rogat+-+sustp+-+fa+-+distress+signals+from+earth

Michelle Rogat Sustainability Problems

__**Listening/Radio Notes**__
 * announcer of the talk is VERY bluntly honest and gets right to the core of lip service of politics, business-as-usual (BAU) practices, industry backed climate deniers, and more.
 * early sign of civilization collapse is the diminishing marginal returns which is the decrease in EROEI (energy return on energy invested)
 * as GDP increases, happiness does NOT increase
 * Haber-Basche process results in nitrogen that's then used to replenish the soil, but that won't be enough, and it's extremely energy intensive and is very polluting, creates oceanic deadzones, disrupts the nitrogen cycle on the planet
 * agriculture will be losing its best pest control ever... winter!
 * a major problem is population extinction, heavily dependent on pollination, on imported honeybees, if they still exist in Italy, it won't do anything for almond farmers in California.
 * he believes that Darwin should have named his book "Differentiation of Species", and he notes that population extinction is happening MUCH faster than species extinction
 * we're wiping out gene population in plant
 * the seed saving organization that's mission is to save our biodiversity is a load of crock because yeah, they're saving the seeds, but they are saving them dry and in cold cellars, which is only going to influence the seeds into adopting to that kind of environment, which isn't what we should be going for
 * agricultural education is pathetic, people have no idea how we produce our food, and now it's heavily based on petroleum
 * there's literature that supports the idea that the more people there are, the more vulnerable they are to epidemics, which means we are now extremely vulnerable to them.
 * "Problems are truly global, can't be solved within separate nations." - another silo issue
 * he noted towards the end that when he was 7 years old, his girlfriend only had 3 job opportunities for when she grew up, gender equality has come a long way, but isn't really here yet.
 * mentions the movie "42", about Jackie Robinson's struggles and how "things have changed, not enough, but a long way." On a side note, I found it just great to here that a serious and professional researcher and expert in this field does spend some of his time watching new movies like 42. That part of their lives into much shared when you hear about them, and it's nice to hear these things.

__**Q&A with the Audience**__
 * **"Do you think there needs to be bloodshed to move foreward?"**
 * "I think it will, I don't want that, but it looks so. People who go hungry will have access to nuclear weapons." The military is VERY aware of the potential issues coming in the future. Military, DARPA, CIA have foresight in environmental front.
 * This really surprises me, I guess mainly because we don't hear or see much of what they THINK, but mainly the orders they have to follow and how obedient they are. I guess it would be wise not to put them aside as not having an opinion or a part in the future of sustainability when they obviously do, everyone does. I always just assumed that they would always be used as a tool by those in charge and so focused my thoughts there instead, but they could be much more involved than that. It also really surprised me since the only thing of ethics I knew the military tried to abide by is the military ethics of 'don't cause civilian damage', but I guess that can apply in many ways when you think of it.
 * **"...space exploration a viable option for us for future growth?"**
 * We don't really care about posterity beyond the familiar, can be changed culturally and needs to be changed. Ehrlich goes on to mention the disconnect between now and future generations and discount theory. "The problem is they don't get it, they think that people in the future will be infinitely richer because of economic growth." He thinks that everyone should put at least 10% of their time in today for future generations.
 * **energy issues...**
 * The issue is we can transition in time to a renewable system, some say yes, it's possible. The problem is people are always talking about what COULD happen, that technology will solve future problems. The transition to a renewable energy system would provide problems, but it would be worth it. The issues has shifted academically to the social sciences. Ehrlich says he see the answer there, but it's not happening. It's important not to confuse efforts with results.

__ ** Film Annotations ** __
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **
 * "Distress Signals from Earth" by Paul Ehrlich on Alternative Radio, WAMC 90.3FM, aired on April 8, 2014
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **
 * "Perfect storm of environmental problems that will lead to collapse of society", "but then again, maybe I'm dead wrong", thinks that there's a 10% chance of it not happening. So he sees and explains a lot of problems intertwined in the system and how it is not sustainable, he argues this will bring on the collapse of society in the future.
 * Ehrlich states that he wanted to hit the high points that he feels aren't normally emphasized.
 * 1) we are a small group animal, that have lived in groups between 50-150 people. Only since the agricultural revolution has this grown, and even today friendships and relationships only really reach out to about 150 people.
 * 2) (he grew up with the Inuit) All of the Inuit knew all about their own society, how to do each role needed done, etc. Today there exists a culture gap, a not knowing "non-genetic information". Today we don't know about our own society and cultures, even with the ability to literally right at our fingertips.
 * 3) "Problems are all tied together in 1 complex nexus, and we simply aren't educated enough." There's a disconnect between what we preach and the actions and decisions we make and it can be seen in universities, the government, right down to individuals. For instance, Stanford University has one of the most interdisciplinary environmental programs, but none of it can be tracked back to the structure of the university.
 * 4) Drivers of the basic problem are overpopulation and overconsumption. His response to solutions that include just working on consumption and not the issue of overpopulation is that it's "absolute bullshit", it won't work unless you tackle both.
 * 5) loss of biodiversity
 * 6) agricultural systems of the planet are going to be a bigger problem than rising sea level


 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the talk have emotional appeal? **
 * Ehrlich is making an argument that we aren't hearing enough of or focusing enough on these certain points of issue and we should be, and gives suggestions as to how to improve and become involved. He doesn't go into detail on the evidence for the problems he's talking about, but the problems themselves and the way he mentions them involve a lot of systems thinking while being straight to the point. I feel optimistic hearing him speak in this way because it gives a sense of clarity and makes you question why the hell we aren't doing more to tackle these problems; he is one of the few that actually make me feel optimistic.
 * I don't feel there is much of an emotional appeal accept that the tone in which he is speaking is one I can sympathize with.


 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **
 * Political? **
 * A road was built straight through the large mammal migration in Uganda. It was all tied up in politics because the oil companies don't want that oil so much as the Congo's minerals once the Congo calms down. So the people aren't concerned with biological and ecosystem consequences, they are tied up in political matters over resources to boost economy.


 * Legal? Economic? Technological? **
 * Media and Informational? **
 * There's an extremely well funded corporate group that funds anti-climate/environmental information. "If you think you're being screwed at random, you're wrong, it's deliberate." Rupert Murdoch won't allow certain environmental news in papers or on the radio. The IPCC report got almost no news coverage, think of what we haven't heard of yet!


 * Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? **
 * Cultural? **
 * He mentions the problem of polluting our environment with toxins, and mentions the same population in Homo Toxicus where they are birthing twice as many girls as boys, because of an issue with male fetuses becoming too fragile. " Dose makes the poison, not true." Smaller doses are able to interact and disrupt our immune and endocrine systems. We have a culture where we don't follow the precautionary principle, and we don't understand the effects of the science and technology we're using but we go ahead anyway.
 * Today there exists a culture gap, a not knowing "non-genetic information". Today we don't know about our own society and cultures, even with the ability to literally right at our fingertips. As a culture, our society DOES NOT KNOW ITS OWN CULTURE. We don't know how our food is grown, processed, distributed, etc. We don't know what happens ot our garbage and landfills, we don't know what our businesses are practicing on a daily basis. There is a lot that the general public doesn't know about how our own society runs. And if you aren't aware or educated, then you can't be productively involved with solving the issues.


 * Ecological? **


 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **
 * I think what is most compelling and great about his talk is that he doesn't focus too much on explaining the problems and the complexity of the situation because he is specifically addressing people that he knows is in the audience that are already aware. In contrast with what others talk about, Ehrlich gives a LOT of suggestions and ways to work towards solutions! I really like this change of pace :)
 * I was very compelled by his statement, "we are depriving ourselves of the minds that could be helping find solutions because these people are too poor to spend time or energy on the issue". I like this because it acknowledges human thought and creativity as a resource that we should be more mindful of, and besides when talking about education driving economic growth, I rarely ever hear this spoken of.
 * I was very compelled by his statement, "we are depriving ourselves of the minds that could be helping find solutions because these people are too poor to spend time or energy on the issue". I like this because it acknowledges human thought and creativity as a resource that we should be more mindful of, and besides when talking about education driving economic growth, I rarely ever hear this spoken of.


 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **
 * I'm not too convinced by his opinion that agricultural systems are going to be a bigger problem than rising sea level. I think that they are an intertwined problem that you cna't really separate from one another. I think that the thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees that are a result of rising sea level are only going to make agricultural problems more pressing, and create political upheaval on top of it.


 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? **
 * I think that history buffs, anyone seriously paying attention to issues at hand, sustainability researchers, people who are already turned onto the problem and are working toward solutions... that is the target audience for this talk because I feel they are the ones that would get the most out of it.


 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **
 * Maybe not to have it included in the talk, but to have a link or information on where people can go to become more informed on the issues he brought up would have been wonderful to include because then people could learn more on the matter if they needed to, but his talk was short and so full that he didn't have much time to go so in depth, not like Michael Parenti with his audio recordings of what he believes and the information he relies on... Parenti goes on forever, has many recordings, touches many topics, and goes somewhat in depth on where he gets his sources.


 * 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. **
 * He wants to destructure Wall St., get rid of what he calls the "Hood Robin" system, where the wealthy steal from the poor.
 * He believes a fundamental solution is the reduction in scale of the human enterprise, in both consumption and population. To solve population issues, you give equal rights to women and have access and education for women.
 * He believes we need a lot more collaboration in a bottom up effort, that people who research into issues and solutions are too specialized, or as I recognize is, "siloed" into being separate from the people at the top and other researchers that are 'horizontal' from them. James Lovelock is another person who recognizes this, and says that he believes in being a "general scientists" in order to stay away from silo-ing issues and keeping the ability to look at and work on the grander picture.
 * The water-handling infrastructure needs to be rebuilt for flexibility, changes in the water table, and irrigation.
 * The climate summits need to change, we need to have a huge international discussion on how we need to reorganize ourselves.
 * He suggests to go back and look at the federalist versus anti-federalists papers, don't quite remember why, but I guess it's to look into how to make the opposing political sides work together?
 * He thinks that everyone should put at least 10% of their time in today for future generations.


 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **
 * Ehrlich mentions a few books that he calls worthy of reading that I would like to look into such as "The Collapse of Complex Civilizations" by Joe T. and "1989", a book about the Soviet Union and the year that changed the world.
 * Looking back at what he said, I realized I got a lot of my ideas for my "Go Fix It" presentation from him. For example, learning from the history of fallen civilizations, addressing future agricultural issues, and looking back at our America's own historical paper and projects for inspiration into what can work in the future, like how I looked at the New Deal.