ENVS-160 has been full of readings, of which required us as students to examine and explore them from multiple angles and think outside the box. While exploring each of these readings there are many possible connections between different authors and their opinions/views despite different scholarly backgrounds. I came to the conclusion that in order to truly understand the meaning of what we learned in ENVS-160 we must apply what we learn to our daily lives.
One key lesson that keeps occurring throughout the experience of ENVS-160 is finding a “solution” to climate change. In order to do this we had to totally forget about what we thought we knew about climate change. I always thought that if everyone in the world stopped driving cars and instead rode bikes and recycled that would help solve climate change. But, in the book “Why we Disagree” it describes nature as ‘capricious.’ Meaning, nature is very unpredictable and sort of like a ‘fatalist.’ Since climate is unpredictable it’s influenced by many factors including humans, climate always has provided a risk for humans and always will. We can manage some of these risks and we can’t manage others. No matter what we do the climate will still change. Also, in “Why We Disagree” another perspective of nature is nature as ephemeral. Meaning climate is a delicate system that requires balance, humans could cause collapse and risks are scary (Hulme 2009).
Another key lesson we learned was In Love Your Monsters, Latour argues that “Dr. Frankenstein’s crime was not that he invented a creature through some combination of hubris and high technology, but rather that he abandoned the creature to itself” (Latour 2011, loc. 271-273). Technology was created and was not initially completely bad in nature but if we misuse it, it may cause destruction. Also, you cannot blame Frankenstein for being destructive but it is also the fault of the doctor who did not look out for it and lead it with care. So basically Latour’s perspective on nature is that we cannot abandon it so I would say that aligns most with ‘nature as ephemeral’ but you could even suggest that it may be fatalist and be ‘nature as capricious’ as he is suggesting that if we do not care for nature collapse may occur and nature will not be to blame but we will. Latour talks about a thin line we are walking and how even though we as a species may survive, a lot of the world will not and it has become a lot of our responsibility to care about this danger that we are posing (Latour 2011).
Finally in chapter 9 of “Who Rules the Earth?” we read the quote from British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who said “Climate change can bring us [peoples and countries of the world] together, if we have the wisdom to prevent it from driving us apart” (Steinberg 2015). Meaning that if we find a way to fight the issue of climate change through compromising international treaties and institutional change that expands throughout the globe we can come together and fight the issue. But, if we are not well equipped to know how to make these changes on such a large scale as the globe then conflict can arise. Dealing with issues such as climate change requires guidance and communication on a large scale. Without this, conflict may arise, as with Frankenstein when he did not receive the thought and care he needed to thrive.
Works Cited:
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2011.Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Edited by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. United States: Breakthrough Institute
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who rules the earth?: how social rules shape our planet and our lives.