I have been an Environmental Engineer for almost six months. This might lead you to assume three things. - I own sandals and/or a poncho
- I have facial hair
- I listen to the Polyphonic Spree.
In this, you would be correct. However, beards and 6-minute tracks about sunshine do not a hippy make1.
Allow me to quote from the "Overview" page of Module Seven in my taught Masters course notes.
"Nature runs on sunlight. Humankind runs on fossil fuels"
I see what you're saying, but industrial society runs on fossil fuels. Humankind runs on sweet potatoes and diet coke and pankeggs2.
"Nature uses only the energy it needs. Humankind waste massive amounts of energy"
Firstly, "humankind" is singular in my book. Also, I'm not sure what you consider "nature". Or, for that matter, "waste". Does sunlight reflected into space count as a neccesary expense? Plus, nature increases its needs to match availability. Bear this in mind as we continue.
"Nature fits form to function. Humankind forces Nature's form to fit it's own function"
I agree that form matches function in most cases, but that's because useless forms tend to be mowed down and eaten. Actually, this isn't always the case. Plus, we're not the only species that does this whole form-to-function thing. In fact, aren't those two statements the same? How else did form fit function if not by being made to?
"Nature recycles everything. Humankind recycles next to nothing"
I should have guessed when you capitalised the word "Nature" in the last bullet point, but I think our worldviews are quite different. I'd define Nature as being the biosphere, that is, the closed system formed by the earth. As such, it has to recycle everything by definition: if it didn't, it wouldn't be nature. Moreover, Humanity is a subset of nature3. Humanity, like all species, is a waterwheel. We extract our existence from a flow of energy and material. Any subset of nature must have imperfect recycling, so that some matter is flowing to and from the rest of the system.
Also, if you mean that life recycles everything, why are there billions of tonnes of organic carbon buried in the crust? Is Humankind doing its part in recycling it back into the atmosphere?
"Nature rewards cooperation. Humankind idolises competition"
OK, now I know for sure that we have different theories of the world. I always thought that it was people who liked cooperation, and nature that said, metaphorically, "Compete. If co-operating is the best way to keep the other bastards down, do that."
"Nature banks on diversity. Humankind opts for monculture, destroys diversity"
Well, it's true that agriculture has a tendency to make this mistake. You know what, I'll concede this point.
"Nature curbs excesses from within. Humankind celebrates excess; greed is good"
Actually, the way that nature curbs excesses is the same way we generally do. Anything that can desire, desires more. It's only humans who can think about that and consciously decided they need less. Case in point: we are the only species to practice contraception. Also, I'm fairly sure most dictionaries put "bad" somewhere in the definition of "greed". I think it might even have made the Top Ten Sins or whatever.
"Nature taps the power of limits. There are no limits, says mankind"
Um... the power of limits, you say? Well, all I will say is that Toucan Broadband know all about limits, even on their "Unlimited service". If they didn't, I'd be in a better mood right now.
Reading this module has given me an insight into how Conservatives must feel all the time.
Maybe I ought to return my tie-dye kit.
1. Does anyone know the origin of this construction? I figure it's either Yoda, Winston Churchill, or Germany.
2. The food of kings and the king of foods.
3. Maybe you disagree. It's OK, lots of people do.
5 comments:
These kind of unsubstantiated statements make me dislike everyone who isn't as anally retentive about academia as Oxford is.
I'm starting to see why my 20+ footnotes need to be listed in a bibliography now.
Also, You're WASTED on these people, Nathan. WASTED!
And a third and final comment - Can you say GENERALIZATION?
And I always thought that Master's programs were nuanced...
To be fair, it turns out that this "module" isn't a) assessed or b) lectured. It's actually just the printed notes that are full of wishy-washy bullshit. This is not entirely unexpected, since it also includes one chapter twice and has generally only the sketchiest of connections to the lecture course.
That said, this module has worn down on me. The lectures are interesting, but assessing this kind of module is always going to be awful. We've been told to go off and write a Policy paper for the Republic of Ireland. Trouble is, the Republic spent millions of euros and two years writing the perfect version of our report. So now what? Either we're doing a typing-tutor style exercise, or we deliberately balls it up a bit.
Oh, for the good old days of "Draw a four-dimensional cone".
Post a Comment