Week Ten Assignments-Ecosystems and Deep Ecology

What do you think about the "eight-point Deep Ecology Platform"?

I think it's pretty cool over all.  My only critique is the whole approach to population as I mentioned in class.  I think they should focus on consumption under point 5 rather than on decrease in population.  I feel that if each only consumed what they truly needed, population wouldn't be a problem.

The refreshing part of the platform is that "policy must be changed".  This is usually where things fall apart--people have all these ideas that don't necessarily turn into action or actual change.  Not that I'm aware that this platform became an organization, but maybe it did.

I'm not sure though that  those who subscribe to the points have an obligation to participate--there are many things I in theory agree with but I'm only one person and can't participate in all of them.

Can you explain why "Ecosystems are both strong and fragile"?

This is because great change can occur in them naturally affecting all, yet small impacts can cause great destruction on them.  It is also an incredibly "strong" thing for things to be so connected to each other---like the example of removing willows and the moose disappearing.  I don't however feel that the spider web comparison is particularly helpful in describing strength of ecosystems.  I guess to the spider it's web is strong in that the spider can recreate it after a rainstorm, and I guess living systems grow back after a fire, etc.

How would you assess the "end goals" of Social Ecology?
I guess you could say that it has end goals in the context of "radical ecology," mainly that the quality of human life and the natural environment should be improved.  It means that aspects of socialization--politics, economics, etc. shouldn't stand in the way of human needs.  I think this concept is pretty crucial to the concept of ecology because I'm sure there are some type of "animalists" who might favor improving ecology in a way they think is more beneficial to animals even if at the cost of people.  This is actually very real--not even thinking of "animalists" but more so just those that don't want the ecology crisis to cause their own demise but they'd be completely fine to divert it for themselves and not others.  This includes examples of how changes in the climate have caused disasters that affect the poorest nations, etc.  And it is very real and will become ever present--for this reason, communities must be organized to fight policies that target them in order to benefit others.