April 29 - Inequality - Memos

[jamesallenevans]

Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of Inequality and Conflict (and their interaction with other existential questions) inspired by the readings, movies & novels (at least one per quarter), your research, experiences, and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, and discussion-worthy!

Recall the following instructions: Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.

risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).

policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.

solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.

framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).

salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?

nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office/retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[atzavala]

framing

When reading Agarwal and Narain’s Global Warming in an Unequal World, I couldn’t help but to be reminded of the information chaos week. In the reading they explain that the methods used by the WRI to conclude that the blame for climate change should be put on developing countries were faulty and prejudiced. This kind of misinformation is how environmental colonialism is maintained in the decision-making for global attempts to put an end to climate change. It is best said in the reading that “the dream of Chinese to own a refrigerator is being described as a global curse” in the eyes of developed countries. How could it be that the conclusions with such bias were allowed to be seriously considered by the United Nations. Similar to the internet, a place that is most accessible but not the most reliable, government leaders and policy-makers must be questioned, and their influence on the general public should monitored before the spread of misinformation, especially those with racist and xenophobic biases, create life-threatening consequences. Not only are these consequences adding to the threat of global effects of climate change but they are disproportionately affecting developing countries and the targets of their biases. Another thing I found interesting from this week’s readings is the explanation on why developing countries would need to increase their use of less sustainable energies to aid in their modernisation, but also discussing consequences of a fully modernized global society without the switch to cleaner energy resources. A possible compromise I suggested in my question for this week was a trade off between developed countries making significant changes towards clean energy, while allowing developing countries to modernise with fossil fuels. As easy as that may be said, I don’t actually believe it is possible today and would only happen if the most extreme climate change consequences began to affect the developed countries or if a decreasing quality of life for citizens in developing countries became unignorable.

[LanceJohnson1]

A Deep Hypocrisy #framing #origin // edit: I added a more up to date chart below that I saw in a New York Times Article this morning!

The World Research Institute contends that developing countries contribute almost half the greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming and that almost half of the developing world share comes from Brazil. Despite the allegations from the WRI, Brazil has strongly objected these claims, reasoning that the vast majority of their carbon dioxide emissions are from deforestation and that the database for how deforestation effects climate change is undeveloped and unreliable compared to the database for fossil related climate change, leading to a significant overestimation of Brazil's carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. Another point that I want to briefly discuss, that I do not think has been touched upon in our readings is the fact that 70% of the world's population lives in developing countries as per the United Nations, and yet, as per the global development chart below, only 63% of annual emissions come from developing countries. This data implies that 30% of the world lives in a developed country and that 37% of the world's emission come from developing countries - more time should be spent looking internally rather than externally from the perspective of developed countries.

Inspired by Global Warming in an Unequal World, the environmental colonialism experienced by countries like Brazil underscores the deep hypocrisy of developed nations that went through an industrial era themselves at different points in time and that are only seeing a trend of decreasing emissions as a result of the efficiencies of their machinery and general ecological practices. This is why developed countries' calling out of developing countries, with only surface level details, is wholly disingenuous. As seen in the below figure of US C02 emissions, from the mid 1980s until the late 2000s, the United States saw consistent increasing C02 emissions, with a more recent trend over the last decade of consistently decreasing C02 emissions brought on by the affordability of renewable energy sources made possible by our muilti-trillion dollar core infrastructure. If I were able to get a dataset like this that dated back to the Industrialization Era of post-Civil War United States, it would be abundantly clear that the United States' trend of a consistent increase in C02 emissions has lasted for over 140+ years. The point that I am trying to hammer home here is that every developed country can only afford the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure that is necessary to have end-to-end and dependable renewable energy sources because they are able to tax a population with a median household income of at least $40,000. Since the condition of possibility for income generation on a population-wide scale of this magnitude is industrialization (history has shown this ex: China, India, Indonesia etc.), developed countries cannot criticize developing countries for doing what they should do - develop.

One interesting question that this observation inspired me to address was: "What is the origin of resource inequality?" Though this question strikes philosophical chords with Jean Jacques Rousseau's Origin of Inequality - the corrupted nature of humans - I think the answer to this question is rooted in the fact that resource inequality is the externality of humans' ability to reason. Since humans can reason, they have preferences and since they have preferences they have a rational self-interest in being greedy when it suits them best. This model of behavior seems to be on pretty good display by developed countries.

[brettkatz]

policy #solutions #framing

You Proved Their Point! A SOTU Analysis

Perhaps it may be a little bit late in the night, but having just watched Biden’s State of the Union address, I found the reference to the US climate conference, and the justification for the US responsibility to enter multinational cooperation on climate change, offly chilling having read this week’s readings. In reference to climate change, Biden did not discuss the disproportionate strain the US places on the environment. Rather, he referenced the figure that only 15% of total carbon emissions come from the US. This figure was cited as a justification to region the Paris climate accord, in addition to the Biden administration’s upcoming climate conference, as 85% of the world makes up the rest of the emissions. Biden said that (paraphrasing) “even if the US were to go completely carbon neutral, the other 85% of emissions” will wreak havoc on the environment. Claims such as this one paint the US as the climate savior, as the US is spending time and resources not only to clean up its own emissions, but to convince the rest of the world to follow in our model example. The presentation of the 15% figure in this context goes to the root of the argument Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain present in “Global Warming in an Unequal World”. The authors criticize reports such as the WRI climate report, which present statistics in such a way as to overstate the impact of “developing” countries, such as India, on the climate crisis, by looking at absolute rather than per-capita figures. Such reports also oftentimes neglect the per-capita allowances of the global carbon and methane sinks, as the authors note. In Biden’s SOTU, the 15% figure is not accompanied by the face that the US makes up only 5% of the US population. Including that relevant piece of information can help highlight the disproportionate impact the US has on exceeding the per-capita available buffer in offset emissions due to natural carbon and methane sinks. Multinational agreements are essential in order to combat the climate crisis, and the Biden administration is taking great strides to develop such corporations. However, if the US wishes to seek the most plausible and effective route to limit the climate crisis, it must acknowledge its incredibly disproportionate contributions, and the context of the per-capita allowances of our global carbon sink.

In addition, Biden’s arguments for investing in solar panels in order to compete with China was an interesting anecdote in the context of Hannes Bergthaller’s “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene”. Bergthaller discusses the shifting socioeconomic dynamics that took place globally over the past decades, and the rapid expansion of the global middle class. Specifically, Bergthaller presents the advancements seen in Asia. With regard to anthropocene climate change, Biden presented solar panels as a necessary contribution to fight climate change, and asserted such panels should “be made in the USA instead of Beijing”. Within the context of the Asian developments explored by Bergthaller, this anecdote by Biden sheds light on the amazing expansion China has witnessed, and its presence as a global power in the industries of the future - such as solar power.

[c-krantz]

policy #solutions

Throughout my readings this week, specifically ‘Global Warming in an Unequal World’ by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, it became even more clear to me that the United States plays a negatively disproportionate role when it comes to climate change and carbon emissions. Having experienced the past four years with Donald Trump as president, it became incredibly clear that the environment was nowhere near the forefront of issues in the White House. Now, only 100 days into the Biden administration, the United States has not only begun to change its domestic policy to show its awareness of this issue, but it has begun to make massive strides on an international level as well. This was something that has been highly critiqued of the US as many have viewed the country’s goals in fighting climate change on an international level much less likely considering the country’s inability to combat climate change domestically.

Just this week, President Biden committed to “cut US emissions at least in half by 2030” as well as to “double annual public climate financing development to developing countries by 2024”. Although President Biden is not directly admitting to the unequal amounts the United States has contributed to carbon emissions (Emission of 26 percent of the carbon dioxide with only 4.73 percent of the world’s population), he is attempting to prove to the international community that the United States is once again serious about fighting climate change. Put perfectly, this “is clearly to regain the moral high ground that Trump ceded” according to Andrew Sheng in his article titled Biden’s Star Trek on Climate Change.

Regardless of the impact that Donald Trump left on the United States internationally, these ambitious goals set by Biden at the Global Climate Summit this past week work to erase a long-held sentiment that the United States would be unwilling to help contribute its fair share regarding rising emission levels. This is a key point that is discussed in the ‘Global Warming in an Unequal World’ reading especially. Dating back to President Bush’s presidency when this was written, Americans (including former President Bush) viewed global warming merely as a myth. Thankfully, this sentiment has continued to dwindle away as the effects of climate change and how it effects other countries continue to become clearer.

https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/joe-biden%C2%92s-star-trek-climate-change-1502965015.html

[brycefarabaugh]

framing #solutions

The readings this week highlight some of the paradoxes associated with addressing existential risks in a complex and unequal world. Climate change threatens all of humanity in the long-term, but it also threatens a lot of humanity in the short-term (for example, those in developing countries who will be disproportionately affected by desertification, problems accessing clean drinking water, forced migration due to rising sea levels, etc). Globalization and the economic benefits associated with it may incentivize the development of clean energy technologies, but the tools to develop those technologies are primarily located in firms in advanced industrialized economies, which can then sell those same technologies to developing countries in an effort to make them “greener”. A nuclear exchange between two nuclear-armed states would impose enormous costs not only those two warring adversaries, but research has shown that even a small nuclear exchange could create climatic effects for the entire planet, potentially causing food shortages and famine for years.

How do we address these global challenges in such an unequal and fractured international community? The readings from this week may provide some answers. Hannes Bergthaller looks at what role Asia might play in addressing these global issues in “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene” in which he recognizes “Asia plays a crucial role in the social and ecological dynamics that are shaping our geo-historical moment.” Similarly, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain recognized in 1991 that shifting the entire burden for addressing climate change onto the developing world is deeply unfair for many reasons, including the fact that developed countries have overwhelmingly contributed the most greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Telling the (oftentimes impoverished) populations in the developing world that they don’t have a right to modern conveniences like cars or air conditioning because the environment has reached its breaking point isn’t going to persuade many people to become environmentalists.

While these developing countries surely have a role to play, it’s also important to recognize they don’t need to develop their economies the exact same way the West did: indeed, if they can free their economies from the carbon-dependent development paths pioneered by the advanced industrialized economies of the West, they will already be one step ahead of the countries struggling to decarbonize and move away from the dirty 20th century modes of production. Building international cooperation seems like the only way to achieve this goal, and agreements like the Paris Agreement— while voluntary and without an enforcement mechanism— is likely the only path forward for the foreseeable future.

Below: a cartogram showing total CO2 emissions by country in 2015 (source)

[nataliamedina1202]

framing

In this week’s readings, I appreciated the authors’ different perspectives on social inequality through the lens of one of the most prominent human existential threats: climate change. Though Chakrabarty, Agarwal and Narain, and Berghthaller all provide useful insight on inequality with topics of environmental colonialism and the Anthropocene, I believe another way to frame this problem is through the various ‘solutions’ to climate disasters and how they can embody social inequality.

One project I am specifically thinking about is the colonization of Mars. Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX, is planning to send 1 million people to Mars by 2050 to create a permanent human settlement, claiming that “the important thing is that we establish Mars as a self-sustaining civilization” (Duffy). Considering climate predictions and Earth's potential for an inhospitable future, this plan to move some humans to another planet is unsettling. Though there is a lot to be said about the right and entitlement that humans feel to colonize another planet, there is also a component of inequality that a project like this would perpetuate; namely, the creation of a Martian human settlement will have devastating class consequences. Elon Musk, in trying to prove that his Mars civilization project isn’t just for the rich, claims that a ticket to Mars should eventually cost under $500,000 (Clifford). He is possibly forgetting that the cost for moving a family of four would still add to around 2 million dollars-- an amount most people on Earth will never see in their lifetimes. With these plans, Musk seems to create a utopian idea that colonizing Mars will be a great adventure and will be accessible enough so that it won’t worsen class inequality, but this seems extremely tone deaf. When the time comes, Martian settlements will be reserved for the richest people and if Musk’s dream of a ‘self-sustaining civilization’ becomes a reality, it is only imaginable what will happen to the poorest people left back on Earth.

In understanding the existential nature of social inequality, it is vital to take a step back from the current manifestations of crises and conflict on Earth and reflect on solution projects like SpaceX, questioning why they’re really happening and who will benefit. Climate change is inevitably one of the largest threats to human civilization, and the idea that some can get a ‘re-do’ now that humans are feeling the real-time effects of global warming should be considered very heavily. Is this journey to colonize Mars the epitome of social inequality?

Citations:

“Artist's impression of a city on Mars, which SpaceX wants to help establish with its Starship transportation system.” Space.com. www.space.com/mars-colony-human-genetic-engineering-tardigrades.html. Accessed 28 Apr 2021.

Clifford, Catherine. “Elon Musk: Moving to Mars will cost less than $500,000, ‘maybe even below $100,000’.” CNBC, 11 Feb 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/elon-musk-how-much-it-will-cost-to-move-to-mars.html. Accessed 28 Apr 2021.

Duffy, Kate. “Elon Musk says SpaceX will get humans to Mars in 2026.” Business Insider South Africa, 8 Feb. 2021, Business Insider, www.businessinsider.co.za/elon-musk-spacex-starship-humans-mars-mission-2026-experts-question-2021-2#:~:text=The%20billionaire%20said%20in%202017,later%20than%20he%20previously%20hoped. Accessed 28 Apr 2021.

[jcrary711]

risk #salience

For this week’s post, I would like to focus on the topic presented in the article Global Warming in an Unequal World by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain. In this article, the authors discuss the term “environmental colonialism”, in which developing countries are accused by developed countries of being the major factors causing climate change. Prior to this reading, I never really considered that being climate conscious could potentially hinder the development of a lesser developed country. Obviously this appears to be a tough situation as on one hand these developing countries are attempting to progress and move forward, in many cases the only way they know how or the only way they can afford to, but on the other hand, the climate is at a point of crisis, which may be irreversible very soon. Although this issue does seem to be quite urgent, it appears that one thing that doesn’t help is the judgment placed upon developing countries by countries who are already developed, and able to transition into cleaner energy sources. Instead of placing blame on developing countries, countries who are already developed should aid developing countries in the transition to cleaner energy. This aid could be financial as well as material. If developed countries were to aid in the transition to cleaner energy sources of these developing countries, not only will it aid in the battle of climate change, as these developed countries will then have the infrastructure set up to move toward cleaner sources of energy, but these developing countries will also be able to develop in a similar fashion to when they were dependent upon less clean energy sources, as in most cases clean energy is both more efficient, and less costly. While this solution will most likely take years to fully implement, it seems that it will make both parties happy, while also providing much needed help in the fight against climate change.

[gracecwagner]

inequality #climate #salience #framing

In Hannes Bergthaller’s article “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene,” he describes the differences between Asian cultures and Western cultures and how these differences impact the regions’ response to climate change and the new epoch. He cites Yi-Fu Tuan’s comparison of Louis XIV’s gardens in France to the Chinese gardens during the Qing dynasty, highlighting the different views of nature.

In a similar line of thinking, wishing to explore the centralization of the Anthropocene around Europe, Heather Davis and Zoe Todd wrote “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene.” Written in June 2016 when the Anthropocene was recommended as a new geological epoch, the authors propose to use the “golden spike” as the beginning of the epoch in 1610. This would highlight colonialism as the root cause of climate change and clarify that the Anthropocene is not a shift out of the blue but a consequence of colonialization and its intentions. Davis and Todd write, “Colonialism, especially settler colonialism was always about changing the land, transforming the earth itself, including the creatures, the plants, the soil composition and the atmosphere. It was about moving and unearthing rocks and minerals. All of these acts were intimately tied to the project of erasure that is the imperative of settler colonialism.” This echoes Tuan’s ideas about the French’s and the West’s manner of conquering and controlling nature.

Bergthaller argues that Asian practices like rice farming are not as blameless as they may seem, but they also have their advantages. Bergthaller says, “If Chinese history does hold any lessons for humanity in the Anthropocene, they may have to do less with different ways of conceptualizing humanity’s position in relation to other beings, less with systems of religious belief such as those of Daoism or Buddhism, and rather more with forms of governance and administrative techniques for regulating a large human population straining against ecological limits,” echoing the sentiments of Davis and Todd, that the governing body or the body in power has control. The same conclusion about colonialism’s (or other forces forcing the hand of those under them) responsibility for climate change and the ensuing inequality can be made.

Davis and Todd Paper: https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1539/1303

[LucLampietti]

origin #framing

Bergthaller's article floored me. A few weeks ago I wrote about Aldo Leopold's proposal of a land ethic as a solution to Malthus's Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially, his book, A Sand County Almanac, was both a polemic of capitalism and its failure to incorporate the natural world into economic thought, as well as a philosophical mediation on the need for people to feel like "stewards" of the land. Granted, I don't think that's what Bergthaller is saying here–that the "East" (to contrast with his terminology of the "West") has already embraced this notion of stewardship–but I don't think it's far off either. I believe the crux of Bergthaller's point is that the East has already confronted the earthly limits of modernity defined by materialism, and that a combination of philosophical and biopolitcal precedence has therefore made the threat of climate change and the effects of the Anthropocene less shocking and worrisome relative to the West.

Regardless, talk about inequity–particularly in the more abstract notion of inequity of opinion in environmental discourse. Here I am, an environmental and urban studies major, and a 10 page article has upended so much of my education on the subject. Even though Bergthaller is clearly not Asian, he has exposed me to a wholly different perspective on climate change and the Anthropocene than the Western outlook I've become so familiar with. The first is encapsulated by this quote from Indian novelist Amitav Gosh: “the patterns of life that modernity engenders can only be practiced by a small minority of the world’s population”(Ghosh 2016, 92). Even though it's slightly redundant to include Ghandi's quote on the matter here, his name carries enough moral cache to bear repeating of the sentiment: "God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. If an entire nation of 300 millions [sic] took to similar economic exploitation,it would strip the world bare like locusts”(qtd. in Ghosh 2016, 111). As an American, these quotes initially feel like an affront on basic human liberties, but Bergthaller's discussion of religion and history have convinced me this impulse, the American notion of unbridled liberalism and consumption, is born out of ignorance and the luxury of the Americas. In this article, Bergthaller highlights two critical differences between the East and the West. First, Christianity is an utterly anthropocentric religion that systemically attacked pagan animism and in doing so framed nature as subordinate and other to man (I really appreciated Bergthaller's connection to landscaping trends in the East vs West). Second, this period of the Anthropocene may have started far earlier than the Industrial Revolution and in fact, the intense agricultural practices of China may have significantly altered the planetary conditions centuries before. Consequently, China has already had to experience severe starvation and ecological devastation without the "ecological windfall" as Bergthaller puts it of discovering the Americas. Thus, this makes me think that perhaps the West is this bumbling idiot that's only recently accidentally stumbled upon the true plot as Ghosh puts it. However, this nonetheless raises the question, once introduced to the idea of material modernity, can one ever go back?

On a side note, I did want to make one comment regarding the Agarwal & Narain reading. Although I fully understand the argument made about developed countries writing off centuries of GHG contributions and in doing so unfairly distributing the blame amongst developing countries, but I believe this notion of refining emission calculations only serves to delay action and factionalize countries. For example, these corrected calculations are likely a gross mischaracterization of emissions responsibility if one considers which countries export and which import, therefore distributing emissions from a certain sector across all countries that import from the high-emitter country. Yes, developing countries are getting the short stick by not being able to enjoy a century of coal-fueled modernization, but that does not mean they can't modernize at all. Look at the cellphone in much of Africa for example. Instead of following int he footsteps of Western nations and installing telephone alines across the continent, many countries simply took advantage of the way technology advanced in the interim and embraced cheaper cell phones. Similarly, many developing countries should regard renewables as allowing them to bypass the rather inefficient and detrimental stage of fossil fuels.

(An image demonstrating the pre-Industrial revolution agricultural practices that could've significantly altered planetary conditions long before our current demarcation of the Anthropocene's start)

[Aiden-Reynolds]

risk #framing #inequality

This week's readings mirrors and reaffirms many of the points made in our second week discussion on the connection between global inequality and climate change. Chakrabarty and Agarwal give a clear outline of the many ways in which the west has driven the worst aspects of climate change for their own benefit while other disenfranchised regions often bear the brunt of the consequences. They both make solid points explaining how it is unfair to compare the emissions of underdeveloped countries that are primarily producing necessities for large populations to the emissions of countries producing luxury goods for relatively small populations. They furthermore tie the dark and exploitative colonial histories of western nations to these global inequities in development and climate change.

However, while the two issues certainly are connected and exacerbate each other, I think that it would be a mistake to simply lump them into one broader issue that requires one massive solution. In the zero-sum, might makes right situation that is international politics attempting to enact a solution that both solves climate change and upends the entire international status quo at the same time borders on impossible. Many of the states that are in a position to combat climate change are already incredibly hesitant to enact any solutions for the specific reason that it might upset the international status quo. To therefore only propose solutions that will directly bring to fruition these states' worst fears about acting on climate change will only ensure that neither of these issues will be solved.

The international status quo was only firmly established after two world wars and a nuclear cold war, throughout which an equitable distribution of resources was never taken into account. There is little to no historical evidence of ideas of equity playing any major role in the dynamics of international politics, so to expect a fear of climate change to all of the sudden fundamentally change these dynamics to be driven by equitable distribution of resources seems naive.

While obviously not ideal, inequitable solutions to climate change are possible and far more likely to be enacted in the current political climate. For an equitable solution to climate change to be politically feasible, the international status quo would have to be fundamentally reordered into. States inherently seek to maximize their own resources and political influence, which means that an inequitable political situation is likely to only produce inequitable solutions. To actually be able to enact an equitable solution to climate change, the international political situation would have to be fundamentally changed to reflect an equitable distribution of political influence. However, historically, international political influence has almost solely been redistributed through military action or economic competition, neither of which tend to take equity into account. While an equitable solution to climate change would obviously be ideal, i don’t see a realistic way it could be reached without fundamentally reordering the international status quo, which itself is unlikely to be changed by any forces that seriously take equitable distributions into account.

[ydeng117]

movie

The film Roshomon basically shows how a crime scene was told through the lens of a bandit, a samurai, the samurai’s wife, and finally the woodcutter. The crime was hideous not just because the samurai was murdered nor the wife was raped. What was truly terrible was that people cannot know the truth and trust people after hearing these testimonies. The movie shows how people can twist the truth because of their own intentions. The plot of the movie and characters are based on Ryunosuke Akutagawa’s short story “In a Grove”, while the title of the film comes from Akutagawa’s other short story “Rashomon”. I think director Akira Kurosawa used this title for a reason. The original short story of “Rashomon” told that a recently unemployed lowly servant saw an old lady stealing from a dead body. The old lady justified herself by saying stealing from the dead person would allow her to survive. Then, the servant responded that the old lady should not blame him for taking her clothes, as that would keep him from starving to death. He then brutally robbed the old lady of her robe and disappeared. Both the movie and the origin short story reveal that humans are essentially selfish. Under indigent conditions, people would not care about any greater good such as morality. Linking to this week’s readings, I think the true challenge that social inequality pose to human existence also comes from this. When the developed countries started to consider issues like global warming and climate change, poor people in developing countries struggle for air-conditioners to keep them from hot waves. Ironically, the purchase of air-conditioners is associated with the increase of HFCs, which would further heat the globe. However, like the ancient Chinese proverb says: “when the granary becomes filled, people observe etiquette; when people become well-fed and clothed, they know honor and shame.” When indigent developing countries are still concerned about their people’s survival, neither the governments nor the people would consider the fate of the planet. However, like the samurai and his wife in the film, people in higher social class are selfish as well. They also tell lies like poor people to protect their dignity. Similarly, developed countries in the world may also ignore the imminent natural crisis. When the vice president of the US Kamala Harris shamelessly admitted that the US war was fought on oil for the last decades and will fight over the water in the future, people should really worry about the existence of human civilization. Kamala Harris admits they went on to wars because of oil https://twitter.com/i/status/1379603832888381443

[shiruan-uchicago]

framing

critique

I am not sure that there is a core argument in the Bergthaller’s (2020) paper other than a series of observations – maybe it is due to the fact that the paper is not written in a journal article format. I do concur with the author’s argument that Chinese history manifests the impact of governance and administrative techniques on the human-environment relationship. The massive mobilisation and centralisation of resources to exploit the nature and tackle the ecological limits, from the pre-modern Great Canal to the Great Leap during Mao’s era, has been a significant phenomenon throughout its history. In Mann’ words, China has strong “despotic power” over the society which enables it to make and implement plans of ecological governance. I don’t think that the author’s intention is to deal with the global inequality problem in this paper, but rather to discuss the bio-political history of China and the ecological practice by the Communist Party, and to consider the possibility of a system of bio-political control to deal with the challenges of the Anthropocene.

The author focuses on the infrastructural construction of the bio-political control – by “infrastructural construction”, I not only mean the material facilities such as dams, canals and power plants, but also the formal administrative programs (such as the social credit system or the party manifestos) and organisational institutions (thinking about the increasing authority of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment in the last twenty years) – which is tangible. I would like to argue that probing into the infrastructural construction is not adequate enough for us to understand the bio-political history in China, or to distinguish its path of ecological governance from the West. It is better to discuss the trajectory and practice via informal bio-political rules, practice, networks and mobilisation. Formal regulations/laws and infrastructures don’t necessarily have significant meaning or impact in China – what makes a difference is how to enforce and wield those infrastructures. I want to illustrate the argument with one example. In the winter of 2017, the authority of Hebei province radically facilitated the pre-planned “coal-to-gas” conversion project in order to further improve the air quality of the capital and the northern China. It proved to be a political campaign with a complete ban on heating with coal in the rural and immediately induced an energy crisis in northern China. The Ministry of Environmental Protection had to send out a ministerial extra-urgent document to halt the project. The failure of the coal-to-gas project did not lie in its road map, but in the radical campaign-like mobilisation and implementation by the grass-root governments, which has been a curse to the top-to-bottom bio-political governance in China (I can raise more examples in history). Despite the chaotic policy implementation, a study shows that although there was air quality improvement in the coal-to-gas cities, the air quality deteriorated in the gas-shortage regions – in other words, there is a large trans-regional redistribution of air pollution in that winter (Wang et al. 2020). “Authoritarian environmentalism” doesn’t always prevail.

A relative successful example of authoritarian environmentalism: the implementation of recycling laws in Shanghai https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/12/a-sort-of-eco-dictatorship-shanghai-grapples-with-strict-new-recycling-laws#:~:text='A%20sort%20of%20eco%2Ddictatorship'%3A%20Shanghai%20grapples,with%20strict%20new%20recycling%20laws&text=The%20question%20is%20aimed%20at,%2C%20wet%2C%20recyclable%20and%20hazardous.

A disastrous example of authoritarian environmentalism: The roadmap of coal control in China from 2010 to 2030. (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/49/31018#sec-1) In December 2017, some students in rural primary schools of Hebei province had to have class outside to warm themselves under the sun because the villages were not allowed to burn coal to provide heating.

[smshiffrin]

origin #framing

I was very intrigued by Hannes Bergthaller’s discussion on the origins of the Western perception of modernization and anthropogenic climate change, and how this influences the actions Western countries are taking in response to it. Bergthaller references the idea that Christianity heavily influenced the European perspective on humanity’s relationship with nature, how “according to [Lynn] White, the instrumentalist mindset of the West which views all non-human beings as entirely subordinate to human ends is an unalloyed product of Christian monotheism: ‘By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects” (4). This idea can be traced back to Genesis—in which God said “‘Let us make humankind in our image,” (Gen.1:26) telling man to “fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over...every living thing that moves upon the earth,” (1:28). This defined the Christian European view that Bergthaller speaks of, especially at the onset of the Industrial Revolution when many viewed the discovery of coal to be a gift from God, a resource given to humans to exploit.

This Christian view therefore had a significant impact on the rapid development of industrialization, and how fossil fuels have contributed to humanity becoming a “geological force” (Bergthaller, 5). I think we can also compare this idea to the rise of Romanticism, and how people began to see nature as a beautiful thing, and something we must protect, which is in line with what Bergthaller was saying about how the Western world has become so obsessed with the idea of the Anthropocene, and how human impact must be reduced to save the planet (2). While proponents of fossil fuel use saw nature as a resource, and proponents of Romanticism saw nature as a thing of beauty, both cases show a distance between nature and humanity that has influenced the way people across the globe view the climate crisis, and the action they take in response to it. This is reflected in how Prime Minister Nehru saw the Himalayas “as a ‘source of power’, the mountains seemed most ‘amazing’” but also as “probably ‘the biggest source ... in the world,” (Chakrabarty, 18). Is there a perception of nature that is causing climate change, and is there one that will help us join together to combat it? These are questions that arose as I was reflecting on these texts.

This diagram shows the human vs nature hierarchy in contrast with an ecology with humans as part of nature.

Sources Hannes Bergthaller, “Thoughts on Asia and the Anthropocene.” The Anthropocenic Turn, 2020. Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern.” Millennium Journal of International Studies, 2018.
Old Testament, Genesis S. Lehmann, 2010

[ABacotti]

salience #socialinequality

I am very interested in the “Schmittian Schema” that Dipesh Chakrabarty outlines in his paper Planetary Crises and the Difficulty of Being Modern. The shema suggests that there are three phases in the construction of a society: “appropriation>distribution>production.” Appropriation is the distribution of land. Distribution is the rights and setting up of society on said land. Production is the phase containing the economic elements that take place within the new society. Chakrabarty connects this schema to the ideas around globalization and world disasters, specifically climate change, but I think he is really on to something in the earlier part of his paper. Humans have an equal claim to rights, but the harms that they bring about are not equal and so their responsibility to make up for their damages are also unequal. As issues of climate change wreak havoc on these three stages, the solutions to address it should be done justly, as our speaker earlier in the quarter also addressed.

This is where Charkarbarty lost me. I cannot, or at least currently find myself unable to “think of the role of the tuna!” as he puts it. I am confused by his interpretation of a post-human world, although I do think that we need to think of the progress of humanity as a whole not only of particular nations or peoples. I cannot conceive of an ideological process that could convince me that there is “agency of the non-human and the non-living.” I feel like I could understand this perspective in the abstract, but from the gearing of politics to serve those who cannot even perceive its existence seems to be going overboard. I would love to hear the Doctors oral presentation on this topic in class, because I do admit I could be convinced in this way, but it is my own inability to not get lost in the writing that might be preventing me from capturing the full breadth of the argument. I currently would have trouble justifying making a living person less well off than they could have been because we need to think about the rights of the tuna, unless in the long run the tuna helped more people. This spurs utilitarian thought, but I am curious how the moral justification for this ideology plays out. Of course, this could be a complete misinterpretation, which is why I am excited to hear Dr. Chakrabarty speak.

Photo of the original blue marble, a part of the series of images that showed us all of earth, allowing us to believe, if only for a short time, that the period of appropriation was over.

[jtello711]

risk #framing

This week's readings challenge the train of progress the world refers to as globalization and asks us to consider how modernization around the world is really progressing. The reality of the world we live in is incredibly complex and nuanced across different regions of the planet. With the propagation of more developed nations and an increasingly modernized infrastructure and way of living, there have been noticeable gaps in this trend as poorer nations are struggling to compete and present themselves on the global stage. The Earth is no less better off for our actions, and yet some of the poorest nations are made to suffer the heaviest extremes of a climate that's been battered by developed nations primarily for decades. The balance of power and equality is certainly uneven when considering the vast networks of trade, culture, and technology that go unrecognized across Africa and South Asia. India, in particular, is a nation of interest in our readings for being such a heavy contributor to climate emissions without really enjoying the luxuries of modernization as seen in the West, in fact being heavily detracted by the West. The horizon of expectations, as described, is so different for them because they're being made to accept modernity and an evolving world through pretensions of universality that are, of course, Western-centric. Without the proper framing for the particular circumstances nation's find themselves in on the global stage, the idea of modernization comes off as crass and insulting considering the gaps in progress that leave so many parts of the world in the dark. If we're to believe that the Anthropocene is legitimate and capable of defining humanity's impact on the planet, I'd hope that such a perspective could be seen through the proper lens and give credit where it's deserved: to the heaviest contributors of the global climate crisis. Understanding the true risk of climate-related incidents is to categorize levels of severity mostly attributed to developing nations that are caught in the crossfire of an increasingly modernized world and the capacity for said world to handle such levels of consumption and emission. To what extent this doles out unfair levels of responsibility in fixing such a crisis remains to be seen.

[madelman99]

origin #framing #solutions

The readings this week take a close look at the social inequalities and conflicts surrounding existential threats. Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain's essay, "global warming in an unequal world," I found to be particularly affecting. Beyond challenging many of my preconceived notions about climate change and the western world, it also provided solutions and dismantled biases about this threat.

The impact of climate change and the possible realizations that were posed quite eloquently by Agarwal and Narain: "The entire debate on the prospects of impending doom is in many ways an excellent opportunity for the world to truly realise the concept of one world. A world which is interdependent and which cannot withstand the current levels of consumption and exploitation, especially the levels now prevalent in the West." This is the heart of the problem. Western countries in particular have been over consuming and the wold cannot withstand the current levels of emissions being produced as a result. However, this global issue presents an opportunity for the world to come together as one and confront this issue together. Certain group of countries are producing far more per capita than others, particularly wealthy developed countries. We are lucky that this is not the case because for a population of 10 billion to be emitting carbon at the same rate as Western Europe, "this would imply carbon emissions of four times the current level, or as high as 23 billion tonnes per year." On a practical note, it is necessary for industrial countries to take initial and strong actions on global warming in order for the developing nations to see the seriousness of the threat. Not only are these industrial nations largely responsible for the problem, but they also have the most resources to do take action. The current debate on global warming, which has the potential to bring together the entire world, is only further dividing northern industrial nations and southern developing ones.

Great emphasis in this essay is put on the WRI report that made developing nations largely responsible for climate change and took blame away from industrial countries. As the authors note, "estimates used by WRI to calculate carbon dioxide level are very shaky," particularly as they relate to things like deforestation. Ultimately, the fault lies with countries that are consuming far more than they need: "it is the production of carbon dioxide and methane by countries like USA and Japan — totally out of proportion to their populations and that of the world’s absorptive capacity — which is entirely responsible for the accumulation of unabsorbed carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. This statement, while partially true, seems like a drastic overstatement. The essay carries an angry tone in many places and this is one of them. The essay preaches global unity but tries to make the case that certain countries are in no way responsible for climate change. However, it is true that the majority of emissions do come from around 15 countries that are emitting beyond permissible limits. The problem of climate change has been framed from a western perspective. In there words, it has largely been framed by the countries that are primarily responsible and want to relieve themselves fo guilt and blame. However, it is these countries where it is most necessary to take action.

The essay end by providing a number of solutions and different means of framing climate change. First and foremost, "in all market economies of the world, pollution control economists are now talking about the concept of tradeable emission quotas, which allow low-level polluters to trade their unused permissible emissions with high-level polluters." This is a practical and economically oriented solution to some of the problems that come with climate change. If it is no longer economically feasible to produce at current rates, then countries will either produce less or find more efficient means of production. The entire episode with the WRI report that this essay was written in response to has shown that "Third World nations must undertake their own research in this crucial area. They cannot depend on Western institutions to present a true picture of the global situation and safeguard their interests." This will further change the framing of this issue and could help create a sense of unity. The origins presented and the solutions posed in this essay end it on a surprisingly optimistic note with the possibility of unity and collective action on climate change.

[stellaslorer]

movie

This week I watched Bong Joon-ho’s film Snowpiercer which portrays a post-apocalyptic world where the last survivors of humanity have been on board a train for seventeen years. The members of the train are separated by class with the poorest passengers crammed in the back in squalid, dehumanizing conditions and the wealthy passengers at the front with access to luxurious dining rooms, salons, sushi bars, and clubs. This film directly critiques the ways that class structures have become deeply imbedded in our society. It calls into question how sustainable it is to live in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, while at the same time, its resources are becoming more and more unequally distributed. The movie is most successful at highlighting our lack of acknowledgement of the harm that the system we ascribe to and operate within inflicts upon the people at the very bottom of it. One line that is repeated throughout the film is, “the engine is eternal.” Bong Joon-ho uses this idea to reveal the ignorance of the passengers––specifically the first-class members—who blindly believe that the eco-system they have built will never die. In fact, this system operates through the oppression of the tail-end members who ultimately decide to fight back, subvert, and destroy it. While I’m not sure how realistic this risk of an immediate manmade apocalypse is, I think that Bong Joon-ho does a phenomenal job of revealing the unsettling durability of class structures in our society. There are oversights in the film that lead to minor gaps in the plot––like where are the crickets coming from for protein blocks, or how are there chickens being farmed––but overall, I think there is very little the film ignores in confronting the broad issue of social inequality. I find the most salient aspect of Snowpiercer to be at the ending, with the last two surviving passengers, Yona and Timmy. There is a glimmer of hope in the last moments, for perhaps with a complete destruction of the social structures, they can now start anew and create a civilization of equality and openness as an Asian girl and a black boy. However, the conclusion is ambiguous in itself as the two could also die in the extreme conditions as the camera closes on a white polar bear looming in the distance. Bong Joon-ho provides no answers for his audience––yet he leaves us with endless questions that have made me reflect on the hidden violence of industrialization, capitalism, and globalization.

[jasonshepp6]

movie

In looking at social inequality, one can examine Elysium to further delve into the issues covered in class. In this response, I will first summarize the movie. Next, I will examine to see if this is truly a civilization ending event. Third, I will analyze the likelihood of this event happening. Finally, I will look into the ethics of such a scenario.

For context on the movie, Elysium is a 2013 film that describes the real 2154 in which humanity is divided between the regular people versus the rich and powerful. While the regular citizens of the world live in a wreckage with the remnants of civilization, the rich and powerful live in a space habitat in earth’s orbit. Elysium is technologically advanced with green spaces and an amazing life for the people who live there. However, the residents of Elysium do not share these precious resources with the citizens of Earth. The movie then follows the struggle between Earth and Elysium in regards to resources.

In examining the matter surrounding “Are We Doomed,” the first question to ask is if this dystopian future qualifies as a civilization ending future; the answer to which I believe is yes. While Elysium maintains the niceties of civilization as we know it today, the vast majority of people are struggling to survive. I believe that this is akin to our discussion of nuclear war fallout, where the rich are able to thrive in luxury bunkers while the common person either dies or must live in a world sent back centuries.

Next, I would like to examine the likelihood of such a scenario; the answer to which I believe is that this is not very likely. The synthetic division between the rich and powerful versus the commoner does not have such a clear cut line. Additionally, it would be impossible for a group of people to construct such a satellite without having anyone or any government on earth capable of doing the same. Finally, there is a level of human compassion that I believe would stop such a situation. As we see today between more developed and less developed countries, there is a lending of aid and support.

Lastly, I would like to investigate the ethics of such an installation; the answer to which centers around whether self-preservation supersedes human decency. I believe that such a situation as described in Elysium would be an affront to an ethical conscious. The sheer abundance of resources as depicted in the movie show that Elysium could survive and share resources at the same time. This, however, leads to the question of whether Elysium purposely keeps Earth weak in order to avoid the possibility of an opposing force. Regardless of the motivation, the ethical concerns lead to the fact that self-preservation alone does not justify the actions taken by the residents of Elysium.

[vitosmolyak]

movie

For my movie memo I decided to rewatch one of my favorite movies of all time, Snowpiercer (2013), while this time honing in on all of the social inequality that is prevalent throughout. The Snowpiercer itself is a train that rides all around the world in a post-apocalyptic society, traversing the entire world in a span of a year. Most importantly, the train is separated by class status with the poorest people being in the back of the train and the elite being towards front, starting with Wilford who is the train's conductor and god in a sense. The people towards the back of the train live in non-humane conditions that resemble slums and only survive off of protein blocks. Meanwhile, those at the front are able to live without worries as they have access to endless food reserves, education, and even entertainment. To add on, the poor are consistently being policed and suffer extreme consequences if they try to revolt or move their way up the social ranks and live in better conditions. That is something that struck me watching it the second time around because I see how prevalent that is in today's society. Those growing up in tougher conditions (i.e. the favelas in Brazil or in underfunded neighborhoods in the U.S.) often find it impossible to make it out because of the hand they were dealt in life and large amount of obstacles they face, one of those being unfair policing.

Another aspect of the film I found to be appalling in regard to social inequality was that even in a post-apocalyptic society, there managed to be a large gap between classes where the elite once again felt the need for an "order" to be restored. Given that the film is set 17 years following the disaster the struck the world, it is clear that the elite have been living comfortably for that long while the poor have been subjected to extreme living conditions. All the while, they are on the same train and in such close proximity to each other. There was a large amount of necessities that could have been given to the lower classes to ease and encourage their survival however this did not happen. It seemed to show me that class structures and classism will never go away no matter how hard people try, as unfortunate as that sounds.

One of the beautiful scenes in the movie was the ending, where the entire system is broken and everybody on the train does not survive except for two people. The reason I think this is beautiful because it goes to show that a class system based on the aggressive policing of the underpriviliged was a failed one and everyone had to face the consequences of that. The only two survivors end up leaving the abandoned train hopes in restoring life amidst all of the impossible conditions that they will face (rejoining the post-apocalyptic conditions created 17 years ago.) The director does not make it clear whether they will survive (a classic Bong-Joon-Ho maneuver as he also does it in Parasite) but the motive that I got from the ending was that no matter how drastic conditions will be for the two survivors, it seemed like they were at peace and better off from escaping the horrifying conditions that they faced under the large amount of social inequality they faced while on the train.