Activism is one of those things that is hard to clearly define, but, as I found out in class, it’s easier to know it when you see it. I found in our class exercise on deciding if we think certain situations are or are not activism that even when I see it, what I think counts or doesn’t count as activism is hard to pinpoint. Many times I was not sure if I thought a situation wasn’t activism, or just personally didn’t want it to be a kind of activism people engage in. While the bar for what is, and what is not, activism moves and looks different for everyone, people in the late 70’s rallied around Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang as an inspiring rallying call to engage in environmental activism. While the sentiment in class expressed a dislike in the type of aggressive and direct action taking against the companies by harming their infrastructure and machinery, this type of activism was well received by many who read this book at its publication. I wonder what the difference in public sentiment is between now and then that causes such different reactions to this book? Disillusionment with the effectiveness and even trustworthiness of the government was common during that time, but doesn’t seem reason enough to justify blowing up bridges. Perhaps this book, even though the actions taken in it are very radical, provided enough inspiration and incentive to environmentalists to take, smaller, but still direct, action for the environment in the wake of peaceful marches and mere talk not being rewarding or effective. With blowing up bridges or running machines off of canyon cliffs, the effect is immediate and tangible.
Author: Lily Gillespie (Page 2 of 2)
Margret Atwood’s “It’s Not Climate Change It’s Everything Change” provides insight into three interesting scenarios that could become the consequences and results of climate change. I enjoyed the article and pondering what the future could look like as we adapt, or fail to adapt, to climate change. After our discussion on ‘What is Climate Change?” and looking into the effects of climate change on biodiversity that are already occurring, I wonder what the three scenarios laid out by Atwood would mean for aspects of our world beyond human concern and utility. Atwood’s stories focus on how humans would be impacted by the possible responses to climate change, but she doesn’t fully address how these three scenarios would impact other species. In scenario one, human technology and lifestyle manages to adapt to a more sustainable model before the oil runs out, and Atwood notes that nature would thrive in radiation zones, but I wonder what the cost of getting to this most optimistic, if unrealistic, place is for biodiversity. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, Projections already suggest that 25% of all species will be threatened by 2050, only 32 years into the future. By the time society would adapt to this model of living, what flora and fauna will be left to thrive? While scenarios such as converting to a sustainable system or experiencing the end of oil and downfall of society might provide spaces in which nature can thrive, the problem will be that if current climate change effects obliterate biodiversity on our planet before we can get there, what consequences will that entail?
Name: Lily Gillespie
Hometown: Ketchum, Idaho
Major: Cultural Anthropology
3 topics that intrigue me: Zero waste, does the stuff we recycle actually get recycled?, public land (access, debates, tragedy of the commons etc.)
Interesting News: Judge rules that North Carolina is Gerrymandering and need to re-district (hopefully) before 2018 elections
