www.chrisjordan.com/images/current/1121878289.jpg
I’d like you to consider this prompt in light of our conversation Tuesday about the similarities and differences between Leopold “sketches” and Trumpey’s lectures. Remember that there were as many overlaps of core concepts and attitudes as there were distinctions.
In lecture we have been talking about the “production based and consumer oriented” nature of our global society.* Find a quote from Sand County that illustrates Leopold’s opinion on this topic. The text is FULL of his observations infused with either implicit or explicit commentary on consumerism (see examples below). Summarize the context of the quote, explain Leopold’s main points and tone. Reflect on your individual experience in our production-based/ consumerist society. Give an example from your personal experience/ observations that relates to the quote you chose.
Things to think about: There are many ways you could approach this depending on which quote you choose. Think about his discussion of the paradox of conservation (100-101) or how not “thinking like a mountain” actually leads to poorer situation for the consumer (129-133).
Examples:
• “The high priests of progress knew nothing of cranes, and cared less. What good is a species more or less among engineers? What good is an undrained marsh anyhow?” (100)
• “To build a road is so much simpler than to think of what the country really needs” (101)
• “…but if I were (an economist) I should do all my pondering lying prone on the sand, with Draba at nose length” (103)
• “everything on this farm spells money in the bank…even the pigs look solvent” (119)
• “…Thoreau’s dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world” (133)
Last thing: No more slacking on citing your sources in the other WRs!!! (I know most of you have been doing this, so disregard). This was a clear requirement of all written work in this class (it’s for your own good- trust me☺) and I have to take off points when you don’t list your citations.
*(note: this is no longer just a critique of “Americans” or “American society” but a pervasive global trend).
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Trumpey, Joseph. Art Design Perspective 3: Technology and the Environment. Stamps Auditorium, Ann Arbor, MI. 5 and 7 Oct 2009. Lecture.
Alyssa Olson
ReplyDeletePost #5
The quote I chose from Aldo Leopold’s book A Sand County Almanac was “Do economists know about lupines?”(102) I chose this quote because I believe it accurately displays Leopold’s opinion on the production based and consumer oriented society we currently live in.
I believe the context of the quote is that there is a large separation in our society between what we consider “human” nature and “actual” nature. We tend to see our own human nature and systems to be separate from the natural landscapes and systems that surround us. In our current society it is hard to see that these two systems are actually all part of one large arrangement.
The paragraph that this quote comes from is talking about the poverty of the sands and Leopold describes the landscape and the lupine plant in economic terms. He describes how in June he sees large amounts of lupines, yet on farmlands that have more produce than they need that the lupines cease to even exist because the farmer would most likely cut them down to try and control the growth of his land. Leopold is comparing the differences between the growth and natural systems that occur in nature compared to the growth on a farm.
On a farm there is much more control and planning, much of this due to the want for high production and high profits. The quote “do economists know about lupines?” displays the lack of connection between the land and the profits that come from it. The economist just sees profits, regardless of what plant or product they are coming from. An understanding of the plant and its purpose in our global systems or in our natural systems is irrelevant, it makes a profit and that is the only thing an economist is concerned about. The processes, which it goes through, or the positive or negative effects a plant has on a piece of land or a habitat is subpar. While a conservationist sees the plant and understands its place in nature and in our lives without concern over its potential profit gains. A conservationist sees potential food in a natural setting, a gift from nature.
Consumerism has turned some farmers into greedy economists who are only trying to turn a profit, while Leopold is reminiscing of the times when the land did as it pleased and one would never remove thriving plant life from a piece of land because it wasn’t part of the profit crops. Leopold displays his distrust and dislike of consumerism within this quote.
I will admit that I have never taken much thought into the effect my consumption of goods and provisions have on global systems. I have never been concerned about the mango I was eating in the middle of winter and of the energy and labor that had to be exerted to get that mango to me in Michigan. Even in the short time I have been in this class I have seen a drastic change in my demeanor especially towards food and consumption. I have always been conscience of recycling and using reusable bags, taking the bus or walking instead of driving, but the thought that what I eat everyday has a large effect on the global systems is news to me.
This quote only strengthened the notions I already had and made me want to strive to buy local and to support my local land not only for the community but also to relieve the global system of my consumption. Buying local and being conscience of my food choices will help decrease the amount of energy and labor used to ship produce and other products internationally, which in the end lessens the strain on the global food system.
Meghan Schwend
ReplyDeletePost 5
Leopold and Consumerism
Leopold, on page 176, discusses senseless consumption of environment when he says “The trophy-recreationalist has peculiarities that contribute in subtle ways to his own undoing.” Many believe that in order to fully experience nature, they must appropriate every aspect of it to suit their own needs. For example, a hunter may feel the need to kill every animal he encounters, and a landowner may be compelled to use every acre of his land for profitable purposes. Man feels that nature must fit in some role related to humans in order for it to be considered important. This leads to mass consumption of these resources. This, in turn leads to resource shortages caused by over hunting, cutting down trees, mining, etc.
Following the earlier quote, Leopold says “Hence the wilderness that he cannot personally see has no value to him. Hence the universal assumption that an unused hinterland is rendering no service to society. To those devoid of imagination, a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part”(176). Leopold makes the comment that everyone has their own method of appreciating nature, some, in more resourceful, respectful ways than others. The more reckless man is with his surrounding resources, the less there will be to experience. Man therefore makes his own experience of nature one that can continue on for generations, or not.
Rebecca Tulis
ReplyDeletePost #5
The quote I found from A Sand County Almanac is “Man always kills the things he loves, and so we the pioneers have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. Be that as it may, I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in (149).” Leopold meant that in order utilize certain aspects of nature, we are killing our environment and as that continues there will be nothing left to enjoy. Leopold talks a lot about the damage we do to our environment to serve ourselves with luxuries when the real enjoyment in life is appreciating nature for what it is. The way to truly enjoy it is to both protect it and try not to disturb the places that can easily disappear from our lives.
Leopold’s has a dismay and sympathetic tone when he talks about this subject. This quote is more of just a random thought by the author, having no real connection to what Leopold was saying before or after. He is very pessimistic about the future of our environment, insinuating that there will be nothing left of it to take advantage of it. What came to mind when Leopold said this was the cutting down of trees and how as we are clearing our forests, there are less and less forest areas to appreciate and take pleasure in. We are cutting down trees for our consumer needs and at the same time we are ridding the world of an important habitat for animals, a source of oxygen, a way to reduce carbon dioxide and a significant aspect to agriculture.
In his quote, Leopold said, “in some way we had to” when he talked about how man has disrupted the wilderness. What I believe he was saying was that we may have had to make certain decisions in order to survive. Or in another case, he may have been talking about how we have made changes to help our environment. Either way, we are constantly interfering within our environment and whether it is good or bad, some parts may not survive because of it and there will be nothing left to “be young in.”
Response to prompt 5
ReplyDeletePete Hall
The quote I have chosen to expand on from Leopolds A Sand County Almanac is “Only economist mistake physical opulence for riches. Country may be rich despite a conspicuous poverty of physical endowment, and it’s quality may not be apparent at first glance, nor at all times.” (177) In this expert Leopold is talking on the different between land and country, saying land is where “corn, gullies and mortgages grow.” (177) and country is “the personality of land”, the coming together of its “soil, life and weather.” (177) Leopold then goes on to describe a particular lakeshore he knows that looks like a normal lakeshore covered with pines and sandy beaches. But during some particular evenings the loons make plain a hidden bay that he is suddenly taken to explore by his canoe. Leopold says the economist would not see this hidden bay, but would see only the value of the timber at the lumberyard or the value of the fish in the lake at market. Economists only see the world through money and production according to Leopold and do not find value in country unless it is grand and spectacular. Those “who find mountains grand only if they are proper mountains with waterfalls, cliffs and lakes.” (179-180) Leopold is, as always, skeptical of those who only find value in what the land can provide for them in a market sense.
Personally, reflection on my place in a production based, global consumer economy is hard for me. I find great joy in the woods and being away from the concrete of the city, but often it is the tools that I have acquired through our production based economy that really make the enjoyment of the woods complete. For example, I would 100 times out of 100 rather ride my man/machine made, large scale produced mountain bike quickly through the woods than simply go for a hike on the same trails. The woods are not enough alone to stimulate me; it is the speed that I’ve acquired from human made wheels that makes the woods interesting to me. I very much like my consumer items, but as an aspiring designer, it is here that interests me. As someone who wishes to make consumer goods, I can make a large impact on the conservation of our environment through my designs. Through what they are made of, how they are made and where they are made. Our production based consumerist culture is not going to go away, but why can’t the designers try to make the most of this culture? Making products that are lovely to use and have but do less damage to our environment?
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Kristen Zelenka
ReplyDeleteThe quote I chose to further discuss from Aldo Leopold’s A Sand Country Almanac is the section on page 126 in the chapter entitled “Illinois and Iowa” where there is a sign that says, “You are entering the Green River Soil Conservation District” and underneath in small typeface is a list of all who is involved, the, “who’s who in conservation.” The section further goes on to describe how the sign “stands in a creek-bottom pasture so short you can play golf on it” and that the creek bed is “ditched straight as a ruler” while in the background are “contoured strip-crops” (126).
This quote criticizes “fake nature” that we claim is authentic and are proud of. How can we claim that something so altered and engineered is natural? The entire Green River Soil Conservation District is corporate and sold, anything that was natural about it is no longer there. There are even corporate sponsors advertising themselves through the sign that degrades the project to begin with. Leopold’s tone is sarcastic and affronted when he concludes, “the water must be confused by so much advice” (126). It is ironic to think that real nature can be improved by our technology because then it is not nature at all. Farmlands are not part of the natural environment nor are man made lakes. Nature does not need our help and it is interesting to think about what it would be like if we did not interfere with it at all.
I can relate to this quote because I think that the Ann Arbor Arboretum can be classified as “fake nature”. Everything in it has been planted and manicured by hands. The part that bothers me the most is that you can tell where the grass is mowed and you can see random piles of mulch scattered around the park. I do not know if I have gone somewhere completely natural. All the land is owned and somebody always tends to it.
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Paul DiStefano
ReplyDeletepost 5
The quote that I chose from Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac was, “Everybody knows, for example, that the autumn landscape in the north woods is the land, plus a red maple, plus a ruffed grouse. In terms of conventional physics, the grouse represents only a millionth of either the mass or the energy of an acre. Yet subtract the grouse and the whole thing is dead. An enormous amount of some kind of motive power has been lost”(146). The reason that I chose this quote is because of how true it is in today’s society, and is a good example of how blind we can be to our global system. It basically says that all these things make up an environment, and that when you take one thing away from that environment, it affects the rest of that environment. This is something that is occurring due to our consumerism. We are taking from environments for manufacturing purposes and killing the environments because of that. We are trying to control the environment once we invade it, and it is only making matters worse. Once the environment is being controlled it is dead. Joe Trumpey gave a good example of this at one lecture. Saying that when they cut down rainforest for the making of coffee farms, it drove all of the native birds away. And when one part of the environment leaves, the environment is ruined. Leopold talks about this subject in an interesting way, stating that a motive power is lost from an environment when it is disturbed. I agree with this statement. That there is a certain energy that leaves due to its changes. That energy wont be lost if we help our environment instead of kill it for our consumerism wants.
Leopold makes a point in the production of human accommodations that are at first glance, seen to be development for natural areas. This includes rest areas, roads, and trails that are seen today in park sites. Leopold begins by stating that, “In short, the very scarcity of wild places, reacting with the mores of advertising and promotion, tends to defeat any deliberate effort to prevent their growing still more scarce (172).” His tone is critical of the basic instinct we have to promote and place our species anywhere possible with luxuries that are unnatural to the area. Picture a scale; on one side “wild places” resides, on the other resides advertising and promotion. Leopold is saying that as the advertising and promotion side of the scale gains more, the “wild places” side looses what it consists of. The two are not in balance.
ReplyDeleteHe continues to say “It is clear without further discussion that mass-use involves a direct dilution of the opportunity for solitude; that when we speak of roads, campgrounds, trails, and toilets as ‘development’ of recreational resources, we speak falsely in respect of this component. Such accommodations for the crowd are not developing (in the sense of adding or creating) anything. On the contrary, they are merely water poured into the already-thin soup (172).” Although we as consumers believe these accommodations stated (roads, campgrounds, trails, and toilets…etc.) to be beneficial, if not a necessity, they are taking away from the wild nature. We are producing for the tourists consumers at this point, embracing in “the production based and consumer oriented’ nature of our global society (Trumpy).” It may pass off as a way to improve the natural habitat, but it is only for the benefit of the human consumer, as Leopold has shown.
When I consider Leopold’s argument, I visualize a campground. When someone refers to going “camping”, most likely they are referring to setting up a pop-up in a crowded space. This is not living in the wilderness, gathering your own food, and leaving civilization, as you would expect. Pop-ups replace the standard home for a short period. They line side by side as if you were in a suburban neighborhood. Rest area buildings are located a short distance from the individual lots, and you walk over paved areas to reach them. They contain showers, toilets, sinks, and even hand dryers. Trees are clear-cut to make room for these lots. This type of area is a prime example of what Leopold is criticizing.
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Trumpey, Joseph. Art Design Perspective 3: Technology and the Environment. Stamps Auditorium, Ann Arbor, MI. 5 and 7 Oct 2009. Lecture.
The quote that I have chosen is “that the good life on any river may likewise depend on the perception of its music, and the preservation of some music to perceive, is a form of doubt not yet entertained by science” (154). I thought that this quote pertained to how people assume that there are no consequences to the amount and pace that humans consume nature’s resources. Leopold is saying that the logic of science believes that there needs to be more inventions of people as well as more people to utilize the land for a better life. Thus, the quote is followed by another quote “he (scientist) has no doubts about his own design for living” (154). Leopold’s main point of this quote is that as soon as science or rather humans enter a natural setting, it will soon undergo a transformation in which it is affected by humans. In other words, Leopold is telling us how untampered nature is transformed into being consumer and production oriented. I thought his tone was critical with a touch of sarcasm that science is a means of progress but science and the progression of humans believes that nature will still have bountiful resources.
ReplyDeleteMy experience with our production-based/ consumerist society is that I have always followed the flow of this type of society with no real thought about the damage to nature we are inflicting. Growing up in a business oriented family and, therefore consumerist and production based environment, I have always been taught that in order for the economy to continue to function properly and avoid recession, people should continue to buy and consume. Thus, through this little ‘lesson,’ I have been apart of the production-based society in which I am always trying to sell goods for commoditization, while practicing consumerism myself to help the economy. However, according to Trumpey, the “economy assumes more goods equals more happiness.” Today I realized that I have made the same assumption my whole life. For instance, I would work at my parent’s clothing store to sell goods that are just accommodations and not staple goods. Here, shoplifters would tear clothes trying to pry security sensors off of the clothes, resulting in throwing away these away. As I would help customers find clothes and try to talk them into buying these goods, I have also been part of this cycle of shopping and consuming unnecessary goods. However, I have never realized the damage nature has gone through to produce these goods and thus realized that I have also been living my life on science’s logic.
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Trumpey, Joseph. Art Design Perspective 3: Technology and the Environment. Stamps Auditorium, Ann Arbor, MI. 12 Oct 2009. Lecture.
The quote I chose from A Sand County Almanac that shows Leopold’s opinion on production and consumerism in our global society is the following: “Our grandfathers were less well-housed, well-fed, well-clothed than we are. The strivings by which they bettered their lot are also those which deprived us of pigeons. Perhaps we now grieve because we are not sure, in our hearts, that we have gained by the exchange. The gadgets of industry bring us more comforts than the pigeons did, but do they add as much to the glory of the spring?” (109). Leopold writes that we have more things—better houses, more food and clothing—and suggests his opinion that these “gadgets of industry” do not add to our happiness as much as nature does. Leopold’s tone is one that questions the reader and makes us arrive at our own conclusions, though he gets his point across. I agree with Leopold that our production-based/consumerist society is a negative thing. I believe that much of today’s technology or “gadgets of industry” separates us from each other and “dumbs us down.” IPods make us plug into our own worlds and block out the rest—whether it is people or the natural world around us. We fail to appreciate the beauty of the world around us because we separate ourselves from it with technology. Cell phones, devices that are meant to connect us and make communication better, but instead they severely reduce our knowledge of how to properly communicate with others (ie. texting makes us forget out to talk to someone face to face). If we didn’t have so much “stuff,” we would be able to connect with nature better and enjoy it to a greater extent.
ReplyDeleteLeopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Throughout the Sand County Almanac, Leopold continues to bring up consumerism and our society in relation to this issue. The “production based and consumer oriented” nature of our global society is a natural inclination to do what is easiest, fastest, and takes as little effort as possible for the consumer. This selfish way of thinking is what mainly contributed to the downfall in the natural world.
ReplyDeleteWith Americans obsession with time and the easy way out in life, it seems as though many people lose sight on where we came from and the natural resources we cannot live without. The quote I chose was on Page 137: “We spoke harshly of the Spaniards who, in their zeal for gold and converts, had needlessly extinguished the native Indians. It did not occur to us that we, too, were the captains of an invasion too sure of its own righteousness.” Our society tends to be so quite to judge others when we our doing the same things in retrospect.
The quote touches on the fact how people are so quick to point fingers when it is someone else but ignore things when it is their own doing. The destruction of nature, habitats, and other life forms is largely due to our invasions of space at an effort to bring ease into our own day-to-day lives. I know this is a bad quality of mine as well as many Americans as we all have busy hectic things going on and might not have time to make huge life changes; however, just cutting 5 minutes out of your day to do one or two things that will help the environment or limit consumerism would make a great difference in the environment.
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.
Our grandfathers were less well-housed, well-fed, well-clothed than we are. The strivings by which they bettered their lot are also those which deprived us of pigeons. Perhaps we now grieve because we are not sure, in our hearts, that we have gained by the exchange. The gadgets of industry bring us more comforts than the pigeons did, but do they add as much to the glory of the spring?
ReplyDeleteLeopold, Aldo: A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, 1948, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, pp. 109-110.
In this passage, Leopold describes the processes of evolution that has placed us not above of or below other species, but “fellow-voyagers with other creatures”, yet how we have come to be the only species that actively mourns the death of another. He mentions that this ability to feel for another species other than our own is what places ultimately above other species rather than our success as builders or producers.
His argument again like many he makes throughout the book, argues a solution closer to nature than the complexities of a larger society. Instead of mankind’s strives towards more advanced technologies that even Leopold admits can “bring us more comforts than the pigeons did”, pale in comparison to the loss of pigeons, specifically in this case he is comparing technologies and carrier pigeons. He himself is taking part in the mourning of another species in this passage, and would then find himself performing an act that advances us as humans from animals further than any invention of technology could.
From the standpoint of a man who uses technology far less than the average American consumer, it may be easy to indentify the ability to empathize or sympathize with something outside of our species, and therefore outside of our immediate concerns for survival as it would be. This viewpoint would not be common amongst city dwellers. Through the glass of someone who has very little interaction with nature or other species for that matter, mourning another species would not be identified as the characteristic that makes us the superior thinkers, instead the technology and infrastructure of their environment would be the hallmarks of this advancement.
Touching on the general disconnection (most) humans feel from the rest of nature (as we assume they consciously do) and attempts to control it, Aldo Leopold writes of a government trapper who strives to control, or wipe out, the bear population in the area in order to make “...Escudilla safe for cows” to farm and sell for meat (136). Leopold goes on to say, concerning the trapper, “He did not foresee that within two decades the cow country would become tourist country, and as such have greater need of bears than of beefsteaks” (137). Here Leopold is taking on our human/societal short-term prone projection thinking. We come up with solutions to our problems (such as helping our cows survive) and the solutions work; but we really are not concerned with what happens after the cows are gone. Furthermore, we don’t project what will happen after WE are gone, and the effects that are actions have induced. If we kill all the bears to help us sell meat what pains do those actions apply to the surrounding ecosystem? Though, on the other hand, nature will live on without us regardless if we destroy every plant and animal or pamper the creeks and massage the bears. We truly have a minuscule affect on the earth in the larger spectrum of all that is, has been, and will be. Our actions, as far as consumerist, fit in perfectly here. We make up ways to get money with a made up value to obtain essentials: food, heat, water. We buy things that are naturally produced at no cost, since the earth has no monetary system. It is as if our entire world is based off a fabrication: money. We buy. We make. We sell. We repeat. All to obtain items that were at a time received from the earth (yes we worked for them, but in a much more simple sense than we do today). And in doing so we loose all regard for the earth the land which is supporting us to live as we do.
ReplyDeleteOur actions have a present and long term consequence, our selfish consumerist actions will put plants, animals, and other humans in danger of extinction; yet, these effects are perceived as short term to the earth. As its’ main purpose is to keep going, the earth will find a way to do so after we are long gone until it is engulfed by the sun. So why conserve at all?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we don’t have to be conscious of what we do and how we act. We must be conscious and concerned with our health and lives and that of those around us (and the generations and variations and of the next homo-whatevers to come) if we want to continue being dominant organisms on this planet. If we are trying to go extinct then we don’t need to care. But, I myself am biased as a human and would like our species to continue.
Leopold, Aldo. Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1949.