Ecological Intelligence is the ability to understand what kind of impact you are leaving when you buy a product, kind of like how we are able to calculate what will happen if we eat rotten food. We would be able to instantaneously be able to calculate what would happen if we bought a so called "green" product. This fits into our essential questions (Why don't people live more sustainably?, How can I convince them to do so?) because if people know exactly what they are doing to the planet when they buy a product, they may be tempted to do something about the impact that they are producing. I personally think that my ecological intelligence is pretty low. Most of my green ideas are from propaganda and the such from things like the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and other pro-green movements. Probably the only real ecological intelligence is knowing to turn off the light and recycle plastic bottles. Personally, I think a lot of the other "ecological intelligence" that I have is just propaganda talking to me in my head.
One thing that really struck me after compiling all the data in charts and graphs is that people, on average, leave a lot of their home electronics on at home knowing that they are on. Many responses as why they don't turn them off or unplug them is that they are "too busy" or "I just don't want to go through the trouble of unplugging then plugging back in when I want to use them again." To me, this basically meant that people weren't even trying to conserve energy, not because they didn't want to, but because they are just lazy. I was sort of surprised by this result, but not really. I have heard this result time and time again by other people conducting green surveys, but it really struck me when I say the results of the survey with my own two eyes. It was kind of dispromising to see that people are not trying to go green just because they are lazy and don't want to put in a little extra effort. To be completely honest, I really did not have any expectations. Everyone has their own separate opinion, and that was what I was expecting to see when I started compiling the data. So kind of, yes my expectations were met when my group finally finished the survey. Based on the data that we found, my group decided that we are going to launch an ad campaign that is aimed at educating people and taking the "did you know" stand. I think taking that angle will help educate and then encourage people to do things like turning off their computer when they leave the house, or switching off a light.
I enjoyed watching this family through the movie. I really thought that their ability to sustain themselves was absolutely amazing. It really made me think about how personally, I am wasting resources everyday. It also made me think about how I can reduce my waste, like their family did. It also struck me when at the beginning of the movie the father said "Growing your own food is the most dangerous profession, because it can make you free." That line struck me because I went back to what Ishmael was saying about keeping food on lock and key. If the food is not under lock and key, then the citizens of that culture are "free."
I think that the Dervaes' family Wants vs. Needs sheet looks a lot like a sheet of a person that is not doing so well on money. I say this because a person not doing so well on money puts the more important things on the Needs column, while not so important things on the Wants column. I also think that the Dervaes family does not put food under Needs because they do not need to pay for food, they get all of it for free. I think that they do, however, put their garden and plants under Needs because that is how they survive, and without them, they would be, well screwed.
The Dervaes family fits into what we are learning about in My Ishmael because Ishmael keeps talking about civilizations that keep their food under lock and key. But the Dervaes family does not live by this principle. They are more like the Leavers when they first left, they spend all their time growing food and then eat the foods that they want whenever they want. But they are not exactly the Leavers because they do not keep their food under lock and key for themselves. No one forces them to grow their own food, they do so on their own accord.
My thoughts on this family is that they are probably one of the best examples of how to live sustainably in a modern city. I think that if everyone shifted to the way that the Dervaes lived, the orginal "Leaver" way, than I think that we would not be in this cultural and climate predicament that we are in.
1. Anthropomorphism: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.
When Ishmael talks about this in the chapter, I think he is talking about how humans always interpret what animals do in the human sense not only because we are used to seeing the kind of behavior, but subconsciously we are assuming what they are doing is something a human would do because the human way is the “right” way.Just like in the consecutive lines after the mention of this word, Ishmael talks about animals and territories. Animals have no want for territory, nor do they need it.We just think that animals are claiming land for themselves because that is what humans do.Really though, the animals are just trying to survive, and taking land that has the resources to sustain the animals.
2.
a. I think erratic retaliation is a fancy way of saying “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”In the case of the Cawks, this means that if one tribe starts to irk another tribe, the tribe being irked will try and bother the other tribe, so that they can be even.
b. Erratic Retaliation is a peacekeeping method because it forces the peaceful Cawk tribes to defend themselves, instead of just being annihilated by other more aggressive Cawk tribes.Basically, it forces Cawk tribes to defend themselves when others attack them, keeping any tribes from just being wiped out because they chose to lay down and die.
c. Cawks don’t annihilate one another because that would be useless.Going back to the example of the white-footed mouse, if the white-footed mice tried to kill themselves, that would not contribute to the gene pool.But if the white-footed mice kill other pups, than that makes it more likely for one white-footed mouse family to contribute their genes to a gene pool.To refine what I am saying, the Cawks don’t kill themselves because that would not help them advance.
