Skip to main content

Home/ LCENVS/ Group items tagged utopia

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jim Proctor

"Green Giant" | Willamette Week - 0 views

www.willametteweek.com/...14800

sustainability ecological modernization self-sufficiency utopia portland

shared by Jim Proctor on 24 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • Jim Proctor on 24 Nov 10
     
    The Oregon Sustainability Center, to be housed on PSU campus, embodies the utopia of high-tech self-sufficiency unlike no other contemporary structure around, and may possibly be unique in the U.S. today. But at what cost? And, is this the utopia we want to pursue??
  • Julia Huggins on 29 Nov 10
     
    This is the topic of an article that I posted to the Symposium2011 diigo group. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/07/07greenwire-bold-public-private-venture-aims-to-make-ore-c-32109.html?pagewanted=all) Originally I posted it due to it's relevance to the "future of cities" topic. Portland often comes up in discussions about progressive cities, and this is merely one more reason for it to do so. The questions you bring up here about cost and utopian attitude I think are particularly relevant to the broader question of cities and would be really interesting for us to explore further. In my discussion with Micah earlier today, for example, we talked about Portland in general being a sort of utopia. Specifically we were discussing the tendency of highly motivated and concerned people to move to Portland away from other places that might actually be in greater need of their work. I asked "what's more important: investing in a model of the ideal to generate enthusiasm and prove it can be done, or spreading efforts out to places less conducive to the changes?"
  • Micah Leinbach on 30 Nov 10
     
    I'll say it publicly, with the hopes of getting some debate on this: I don't think you've proven it can be done if it is in the model of the ideal (operating under the assumption that most places are specifically not the ideal, and are not neccesarily conducive to the changes). Just because something can be done in an ideal place does not mean it can be spread out. I see it as more likely that when something is done succesfully in a place that is antagonistic to it, something is really right with whatever that something may be. While answers are naturally specific to the issue or solution in question (so I apologize for the vague language), I'm of the mind that a lot of the things Portland has done to make things "work" may not be easily replicated outside of Portland, as much because of structure as because of culture. This is a debate where it is particularly difficult to make broad assumptions, of course, and there will be exceptions to either and any side, but I lean towards making changes where the changes are not conducive. I welcome opposition though, I'm curious what others think coming from other regions and from Portland itself.
Jim Proctor

The Pursuit of Ecotopia, E. N. Anderson - 1 views

search.barnesandnoble.com/...9780313381300

utopia indigenous modernity

shared by Jim Proctor on 26 Aug 10 - Cached
  • Jim Proctor on 26 Aug 10
     
    Publisher's summary: "Author E. N. Anderson maintains that the world can escape impending ecological disaster only by embracing a political and ethical transformation that will imbue modern societies with the same shared sense of emotional rationality practiced by traditional cultures." One of humankind's most perennial utopias is the utopia of the good old days, and this one is near and dear to many in the environmental movement.  What's wrong with this picture?
Jim Proctor

Eaarth, by Bill McKibben - 1 views

www.billmckibben.com/...eaarthbook.html

book climate dystopia

shared by Jim Proctor on 26 Aug 10 - Cached
  • Jim Proctor on 26 Aug 10
     
    One of the icons of the climate movement is, well, giving up…but imagining a new dawn, one that looks a lot like the utopia of traditional societies that many in the environmental movement prefer: "The momentum of the heat, and the momentum of the economy that power it, can't be turned off quickly enough to prevent hideous damage. But we will keep fighting, in the hope that we can limit that damage. And in the process…we'll help build the architecture for the world that comes next, the dispersed and localized societies that can survive the damage we can no longer prevent.…We'll need, chief among all things, to get smaller and less centralized, to focus not on growth but on maintenance, on a controlled decline from the perilous heights to which we have climbed." So, what's wrong with this picture??
Jim Proctor

The End Of The Road: Saying Goodbye To Freeways - 0 views

www.npr.org/...oad-saying-goodbye-to-freeways

transportation cities freeways

shared by Jim Proctor on 22 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • Jim Proctor on 22 Mar 11
     
    So, is the era of freeway utopias finally over?  Well, not everywhere, but in some cases indeed they are coming down in a number of US cities. So, what seems to be the pattern connecting these once-icons of freedom that are now (or soon to be) gone, vs. those that are remaining (or expanding)?
Julia Huggins

Nothing Grows Forever - 0 views

www.utne.com/...er-Endless-Growth-Economy.aspx

economics limits to growth no-grow economy politics

shared by Julia Huggins on 11 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • Julia Huggins on 11 Nov 10
     
    Economics and Politics. "In essence, endless growth puts us on the horns of a seemingly intractable dilemma. Without it, we spiral into poverty. With it, we deplete the planet. Either way, we lose. Unless, of course, there's a third way. Could we have a healthy economy that doesn't grow? Could we stave off ecological collapse by reining in the world economy? Could we do it without starving?" An old idea revisited with a slightly lengthy (but easily read) background on limits to growth and it's place in economic history, plus a new perspective on how a limit to growth might actually work, and what that might look like. I find the concept of ' "uneconomic" growth-growth that actually drives living standards downward' (to improve happiness, nonetheless), and the argument behind it, intriguing. This is on page 4. After page 5 it starts to look like an idealistic no-grow-utopia. But then this is addressed in the conclusion, as well as some theories about the psychological changes that would have to happen. Then they bring it on back home to politics, and last but not least a reminder of our biological-ecological pending doom. Oh, all the environmental interdisciplinary-ness! "When it comes to determining the shape of our economy, the planet may possess the most powerful invisible hand of all."
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Micah Leinbach on 12 Nov 10
     
    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/18/the-no-growth-fantasy.html A counter. The ghost of Malthus will forever haunt no-growth economists, as the ultimate "we tried that already". And the train of thought is reasonable. Malthusian fears about population are one example. There is also a long list of oil/energy scares where people claimed prices were going up and supplies were going down, but adjusting for inflation proved the error of the former and time proved the error of the latter. When history, politics, and economic theory all oppose the no-growth idea, its no surprise that its viewed with a lot of healthy skepticism. That said, I'm a big fan of Herman Daly and the idea that the economy needs to be reformed. Because GDP is an awful way to measure prosperity. But to have an alternative is equally difficult - what should the standard of success be for the great human experiment? Happiness is normally the benchmark. And to academics that sounds all right, because happiness is generally seen as people spending time amongst their families, art, and high culture. But is that naturally what makes people happy? Consumerism was in a large part rooted in a desire for happiness also. Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has. Higher standards of living all over do have economic roots, though that is not neccessarily inherent to them. There is a lot more to say on this, but its a long enough comment as it is, so I'll leave that for another time. I do feel its one of the more serious debates of our (all?) time though, and I'm really glad you brought it up.
  • Julia Huggins on 12 Nov 10
     
    Obviously, I don't know or care too much about economics. I dont know how my conversations keep ending up here. But. "Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has." Really? Who, to you, qualifies as "people"? And how do you define better? Soaring rates of depression, chemical dependency, and obesity? Or maybe it's these lives that are better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0U_xmRem4)?
  • Micah Leinbach on 13 Nov 10
     
    Perhaps because it relates so much to the various issues we have declared to be running rampant in the world today? It is very much connected to any environmental issue. Among a range of other issues. Anyways, I wrote a pretty lengthy response to your questions. I'll post the primary response to your questions here. A lot of it is based on the differences between economics, politics, industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism. In the tradition of Diigo debates, I have crafted a google site. https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/home The main page directly answers the question. The other page sets up some distinctions I see, personally, beteen various economic systems. I do not cite academic sources there, and I'm sure it would not take long to find economists who disagree with me, for what it is worth. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to flesh it out with other's ideas, and I apologize for that.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page