Hartmann+Annotation+1



Thomas Hartmann January 27, 2014 Word Count: 1,228


 * Title:** Blind Spot
 * Director:** Adolfo Doring
 * Release Year:** 2008

The central argument of //Blind Spot// is that the way humans are using constantly increasing amounts of energy, primarily from fossil fuels such as oil and coal, is fundamentally impossible to maintain. The film argues that we are acting as if we are blind to the finite supply of energy and resources that the earth can sustainably supply us and to all of the problems such as pollution, global warming, resource scarcity, and economic disaster that are beginning to become a reality as a result of our actions and inactions.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film begins by describing how energy use by humans has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of human existence. It then goes on to explain the many causes, problems, and unfavorable results of our energy use by telling stories and having scientists and experts speak about these topics. Most often, the arguments presented in the film are emotional appeals. For example, Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, speaks about peak oil production. Our current way of life is so closely bound with the constantly increasing use of oil for fuel, plastic, and other chemicals that there could be an economic disaster. The oil crisis of the 1970’s gives a hint of what is to come. This appeals to people’s emotions through fear of these potentially catastrophic consequences. Further, the film provides some scientific information, such as journalist and educator Richard Heinburg’s explanation of the carrying capacity of the earth in relation to exponential population growth.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film highlights many of the sustainability problems related to human’s use of fossil fuels. For example, it describes how the system of capitalism, which involves organizational, behavioral, and cultural problems, tends to cause ever increasing consumption of energy, particularly in the form of fossil fuels. It is particularly difficult to fix this problem because no single person or group of people is responsible for it. Rather, the problem is deeply woven into the fabric of society. Further, it discusses the economic crisis that could occur when fossil fuels become scarcer. The film also describes the role of technology in enabling such high energy use.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The part of the film that I found most compelling was its description of how we have used fossil fuels to slingshot ourselves ahead in terms of economic progress and population growth. The film persuasively argues that it is inevitable that fossil fuels will become scare, which is particularly problematic because humans have likely overshot the carry capacity of the earth. This argument was the most compelling to me because of the extent to which the film explains inevitability of the situation and draws out the consequences of ignoring the problem. I feel that it is essential that immediate action be taken to reign in energy consumption and population to lessen some of these consequences.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The part of the film that was least convincing was its argument that science will not help to solve the problems related to limited fossil fuels. The film argues that science will not simply do what the public wants and votes for, which is to solve these sustainability problems. While corporations affect science, funding by the government and non-profit organizations still has a significant impact on the direction of science. I feel that the situation is not as hopeless as the film argues. Expanding this idea, the film did not convince me that sustainability problems cannot be fixed. There is value in being optimistic about the changes that can be made to solve many of these sustainability problems.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film best reaches an audience people who are unaware or do not understand the problems that have been caused by fossil fuels. This film is a good first step in making people aware of all of the factors that led up to this situation and the consequences that could occur if nothing is done. The film is less directed to an audience of people that are educated in current sustainability problems because it presents little new information and includes a relatively small amount technical information to support its arguments.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The most important part of sustainability that is missing from the film is a set of potential solutions to the problems or a set of actions that can be taken to avoid the consequences of fossil fuel scarcity. The ends on o hopeless note that leaves people with the idea that the consequences are inevitable and nothing can be done to avoid them. If the film had included potential solutions or actions that can be taken to move toward a solution, audience members would be more likely to become involved in making a change.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film does not suggest any actions or points of intervention to avoid the consequences of depleted fossil fuels. One action that may be effective at minimizing the consequences would be to limit population by penalizing parents that decide to have larger families. If the human population has over shot the carrying capacity of the earth (assuming that there are no fossil fuels), this would help prevent a steep population drop when fossil fuels run out.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

After watching the film, I researched more about what scientists take into account when determining the carrying capacity of the earth. The film argued that fossil fuels have artificially inflated the human population above the carrying capacity. Natalie Wolchover, in her article, “How Many People Can Earth Support?” cites the carrying capacity of the earth to be approximately 9 to 10 billion people. Scientists take into account the constraints of the earth such as the amount of food that can be grown, fresh water supply, cycles of chemicals such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon. I found it interesting that these estimates do not take into account energy consumption or desired standard of living, which motivated me to learn more about how these factors determine a second carrying capacity of the earth. Gigi Richard, in her article, “Human Carrying Capacity of Earth,” describes two carrying capacities of the earth. The first “biophysical” carrying capacity is the figure cited in Wolchover’s article. The second “social” carrying capacity takes into account the standard of living of the people. As a result, this carrying capacity varies in different areas of the world where standards of living and energy consumption are different. This results in a wide range of social carrying capacities, where estimates vary from 0.5 to 14 billion people.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**


 * Bibliography:**

Wolchover, Natalie. “How Many People Can Earth Support?” //Life’s Little Mysteries//. 11 Oct. 2011. <[]>.

Richard, Gigi. “Human Carrying Capacity of Earth.” //Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis//. 13 April 2002. <[]>.