Living Downstream Second Half

Overall I did not enjoy the second half of the book as much of the first. The details seemed to be getting repetitive and unnecessary. However, the last chapter made up for this by giving a clear "what you can do" section as well as a call to action.

The only other chapter that stuck out for me was the water chapter. Maybe its because I literally filled up my water bottle from the drinking fountain in Pearson right before reading about all the carcinogens found in everyday drinking water. It's scary to think that something as normal as drinking water, which is a very healthy think to do, has the potential to give you cancer.

I thought it was interesting in the last chapter when she outlined the differences between a patient pamphlet and a genetics textbook. Although she seemed critical of the pamphlets emphasis on behavioral changes you can make to lower risks of cancer, this does make sense. The pamphlet would not be as helpful saying that you are screwed no matter what. As a patient of cancer you do want to feel empowered and feel like there is something you can do. However, I do agree that this does ignore the huge issue of carcinogens in the environment being a bigger problem than just not smoking or drinking (at least I have that going for me.)

There did come a point in this book that I resigned to the feeling that no matter what I did as a consumer, I would be exposed to carcinogens. This is why I liked the call to policy change in the last chapter. People are unknowingly and unwillingly being exposed. I liked that Steingraber calls this a human rights issue and points our the eco-racism.

Steingraber echoes the same thoughts we've had all semester about the fact that science always has uncertainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act. She also talks about the precautionary approach, where chemicals are guilty until proven safe. Although I like this idea in theory, it may be difficult to implement in practice, but this is a step in the right direction compared to the copious amounts of chemicals being dumped in our environment.

Living Downstream First Half

It is nice with our last book of the semester Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber to move away from climate change and extinction and to have a fresh topic. However there have been some similar themes in this book that do connect with what we've been talking about all semester. For example, in the chapter about silence Steingraber talks about Rachel Carson's three views about silence, including scientists being silent and afraid to speak out. This has been a common theme in our seminar about whether or not scientists should be objective data collectors, or become activists. I do think there is an innate fear of speaking out and losing credibility, but at some point we need to get over this if it betters the world we live in. Furthermore, Steingraber mentions the idea of scientific uncertainty and how it will always be present, but that does not mean we should not act. This idea was present in Merchants of Doubt who use to uncertainty to stop action, as well as Amanda Vincent's talk about how we do know enough to act.

The topic of cancer and manmade chemicals is a scary one. The fact that there are no uncontaminated controls to use as a baseline is frightening. Even if we chose personally to not use insecticides on our lawn, residues can still be found in our house. There is not escaping this chemical warfare. Some of the cancer statistics are disheartening, knowing that almost half of us will suffer from cancer. And yet it almost feels like we have done very little to stop the use of pesticides in this country. I know that my dad uses weed killer and insecticides on our lawn yearly for no other reason than aesthetics. We talk a lot in this country about finding a cure, but you never hear much about preventing it. Like climate change we are relying on technology to put a band-aid on the problem rather than fixing the problem itself. This relates to the epigraph at the beginning of the book where people were focused on saving the people drowning, not the person pushing people in.

Steingraber gives clear evidence as to how the environment can effect cancer. The studies of people moving and how their cancer risks match that of the new location over their homeland, cancer in animals, and the correlation of chemical use coinciding with cancer rates all give evidence to this point. And yet still there are many chemicals in use. And the majority of these have not been tested and yet are still called harmless.

Despite the scientific background of the author, I think Steingraber does a good job with writing for a general audience. Most of the biology is easy to understand. However, some of the technical names for the chemicals can be confusing. However, the biological effects of the chemicals is comprehensible. I also think this book does a good job aiming for the heart as well as the head. Steingraber's personal journey with fighting cancer helps the reader feel the need for action. I thought this technique was interesting as the author clearly sees Rachel Carson as an idol, and yet Carson kept her personal battle with cancer out of her writings for fear of being seen as biased. This might be so, but I think the personal accounts help readers connect with the cancer patients and see them as people. I liked when Steingraber looked into the history of the person whose breast tissue was cultured into the cell line for research. Adding this human aspect to the story aids in showing the importance of the message.

Oil and Honey- Final Impressions

I know I'm in minority here but I didn't care for this book. The style of writing didn't do it for me. There was too much detail about things I didn't care about. I still feel like the connection between the oil and the honey was weak. I get that he was trying to show a lifestyle different from the typical capitalist lifestyle that most people live, and the growing need for small farmers, but this connection didn't permeate the whole story. Furthermore, the whole description of McKibben going on tour didn't interest me. I did not need all the details about life on the road and all the sellout venues he attended. Also I didn't understand the importance of talking about the local fair in Vermont, even though he did mention the failure of show crops/animals that year. I think these details detracted from the message of climate change.

Overall, I think this book was too much about Bill McKibben as a person and his journey as an advocate and less about the issue of climate change. Whereas the other books focused on an issue and included personal relationships to the issue, this book focused just on the personal relationship. I think this might be a contributing factor as to why I didn't enjoy the book as much.

I did like the shift in focus from the pipeline to fighting the fossil fuel industries. This seemed to be a much more important battle to overcoming climate change. Although fighting the Keystone pipeline is important, stopping one pipeline will not drastically alter the fate of the planet. Bringing the fight to the companies I think is a more effective use of time and resources. The fact that they are planning on burning 5 times the amount that the world has set as a limit is a problem and I think educating the public on this issue as McKibben has done in his lecture series. I like the idea of reframing the fossil fuel industries as radical and not having the best interests of the people. However, I do not think this message has reached all the people it needs to. This striking fact is something that can be used to sway people. Is this a risk people are willing to take, even if they do not understand all the science behind climate change?

I was also wondering what people thought about the ice sculpture that was pulled. I was having trouble seeing why it was offensive. I guess it was extravagant and the money could be used elsewhere, but it would have make a strong point. I did appreciate though that McKibben pulled the plug in order to not alienate any of his supporters, but I do agree that it might have been a missed opportunity. Is there anything like this that we could do that would make a point without being too extravagant?

Oil and Honey- Initial Impressions

I'm not sure how I feel about Oil and Honey by Bill McKibben so far. It reads quickly and has some interesting parts, but I feel like I'm just not into it. Even though he uses many metaphors to connect the bee parts to the fight against oil, I still feel like they are disjointed. In the middle of the fight against the Keystone pipeline he will randomly go back to talking about the bees. I'm not sure how they fit together in this book.

I'm also not sure of the point McKibben is trying to make with this book. Every book so far I have understood the thesis statement. The previous books have all had a intro/prologue that illustrated why the author was writing the book and the point that was supposed to come across. McKibben however does not have a intro/prologue and seems to immediately go into the story. I think this tactic was useful in the other books, which I didn't really appreciate until not having it in this book.

I have enjoyed learning some of the cool biology and behaviors of the bees. The idea that scouts go out to look for new areas for hives and then have a democratic discussion to chose a new location was fascinating. But I feel like this part of the story is detracting from the picture of fighting the oil companies. Again, maybe this will make more sense later in the book, but as of now I just don't get it.

There is a mixture of pessimism and optimism when thinking about fighting the oil companies. There seems to be some hope that a grassroots battle has stopped the pipeline. The oil companies just assumed they would win due to their political power and money, and yet the protests were able to stop them. However, it is said multiple times in the book, stopping one pipeline will not stop global warming. This is just one battle in a large war. In addition, the battle over this one pipeline has not ended. It seems doubtful that we can create the quick changes that are necessary to prevent the 4 degree increase.

The thing that struck me in the beginning of the book is how willing people were to go to jail to fight the pipeline. I'm not sure if I would be brave enough to do that. I tend to be a rule follower and although I like the tactics of civil disobedience used, I am not sure if I could do it. I really appreciated the peaceful nature of the protest, and the fact that they wore their Sunday best to show their civility. As McKibben has stated, they are not radical, but changing the composition of the atmosphere is very radical.

Wild Ones- Second Half of Butterflies and Birds

I thought the ending notes of the book were very depressing. I have so mad sad faces in my notes from this book! There seemed to be such a sense of cynicism among almost all the conservationists who had been working on the projects for long periods of time. They all started out so enthusiastic and just ended up hopeless. I think this has to do with the shifting baseline idea and how despite all their efforts, they still aren't seeing the wildness of their youth. There just seemed to be so many setbacks in each of the stories, the cranes refusing to migrate, destruction of the dunes to see a whale, the video of the starving polar bear cub. There also seems to be a bad outlook on human nature. The backpack of rocks metaphor was really depressing; we can never escape the negative qualities of being human. We always carry that weight with us.  It's hard to see the "weirdly reassuring" aspect of this story. Even Mooallem believes that there is no chance for the wildness to continue and that future generations will curse us for our destruction. But he says at least they know that things were better.

The personal connection of the conservationists to their work and the amount of effort that people are willing to put forth is maybe the reassuring part, but still all I can think of are the sad endings. For example, George put so much work to get the crane Tex to lay eggs. After all that work he was worried about people making fun of him, but then Tex died. This was very sad, to put all that work into a project and form a personal connection to your work, to have it end abruptly. Another example, is the story of Gibbs and her husband looking at the cranes. All they wanted to do was look at the natural beauty together in their old age as he was getting Alzheimer's. This story was very adorable and touching. It is reassuring that people care so much and despite all the negative qualities of humans, we are still working. But I'm not sure this is enough to feel good about our future.

I know in our discussion last week, many people wanted more ecological and biological detail. Why should we care about these species. But I do think the main point of this story is not the animals themselves or why they are important ecologically speaking, but how people view the animals. There is a conservation bias in people and it is important to see how you can get the public behind conservation. I think it is important to understand how people view animals and how that can be used to help them. Although this is inevitably a small picture approach it may be useful in driving big picture changes. In the end though, the wildness that we see today is changing, and as more and more environmental problems creep up, it is hard to see the end of human intervention in keeping animals alive. It is hard not to want to give up or know what the point is but hopefully the future holds some positive outlooks for biodiversity. 

Wild Ones- Bears and Half of Butterflies

So far Wild Ones by Jon Mooallen is very reminiscent in style of The Sixth Extinction. The book is similarly divided into case studies, but has more depth into each and less breadth. Mooallen similarly puts himself into each situation and not only describes the science but also his interactions with the scientists and their history and personalities. The story flows much better and less dense than the previous two reads, and I think would be very accessible to the public.

Many themes seem to be present so far in the book. The first of which seems to be the disconnect between the fantasy we have of animals, and the reality. The first few chapters of the butterfly section haven't delved into this much, but this idea was very prevalent in the intro and the polar bear chapters. It was interesting to see how the cultural views of polar bears has changed from viscous beasts, to cuddly vulnerable creatures. This view seemed to greatly upset the people in the town of Churchill who actually interact with the bears. I like the idea that Mooallen is trying to bridge this disconnect by going to see these species. I also like how the inspiration for this is his daughter. As much as I love the Disney versions of animals (who doesn't love the Lion King) they do seem to glorify certain animals over others. Even educational TV like Animal Planet and Nat Geo seem to sensationalize nature, and in my opinion this has gotten worse over time. I think it is important to get that connection by looking a wild animal in the eye and developing a healthy respect for the animal. I know many people who paint certain predators in a savage light, but that bias is not conductive to understanding the biology of the animal.

Another common theme is charismatic mega fauna. Of course the polar bear is a better spokesperson for climate change over a wolf spider. People have a fascination with animals that they can relate to, mostly mammals and birds. I thought it was interesting that the butterfly seems to "transcend" other insects in this respect. We see butterflies as beautiful and worth saving, but not other "creepy-crawlers." Most people wouldn't bat an eye at the extinction of most insects, but the lose of the polar bear would be seen as a tragedy. It's hard to get past this inherent bias in us, and I'm not sure how we as conservationists can overcome this in the public sphere. I like that we can use a charismatic megafauna to attack a broader issue, but as Mooallen suggests, the media has been oversaturated with polar bears and the message is getting lost. I think using multiple species as examples and not just the classic polar bear could help with this, but still it might not be enough.

A third theme that seems to be common in this book is the idea that these animals can no longer exist without human intervention. This has created a lot of cynicism in some of the scientists trying to help. One of the lepidopterists. Powell, has gone so far as to say "what is the point." It is disheartening to know that the butterflies can't exist unless we continuously and artificially alter the landscape, and the polar bears cannot exist without the possibility of supplemental feeding. This reminds me of the phrase "you are alive but are you really living." Yes the species still exists but are they really living. This was an idea that was hard for me to grapple with. I don't want to see these species go extinct, but it sad to think that they would be completely dependent on humans.

A final thing that struck me in the book was the fact that many of the people who love the polar bears the most, were climate deniers. I couldn't understand this. How can you deny the thing that is causing the extinction of a species you claim to love. I enjoyed that Mooallen referred back to the mammoth story we read about in The Sixth Extinction. Extinction is a hard thing to grasp and it is hard to believe that these species could possibly cease to exist.

This Changes Everything Part 3

The last section of the book is mostly about how things are beginning to change and how we should take them further to fully address climate change.

I was struck by how hopeful the last section was. I was expecting more of "what we should do," not "what is happening." It did give me some hope reading about Blockadia and the working with Indigenous groups to stop drilling and use green energy. This hope seemed so wildly different from the feeling of impeding doom from the introduction and first section. However, the hope was mitigated with the conclusion stating how we still have much more radical shifts to make. But it is heartening to see that we are making progress, even if we need more.

We discussed earlier whether this book was a call to revolution or not. I guess it depends on what you define as a revolution. The book is without a doubt a call to action, urging for grassroots resistance to fossil fuel companies. But to me revolution conjures up images of chopping off heads with a guillotine to overthrow a government, which is definitely not what is called for here. What I think is more important is not to necessarily change our entire economic system and government, but rather to change our ideology. It's not capitalism per say that is the problem, but the idea of non-regulation and exploitation. We can still use the land, but do so regeneratively and avoid greed. However, this could be more difficult than a bloody revolution... I also liked how she stated that it is a moral problem and not an economic problem. Yes going green may not be the best for the economy, but it is morally right. I did enjoy the analogy to slavery, although that was still a difficult change to make and involved bloodshed. I know as scientists we try to stay away from the moral side of things, but perhaps we should in this case.

Overall I did really enjoy this book. The flow was much better, even though it was still heavy with detail, and a long read. I did enjoy the personal touches Klein adds to her story, especially the section on fertility. This humanizes the author with an experience that many people can relate do (hits the gut, not just the brain.) Although Klein does seem very radical in the intro and conclusion, the main body of the book doesn't contain much of her radical ideas. I feel like if you remove the intro and conclusion you could ALMOST get a conservative person to agree with her ideas (I'm trying to be optimistic here which goes against my instincts.) We've said many times as a group that we wouldn't give these books to our conservative family members, and I have agreed, but maybe we should just to see how they react and if these books would actually resonate with them.