Ecological Intelligence

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884776,00.html

What is Ecological Intelligence?

Ecological Intelligence is basically trying to figure out whether something is as good for the environment as is portrayed in commercials and companies.  Trying to see how helpful it actually is.  As revealed in the article not everything is as 'green' as it may look.  The transportation for everything that is needed to make it, or the chemicals for the dye are harmful for the water and other aspects of the environment.  It means to try out best to meet our needs with out harming the planet.  

How does this article relate to the essential questions of the project?

Well the first essential question is "Why don't people live more sustainably?" and this really relates to the article.  People don't live more sustainably in my opinion because they don't know they aren't living as sustainably as they may think they are.  The resources used to make these 'green' products use many more hurtful resources than those green products will ever be able to cancel out.  Also because some people might not know what to do in order to help or how to access organizations or people that could help.   

The second question is "How can we convince them to do so?" and in the article it gives a pretty good idea on how to do so.  The article stated that people re-act to problems when they see what is happening and it's effects on a certain object/place etc.  So if we some how got people to see what they are doing to the rest of the planet maybe they could see what their impact is and what these green products are actually doing.  

How high is your ecological intelligence? Give an example of ecological intelligence in your life?

My ecological intelligence is not that high.  Many of the things that are bought for me are not really very green and fail to even fall under the category.  However there are a few things at home that are at least to some extent helping with living sustainably.  We grow a small portion (very small) of food our selves and although it might not be much its a small step towards something greater. 

Data Analysis - The Gardeners

Question one: What struck you about the data?

Well one big surprise was how little people (that took the survey) actually grew some of their food.  Most of the people that did garden did it for something other than food or vegetables which only would leave some kind of decorative gardening.  Also even less people do it because of the environment, the top reason was for decoration.  For every person that grew at least some of their food, two people gardened for decorative purposes.  It might help with the oxygen in our air but it would seem that not many people understand the crisis.  To me though the biggest surprise was how many people said it would be a good idea to garden and how little actually do it.  56 percent of the people that answered said they do garden. 93 percent of the people said it is a good idea to garden to help with living more sustainably but not many of them do it.  Sure the majority of them garden but some of those people that garden don't said it is a good idea.  Why don't they garden then? 

Question two: Where you surprised by any of the other results?How so? 

Not really, the results above where pretty much the only things that really caught my attention.  

Question three: What where your expectations? Were these met or not? 

Well they where met to some degree, I did not expect a lot of people to garden and that was met.  However my expectations where kind of changed when I saw one of the other questions.  Many people said it was a good idea to garden but so few of them actually did.  So many more people thought it was a good idea to garden but very little of them did, I did not expect so many people to say it was a good idea.  

Question four:  Based on your findings, what kind of ad campaign will your run? Will focus on educating people? Encourage of coerce people? Embarrass people? what is your angle? 

Based on our findings I think our campaign should mostly focus on encouragement.  There is a very good reason for this, many people think that gardening for some of their food is a good idea but not many of them do it.  We also have to educate people on this since some people that don't garden might learn why it's more useful in the long run thus giving them all the more reason to start and help out the environment.  I want to give the viewers/listeners a good view, not the scare them of embarrass them but to tell them what it needed to protect our sustainability for our selves and future generations.  I feel the combination of encouragement and educating people makes them feel like they learned something and they feel that it is important for them to do it without scaring them.  

Research material

Project description
http://giosradblog.blogspot.com/

Environmental survey

Click Here to take survey

Blog post HW- 03/05/09 - Dervaes family video response

In the video with the Dervaes family it shows a family who is built on supporting your self and giving your family a source to food as apposed to going out and buying what you can have easy access to if you work hard for it.  They where a very out going family and had worked really heard to (very key words next)sustain themselves.   They went out of their way to give them selves more room to plant rather than working with an easily expandable garden.  They held many surprises, they contribute to many of the solution's that where presented previously.  Like supported local living economies by selling to local restaurants and other business that are in the food service.  They also did not use electricity and used almost all manual kitchen tools to prepare their food.  

This family lives a pretty simple life, all their needs are met from their hard work and do not use many luxuries.  Their needs list is just as big as any one's.  They are humans in the same time period as us so they have the same needs.  Their wants list would be pretty small, the way they live they seem pretty dedicated to the life style they live and having a smaller impact on the planet.  They use bio-fuels to get their car moving to have a smaller impact on the planet, they gather their own food and have a purely vegetarian diet.  This in my opinion would say they are about sustaining themselves and trying to pass on the lesson.   They don't seem to keep much to themselves besides what they need.  The little money they make they save for staples (favorite foods/ commonly used, not the kind of little metal staples) which aren't a necessity but a want.  If you count each of the staples individually it still only adds up to 3 different things.  As apposed when I check my pantry and I see a bunch of food.  

This family really ties into what where are learning about sustainability.  This family has really adopted a very sustainable lifestyle.  Where they do not depend on outside food or many outside recourses, they use natural recourses so not only are they keeping themselves really sustainable but also trying to reduce negative effect on the planet.  We are learning and about research a way to live more sustainably when this family is way ahead of us.  So it's seems pretty obvious how these two connect.  

This family lives really sustainably, their recourses come from within 100 feet of them.  This is a great idea to start living more sustainably.  There is more than one way to live more sustainably but this is a great way.  This group of people has set an example that will hopfully be caried on by others.  It's also a good thing they don't over stock and sell surpluses.  Rather than wasting stuff they go off and sell it to others who would have a better use than letting it go to waste.  All in all these people seem like a family who would really 

please check this out if you've got the time http://www.pathtofreedom.com/

 

My Ishmael Calliope part 2

Question one: How is Ishmael using the word anthropomorphism in the text on page 82?

Answer:  I guess it's because I think he's saying humans think themselves to be above everything else.  That we see our selves 'better' than all other life forms because of our intelligence.  It's described to say that humans want everything for any(one/thing) must be earned under our conditions, and since animals do not comprehend this system of ours they tend to think it's every one's land.  We see that if you do not earn whatever you have through our system then you are some kind of threat.  For example most of our trading and exchanges are through money and that is how we earn what we have.  Since animals are incapable of doing this than we see them as 'value less'.

Question 2:  In this chapter Ishmael leads us through the evolution of the Awks on planet Calliope. They start out as Awks and then some evolve into Bawks and then a few evolve into Cawks. These Cawks live in tribes and have a cultural heritage. They practice the strategy of ‘Erratic Retaliation’.

Part A:  How does Ishmael define ‘Erratic Retaliation’? How does it work in the case of then Cawks?

 Ishmael defines erratic retaliation as a peacekeeping system for the Cawks because it is a way of serving justice for what one member has done to another.  It allows them to settle the two individual's rather than having the situation explode and get two whole tribes at each other.  The Cawks developed it so people would get what they deserve but keep it down to a certain limit and keep the whole race from eradicating it's self.  

Part B:  Why is Erratic Retaliation a peacekeeping method?

Erratic retaliation could be considered a peace keeping method because it allows the Cawks the ability to control a dispute amongst parties (creatures, tribes etc.).  By doing so problems can be solved without destroying too much or killing to many other creatures

Part C:  Why don’t the Cawks just annihilate each other (instead of just doing the occasional attacks?

The Cawks might be separate from each other since they separate into tribes but they do not annihilate each other because they cannot continue their species inside of just one tribe.  Their tribes are too small to reproduce between the people in that one group.  They need the other tribes to find more mates and keep the race going.  If they killed each other and one tribe was the final victor then they would be forced to mate with a small amount of other Cawks and keep it to a minimum.  As long they do the occasional attacks a tribe can establish its dominance and still have more breeding options. 

Ishmael blog post

Question 1: What are Ishmael’s two general rules on how to identify people from our culture? Do you agree with Ishmael when he says that people from all over the world are part of the same culture? Why or why not?

Answer: Ishmael defines people 'from our culture' as normal humans, and people who live in around the same general area.  However I don't think that people from all over the world are part of the same culture.  We all have different values and ideas for different things such as food and architecture.  We all have the same needs like food, shelter, and water.  Different cultures view different things as beautiful or bad or ugly, so we don't all belong to the same one, we have different religions that change our ideals or way of ever day life.  The definition of culture is : The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.  Not every country's ideas are the same as another, not every country views the same art as beautiful or modern, not every country has the same mannerisms like "thank you" or "hello" or shaking hands.  

Question 2: Ishmael disagrees with Mother Culture’s voice that says that humans are inherently flawed. After reading through page 66 of My Ishmael do agree or disagree with him? Why?

I actually agree with what Mother Culture says in the book, humans are inherently flawed.  Humans are not perfect and I really feel what is stated in the book about humans not being so simple they do not seemed flawed, but we are not high and mighty enough to develop some Earth saving machine.  This put it into perspective to see how we are flawed.  We do not have the intelligence to solve the big problems like wars and world hunger but we can make life a bit easier and give our selves some luxuries.  We do not have any technology that can save us.  So I disagree with Ismael, when Julie mentions the perfection of simpler creatures how they are so basic they live because they are adapted to the simple life

  

Question 3: Ishmael uses a parable of Tunes and Dancers to explain his idea of Takers and Leavers. Who are these Takers and Leavers and how do they relate to American culture?

Answer: I guess the Takers in the book are kind of like everyone here in the U.S.A because we are all consuming and getting it only from working.  Just like the dancers in the story they work for what should be given to us simply because it is a human necessity (in this case it would be food) and we shouldnt have to work for.  In which case just like us we work for things we should get anyway.  The leavers in this society are more like the criminals.  They choose to abandon the laws of the people they live with and try somthing crazy, for better or worse.