AMNH

The Hall of Biodiversity: In Which I Observed Others and Looked Suspicious While Doing It

1 Comment

I made my visit to the American Museum of Natural History on the 28th of November, 2014 at approximately 11 ‘o clock in the morning. I expected a quiet visit, as it was the morning after Thanksgiving, and people should have been sleeping off the turkey.

That was not the case. There was a lot of people. However, it was all the better for me as there was more to work off of when I sat down and began to observe my first group of humans.

Forest Elephants and the Saline

Collected Data:

Time Frame: 15 minutes

Amount of people passing by the exhibit: 116

Those who interacted with the exhibit: ~50

Types of interaction: Reading the text docent, reading the book, looking at the display, watching the video.

Phrases Overheard:

“Oh, oh! There’s animals back there!”

“Look, look. I found a snake!”

Overall findings:

The results of my observation are a little bleak. Only a little less than half the people who passed by the exhibit gave it more than a glance. I noticed those who took more time were the parents with children aged 3~9. Those in large groups, and people on their phones were the ones who spent the least time at the exhibit.

Research and Outreach

This exhibit was located on the far end of the hall, and it consisted mainly of a map on the wall, two interactive computer screens, and a video playing on the opposite wall about over-fishing.

Collected Data:

Time frame: 15 minutes + a little extra

Amount of people passing by the exhibit: 92

Those who interacted with the exhibit: ~10

Types of interaction: Reading the text docent, taking a picture, looking at the display, watching the video.

Phrases Overheard:

“I would like to go to the jungle and study the animals”- elderly woman

“Oh my god. Aww.”- Middle aged mother commenting on video.

Overall findings:

This is perhaps one of the most important parts of the entire Hall of Biodiversity, but the amount of people who walked away from this exhibit more educated is far to little. Most people lose interest when they discovered that there was a lot of reading involved in this exhibit, but I don’t blame them because the writing is small, and there is a lot of it. Generally, this is a very underrated exhibit.

Analysis:

Just by slowing down and observing, I learned a lot about people, the faults of the exhibits, and also how they can be improved.  One would expect the child to be easily distracted by everything, but often times, it’s the parents who are pushing the kids away from the exhibits. I think parents often have an itinerary planned out in their heads, and are always worried about how much more of the museum they have to get through, so much that they would ask their kids to stop reading something just so that they can move on. Adults have a great effect on the interests of children, as I could see that those who spent the most time at both exhibits consisted of an adult with great patience, and a child with a curiosity, both extremely necessary for the interaction to be longer than 10 seconds.  However, another factor that plays into the patron’s interaction with the display is how easy the material is to understand. I noticed that the displays with more reading and smaller font tend to scare people away, as the most popular interaction was simply to look and see.

I don’t want to speak poorly of the Hall of Biodiversity, as it is a great exhibit, but I can’t help but think that it could have been designed better. Standing at the two ends of the hall, I observed that the side with the biodiversity is a lot brighter than the side with the conservation displays. Human beings are very much attracted to light, and most people gravitate towards the better lit wall of organisms. Another thing that unbalances the amount of traffic is that the great “blue whale room” is also located on the side with the eye-candy, and it’s incredibly easy to get side-tracked when faced with such a tourist magnet. By the time people leave the whale room, they are probably far behind schedule, and seeing as there is another exit at the end of the hall, they take it. Sadly passed over is the dimly lit wall of research and conservation, which is given a glance, deemed uninteresting, and forsaken. What an unfortunate fate, because the answers to keeping all the beautiful and interesting organisms lie within the dark recesses.

Final words:

Something that occurred to me as I was browsing the Hall of Biodiversity was that there was no focus on extinct animals. Long-gone animals like the Dodo bird, were placed amongst the living animals, as if it still existed today. By placing living and extinct species together, the exhibit leads people to subconsciously believe that everything is okay. If I were in the position to do so, I would put all the extinct and endangered animals on the side with the conservation displays, separate from the “safe” animals, to prompt a visual understanding that biodiversity is very closely connected to conserving the environment. That way, people would be more willing to walk on the other side of the rainforest, and actually learn about the effects of their actions on this earth, and how they might change.

Footprint

Footprints in the sand~

1 Comment

ROSE

 

1. How does your original footprint compare to the country average (US per capita is 5 planets and 17 acres)?

My original footprint was the one labeled Apartment. I sort of expected the number of earths and acres to 3.3 and 14.9, respectively. I have a low meat diet, I don’t really purchase things often, and I live close enough to the school to walk every day.

2. What changes could you make and what level would it make a difference, it any? Include your bar graph.

For the next two simulations, I changed my mode of living from apartment to house, just to see if that would make a difference in the footprint I leave, and also made myself a voracious eater, which I believe is the standard stereotype of Americans.

Making the switch from apartment to house didn’t have as much of an effect on the environment as I thought, which makes me feel better about when I’m at home. However, now that I think about it, there really isn’t that much of a difference between living in a house vs an apartment. Sure, the apartment may accumulate some extra charges when it comes to heating and lighting the hallways and such, but the house makes up for it with it’s own maintenance fees.

Labeling the third simulation “Voracious Eater” might be a bit confusing, so I’ll explain the boundaries. The changes I made were based on what came to mind when I thought about how the average American (okay, hillbilly) ate: A lot of processed foods, meat in almost every meal, and virtually nothing locally grown. So I made my changes based on those, and boy did the amounts skyrocket! As you can see, I also included the amount of CO2 emission each lifestyle would produce, and the numbers changed dramatically with a heavy meat, processed, non-local food diet.  All three factors contribute a great amount of CO2 in either production or transportation, which certainly adds up.

3. What do you think, overall, we need to do as a society, as a world, to really make a more sustainable society?

Clearly, all the options in the simulation illustrate a decision that would affect the world; I think it’s up to us to take those options, and make the better choice. Being more conscious of our eating and buying habits so that less energy is required to sustain us, would be a start. We can re-evaluate how many material possessions we actually need, and stop ourselves from making impulsive purchases. Walk more, eat less, and buy less things are all a good start, not just for the environment, but for ourselves as well.

Footprint

Footprints are an example of indexical representation

2 Comments

WJT Mitchell  says so. There’s your bit of literary theory for the day.

By comparison to the American standard of having to use 5 earths, I use one entire earth less at 4. I am slightly below average. Though, conversely, I use one global acre more at 18 than the US average at 17. Personally, I’ve no idea how that works, but oh well.

I decided to maximize subway travel, electricity usage, and animal by-product consumption:

GRAPH

 

On the other side of things, I discovered that if I made a move to veganism as well as eating mostly fresh and locally grown products, I could reduce my impact by however much is worth .4 Earths. This seems like a half ridiculous measure but I guess we’re rolling with it. Generally speaking, though, I think a general shift toward more eco-friendly diets is one of the best and easiest ways to help the environment and ourselves (no, really, vegetarianism/veganism is not that difficult). And seeing a,s of the values that I tested, electricity has a huge impact on our eco footprint, it might be a good idea to just generally use less of it—and pay less for it in the process.

 

Footprint

My (Embarrassing) Foot Prints

1 Comment

Official Foot Print Graph

Discussion Questions:

1. Compared to my original foot print calculation of requiring 5.7 planets to provide enough resources for everyone to live the way I live, the country’s average is only 5.0 planets

2. The biggest, easiest and more sensical change I could make would be to cut back on all of the meat I consume on a weekly basis. I eat meat around 4-5 times a week. If I cut back on my meat consumption, my foot print would decrease by more tan an entire planet. It would also save me huge amounts of money.

3. Overall as a society and as a world, we just need to think more in regards to all of the resources we consume. There are some huge changes we can make, such as switching to a car with more miles per gallon, but there are also the simple and easy changes we can make, like consuming less meats or consuming local meats and foods. Even if we don’t make changes right away, if we just take the time to consider the changes we could make and how greatly it could impact and better our world, that alone would be a step in the right direction. Awareness is the first step.

Footprint

My Carbon Footprint

1 Comment
  1. I discovered that if everyone in the world lived life the way I lived it, we would need 5.2 Earths to provide enough resources. This pretty close to the average of the United States of 5 Earths needed to provide enough resources. This isn’t really a positive result, but at least I know that I am not exponentially worse than the rest of the United States. Honestly I was kind of surprised that I needed so many planets to sustain my way of life.
  2. The three sections that I maximized were meat consumption, waste/recycling habits and transportation. All of these maximizations had similar effects of amount of planets needed to sustain that style of living. Meat consumption increased the number of planets needed the least amount, from the original 5.2 to 7.5 planets. Both waste/recycling habits and transportation increased the planets needed to almost eight! These increases are understandable. I think, as an individual, I would choose to eat less meat, and buy more groceries locally. I also feel like I could reduce my carbon footprint by taking public transportation instead of always driving to school. And I should take more opportunities to carpool as well. I could also, instead of just recycling, try to also buy products made from recycled materials. Footprint
  3. As a society, I believe that we need to take initiative and focus on recycling more and buying more items made from recycled material. Also, to decrease our carbon footprint, we should try to take public transportation when we can, instead of driving places. The planet would also benefit from trying to purchase produce and meat that are locally grown. Also, if we made more of an effort to recycle (which is the most obvious solution), we would be able to decrease our footprint significantly! These small changes could culminate into such a decrease of our carbon footprint.
Footprint

My Ecological Footprint Analysis

1 Comment

Tasnia_Footprint

The number of planet Earths that would be required if everyone on Earth lived my lifestyle is 4.4, which is just under the national average of 5 planet Earths.

Maximizing transportation seemed to have the largest impact on my ecological footprint, raising the number of planets Earths form 4.4 to 8.9. Transportation would also be easy for me to cut down on as a New Yorker if I use the subway/bus more often. I’ve also noticed that maximizing electricity usage and shelter space had a large impact on the footprint. I could reduce the amount of packaged and processed foods I eat. This may be difficult with my busy lifestyle, but it

Society as a whole can cut down on consumption of fossil fuels by using public transportation rather than driving everywhere. It would also be beneficial to cut down on plastic consumption and recycle instead, which is capable of harming other organisms in our ecosystem through pollution.

Footprint, Uncategorized

4.4 Earths

1 Comment

So, right off the bat I was very pleased that my carbon footprint was below the national average by 0.6 Earths. I’m not the largest environmentalist, so I was happily surprised by this. Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 12.46.59 PM

Next I maximized consumerism- buying new clothes and furniture. The number of earths increased to 6.

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 12.47.28 PM

 

Next I increased all the food intake, making me eat much more eat and dairy products. That increased the number of earths to 7.

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 12.53.00 PM

 

Finally, I increased the amount of public transportation I take. This increased the number of earths to 4.8 which is a 0.4 Earth addition.

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 12.56.47 PM

lifestyle versus number of earths

 

Thinking about how I could bring my own footprint down further than it already is, I could probably become a vegetarian or a vegan. I could also seek out local food. I can decrease the amount of energy I use, especially because in my apartment we don’t always turn the lights off. I don’t know what degree these changes would help the environment, but every little bit counts.

In terms of what our society need to do to be more sustainable, I think our chief concern should be to find another hospitable planet because I lack the confidence that our major governments can enact change fast enough. Otherwise, I’m reminded of wartime rationing programs that were accompanied by propaganda. If those programs worked to get the American citizen to do their part with victory gardens and a “make-do” attitude, I wonder if they could work again in the face of a failing environment policy.

 

Footprint

Footprint Calculations

1 Comment

1. My carbon footprint is 23.8 tons of carbon dioxide and this requires 22.4 global acres to sustain. This would be about five planets worth of land if everyone on earth lived the way I did.

2. This is a graph comparing my global footprint to the national average to the footprint obtained when three factors were maximized.

FINAL GRAPH

Discussion Continued:

1. My footprint is slightly higher than that of the national average if we compare based on acreage, but is the same if we estimate based on planetary land needed.

2. Since I depend on public transportation to get to school everyday, I don’t think this is something I can change for now. However, I do eat meat on a daily basis and if I could, I would try to eat less animal derivatives overall. This should decrease my footprint by about one to two average earths if everyone else lived the way I did.
3. As we have discussed in class, there is no one perfect solution to making the world more sustainable. There is always a challenge to determining what resource is “more worth” saving. However, I think that getting larger institutions to adopt some characteristically individual-based approaches to sustainability would be a good start. For instance, my family recycles, but it would be great if larger organizations like schools, supermarkets, office buildings, and hospitals, for instance, started recycling more regularly. I think it would also be good to encourage people to eat fewer foods that contain animal derivatives. These are practices that are usually held responsible by individuals, but if larger policy and institutions made more of an effort to promote these practices, I think we would be making a lot more progress towards living sustainably.

Footprint

If Only We Could All Carpool

1 Comment

It would take 3.9 Earths if everybody lived the way I do. I’m pretty proud of that number (I guess) since the average for people in the USA is 5 Earths. Woohoo, go me! Although, the amount of acres I used is slightly above average, I had 17.4 and the average is 17. Not bad.

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 12.57.58 PM

 

I think the main thing is I don’t drive, I carpool with my girlfriend whenever I go anywhere, and to get to school I use the bus (public transit). Since my footprint changed the most drastically altering the transportation, I would say that’s probably the main thing. There’s simply too many people driving their cars here, endless traffic. The maximization of my diet proved to be both scary and unsurprising. I wish I could eat more meats and fruits and vegetables, but I can’t do both in order to help the planet. But it’s bad for my health to eat all this cheap processed food that I eat. I recycle quite a bit, so the recycling might not do as much as I had hoped. I’m going to need to recycle more. The graph below shows the maximization data, with the scale on the left referring to the amount of Earths required to sustain my lifestyle.

mchcsem3graph

I think we need to create better and more reliable public transportation. I think that should be the start. The LIRR for example should keep prices low, not increase, and more people should be riding the trains. Down with single drivers driving cars! Carpool people!