An Eco-System Of One's Own Analysis

Ecological models can answer many questions regarding hypotheses, ecosystem parts and their functions (Marewski & Schooler, 2011). My ecological model was very standard for my teenage years (McWhirter, 2017). I was the first of four children and lived in Ohio, growing up during the ‘60s and ‘70s. We were an average American family living in an average suburb. We all had bicycles and went on bike rides all the time. In the summer, we would ride to the swimming pool in our town. In the summer, we did the book clubs at our library and we always had something to do together with our friends (McWhirter, 2017).

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

As The World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial, by Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan, is a graphic novel about the state of our environment. They use cartoons and abundant sarcasm to convey the message that the attempts people are making to save the environment are not enough to do any real good. Their message challenges both those of Edward O. Wilson and the University of Connecticut in that Jensen and McMillan’s ideas are much more radical and suggest that the ideas posed by Wilson and UConn, such as the importance of recycling and sustainability efforts, are ineffective at saving the environment. We must resolve the challenges posed by Jensen and McMillan so that all of the ideas put forth in the sources may work together rather than against each other. In order to do this we must accept that some of the ideas given by Jensen and McMillan may be too extreme to do any real good and that the ideas suggested by Wilson and UConn, though slightly ineffective, are nonetheless important steps in saving the environment. Taken alone, none of their ideas will save the environment; instead it is necessary to combine the ideas of Wilson, UConn, and Jensen and McMillan in order to create a more realistic plan to save the planet.

In the article “Why Bother” by Michael Pollan, the author addresses the issue of climate change and what we as individuals can do. Pollan starts by making the primary assertion that it is up to each individual to change their habits of mind to curtail the current climate crisis. He believes that by the simple act of gardening it will severely help the situation at hand. During the course of Pollan’s article he gives many examples of what he believes we are doing wrong and how we can change. Through the use of many different rhetorical strategies he is able to support his case very effectively. Pollan clearly states the situation and purpose of his article, along with minor and major claims to support his ideas.

Americans, as a whole, do not care about the environment anymore. When we watch the news or simply talk about our day, there are always more pressing topics that come up. However, as a nation, the threat of a failing environment seems to be forgotten because the effects are not as obvious as other threats. Bill McKibben’s “Waste Not, Want Not” discusses how much time, money, resources, and people America has actually wasted and how little effort has been made to try to change. McKibben causes readers to think it is too late to save the environment from our wastefulness because we put our efforts into systems that do not help the environment, spend more money and resources than necessary, and refuse to acknowledge how much were wasting.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire as they say. Eric Klinenberg creates an argument saying, Americans need to reduce their use of air conditioning. While it might be helpful on a hot summer day, AC is dangerous to the environment. In his essay "Viewpoint Air Conditioning Will Be the End of Us," Klinenberg uses logos and word choice to present his argument and persuade the reader.

In reading Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and through my participation in the Kivulini Simulation lab completed in class, my knowledge and understanding of the psychological factors that contribute to the logic behind the decisions made by humans that negatively impact the planet we inhabit have significantly expanded. Many of these decisions are made out of ignorance, while others are made despite knowledge of the harm that results from them. There are some ways that I can apply this knowledge to my life in order to contribute to the effort to preserve this planet in the hopes of allowing it to sustain future generations.

The essay opens up with McKibben talking about how the political campaign against global warming is flawed because at our current point there is nothing much that can be done to fix it.(Mckibben,1) He then goes to state that humans are the biggest culprit behind global warming and supports this by giving examples such as SUVs and American ignorance.(2,9) He concludes by saying that if ten percent of America were to go green, it still would not save the planet, but ten percent could get the government’s attention to pass laws making everyone go green. (11)

"Save the Planet," "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," "Go Green." Quotes like these have become a commonality in today's age. We all are familiar with the large efforts to help preserve the environment. In "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments," Thomas E. Hill Jr. sums up his essay by stating, "The point is not to insinuate that all anti-environmentalists are defective, but to see that those who value such traits as humility, gratitude, and sensitivity to others have reason to promote the love of nature" (688; par. 4) This excerpt provides the thesis behind Hill's argument. The author found that

In the book, Future Of Life (2002), Edward O. Wilson, satirizes and jokes about how childish and unsophisticated arguments are such as those between the People-First Critics and Environmentalist. The results of this book is to showcase how these arguments lead to nowhere and Wilson presents this information by satirically mocking both sides of the argument with exaggeration, sarcasm and hyperboles.

Modernism represents an optimistic view of human impact on the environment that has been the dominant viewpoint for the last 200 years. The knowledge that mankind holds the ability to control the environment heavily stresses why climate change is not such a problem to worry about. One of the core beliefs of the modernistic perspective is that people have no need to fear future environmental disaster because the next technological advancement that will prevent it is right around the corner. Furthermore, those who share this view do not include themselves in their image of the ecosystem, believing they are detached from it. Lastly, a laissez-faire approach is taken to environmental problems, focusing on progression through technology, stressing that as long as progress is made in this area all problems will be fixed. For a modernist, climate change is nothing to worry about. This may be a real situation, but it will be solved with advancements in technology before one’s way of life is changed. What people should be worrying about is ensuring a laissez faire approach to the market with sponsorship to new technologies. As a result of reusable energy technology already existing, modernists believe that the problem of climate change has been solved and without disrupting free market system these technologies will be further implemented. As long as there are people given the opportunity to innovate, some will focus on and ultimately solve the concern of climate change. The issue of

In this section of the course we have been focusing on the most influential leadership skill; the ability to reshape our self-defeating thoughts of humanity so we can create a future we desire. In Frances Moore Lappé’s book, EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think, to Create the World We Want, she explores the “thought traps” humans categorize ourselves into that do not allow for improvement or progress toward a sustainable future. Of these thoughts traps I chose two that I found to be of most interest to me. The first being, Thought Trap 2: “Consumer Society is the Problem – out of control shopping is overtaxing natural resources”, and the second being, Thought Trap 4: “We Must Overcome Human Nature to Save the Planet- humans are greedy, selfish, competitive materialists. We have to overcome these aspects of ourselves if we hope to survive”. Simply stating these titles evokes negative, self-defeating emotions, and through analyzing why we as humans trap ourselves in these ideas, we can work to reframe these negatives and turn them into a positive future. I chose these two chapters specifically because they compliment each other nicely. I will be first examining where our underlying desires for consumption originate and who is to blame, followed by taking a closer look at human characteristics, both positive and negative, and how they relate to our role in society. Throughout the book and especially these chapters, Lappé sets the bar high for leadership skills by making herself

We are less receptive to information when it is yelled at us, so it is counterintuitive for me to fill four pages with argumentative blathering. Candidly, I am bored of writing essays. I'm tired of drumming my fingers over computer keys as I search desperately for a string of words that can prolong my prose, and exhausted of the rewrites and rewrite rewrites that accompany classroom assignments. I think my words (and, relevantly, the leaves of paper on which I print them) would be better spent crafting a sort of how-to guide on altering your lifestyle to improve the natural world. It is nice to envision ourselves as "savers of the environment", because everyone likes to feel like a superhero--and I'd like to bridge the gap between preacher and

Tanaka Shozo was a prominent Nineteenth Century Japanese politician and the first conservatism in the history of Japan. In his article Meaningful Interpretation, David Larsen states, "Shozo states, “he care of rivers is not a question of rivers, but of the human heart." In one sense, Shozo uses the word care in terms of care for. This is the work of conservation professionals like interpreters, resource managers, law enforcement personal, and others, who care for the resource in tangible ways.” (Larsen, 2012). Shozo suggests that the term care is not exclusive to a place or thing, but also to the human heart. Shozo believes that no one can truly protest unless they can care for the resource or place they are protesting for. Larsen states, “Shozo describes interpretation's desired outcome. Interpreters facilitate connections between the interests of the visitor and the meanings of the resource by providing opportunities

As a 17-year old teenager going to high school, contrary to the environmental activist, David Suzuki’s, remarks about the ignorance of humans about nature, I receive much information about these kinds of problems at my school, from dedicated assemblies, eco fairs and special days that address our responsibility to deal with nature in a more responsible fashion. Yet, when the school day is over, all of the information seeps out of the roof of the school; plastic water bottles are still found in the corners of hallways and leftover Tim Hortons cups are still present in the desks of my former Business class. Even when I step inside the door of my house, the disconnection from nature is apparent. Most of my time at home is spent looking at a screen and doing homework and the only sign of nature would be the fly