Comments...
Katrina,
It seems like you have a good idea about what sustainable living means and what we need to do (or can choose to do) to achieve it. It is interesting how choosing where you want to live has many (sometimes contradicting) egocentric aspects. For example when you analyze which self would rather be in a remote village there is disagreement, “Trying to individually gather up amazing people to come live in a distant village land to live together, would be physically beautiful, and emotionally satisfying, but it will not be intellectually or creatively stimulating.” It seems to me that this is a more holistic way of thinking about life, and not seeing peak as only chaotic, forcing you to divide the different selves and assuming they are not interdependent of each other. Thinking about times of collapse and emergency I have always thought of only the most vital parts to survival/life, but you bring up or imply the point that if we are prepared for change and make it on time than we can also think about the most favorable scenario in terms of what is the most intellectually satisfying and metaphysically agreeable/ pleasant.
It really seems like you have thought a lot about what response you are going to take. I’m glad that you brought up waste management in urban areas, because it is something that I also thought was very important but never got a chance to blog about. “We, as in NYC, will remain with piles of crap on our streets, due to an inability to bury crap in the land, because it is encased in concrete.” It is interesting how such a thing as bad waste management will effect us not only physically but will change our lives socially- creating even more depression that there currently is, but there wont be any Prozac. “I fear a haze of unsanitary waste everywhere, causing massive disease and fear of coming into contact with other people for health. That may prevent any form of community from existing, which would be our only hope for survival.”
Post can be read on Katrina
Ying Min,
It was very interesting to see what you had to say about the gold mining film, I think the best point you made was unintentional. “If the film is a portrayal of future life after oil… it is just beyond my imagination.” From the small amount of the movie that we did see, I think that this was exactly the point of putting the footage in slow motion and playing nostalgic, unfamiliar yet beautiful music as we watch the people carry out the laborious task of gold mining without any technology/machinery. I think that the effect which you mention but don’t describe in detail (“For whatever film effect, there were only images and background music, which intensifies the perception of pain from the movement of the miners.”) was intended to sort of disorient you and make you feel insecure because it is a sight that is so very unfamiliar to us. I think that the purpose of the first scene in the movies is so that you can feel like you just don’t understand “What is this? ...and…what now?” I agree that this is another more clear intention of the film “The only point I can make of it is that it shows group cooperation, and how laborious it will be to carry out group cooperation without current technology.” It is always useful when in a response to something we did in class you can extrapolate what was learned to other points and create a strong connection as you did: “But perhaps, with slow progress, oil would be drained out at a slower rate and would last us longer, and be priced higher because of the strenuous effort it takes to extract the resource, and people would in term learn to treasure it more. As they should with clean water and air, now.” Isn’t it symbolic how in the film they are mining for gold and oil is the “black gold”? Also, isn’t it ironic how this group of people is supposed to be representing a strong, deeply connected community, which we identify with a way of sustainable living, yet they are mining for gold? Gold which is something that is completely unnecessary to life and happiness- it is actually a symbol of civilization; firstly it leaks in to the core of a hierarchy, in which the more gold you have the wealthier you are, and you have gained a good status- economic value seems to be life value. Secondly you must have a developed agricultural and irrigational system in order to supply the workers with food. If you have agriculture than there must be cities in this society as well, since large scale farming produces more food than those who work the farm need- the surplus usually goes to the cities. Civilization is roughly defined by the existence of cities and the practice of agriculture or large scale farming. We are all still so alienated from others in the world, even after massive globalization, what will life be like in small, simple and isolated villages when we won’t even be able to film or watch a film like this?
Post can be read on Ying Min
Katrina,
It seems like you have a good idea about what sustainable living means and what we need to do (or can choose to do) to achieve it. It is interesting how choosing where you want to live has many (sometimes contradicting) egocentric aspects. For example when you analyze which self would rather be in a remote village there is disagreement, “Trying to individually gather up amazing people to come live in a distant village land to live together, would be physically beautiful, and emotionally satisfying, but it will not be intellectually or creatively stimulating.” It seems to me that this is a more holistic way of thinking about life, and not seeing peak as only chaotic, forcing you to divide the different selves and assuming they are not interdependent of each other. Thinking about times of collapse and emergency I have always thought of only the most vital parts to survival/life, but you bring up or imply the point that if we are prepared for change and make it on time than we can also think about the most favorable scenario in terms of what is the most intellectually satisfying and metaphysically agreeable/ pleasant.
It really seems like you have thought a lot about what response you are going to take. I’m glad that you brought up waste management in urban areas, because it is something that I also thought was very important but never got a chance to blog about. “We, as in NYC, will remain with piles of crap on our streets, due to an inability to bury crap in the land, because it is encased in concrete.” It is interesting how such a thing as bad waste management will effect us not only physically but will change our lives socially- creating even more depression that there currently is, but there wont be any Prozac. “I fear a haze of unsanitary waste everywhere, causing massive disease and fear of coming into contact with other people for health. That may prevent any form of community from existing, which would be our only hope for survival.”
Post can be read on Katrina
Ying Min,
It was very interesting to see what you had to say about the gold mining film, I think the best point you made was unintentional. “If the film is a portrayal of future life after oil… it is just beyond my imagination.” From the small amount of the movie that we did see, I think that this was exactly the point of putting the footage in slow motion and playing nostalgic, unfamiliar yet beautiful music as we watch the people carry out the laborious task of gold mining without any technology/machinery. I think that the effect which you mention but don’t describe in detail (“For whatever film effect, there were only images and background music, which intensifies the perception of pain from the movement of the miners.”) was intended to sort of disorient you and make you feel insecure because it is a sight that is so very unfamiliar to us. I think that the purpose of the first scene in the movies is so that you can feel like you just don’t understand “What is this? ...and…what now?” I agree that this is another more clear intention of the film “The only point I can make of it is that it shows group cooperation, and how laborious it will be to carry out group cooperation without current technology.” It is always useful when in a response to something we did in class you can extrapolate what was learned to other points and create a strong connection as you did: “But perhaps, with slow progress, oil would be drained out at a slower rate and would last us longer, and be priced higher because of the strenuous effort it takes to extract the resource, and people would in term learn to treasure it more. As they should with clean water and air, now.” Isn’t it symbolic how in the film they are mining for gold and oil is the “black gold”? Also, isn’t it ironic how this group of people is supposed to be representing a strong, deeply connected community, which we identify with a way of sustainable living, yet they are mining for gold? Gold which is something that is completely unnecessary to life and happiness- it is actually a symbol of civilization; firstly it leaks in to the core of a hierarchy, in which the more gold you have the wealthier you are, and you have gained a good status- economic value seems to be life value. Secondly you must have a developed agricultural and irrigational system in order to supply the workers with food. If you have agriculture than there must be cities in this society as well, since large scale farming produces more food than those who work the farm need- the surplus usually goes to the cities. Civilization is roughly defined by the existence of cities and the practice of agriculture or large scale farming. We are all still so alienated from others in the world, even after massive globalization, what will life be like in small, simple and isolated villages when we won’t even be able to film or watch a film like this?
Post can be read on Ying Min
posted by Nina Jankovic at 23:00
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home