This week, we focused on history and its part in environmentalism. In class, we looked at the snapshot years of refuse composition in NYC to understand the kind of changes we have made in our lifestyles and to, as it were, know our enemy. I found the chart of refuse composition fascinating because it was precisely the kind of data that we wouldn’t expect would be useful. I understood a lot about American history as well as the drastic changes we as a society faced in a century. I also understood that there is a need for a new technology to deal with the different kinds of waste we manufactured. Out of class, we looked at New Bedford Harbor and its rich history to understand its unique environmental problems. The paper was fascinating because it illustrated concisely and clearly the kind of impact we as people have on the world.
I found study on refuse composition we looked at in class very interesting. The very topic was unexpected, which made me sit a bit higher in my chair. Looking at garbage? Why on earth would you do that? It stinks and less thought about it, the better. (I think most people in the world agree, by the way we all deal with garbage.) But garbage is indeed an interesting source of wealth of data, as the study illustrated. Looking at key changes during snapshot years of 20th century, it is obvious that our lives changed so very much. The fact that ash refuse dropped by 98% within a hundred years is amazing as well as a bit frightening. Though the composition of refuse changed drastically, our way of dealing with garbage hasn’t. Landfill seems to be as ancient of a concept as “if we don’t see it, we don’t have to worry about it” mindset that brings us plagues of social inequality and rampant pollution. Yes, the landfill building techniques have changed (red clay comes to mind), but the fact that we have non-biodegradable waste as 1/10th of our waste makes me wonder whether those small changes are enough. Like professor Alexandratos pointed out, the increasing chemical complexity as well as increase in organic refuse makes waste management a very new problem for our society. Yet, it seems like we are tackling this problem with old, possibly outdated techniques. I know that there are research done on plastic-degrading microorganisms and other advancements, but I’m not sure if this is quite enough. We are trying to be better about recycling as a society, but is this truly enough? Can we sustain this? Or are we assuming falsely that waste technology will eventually catch up with us? We already saw this assumption when we read about dredged soil from Hudson River. Are we living out a Greek play, and be struck down by our own hubris about our future selves’ ability to “fix it”?
This study also reminded me of intersectionality, a concept I learned in Women and Gender Studies 100. It basically means that we have to look at multiple perspectives for a single problem. MHC 200 started like a philosophy class. I know that Professor addressed this, but I want to reiterate that I am glad that we started like a philosophy class. We need to have a set of rules to guide our actions, and to be exposed to new set of “rules,” as it were, is a good thing, especially in a class where we are learning that we need to fundamentally change our way of thinking and doing.
Learning about history of New Bedford, for example, made me realize that even the most benign acts like building a bridge has its impact on the environment and the ecosystem of the surrounding areas. The bridge built during the whaling industry contributed to a decline of shellfish industry in New Bedford, which anyone would agree is a bad thing. (Of course, pollution had a bigger role, but I wonder if the changed water flow made the polluted water “stay” in the harbor for a longer time. I don’t think any change is bad— change is life. Change is inevitable. It is written into our own DNA, our seasons, our lives. But to understand that the most seemingly benign acts cause unintended consequence is important for this class and for life. And this is the struggle that we all must face that we mentioned in class. Progress or conservation? I don’t know the answer. I wonder if there is a way now to make bridges less environmentally impactful, but I don’t think it is possible to do without making a floating bridge. I don’t think we can or should go back to the way we lived “off the land”—I like my Internet, and I certainly like my yearlong fruits and timely vaccinations, which won’t be possible without the modern transportation system. But is there a halfway solution that allows us to live more sustainably without stalling human progress? I’m doubtful, but I’ve been wrong before…
