Author Archives: Seong

Posts by Seong

Weekly Journal 4: History and Environmentalism

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Seong

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 Yet, it seems like we are tackling this problem with old, possibly outdated techniques.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…

Week 3: Politics, American Dream, and Proportional Fines

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Seong

Seong Im Hong

September 24, 2012

Weekly Journal 3

            This week, we ended our discussion on water pollution and then continued on to the topic of air pollution. By the end of the class, I was, as usual, smarter than I was coming in. I encountered some interesting ideas such as profits v. fines, which I researched a little on my own. (I did not research, however, what the dominant source of lead was from the 60s to the 80s because I did not want to ruin the surprise. I look forward to it.)

One idea that was particularly intriguing to me the last lecture was the struggle between profits and fines. To the laypeople, $11.2 million is probably more than we will see in our lifetime. Because of that, when I first heard that Exxon Mobile was fined that amount, I felt vaguely pleased and vindicated. Surely, I thought, that was a hefty change. I was mistaken. One strange and alarming thing about our society is that there is a gigantic gap between the corporations and the laypeople. Because of that, those who are unfamiliar with what I call “corporation-money-unit” feel themselves removed from corporations and their doings. Take Exxon-Mobil’s fines, for example. $11.2 million is impressive by the sheer number of zeroes attached to the 1s and the 2, but compared to Exxon’s $40 billion profit in 2006, the fine for pollution was tiny. Miniscule. Insignificant. (I tried to compare the proportion of the fines to the profit to my own expenses. According to my calculations, I would lose $0.16 from the $570 I get every month from scholarships. Not $16, but $0.16. Well, heck, I lose more in change falling out of my pocket each month than that.)

This made me wonder exactly what the judge was thinking. Did the zeroes attached to “corporation-money-unit” made him think $11.2 million harsh enough? Even the wealthy does not earn as much as corporations do. Or did Exxon-Mobile’s “freedom of expression” sway him? (And this is a whole another can of worms that is, though juicy, too sticky to deal with in a journal.)

This is why I think a policy of proportional fines (as in Switzerland and Finland) may be a good idea for this time in our society.

If we fined Exxon-Mobil (and any corporations or private citizens) an amount proportional to their income for a particular wrongdoing, I think that we won’t have a problem of repeat offenders such as Exxon-Mobil. Like Professor Alexandratos pointed out, Exxon-Mobil continued to illegally pollute the Arthur Kill because its profits were simply too big to not. What if the fine was $11.2 billion rather than $11.2 million? That means 28% of its profits, gone. (That percentage for me would mean a loss of $160, or my groceries exchanged for ramen noodles.) That means angry stockholders for executives to deal with. That means a warning shot.

However, I doubt that this will be adopted into our rightist politics anytime soon. In an era in which the wealthy are constantly told that they are under attack by the 47% of the American population who want to destroy their hard-earned success that they alone are responsible for, we will never even convince a congressperson to consider sponsoring the bill, let alone actually have their names appear anywhere near it. It probably would spell out an end to their political career after being labeled a socialist-communist-Muslim-atheist-foreigner. I read that the American Dream is a myth now, and that class differences are far too big for anyone talented and hardworking to actually climb up the social ladder as they did a hundred years ago. I read that the reason the poor vote Republican is because they genuinely believe that they will one day become part of the wealthy caste. Maybe that is so. Maybe the only way we can realize a policy of proportional fine is by having a vast majority of Americans realize that life isn’t as it was years ago. Money isn’t even vaguely worth the same for everyone, and that there really is a corporation-money-unit that is wildly bigger than a private-citizen-money-unit. I doubt many Americans will listen, though.

Anthropomorphizing and Paternalism

Posted on September 20, 2012 by Seong

Seong Im Hong

September 20, 2012

Weekly (Kinda) Journal Two

This week, I thought about the value of anthropomorphizing. Ever since I learned about the importance of happenstance and probabilities in biological functions, my pet peeve became anthropomorphizing inanimate objects or non-human beings. I believe that anthropomorphizing is a useful tool—it exploits empathy, our most powerful emotion. Whether it’s for understanding (“The hydrophilic molecule wants to go near water”) or for manipulation (“This elephant lost its mommy. Won’t you help this poor baby by donating just twenty dollars per month?”), anthropomorphizing exists for a good reason. However, to add human characteristics to a non-human being is a double-edged sword.

Though anthropomorphizing is an easily wielded and powerful tool, it also destroys any potential understanding of the nuances with its broad strokes. For example, merely stating that hydrophilic molecules like or wants to go near water completely ignores the molecular basis that allowed this characteristic to appear in the first place. Additionally, anthropomorphizing gives off a false impression that even the smallest molecules have a mind of its own, which is, honestly, only a couple of leaps of logic away from pseudoscientific claims like homeopathy. (“Don’t you see, the water remembers the trace of garlic!”) Anthropomorphizing is also connected to the idea of atomic individualism because anthropomorphizing assigns values in relation to likeness to human qualities. In addition, anthropomorphizing disregards non-human traits or warp them to fit the mold of humanness.

That said, I do think anthropomorphizing is crucial to the development of a sustainable earth. A sustainable earth requires commitment from all walks of life, as shown by the sewage that is Rio de Janeiro’s bay. Without the government’s manpower, a sizable cleanup effort is unlikely. Without the companies’ commitment, hazardous waste will continue to flow into the water. Without the common people’s active participation, the bay will be filled again with used diapers and other household wastes within years. The three vastly different institutions are connected by the fact that they are human institutions. And the biggest arsenal we have to connect people to people seems to be empathy. By using empathy, we can orient people to be proactive and perhaps learn more about the environment so that they will be compelled to be green whether the Gaia Hypothesis is true or not. Emotions are useful in this aspect—they do not require education because they are inborn.

Which brings me to another qualms I have about anthropomorphizing. Despite its usefulness, it seems too exploitative as well as paternalistic to be used on a large scale. It is true that emotions are the lowest common denominators. But it is also true that anthropomorphizing oversimplifies. It is unrealistic that everyone will want to learn or be able to learn the intricate workings of the universe in a molecular level, and it is true that the problem of pollution will overwhelm us far before we can achieve an adequate level of education in public schools to allow for common understanding of the universe that makes anthropomorphizing unneeded. I suppose this is the decision leaders will have to make with any important issues. Do we wait for the people to be fully educated, or do we simplify the issue as much as possible? The latter is all good and practical, but looking at the practical application (American politics on global warming in particular come into mind), I am not certain if we as more educated members of society will ever be able to simplify justly. We may oversimplify or omit details for our agendas. But how else can we engage the public? By imposing fines and taxes to those who don’t recycle? That can’t last long in American politics.

I do think that all of us who are lucky enough to get a college education are bound by a responsibility to do good for the greater cause. But I worry exactly how much is too much and when our sense of “knowing better” than the general public may cause us to be too prideful and blind to our own errors.

Journal One: Introduction and McDonalds

Posted on September 6, 2012 by Seong

Seong Im Hong
MHC 200 – 005
Professor Alexandratos
September 3, 2012

Week One Reflection — Introduction to MHC 200

I expected to greatly enjoy this class, and my expectations were proved to be right. I loved Professor Alexandrato’s dramatic opening to the new semester, which was quite different from most first days of classes. The projected workload, however, is daunting, as was the thick syllabus packet. Granted, most of it was describing the options we had for later project. Still, the fact that Dr. Alexandratos put so much work into the syllabus kind of pulls me in a contract in which I must put as much effort into my work as he did. It’s an unidirectional contract that I made up, but it holds weight in my mind nevertheless.
I liked the slides and the presentations. I do, however, have a criticism. I thought that the juxtaposition of McDonald’s burger and the rainforest was too emotionally charged.

Don’t get me wrong– I do agree with Professor Alexandratos that the rainforest is far more important than a cheap Big Mac, but I am always weary of dichotomic ideas that play on our emotions. For example, I think most people are brought up now to be disgusted by or at least ashamed of fast food. I think there is a subconscious equation of fast food to those who cannot take care of themselves. Fast food means fat people, or poor people, or fat poor people. Whether that’s a fair assessment or not is another story, but still, I think the emotional knee-jerk reaction of disgust to fast food is widespread enough for me to make this point: to use fast food as an alternative to the rainforest is unfair, because like Dr. Alexandratos said, other businesses use Brazil’s cattle for meat. Why didn’t he, then, use a picture of (delicious, delicious) steak from Four Seasons in place of a big Mac? I can’t believe I’m defending mega-chains of fast food, but I think unless we know for sure that fast food chains like McDonalds are the main driving force behind deforestation, we should use a picture of McDonald’s burger as an alternative to the rainforest, especially when the Supersize Me clip of a man throwing up a McDonald’s burger was so fresh in our minds. It plays on our preexisting emotion (disgust and shame) on fast food. The powerpoint was an undeniably effective tool, but shouldn’t classrooms be neutral environments?

The class on environmental ethics were a great fun because we were involved in the flow of the dialogue between the professor and the student. Often, in lecture classes, the dialogue is really a one-way street. I’m glad I have at least one small seminar class this semester for this reason. I especially thought the distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value interesting, mainly because I am not sure if there is a fundamental difference between the two. The functional differences are clear, especially when looking at the theories of Deep Ecology. However, I think the driving force behind intrinsic value is the same as the force behind instrumental value: feeling good. (Speaking of, a cute little comic about dopamine and serotonin attached after the second page.) Whether it’s for fur or companion, we still see “value” behind the same entity because the entity serves us in some way.

This makes me think anyone can be part of the Deep Ecology movement if they have enough time and resource to associate non-human things with benefits to themselves. I read a feature article about elephant poaching in the New York Times today, and all I could think of was, “Poor elephants,” and “But we emphasize selectively. Would we care as much about factory farming of stupider animals?” I thought the same thing about controversies about eating dogs that make people recoil in horror. It’s only because we, as westerners, have had the luxuries and the cultural tendencies to associate dogs with anything besides their uses. I think if the whole world can afford to take a break from struggle to survive, we would have a lot of more willing converts to the Deep Ecology movement, even superficially.

Comments by Seong