the big corporations and of the farmers interact because the big corporations want to extract the natural gas from the people’s land. The big corporations are giving farmers money for extracting resources from their land, but the people are not only getting money in return they are also getting contaminated drinking water. While the big corporations are going to get a lot of money from these resources the farmers are only getting a little amount of money but also contaminated resources. In this case the big corporations are getting more benefits from the extracted resources than the farmers are getting from the big corporations. To make this interaction healthier for both of the communities the farmers should not have contaminated water after the extraction of resources from the lands. Both communities should receive equal benefits from the resources to make the interaction better with one another.
-Jessica Rodriguez
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Malibu residents and the residents of the downtown, inner city tenements never have face-to-face contact. However, the way these two communities interact becomes clear with the occurrence of fires in their local areas. The Malibu residents live in houses designed and built to avert many fire hazards. On the other hand, the inner city residents live in poorly constructed and overcrowded structures that do not comply with safety regulations. The two communities are affected by one another when resources are distributed unevenly, with Malibu always receiving more resources although their town is already well protected against fires. The local governing system of the downtown area avoids responsibility for the spread of fires in the tenement buildings. They blame these residents, and their lack of wealth, which translate for few resources for the community. Malibu relies its status as an upper class enclave to justify their right to reserve a wealth of resources. To improve the results of such inequality, perhaps resources can be more evenly distributed throughout the greater Southern California area. By doing so, people would recognize the importance of supporting the greater community and recognizing the value of every human, rather than prioritizing resources based off of a person’s economic status.
ReplyDeleteThe fracking/extraction industry and farming/independent business people in times of crisis. Although viewers never see direct interactions between the two sides in the film Gasland, farmers and local business people tell stories of being silenced by the gas extraction industry. For example, a lady in the film prepared and presented a speech expressing her concerned about her neighborhood’s contaminated water. One of the leaders of the local fracking project in her area ignored her speech, and moved on with the meeting. The gas extraction industry is avoiding responsibility for the contaminated water that the fracking is causing, and the health problems associated with the water problems. The industry is the winner here, as they make economic profits from their practices. To make the practice more fair, the industry would have to listen to the people whose backyards they are fracking in, and be considerate of their space including their bodies and health.
Visitors to national parks are consumers of nature, that experience a vision of the wilderness that park employees produce. Park employees design, construct, and manage the way visitors consume nature. There are many types of park employees, with some of them having more direct interaction with the visitors. The visitors relay on these park employees for knowledge and an understanding of what the wilderness is. Park employees are responsible for defining nature. This fact weakens the community because visitors are not critical of what they see in the “wilderness”, and do not question that it may be constructed. There needs to be more dialogue between the two groups in order for more sound practices.
-Betty Tran
1. Communities in Conflict: Those who value old American frontier values versus those, specifically corporations, who value a more modern American value system based on the idea of capitalism. The only situations in which these two parties interact is when there is a conflict, the fact that this is the only time in which communication occurs is an issue in itself. In Josh Fox’s film one of the homeowners, Louis Meeke, maintains this traditional American value system based, one that is based on honesty and integrity. Louis Meeke sees his values as directly contradictory to those of the fracking corporations who continue to deny their responsibility in the contamination of his land. The sound reasoning being practiced in this interaction is that Louis Meeke simply wants the fracking company to take responsibility for pollution that have obviously caused rather than continue to deny it. The major unsound reasoning taking place in this situation is factual discord where both the homeowners and the fracking companies cannot agree on whether these homeowner’s land and water supply have been contaminated due to the drilling that the fracking industry has done. Despite clear evidence the fracking companies continue to deny that they were the cause of this pollution, avoiding conflict by refusing to address the homeowner’s complaints directly, leaving homeowners on the “loosing” side of this conflict. The unsound reasoning being practiced is an anterior motive by the fracking industries to focus solely on the idea of profit and failing to acknowledge a need to take ethics into consideration when making business decisions as well. Ways in which these unsound practices may be improved is if these companies would listen to the people and address the contamination issue rather than ignoring them. It would also help if people had more confidence and self-assurance when taking on these large companies so that their voices with be heard rather than silenced under their power and authority. It would also benefit both parties for them to meet face to face so that these homeowners can have their concerns heard and these fracking companies will no longer be bashed in the media, a source which these homeowners often turn to when the fracking companies refuse to address their problems.
ReplyDelete2. In Mckenzie’s class we discussed pollution in China and how there are many communities living in trash because the large cities simply move it out of sight of the city. There is no communication between these two different communities because once the trash leaves the city they forget about it and the communities forced to live in the this trash have simply accepted it as a part of their environment. However the video we watched mentioned one man who was living in a gated community next to one of these trash sites and could not bare the smell so he decided to become somewhat of a garbage man and dispose of the trash properly. The unsound reasoning behind this dumping of trash into various low income communities is that many of the city people ignore the fact that there is a problem with pollution because they don’t see it first hand. It is also is a result of these low income communities living in this trash conforming to their situation and adapting to it rather than standing up to the government and doing something about it. A way in which the relationship between these two communities can be improved is if those living in trash voiced there opinions, you don’t have to be wealthy such as the man living in the gated community who became a garbage man to take action. It would also be helpful if the people living in the city were to see first hand the conditions in which these people are living under and they may finally consider the affect that their consumption intake has on others.
-Amanda Gray
1. Social and deep ecology: They constantly debate on the proper etiquette on humans interacting with the environment. Social emphasizes more humans influencing nature, for better and for worse, and deep ecology that humans are but a small speck of dust within the whole scheme of nature, giving humans very little power in the large scheme of things. Social ecologists such as Bookchin use a lot of unsound reasoning, such as very extreme hatred, certainty and logical fallacies. In addition, many deep ecologists are guilty of unsound reasoning such as metaphysical and mythical thinking and naïve romanticism. But sound criticisms are also present. They can strengthen the opposite communities by exposing the issues and unsound reasonings in their argument so their arguments can become more polished and more valid. No one actually wins or loses; its constantly ongoing and evolving of a process.
ReplyDelete2. Upper class in Malibu and lower class in central LA: The upper class in Malibu oftentimes takes resources that are necessary for their survival from the lower class due to taking advantage of societal differences. Because of this, the tenement houses in Los Angeles suffer more and the conflict really exposes the issues with societal implications. It displays the issues between the wealthy and poor. The situation with the wealthy and fires seem to be much more discussed and concerned than the masses of burning down tenements. This can also be seen in societal impact of the environment, with people affecting nature to prevent wildfires, even though the fires are very much natural.
3. National parks and visitors: oftentimes visitors go to national parks for a spiritual and hands on experience with nature. This often emphasizes the deep ecology aspect of a spiritual connection. It also emphasizes a social ecology aspect of socially constructing nature and putting ourselves in a part of the environment, where the wilderness exists with us. Even though it is a little paradoxical, national parks again emphasize the deep and social aspects to dealing with the environment.
1. The Malibu residents and the government. These two communities interact as an “ask and you shall receive” type of relationship. Malibu is being affected by fires and the residents knowingly know fires will continue to happen, yet they milk the government into giving them tax relief every time their property gets destroyed, and the government does it with open arms. This would be considered an unsound critical reasoning due to barriers of entry. Malibu is only accessible to the residents that live there and they use their wealth and social status to get what the want from governmental agencies. Also, the government feels they need to make these residents happy in order to keep a popular interest in them so they pay more attention to Malibu residents instead of those who actually need the attention. This relationship strengthens the two communities together, but for unethical reasoning and weakens the outside parties.
ReplyDelete2. In “GasLand” the fracking industries and the residents who live in the communities where fracking is taking place. These two communities interact only when the fracking industries need something to their benefit, such as asking the residents to lease their land to drill oil. After that, there is no communication and the industries actually close off to the residents and ignore their complaints and deny responsibility for the water being contaminated. This would be an unsound critical reasoning due to diffusion of responsibility. This relationship weakens the two communities because the fracking industries are considered to be “bullies” and the residents have no one to complain to and are being affected by the results personally.
3. Visitors of National Parks and National Parks itself have a relationship. Visitors come here looking for an experience with nature that they cannot find at their own home and many times visitors will be disappointed on their experience because of how National Parks only depict nature in an unnatural way. It is manmade so sometimes the illusion of the “wild” doesn’t fool everyone. This would be an unsound reasoning because park officials need to alter the environment to give off the idea it is natural. It is almost as if park officials are lying to the visitors. Also, the visitors hurt this community of National Parks when they step foot on the grounds and use the resources of the park up, which we actually need to sustain
-Nicole Azer
All communities seem to negatively interact with one another on the basis of how their values coincide with economics. For example:
ReplyDelete1) deep ecologists vs. social ecologists, deep ecologists have the desire to be one with nature once again, forgetting all social and economic ties that separate them from other species of the planet. On the other hand, social ecologists argue against the realistic nature of this desire, and argue that we are different than the rest of the planet, and instead of fighting this face, we should work our our social and economic problems so we are able to help the environment.
2) The fracking industry vs. the people they are affecting. The difference between these two communities which causes the problems is that the fracking companies value economic gain, more than the people being affected do. Also, the value of quality and pride in ones work is not consistent between the two industries which also creates problems.
3) People of Malibu vs. Inner city Los Angeles tenants. People of Malibu value the engrossment of their economic gain, while tenants of over packed apartment complexes have their economic circumstances put them in danger of fires, etc. Both have their economic standing placing them in risk of fires, however the problem comes out of the equality of people verses the influence of money.
Malibu residents and the downtown residents- these two communities consistently interact. The Malibuans are people who are so wealthy and have so much power over the politicians that they never bother to say a word. Their lives are set and they are completely apathetic towards other communities such as the poorer areas of LA. The poor residents, on the other hand, have no power in government and therefore they cannot say anything. Also anything said would just be ignored. During fires, these two communities are forced to interact. The fires force firefighters to shift away from LA towards Malibu, and abandon any other danger in LA. The unsound reasoning operating these occasions is money. Malibu has so much money and power that they are able to manipulate the decisions of politicians to cater their demands. Because their lives are all nice and snug, they avoid facing the problems of the poor community in LA. Mike Davis is trying to fix this problem by writing his book. He isn't trying to persuade anyone of the Malibuans or bribe the politicians. Rather he is trying to spread awareness of the problem to the rest of the people, the middle class. Hopefully they can make a difference fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe lorax- humans and nature. The two communities, human civilization and nature, interact when the onceler decides to make thneeds out of the trees. In doing so, he quickly destroys the environment, forcing the animals to leave the area. At the same time, the onceler is slowly hurting himself, but he does not realize it. The lorax is a spokesperson, similar to Mike Davis. He is not trying to stop the humans directly. He just wants to make the onceler aware of the irreversible damages he is presenting. For the sake of the animals, the lorax is trying to compromise with the onceler to save the animals. However, blinded by profit, the onceler disregards the Lorax's warning and continues to exploit the land. The loran is aiming at spreading awareness to the people so they understand what harm they are bringing to the environment so hopefully they will slow down if not stop.
Andrew Lin
1. As touched upon in our GE and through further research for my paper, I have seen arguments between managers of farms for industrialized animal production and people against the malpractices such as PETA. There is an involvement of the concept of anthropocentrism that the farmers use. They say the hormones and industrialization are bettering the product as well as meeting the increased demands of the people. Others argue for the emotions and lives of the animals at stake that are being tortured. The occasion for which they speak is when videos and pictures are released of the inhumane and horrifying images of animals being beaten on the farms. A lot of times, farmers diffuse/avoid responsibility and say that the practices are necessary if they are to meet the growing demands of the people. Protestors usually focus on a sentimental approach, targeting emotions of their audience. Just the debate itself brings more attention to the lives of the animals. It makes some people think twice about the food they eat and where it actually came from since they are not left out of information.
ReplyDelete2. Two communities, government and the people. Sadly in many stories we have seen, government takes sides with certain people, those with power and money. Then there are those who speak out against it, the misrepresented. The misrepresented though are usually left out of information through the government's deliberate leaving out information. At the same time, it is often hard for the misrepresented population to speak out because they lack the means. Many times it requires a third party to interact using media and literature to voice their opinions like in GasLand and Davis's accounts of the Malibu fires. Improvement is needed in the communication channels and should not require a tragedy or sad incident in order for media to bring government's attention to the misrepresented. At least when problems do arise attention is given but action is not always taken in favor of them.
3. Fracking companies and the farmers. Both have money and financial success in mind but where they differ is care for the people they will affect. Fracking companies often purposely leave out information when they sign a contract leading farmers to think one thing but have another thing done. The occasion for which they speak is when the farmers' lands are harmed and that causes them to seek help in getting their voices heard. The communication is really one way, until a third party is involved that represents the quieted farmers. Both should try to understand that their livelihoods both require the land and should compromise from that. The farmers' sufferings did bring attention to the cause though despite being harmful to their business.
Fracking and Agricultural industries vs Government: The fracking and agriculture industries rely on government to regulate or deregulate the use of land or create subsidies to allow the market to be profitable. The government relies on agriculture for food and on fracking for natural gas. The fracking industry is relying on apathy and laziness, avoiding conflict, barriers to entry, diffusion of responsibility, factual discord, and an ulterior motive. This ruins the relationship between fracking, agriculture, and the government because governmental processes have to get caught up in the facts, which are hard to agree upon, and the agricultural business is confused by the facts presented by the fracking industry.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmentalists vs National Park visitors: Environmentalists and national parks visitors are largely the same people, but within that group there are the social and deep ecologists, and the malthusians. The social and deep ecologists have the same goal but won't work together because they believe in different means. Malthusians are generally outcasted for their ideas. Both ecologists suffer from certainty, distraction, deferring to tradition, logical fallacies, mythical thinking, naive romanticism, static reasoning, and stubbornness. The relationship is weakened by unsound reasoning because neither group can see that the other has the same overarching goals. Both groups lose because of this.
Malibu Resident and Downtown Tenants vs Government: Malibu Residents are rich living in a highly dangerous area by choice, but tenants are poor and don't have a choice. The people in Malibu and the tenants of downtown have opposite relationships with the government. Malibuans are influential and are more protected by the government, tenants are "nobodies" and are largely ignored by governmental agencies.
1) Social Ecologists vs. Deep Ecologists: In the community of Ecologists a divide has been created. Deep ecologists try to find an Emotional connection with nature that social ecologists just don’t understand. Deep ecologies employ Metaphysical/Mythical Thinking which social ecologists just can’t understand thereby employing the conformity unsound reasoning practice. By creating this atmosphere of debate, however, a better decision is made and fallacies in each of the options to arrive at the goal are clearly shown. Coming to a decision in this way takes a longer time.
ReplyDelete2) The fracking industry vs. The people they affected: T he communities of both the big corporations and of the farmers interact because the big corporations want to extract the natural gas from the people’s land. They interacted again only because there was a problem that arose, drinking water was contaminated. This is only a little interaction though as the fracking companies refuse to listen to the people’s complaints, a complete diffusion of responsibility. The fracking companies could never understand the emotional connection people like John Fenton had that they were destroying. This debate helps to spread awareness about the plight of a minority of Americans.
3) National Park Service vs Native Americans: The National Park Service has often been criticized for their false depiction or in some cases, the omission of the rich Native American history in National parks even before they were discovered by white Americans. Again, this is not appreciating the rich heritage and the emotional connection to land that Native Americans had. Again they only interact when a problem arises, when Native Americans see that their history in National park museums is factually incorrect.