Following up on today's discussion ...

Yuriko Saito talks with a student (in her everyday habitat) via

I was doing some research for my final paper and I found a really interesting article written by Yuriko Saito, a (female) Japanese philosopher at the Rhode Island School of Design, titled 'Everyday Aesthetics'. I thought I'd share it, in case anyone remains frustrated with the fine art / nature comparison in environmental aesthetics- this might assuage your frayed nerves a bit. Evan- you know I'm talking to you.

Anyhow, after doing a little library sleuthing, I have found out that her work encompasses the relationship of aesthetic theory and environmental ethics, the moral dimensions of the Japanese aesthetic, and a critique on the primacy of the aesthetics of fine art acting as the main point of departure for applications in environmental ethics / aesthetics ... super fascinating. Here's her website at RISD for more about her.

I'm attaching a link to the article 'Everyday Aesthetics', and I have more of her essays in pdfs if you all are interested. If this doesn't work (you might have to be signed in to Cornell netid), I can email the file to anyone who wants it. Yuriko has been included in a bunch of anthologies on Environmental Ethics/Aesthetics, including the one Jim passed around today edited by Carlson and Berleant as well as having fairly recently published her own book (also called 'Everyday Aesthetics').

hi guys, just an fyi that the lecture by Roger Pielke Jr. on his book, The Climate Fix, is now available on Pielke's website, and it has been updated to include the slides integrated into the presentation video.

Check it out at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/04/climate-fix-lecture-with-slides.html .

Jim

Technology and Aesthetics

I was thinking about our discussion today in class, and was left wondering what role technology plays in our views/emotions towards nature.

Ritwick asked if experiencing nature first-hand is required for that emotional or spiritual connection associated with aesthetics. I personally think it is - none of us really had an emotional reaction to seeing the Double Rainbow footage in the video. Undoubtedly, double rainbow guy’s sound-effects probably took away from that intimate personal experience that we could have had, but I think that speaks to the importance of “framing” or presenting. Although he had a spiritual connection, we interpreted it as being funny and that perhaps took away from the reaction we “should’ve” had towards the double rainbow. Basically, how the natural episode is framed/presented makes a difference i.e. we’d have a different appreciation if a double rainbow was filmed on a Planet Earth special compared to on that youtube video.

Technology is certainly a great way for people who can’t otherwise experience certain places to get a feel for what that area is like; however, videotaping or taking pictures of nature subtracts from the emotional connection that the person could’ve had, in turn, disempowering that natural feature. Do you agree?

Soylent green is people!

I came across two articles today that were both disturbing and intriguing. The first article features a new method for making human based gelatin which is actually more predictable than animal based gelatin. To develop this product human gelatin genes are inserted into a strain of yeast, which can produce gelatin with controllable features. The thought of eating human protein is disturbing, yet is it really any worse than eating animal based gelatin which is composed of cow and pig ligaments and connective tissues? Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110713101952.htm

The second article features a synthetic meat burger made from protein extracted from human feces. Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda (pictured above) uses sewage mud one of the main ingredients in his artificial meat. The process sounds less than appetizing. The protein lipids are whipped into "meat" and make more savory by adding soya and steak sauce. Here is the link to the article:

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/artificial-meat-made-from-poop.html

Neither of these products sound like ones I will be eating anytime soon but it is interesting to think scientists are turning towards humans and their by products as a food source. Enjoy!

Thoughts on Ch.3 Sagoff Reading

I just finished reading Sagoff’s chapter, Allocation and Distribution of Resources, and I have to say that I feel a little more ashamed of myself and disturbed than before I picked up the text.

Are the rationale of our day-to-day choices actually that different from our fundamental values? Sagoff seems to think so: “I buy only disposable [bottles] now, but to soothe my conscience, I urge my state senator to outlaw one-way containers.” No question that Sagoff was trying to assuage his guilt in that situation (like mining corps do when they promise to restore the land…), but the contradiction seems unacceptable. The way I interpreted this example – let me know if you disagree – is that he’s very much in favor of regulation. Regulation, if aligned with our ethics system, eliminates the choice we’d have to make between our preferences as consumers and values as citizens i.e. “the consumer against himself as a citizen or as a member of a moral community” I never thought the two were quite so mutually exclusive...

While I was doing some research about wind turbines, I came across this really interesting - but unrealistic - idea about floating wind turbines...a great source of renewable energy that could be moved. And more importantly, they can climb to relatively high altitudes where wind-currents are slightly more intense, so more energy can be created. Would people have a problem seeing these things floating around in a wilderness environment e.g. places in Alaska?  Check it out: http://inhabitat.com/altaeros-energies-floating-wind-turbines-tap-into-strong-high-altitude-winds/