This week was somewhat unusual. With the change in schedule, half of our first session was taken up by my group’s oral presentation, an adaptation of Macbeth. I’m glad we got the opportunity to do a creative project for our oral presentation. We gave the play a humorous and sometimes silly tone for two reasons: firstly, because none of us are Shakespearian actors, and secondly, because humor allows for a high level of emotional engagement. We tried to make our production relatable and enjoyable in the most reliable way we could. We tried to combine some of the issues we’ve gone over as a class, including voluntary standards and their limited impact, companies like Mobil that falsify their records and fight federal investigations, and the impact of environmental exploitation on a community. I worried that our portrayal of the issues could be interpreted as satirical, but this is certainly not the case.

The audience seemed to enjoy the show, and hopefully the engagement of entertainment brought along with it some engagement of the themes and ideas we presented. This seems to be a risk whenever serious issues are presented in a less-serious manner – there is both a reduction of complex issues to simple statements, and an understanding that what happens in a comedy is not to be taken seriously. The opposite this also has its risks: a serious presentation of issues may be uninteresting or confusing to those with less of a background in the subject. And of course, so much depends on the audience the piece is prepared for. My group members and I trust that the class was able to both enjoy the show and process our points appropriately.

From there we moved back to the idea of green engineering. The 12 principles simply brought the three fundamental concepts of green engineering, that waste is food, we must use current solar income, and that we should celebrate diversity, into greater detail. The principles cover things we’ve already hinted at: guidelines for building energy-efficient products energy-efficiently, and built to be taken apart and have the constituent parts put back into the system.

Next we moved forward with the idea of the Messianic Moment. According to the idea, we must stop being satisfied with our powerlessness, and take action. It comes with the catch-phrase “I don’t know if this is going to work, but let’s try it”. My question is, to what extent are we supposed to know if something is going to work? If we don’t know if something is going to work scientifically, it might be a huge waste of resources, or worse, a danger to us all. For example, a company recently dumped a large volume of iron dust into the ocean to try to spur the growth of plankton, which ultimately trap carbon dioxide and sink to the ocean’s bottom when they die[1]. The idea is an interesting one as an example of ecological engineering, but many scientists have called the action rash and not scientifically sound or ecologically safe. But it sounds like the man who had this done was acting in a sense of the Messianic Moment (or at least trying to generate valuable carbon credits).

Maybe the Messianic Moment is more of a mindset for the common man. But is it the feeling of responsibility and satisfaction we get when we recycle an aluminum can, or something more? I like the idea of personal responsibility and connectedness, especially with regards to emotional engagement. But I have trouble seeing the balance point between insignificance and rashness were the Messianic Moment seems to be.

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 8 Response

I feel that Macbeth was a particularly good choice for play adaption. The original already raises a lot of ethical and moral questions easily related to the issues we face today. Ambition and greed, the characteristics instrumental to Macbeth’s eventual downfall are also a part of the problem in changing our society so that we are no longer responsible for such sustained and horrendous harm to the natural environment. In this, I would say that all of us share guilt. Or course, unscrupulous businessmen like the one depicted in the movie can lay claim to large chunks of individual responsibility but we all, by virtue of living in and perpetuating our society, share some segment of the blame.

That is not to say that our societies and our place in history cannot be salvaged. In fact, I am firmly of the belief that it is possible to change our ways while sacrificing few of our material comforts. Indeed, I don’t believe that change is possible any other way than while continuing to preserve the way of life to which we have become accustomed. For instance, though I am well aware of the harm that carbon emissions from cars and planes do, I would hardly be willing to walk home to Virginia over the holidays or ride a sailboat to visit family overseas. But the key is that there does not exist the necessity to choose between extremes. I trust that human ingenuity, which has brought about so many change and so many benefits, has the power to offer acceptable solutions as well. And indeed, as the Principles of Engineering article shows, these middle ground solutions are already being developed and used. If we do not see their effect immediately, it is likely because there is always a barrier before the rapid evolution and dissemination of any technology or way of thinking. But, as pointed out by the article, once the changes are made, the financial benefits will come. And as long as people are conscientious about the need to recycle, these profits will come quickly.

The problem, as always is the get people to start taking these small steps, which do add up in the long run though it may not seem like it. That, I think is the idea behind the concept of the messianic moment. Many of the steps that we need to take toward redefining the problem and ensuring sustainability seem hopeless to a certain degree. This is especially true at the start, often because there are so few people around doing the same thing and providing moral support.

The same is true, I suspect of any major social movement or change. Just looking at our own past, the suffrage movements are prominent examples. Each individual protest and written tract was viewed by some as an exercise in futility. Much in the way that people maintain recycling or reusing is useless if you are the only person advocating it or doing it. And this serves as something of a cognitive barrier. People naturally shy away from positions and actions that are not accepted or at least not commonly adopted. Just as it takes an initial financial investment to kick start more efficient processes, success in something as comprehensive and overarching as environmentalism requires that one invest something as well. Participation requires an investment of time, effort but perhaps most importantly, of confidence your actions will matter. Perhaps it requires almost an element of something approaching doublethink to convince yourself that small actions will build up to a paradigm shift. But it should be a comfort to note that such things have been accomplished before.

I don’t know exactly what “enlightened environmentalism” is or where the term comes from .I haven’t Googled it and I’m not going to. For all I know, it could be anything from a Sierra Club pact to a term of the professor’s own coinage. It’s not government policy, that’s for sure. The first three paths all have to do with the mindset transformation that must take place to put us on the tract to lasting change and sustainability. My guess is that the last two, as of yet unrevealed, will have to do with a commitment to action.

The problem with the actions taken thus far by the government, the only authority that can enforce environmental policies, is that they’re limited in their scope and their goals. The conservation movement delineated lands that would be protected from commercial use, but there’s nothing that can protect those lands from the environmental impact of commercial activities nearby or upriver. There’s no bubble that any piece of land can be shoved into that will place it above the Earth’s web of life.

The measures taken seem to have been put in place with hardly any sense of value for the land. Why were they conserved? So people could still have a bit of nature to enjoy, to divert themselves with after everything else is gone. I don’t think that the mindset behind the conservation laws was actually serious about protecting the environment from the impact of pollution in the long run. What they did was relatively easy and looked much nicer, in symbolic terms, to the public. Rather than chasing down big business and forcing them to follow regulations for ethical and sustainable behavior—which could’ve been reported as “socialism”, “communism” or “restriction of free speech” and provoked citizen outcry—the government took some pristine lands, stuck a ribbon on them and said to the public, Look—You’ve got a nice new park! It’s huge!

The conservation movement did nothing to reform agri-industry, a perfect example of this country’s craze for overconsumption, nor did it do anything to prevent, curb or clean up pollution. All it did was protect certain lands from the damage of being directly used for commercial production. What if all U.S. lands had been protected from such exploitation from the time that this country first absorbed them? America would not be what it is today. If we tried to change the landscape to what it was in the early 1800s (pre-Lewis and Clark), the economy would probably collapse and people would be forced to adopt to a new quality-of-life standard—to live off of what they could grow, gather and catch. And, while sustainable and probably healthier in the long run, this would bruise people’s first-world egos. We’re so used to having more than we need that we’ve redefined “need”—from “something necessary” to “something necessary to live the life most other people with disposable income are living”.

What do people need? Masses of people today feel that they “need” to preserve a wasteful way of life. They feel that they need more goods, not better ones. And once they attain what they want, they still want more. Two TVs? Well, we have three floors in our house…–and look! We can get a great deal!—why not make it three TVs? Why not? We work hard, don’t we deserve it? They don’t bother informing themselves about the sources of their cheap luxury goods. Neither producers nor consumers stop to think about the long-term costs. When the costs that don’t impact them directly are brought to their attention, they shrug and say, “Oh well.” They say, “Such is the way of things,” “What do you want me to do?” or, “It’s a shame, but . . . there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Humans need food, water and shelter. They don’t need a new cell phone every year just because they’re tired of the old one. They need clothes and medicine, but not to the point where they can’t even reach the deepest depths of their closet, become resistant to Tylenol or can’t even remember what the flux of pills in their medicine cabinets are for. They need technology that works, not planned obsolescence. And they need air, water, and land that won’t make them sick in the long run. When it comes down to what people really need, it turns out that there’s no need to exploit the planet or each other to attain it.

Seong Im Hong

October 29, 2012

The Opiate of Freedom and Trying

“Freedom doesn’t let you off the hook, and failing doesn’t mean you’re not responsible for trying.” – Tony Kushner

            Freedom is a slippery thing. It seems to be a masturbatory word for politicians to scream at the frenzied masses that are drunk on their own idea of freedom. We talk about freedom so much in our country—our very political discourse hinges upon freedom and how much is too much. In this class, we mention again and again the conflict between market freedom verses government regulation. Freedom, we think, is an inalienable right. But freedom exists because the opposite (or lack thereof) exists—servitude, constriction, and limitations. So when we talk about freedom in rallies, what do we want freedom from?

Religion is an opiate, someone said, but so are love and freedom, and much and more things. Freedom is great, sure, but is it really? We talk about freedom from The Man, freedom from taxation, freedom from oppression, and it seems that “freedom” is too big of a concept to be truly used in a useful way without plentiful context and modifiers.

And I think that’s our great fallacy. Freedom is what we Americans love to think as the quintessential American ideal that we forget that all freedom all the time isn’t all it’s stoked up to be. Freedom by itself is dangerous, because it makes us drunk on our sense of self-righteousness and exceptionalism and other things that make us complacent when things that are obviously Not Okay happen. In terms of our class, for example, when companies violate environmental standards, or edge close to violating the environmental standards, some of us think, “Well, it’s their right as businesses to gain a competitive edge over others. Let the free market decide.” But in this case, what is the business free from?

Too often, we want freedom from responsibilities.

But as Kushner said, “freedom doesn’t let you off the hook.” Freedom shouldn’t mean freedom from responsibilities. And we all have responsibilities, from personal responsibilities (to do right by self), to familiar responsibilities (to take care of aging parents in future, perhaps), to environmental responsibilities (to aim for sustainability). And yes, it sucks to have responsibilities. That’s why we procrastinate or drink or do any number of things to avoid, avoid, avoid what we must to in favor of what we want to do. But that’s not how life works, and that’s not how it ought to work, either. Sometimes, selfishness is under the guise of freedom.

Selfishness also comes under the guise of “trying”

The second part of Kushner’s quote is much harder to understand. Too often, we are faced with forces larger than ourselves. Life, death, love, you name it. When we are trying to face environmentalism, too, we are faced with forces larger than ourselves, though they are often of our own making. Global corporations, for example, are too great for individuals to truly effect. At least, that’s what we tell ourselves while we buy their sneakers, their seafood, and their smartphones. It’s with a mixture of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality and “oh well” mentality that we continue to patronize these companies that we know, as surely as we know any other things, that pollute and exploit. We might even try buying locally or from alternative sources before we realize ethical doesn’t mean economical and our pockets aren’t as deep as the corporations’. Oh, well, we tried, we think. But sometimes, when it comes to important things, failing doesn’t mean you should cease to try. Not all of us can afford to shop at Whole Foods all the time. (Actually, if you go to Hunter, you probably can’t, period.) But we can surely try to influence others, or look for alternatives or go out of our way to buy better.

(For the record—I have a problem with how sweepingly broad Kushner’s claim about responsibility is. There are things we can’t and shouldn’t fix or change in life. Sometimes failing means that you have to let go of others.)

Reva McAulay

MHC 250

Weekly Writeup #8

            The 12 Principles of Green Engineering were an interesting if random seeming list of guidelines for how engineers and businesses should make their products.  Obviously they should avoid hazardous products and byproducts, prevent waste ,use an efficient production method, use renewable sources of energy and materials, and consider what happens to products after they are done being used.  But some of the other principles were more interesting, like the idea of using output-pull products.  Output-pull was something I had never heard of before, and didn’t really understand until we learned about the thing where you pull a nylon thread out of a chemical solution and it forms more nylon.   I’m still not sure whether or how this could be applied to anything other than chemistry, and google doesn’t have anything on it except more lists of the 12 Principles of Engineering.  Taking advantage of entropy is another interesting idea that is not obvious at first.  Using as few materials as possible is similarly not something that you would think would make a big difference, but it does make sense because the more materials that are in something, the more work it is to recycle.  And we’ve seen how people barely recycle the easy stuff, like aluminum cans or water bottles, so making things even more complicated to recycle will naturally make recycling even less common. 

            My three favorites of the 12 Principles of Green Engineering were the ones about designing for unnecessary capability, using energy and material flows, and designing for durability instead of immortality.  Using energy and material flows is interesting because it shows how little people consider the idea of reusing anything, even perfectly good energy that is already right there and doesn’t require any transportation or anything.  Using energy flows in manufacturing does not require an entire infrastructure like using alternative sources of energy does.  Nor does it require changing things to reduce the amount of energy it takes to complete the process.  All it takes is figuring out how to use waste energy from earlier in the process to help with a later part, using the waste energy as is.  It shows how little people consider using anything but something new, that minimizing energy use is thought of first before thinking of how to reuse energy that has already been taken out.  The same goes for waste products, obviously. 

            The idea that designing for unnecessary capacity or capability is flawed is great too.  It doesn’t make sense on any level, even a strictly economic one, to spend time, money, and resources to design and build something to do something it will never have to do.  Similarly, people tend to buy the most capable products even if they are more expensive and the consumer will never use its capabilities.  Why buy a computer that has huge capabilities and many special features if you just want to do basic internet and word processing? It doesn’t make any sense, and neither does buying a car that is made to handle off-road driving in terrible conditions, or one that can go 160 miles per hour, if the vast majority (or all) of its use will be driving in the city or on highways and never going over 60 mph.  If people did not demand unnecessary functions, manufacturers would be able to build more environmentally friendly products at lower prices. 

            Similarly, designing for immortality is basically designing for an unnecessary function.  The odds of a product being used for the consumer’s entire life and then being passed down to the next generation is absolutely none for most things, and very small even for things that people intend to use forever.  Certainly things that are meant to be disposable, like Styrofoam cups, don’t need to be made to last forever (unless recycled).  But for most things, people are not going to want to use it forever.  Eventually it’s going to be so outdated and out of fashion that nobody will want it even if you give it away for free.  Going back to computers and cars, only basic computers even need to be particularly durable, since the people who buy them might actually hold on to them for awhile.  A really fancy computer will probably only be used for a few years before it’s obsolete.  Cars need to last a while because they tend to be re-used, but even those will eventually be retired because they don’t have up to date safety features or gas mileage.

I really enjoyed the adaptation of Macbeth put on by Tom, Tom, Seong and Hayley. It was funny, intelligent, and relevant to our class and what we have been discussing. Everything seems to always come down to money and the idea that when people are given power, they tend to abuse it. Macbeth was the ideal example of this in their adaptation of the play. He was ruthless, manipulating and used others to gain power. This illustrates the idea that men are inherently greedy, always wanting more. He managed to make it to the top at the expense of others and the environment. He illegally cut corners and deleted records to maximize profit. All he cared about was making more money, even though he was already affluent and did not need more. This goes to show that money always drives higher-level decision-making.

I now know that change needs to happen now. We need to start embracing the principles of green engineering and the cradle-to-cradle model. By doing so, we will create less waste and make sure to reuse the waste that we do create. This will help solve the problem of having to figure out what to do with all the waste that we produce. This can possibly limit the amount of active landfills and incinerators we need. In order to do this however, we, as individuals need to choose to change.

We need to choose to fight for the implementation of green engineering and cradle-to-cradle design. We need to advocate for advancement in the use of solar energy. Most people seem to think our future lies in solar energy, which is perfect because it is a renewable source that will never run out (unless the sun explodes). Wind energy is also a viable alternative, but it is difficult to harness and put the turbines in places that are easily accessible.

We need to lose our American way of thinking of always wanting more. If something isn’t broken, who do we try to fix it? Is there really a need for thousands of different kinds of cars? Why not only have the environmentally friendly ones? Do we need access to fruits when they are off-season and difficult to get? The answer should be no. Millions of dollars are being wasted to accommodate the American life we are so used to. President Obama’s campaign slogan, “CHANGE” was correct, just in the wrong thinking. We need to stop putting off the environment for future generations and start caring for it now.

Yes, money is nice, but money won’t matter when the environment becomes so bad we cannot live properly. Instead of fighting of every last cent, the CEOs of big corporations should be making contributions to the search for alternative energy and the implementation of cradle-to-cradle design. It should be mandated that all factories and other institutions that apply that are building from the ground up need to use cradle-to-cradle design. This would create a much more efficient setup. It should also be mandated that all existing factories make an effort to convert to a cradle-to-cradle design, and they should be offered tax breaks as an incentive. Yet again, money is the only incentive that will work. The fact that you are helping the environment should be the only incentive needed to motivate a company to change to cradle-to-cradle.

Tom, Tom, Haley and Seong’s presentation left me impressed, amused and thinking.  First of all, I enjoyed their individual performances, I found the video to be entertaining throughout.  I especially liked the ways in which they had adapted the original Shakespeare text to fit their project, definitely an interesting and unique means of getting their points across in the time allotted.  The ways in which they switched roles with limited actors, found extras, and maneuvered around the constraints was well done.  The only problem I had with the presentation was the length of the video, which I think could have been shortened, if not for the required length of the presentation.  I would have liked to have heard more from the presenters in person, with a more active discussion with the class.  Alas, you cannot always get what you want.  The greater point of the movie, to me, was the corruption of the government and business leaders who can play a large role in the welfare of the environment.  I liked that the group had selected to focus in on a lumber company, as that industry is probably the most commonly known and depicted violator of environmentalism in media.  Historically, many movies and television shows, as well as a large amount of attention from news media have focused on lumber companies tearing down trees for personal gain or profit.  A trope that comes to mind is a group of protesters (most often hippies, or “tree-huggers”) chaining themselves to trees in a forest as the large corporation’s bulldozers come in to rip out the trees from their roots.  This video highlighted the man behind the bulldozers, and gave a unique perspective on the corruption of businesses from the eyes of the man in charge himself.  There have been protests and organizations attempting to bring awareness to the status of our ecosystem and the forest areas for decades, so I enjoyed seeing a theatrical adaption of Macbeth to gain a new outlook on the issue.  The portions of the film that were dedicated to faux-real interviews of people affected by the lumber industry was reminiscent of media we have seen in class, and definitely added to the power of the presentation in hearing how companies are affecting American citizens for the sake of a dollar.  This had me wondering, is another dollar really worth the suffering of the animals in their ecosystems, or the way it can affect humans who live in those areas?  I do not believe so, as there are many alternatives to what we saw Tom D. do in the video.  For instance, Haley’s main character showed an initiative that has been seen from the aforementioned “tree-huggers,” but even as I type it out I can sense the negative connotation that is attached with that phrase.  Perhaps it is time that we change our perspective and not consider tree-huggers to be bad, but maybe we should all be tree-huggers.  For the sake of our ecosystems.

            I actually quite like the 12 principles of green engineering. They are to the point, they assess everything that needs to be considered, and they provide an easy to use yet strong framework for green engineering. These principles remind me somewhat of the goals of LEED, simply a more formal and established realization of these concepts. This list should be printed on a aesthetically pleasing poster and hung in every engineering department and lab, for they display the future and the direction we need to be moving in as a society and within the world of engineering.

            For such a short list of ideas and concepts, the 12 principles are successful in essentially covering the environmental issues we discussed in class. They incorporate an emphasis on sustainability through balancing economic and environmental needs through examining issues on a greater scope than is presently done. I think Number 6 is particularly important, “Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition.” While many seem to view environmental endeavors as unnecessary or coming at too high a cost, those who think that are simply missing the point. “Investment” is a great word choice for that is why environmentalism must be stressed; our actions now are investments for the future, not for the present. Number 11, “Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife,” touches on a similar idea.

            A fundamental reason as to why I so enjoy these principles is their basis in reason. Number 8, “Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw,”  is a good example of a principle that is based on common sense.  The “one size fits all” mentality it addresses often means doing something the easy way rather than the right way. On top of that, when implemented in conjunction with the “recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition” concept of Number 6,  an engineering project with a special purpose is far more likely to do its job in an effective manner than an off-the-shelf solution. I would love to see these principles become the basis of legislation, with tax incentives or something similar given to manufacturers whoes products abide by these principles. The 12 principles will undoubtedly be second nature sooner or later in the future, and seeing them applied across the board would mean great things for the world and the environment.

            The concept of a messianic movement is also absolutely worth talking about, for while I never knew a formal name for the idea I think it is remarkably important when striving towards such a difficult goal as sustainability. The truth is that small actions can make a difference and it is easy to forget sometimes what kind of impact one person out of billions can really make. The “keep at it” attitude associated with messianic movements is also essential, for sustainability will not be an overnight success, but when we get there it will be worth it. When humans are able to bring ourselves to a sustainable point, the world’s focus can move to even greater issues and will likely cause a technological boom. Sustainability is not impossible, and while it may be difficult to see an end in sight, persevering on this initiative is essential to the continued existence and health of the human race; sustainability is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of survival.