What is E^3 or peak aware?
Sandra Dodd
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what on earth (or in whose universe) is
" E^3 or peak aware"? It's used twice in the writing below.
My boys asked once when they were around 9 and 11 what plastic surgery
was. When I told them they seemed disappointed. When I asked, it
turned out they had seen the preview/teaser for a talk show about kids
wanting plastic surgery, and they were wondering whether they should
want some.
Is E^3 or peak aware cool? Do I want that?
Sandra
" E^3 or peak aware"? It's used twice in the writing below.
My boys asked once when they were around 9 and 11 what plastic surgery
was. When I told them they seemed disappointed. When I asked, it
turned out they had seen the preview/teaser for a talk show about kids
wanting plastic surgery, and they were wondering whether they should
want some.
Is E^3 or peak aware cool? Do I want that?
Sandra
> From: Christina <noreply-comment@...>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Date: April 26, 2010 9:29:41 PM MDT
> To: Sandra@...
> Subject: [Crunchy Chicken] New comment on Unschooling - what do you
> think?.
>
> Christina has left a new comment on the post "Unschooling - what do
> you think?":
>
> Those of us who do not do unschooling want information about how it
> works and how well it works in preparing a child for higher education.
>
> I guess the short answer is, "as well as the child wants it to". The
> thing is, what's the value of higher education? Isn't part of the
> point that theoretical and applied higher education have taken us
> down this road of modern society and brought us to the brink of
> descent?
>
> I wasn't E^3 or peak aware when I started homeschooling 12 years
> ago, but I already knew that I wasn't going to lock my kids into a
> "higher education" path and perpetuate the idea that official,
> intellectual knowledge was the ultimate goal. My argument has always
> been, "What if they want to throw pots in Sedona?" Do they need
> higher education for that, or would they be better served on a
> different path? (Someone once thought I said "grow pot in Sedona"!)
> If they want to pursue a path via higher education, I want them to
> be able to do that too - so as a homeschooler I want to leave the
> doors open and make sure my kids are pursuing the path of their
> choosing, not the path of society's choosing or of mine.
>
> Now that I am E^3 or peak aware, being at the pinnacle of formalized
> education seems even more obsolete. Not that knowledge and skills,
> science and technology are no longer valuable, but we need a million
> farmers and right now we have going on two million lawyers.
> Somewhere along the path of descent, we need to get the value of
> higher education properly integrated with the value of all the other
> important paths. I'm still working hard to keep the doors open for
> my kids, but I have the sense that the pot-throwers (and maybe the
> pot-growers!) might win the day...
Deb Lewis
***Is E^3 or peak aware cool? Do I want that?***
E^3 is a bio fuels group working to end US dependence on foreign oil and Peak aware is the name of a campaign to educate people about oil supply and demand.
Maybe there's some different E^3 and Peak Aware but that's what I found on line here; http://www.e3biofuels.com/
And here: http://peakaware.blogspot.com/
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
E^3 is a bio fuels group working to end US dependence on foreign oil and Peak aware is the name of a campaign to educate people about oil supply and demand.
Maybe there's some different E^3 and Peak Aware but that's what I found on line here; http://www.e3biofuels.com/
And here: http://peakaware.blogspot.com/
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Everything I found was about oil, too. It didn't seem to make sense
in context.
Sandra
in context.
Sandra
Laura Wray
~~> Sandra Dodd wrote: <snip> Everything I found was about oil, too. It
didn't seem to make sense
in context. <unsnip> <~~
I agree, the oil thing didn't make any sense - fascinating as it was (I'll
be sharing it with my oldest). So, I googled E^3 and Peak, and got:
http://www.nje3.org/?page_id=3 E^3 stands for Excellent Education for
Everyone
http://www.peakedu.org/index.cfm?id=600&type=2 I searched Peak education and
got this link
Laura W
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
didn't seem to make sense
in context. <unsnip> <~~
I agree, the oil thing didn't make any sense - fascinating as it was (I'll
be sharing it with my oldest). So, I googled E^3 and Peak, and got:
http://www.nje3.org/?page_id=3 E^3 stands for Excellent Education for
Everyone
http://www.peakedu.org/index.cfm?id=600&type=2 I searched Peak education and
got this link
Laura W
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
*** It didn't seem to make sense in context.***
I think it's all part of the environmental "brink of descent" thinking that a return to simpler life will sustain us. A long, expensive education might lead to big money jobs which are often associated with irresponsible earth stewardship. Pursuing what you love might lead to crunchy jobs like making pottery, which might save the world. (until we run out of clay)
She is the Crunchy Chicken, after all.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think it's all part of the environmental "brink of descent" thinking that a return to simpler life will sustain us. A long, expensive education might lead to big money jobs which are often associated with irresponsible earth stewardship. Pursuing what you love might lead to crunchy jobs like making pottery, which might save the world. (until we run out of clay)
She is the Crunchy Chicken, after all.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
It's a narrow focus and quite a bit romantized. I saw something today (FB
ad) about "fighting climate change"... ok but these things go in cycles and
they're natural (for the most part, IMO). Why fight something like that? It
makes more sense to adapt. I was hoping that climate change policies would
be about adaptation not stopping climate change from happening at all. I
don't think that's realistic. And learning things that are "back to nature"
is a fine way to try to prepare for change if a person wants to. It's just
that E^3 sounds like a very esoteric way to refer to all that. I doubt if we
run out of clay though (hyperbole?). It's dirt, right?
~Katherine
ad) about "fighting climate change"... ok but these things go in cycles and
they're natural (for the most part, IMO). Why fight something like that? It
makes more sense to adapt. I was hoping that climate change policies would
be about adaptation not stopping climate change from happening at all. I
don't think that's realistic. And learning things that are "back to nature"
is a fine way to try to prepare for change if a person wants to. It's just
that E^3 sounds like a very esoteric way to refer to all that. I doubt if we
run out of clay though (hyperbole?). It's dirt, right?
~Katherine
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Deb Lewis <d.lewis@...> wrote:
> *** It didn't seem to make sense in context.***
>
>
> I think it's all part of the environmental "brink of descent" thinking that
> a return to simpler life will sustain us. A long, expensive education
> might lead to big money jobs which are often associated with irresponsible
> earth stewardship. Pursuing what you love might lead to crunchy jobs like
> making pottery, which might save the world. (until we run out of clay)
>
> She is the Crunchy Chicken, after all.
>
> Deb Lewis
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I doubt if we
run out of clay though (hyperbole?). It's dirt, right?-=-
Well it's not just ANY dirt, or it would be called, you know, "dirt."
Dirt has lots of plant and animal matter in it. Clay is going to have
a lot of silicate whatever-chemical-term-at-molecular-level in it and
no plant matter.
There was a road cut in my home town that had clay that fired up
shiny, kind of sparkly. I discovered it just before I left my first
husband and the pottery shop he had built me. Bummer on the clay...
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
run out of clay though (hyperbole?). It's dirt, right?-=-
Well it's not just ANY dirt, or it would be called, you know, "dirt."
Dirt has lots of plant and animal matter in it. Clay is going to have
a lot of silicate whatever-chemical-term-at-molecular-level in it and
no plant matter.
There was a road cut in my home town that had clay that fired up
shiny, kind of sparkly. I discovered it just before I left my first
husband and the pottery shop he had built me. Bummer on the clay...
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
See... I knew I should look that up. ;) I was (and still am) wondering if
it's possible (but probably not fun to work with or turning out nice or very
feasible) to make clay the "stone age" way. Or did they quarry it too? I can
get a wide variety of very nice clay "dirt" cheap in Asheville, which is an
hour of pleasant driving from here, so it's doubtful I would mess with clay
finding beyond thinking on it where I currently live.
~Katherine
it's possible (but probably not fun to work with or turning out nice or very
feasible) to make clay the "stone age" way. Or did they quarry it too? I can
get a wide variety of very nice clay "dirt" cheap in Asheville, which is an
hour of pleasant driving from here, so it's doubtful I would mess with clay
finding beyond thinking on it where I currently live.
~Katherine
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-I doubt if we
> run out of clay though (hyperbole?). It's dirt, right?-=-
>
> Well it's not just ANY dirt, or it would be called, you know, "dirt."
>
> Dirt has lots of plant and animal matter in it. Clay is going to have
> a lot of silicate whatever-chemical-term-at-molecular-level in it and
> no plant matter.
>
> There was a road cut in my home town that had clay that fired up
> shiny, kind of sparkly. I discovered it just before I left my first
> husband and the pottery shop he had built me. Bummer on the clay...
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***Is E^3 or peak aware cool? Do I want that?***
I wondered the same thing. I almost couldn't finish reading that comment because of the E^3 or peak aware. However I did like the mix up of the pot throwers with the pot growers, that was funny! Maybe it's new slang for pot growing? (I'm joking!)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wondered the same thing. I almost couldn't finish reading that comment because of the E^3 or peak aware. However I did like the mix up of the pot throwers with the pot growers, that was funny! Maybe it's new slang for pot growing? (I'm joking!)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I think it's all part of the environmental "brink of descent" thinking that a return to simpler life will sustain us. A long, expensive education might lead to big money jobs which are often associated with irresponsible earth stewardship.***
Chamille informed me yesterday that she doesn't believe in global warming. I thought, "hmm interesting, why not?" and I asked her that. She said that there really isn't definitive proof and that the world has been around much longer than humans and we just don't know that much about it, and then she followed it with the idea that people spend way too much time thinking about ways to prevent world destruction and ultimately, death, when we are all going to die eventually and the earth may just destruct anyway and there'd be little anyone could do about that.
I used to think that was fatalist thinking, but I don't see it that way when Chamille says it, because she doesn't think in that fatalistic way at all. It's not like she's saying that we're all going to die anyway, so who cares? She's simply stating that we are going to die and that the earth may too and that we shouldn't spend so much energy worrying about it, and simply do concrete things to make our lives better in the now. I'm still thinking about that!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chamille informed me yesterday that she doesn't believe in global warming. I thought, "hmm interesting, why not?" and I asked her that. She said that there really isn't definitive proof and that the world has been around much longer than humans and we just don't know that much about it, and then she followed it with the idea that people spend way too much time thinking about ways to prevent world destruction and ultimately, death, when we are all going to die eventually and the earth may just destruct anyway and there'd be little anyone could do about that.
I used to think that was fatalist thinking, but I don't see it that way when Chamille says it, because she doesn't think in that fatalistic way at all. It's not like she's saying that we're all going to die anyway, so who cares? She's simply stating that we are going to die and that the earth may too and that we shouldn't spend so much energy worrying about it, and simply do concrete things to make our lives better in the now. I'm still thinking about that!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I can
get a wide variety of very nice clay "dirt" cheap in Asheville, which is an
hour of pleasant driving from here, so it's doubtful I would mess with clay
finding beyond thinking on it where I currently live.***
If you had a kiln you could find clay and experiment with it. I took a class with my dad once that was all about the makings of clay and glazes. We had to find these naturally occurring things ourselves and bring them in and find a combination that actually worked. It was really fun! There is clay all around were we live, it frustrates backyard gardeners! Much of it isn't of a quality that you could use for pottery though, so that was interesting to discovery!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
get a wide variety of very nice clay "dirt" cheap in Asheville, which is an
hour of pleasant driving from here, so it's doubtful I would mess with clay
finding beyond thinking on it where I currently live.***
If you had a kiln you could find clay and experiment with it. I took a class with my dad once that was all about the makings of clay and glazes. We had to find these naturally occurring things ourselves and bring them in and find a combination that actually worked. It was really fun! There is clay all around were we live, it frustrates backyard gardeners! Much of it isn't of a quality that you could use for pottery though, so that was interesting to discovery!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Chamille informed me yesterday that she doesn't believe in global
warming. I thought, "hmm interesting, why not?" and I asked her that.
She said that there really isn't definitive proof and that the world
has been around much longer than humans and we just don't know that
much about it, and then she followed it with the idea that people
spend way too much time thinking about ways to prevent world
destruction and ultimately, death, when we are all going to die
eventually and the earth may just destruct anyway and there'd be
little anyone could do about that.-=-
I believe there's warming, but I don't think people caused it any more
than people caused the mini-ice-age in Europe a few hundred years ago,
or the ice age before that, nor the "global warming" at the end of
either of those ice ages.
I don't think dinosaurs and people put together could have caused or
prevented any global weather patterns (not that they were put
together, but if they were, I mean...)
-=-I used to think that was fatalist thinking, but I don't see it that
way when Chamille says it, because she doesn't think in that
fatalistic way at all. It's not like she's saying that we're all going
to die anyway, so who cares? She's simply stating that we are going to
die and that the earth may too and that we shouldn't spend so much
energy worrying about it, and simply do concrete things to make our
lives better in the now. I'm still thinking about that!-=-
I've always felt that way about people's extreme emotion about "saving
the planet." I'm not irresponsible with chemicals or the yeard or the
recycling. (Well by some people's definitions, EVERYONE is
irresponsible and it will be our fault when glaciers melt.) But if
the planet is an organism, then we humans (at more than six billion)
are (IF we are) affecting it probably as a disease might, and IF the
earth unconsciously kills us off (as we're so proud of our bodies for
doing when they fever-up and cook viruses or bacteria or whatever all)
then whatchya gonna do?
IF the whole earth went dark and cold, whose feelings would be
crushed? Nobody would be there to mourn.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
warming. I thought, "hmm interesting, why not?" and I asked her that.
She said that there really isn't definitive proof and that the world
has been around much longer than humans and we just don't know that
much about it, and then she followed it with the idea that people
spend way too much time thinking about ways to prevent world
destruction and ultimately, death, when we are all going to die
eventually and the earth may just destruct anyway and there'd be
little anyone could do about that.-=-
I believe there's warming, but I don't think people caused it any more
than people caused the mini-ice-age in Europe a few hundred years ago,
or the ice age before that, nor the "global warming" at the end of
either of those ice ages.
I don't think dinosaurs and people put together could have caused or
prevented any global weather patterns (not that they were put
together, but if they were, I mean...)
-=-I used to think that was fatalist thinking, but I don't see it that
way when Chamille says it, because she doesn't think in that
fatalistic way at all. It's not like she's saying that we're all going
to die anyway, so who cares? She's simply stating that we are going to
die and that the earth may too and that we shouldn't spend so much
energy worrying about it, and simply do concrete things to make our
lives better in the now. I'm still thinking about that!-=-
I've always felt that way about people's extreme emotion about "saving
the planet." I'm not irresponsible with chemicals or the yeard or the
recycling. (Well by some people's definitions, EVERYONE is
irresponsible and it will be our fault when glaciers melt.) But if
the planet is an organism, then we humans (at more than six billion)
are (IF we are) affecting it probably as a disease might, and IF the
earth unconsciously kills us off (as we're so proud of our bodies for
doing when they fever-up and cook viruses or bacteria or whatever all)
then whatchya gonna do?
IF the whole earth went dark and cold, whose feelings would be
crushed? Nobody would be there to mourn.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I believe there's warming, but I don't think people caused it any more
than people caused the mini-ice-age in Europe a few hundred years ago,
or the ice age before that, nor the "global warming" at the end of
either of those ice ages.***
Yes right. We talked about that too. It's more the idea of "global warming" that she's objecting to, not that the earth isn't warming and the polar caps are melting, or that there is a hole in the ozone over Australia. It's the whole "global warming" scare that she's objecting to. She's heard some of the arguments that lean towards the idea that this is all true and that humans have caused it and are making it worse, and she's heard the arguments that say that it's all bunk science. She's more inclined to say that some scientists believe this or that, but nobody really knows and that really only time will tell and she'll likely be dead by then.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
than people caused the mini-ice-age in Europe a few hundred years ago,
or the ice age before that, nor the "global warming" at the end of
either of those ice ages.***
Yes right. We talked about that too. It's more the idea of "global warming" that she's objecting to, not that the earth isn't warming and the polar caps are melting, or that there is a hole in the ozone over Australia. It's the whole "global warming" scare that she's objecting to. She's heard some of the arguments that lean towards the idea that this is all true and that humans have caused it and are making it worse, and she's heard the arguments that say that it's all bunk science. She's more inclined to say that some scientists believe this or that, but nobody really knows and that really only time will tell and she'll likely be dead by then.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
I know it riles some people up that I admit to believing that I don't
think people have made a hole in the ozone or that people are melting
glaciers. Y'know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. If I'm right, a lot of
people have wasted a LOT of money and international favors and will
look dopey. But my belief will neither warm nor cool the earth.
Sandra
think people have made a hole in the ozone or that people are melting
glaciers. Y'know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. If I'm right, a lot of
people have wasted a LOT of money and international favors and will
look dopey. But my belief will neither warm nor cool the earth.
Sandra
Jenny Cyphers
***Y'know, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. If I'm right, a lot of
people have wasted a LOT of money and international favors and will
look dopey. But my belief will neither warm nor cool the earth.***
There is something rather humbling about the fact that sometimes us humans don't know everything, even if it seems we might have something all figured out. To me, it's what keeps life interesting, the mysteries that it all holds!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
people have wasted a LOT of money and international favors and will
look dopey. But my belief will neither warm nor cool the earth.***
There is something rather humbling about the fact that sometimes us humans don't know everything, even if it seems we might have something all figured out. To me, it's what keeps life interesting, the mysteries that it all holds!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
My question and someone's answer:
----------
Sandra Dodd said...
What is this about?
"I wasn't E^3 or peak aware..."
"Now that I am E^3 or peak aware..."
I asked friends, but they didn't understand it either. Google only
suggests it might be about the oil industry or charter schools in New
Jersey, and neither fits in context.
April 27, 2010 8:28 AM
----------
----------
Christina said...
E^3 means energy-environment-economy, and peak is peak oil. They make
a whole lot of sense in the context of this blog as a whole work.
April 27, 2010 6:55 PM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------
Sandra Dodd said...
What is this about?
"I wasn't E^3 or peak aware..."
"Now that I am E^3 or peak aware..."
I asked friends, but they didn't understand it either. Google only
suggests it might be about the oil industry or charter schools in New
Jersey, and neither fits in context.
April 27, 2010 8:28 AM
----------
----------
Christina said...
E^3 means energy-environment-economy, and peak is peak oil. They make
a whole lot of sense in the context of this blog as a whole work.
April 27, 2010 6:55 PM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
> I've always felt that way about people's extreme emotion about "savingI think the whole idea of saving planet is a selfish one. It's not actually about saving the planet. It's about saving humankind. People are very fearful of not existing anymore. I see a lot of what's going on as the natural progression of a dominant species, like you mentioned it happening with the dinosaurs. It happens with all kinds of species on this planet all the time. Resources become abundant. Species adapt to those resources exceedingly well. The population explodes. Resources are not infinite, however. So eventually the resources that the species have adapted to start to become scarce and the growth of the species either slows to a more manageable number or there's a quick die off of a large number of the species. Those that are able to adapt to the scarcity of the old resources and find new ones will survive.
> the planet." I'm not irresponsible with chemicals or the yeard or the
> recycling. (Well by some people's definitions, EVERYONE is
> irresponsible and it will be our fault when glaciers melt.) But if
> the planet is an organism, then we humans (at more than six billion)
> are (IF we are) affecting it probably as a disease might, and IF the
> earth unconsciously kills us off (as we're so proud of our bodies for
> doing when they fever-up and cook viruses or bacteria or whatever all)
> then whatchya gonna do?
Alysia
Sandra Dodd
-=-I think the whole idea of saving planet is a selfish one. It's not
actually about saving the planet. It's about saving humankind. People
are very fearful of not existing anymore.=-
And they're fearful of losing their cars and their computers! :-)
Now THERE would be some REAL environmentalists. People are bad for
the environment, so mankind should sacrifice itself so that endangered
species can flourish once again. Way to serve mother earth in a
direct way. We ALL drink the kool-aid!
Unschooling is life changing enough for me. I don't need other
activism. What we do on this list is changing parts of the world, and
if we want to be monetary about it, every unschooled child helps
prevent the production of textbooks that are thrown away after five or
six years (if the school district is lucky), school bus manufacture
and operation, more metal portable buildings being built, with few to
no windows, to "house" 30 kids in each end for hours a day... Yeah.
Unschooling might save the environment more than importing bamboo
flooring from Asia by oil-powered ship does!
I'm being facetious, but there is still a spark of plain old
"authentic" truth there.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
actually about saving the planet. It's about saving humankind. People
are very fearful of not existing anymore.=-
And they're fearful of losing their cars and their computers! :-)
Now THERE would be some REAL environmentalists. People are bad for
the environment, so mankind should sacrifice itself so that endangered
species can flourish once again. Way to serve mother earth in a
direct way. We ALL drink the kool-aid!
Unschooling is life changing enough for me. I don't need other
activism. What we do on this list is changing parts of the world, and
if we want to be monetary about it, every unschooled child helps
prevent the production of textbooks that are thrown away after five or
six years (if the school district is lucky), school bus manufacture
and operation, more metal portable buildings being built, with few to
no windows, to "house" 30 kids in each end for hours a day... Yeah.
Unschooling might save the environment more than importing bamboo
flooring from Asia by oil-powered ship does!
I'm being facetious, but there is still a spark of plain old
"authentic" truth there.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> But ifThis is an interesting point. What if the earthquakes and volcanoes
> the planet is an organism, then we humans (at more than six billion)
> are (IF we are) affecting it probably as a disease might, and IF the
> earth unconsciously kills us off (as we're so proud of our bodies for
> doing when they fever-up and cook viruses or bacteria or whatever all)
> then whatchya gonna do?
and hurricanes and tidal waves are how the Earth deals with whatever
is plaguing it. If it is a living organism (and one could be convinced
of that), we are just a small irritation compared to meteorites,
exploding stars, solar winds and what else the universe could throw at
it. Maybe there's more going on than we can understand (as Chamille
points out).
It seems to me that it's part of the oft-believed fallacy that we can
control everything and therefore, can change everything. And maybe, in
the absence of organized religion in many people's lives, a new, green
way to feel guilty and repent.
Robin B.
Sandra Dodd
-=-It seems to me that it's part of the oft-believed fallacy that we can
control everything and therefore, can change everything. And maybe, in
the absence of organized religion in many people's lives, a new, green
way to feel guilty and repent.-=-
Exactly. And that's very embarrassing for me to admit, since I was so
irritated in the 1980s when the creationist fundamentalists would say
that science was just another religion that required faith.
Now the ecological guerillas are proving that.
Often, in the Middle Ages ("The Dark Ages" as many like to think of
them) people were assured by each other and the church that it was
THEIR FAULT if it didn't rain, if it rained too much, if there were
meteors, or an eclipse, or an earthquake or volcano. So they
sacrificed animals, money, property, to appease God.
Now the fundamentalist ecologists are assuring us all that spray cans
wounded mother earth and we are killing our own MOTHER. Or f-wording
our own mother. And that means we are BAD, Bad, bad. So we must
sacrifice convenience and modern materials (all except silicon-based
computer chips, and those nice aluminum MacBooks, and all that
electricity and wiring and those towers that make the internet and the
cellphones work, and and and... But I can go on my Mac and see what
a miserable sinner I am for having plastic speakers hooked up to it,
or an electric plastic fan aimed at me, or my Thinking Sticks
materials in a plastic tub or a gallon of milk in a plastic jug.
I wouldn't blame you guys if you never spoke to me again. I should be
ashamed of causing global warming. I still own one can of spray
deoderant. It would be worse to throw it away than to keep it, but it
sits in the bathroom reminding me of my sin.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
control everything and therefore, can change everything. And maybe, in
the absence of organized religion in many people's lives, a new, green
way to feel guilty and repent.-=-
Exactly. And that's very embarrassing for me to admit, since I was so
irritated in the 1980s when the creationist fundamentalists would say
that science was just another religion that required faith.
Now the ecological guerillas are proving that.
Often, in the Middle Ages ("The Dark Ages" as many like to think of
them) people were assured by each other and the church that it was
THEIR FAULT if it didn't rain, if it rained too much, if there were
meteors, or an eclipse, or an earthquake or volcano. So they
sacrificed animals, money, property, to appease God.
Now the fundamentalist ecologists are assuring us all that spray cans
wounded mother earth and we are killing our own MOTHER. Or f-wording
our own mother. And that means we are BAD, Bad, bad. So we must
sacrifice convenience and modern materials (all except silicon-based
computer chips, and those nice aluminum MacBooks, and all that
electricity and wiring and those towers that make the internet and the
cellphones work, and and and... But I can go on my Mac and see what
a miserable sinner I am for having plastic speakers hooked up to it,
or an electric plastic fan aimed at me, or my Thinking Sticks
materials in a plastic tub or a gallon of milk in a plastic jug.
I wouldn't blame you guys if you never spoke to me again. I should be
ashamed of causing global warming. I still own one can of spray
deoderant. It would be worse to throw it away than to keep it, but it
sits in the bathroom reminding me of my sin.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rebecca M.
--- In [email protected], Robin Bentley <robin.bentley@...> wrote:
We do try to be conscious of our "butt-print" (as David Suzuki calls it, based on the amount of time folks spend on the road in their cars), but I am also aware that I (lil' ol' me) cannot control what's happening on the planet, even if I'd really like to save the polar bears. I suspect that there are many factors involved, some human, but that the wheels are a-turnin' and that perhaps the planet has just taken over (there's an intriguing article in a recent BBC Knowledge magazines about the Gaia hypothesis, but I'm not sure I buy it).
Guilt is a powerful thing.
However, I did not get the whole E^3 thing within the context of the CC blog comments. I still don't get it, even after the original commenter went in and explained (that it was in the context of the whole blog, not just the unschooling post).
- Rebecca
>** It seems to me that it's part of the oft-believed fallacy that we canThat's a great point, Robin. I was wondering about this after I read Sandra's post.
> control everything and therefore, can change everything. And maybe, in
> the absence of organized religion in many people's lives, a new, green
> way to feel guilty and repent.**
We do try to be conscious of our "butt-print" (as David Suzuki calls it, based on the amount of time folks spend on the road in their cars), but I am also aware that I (lil' ol' me) cannot control what's happening on the planet, even if I'd really like to save the polar bears. I suspect that there are many factors involved, some human, but that the wheels are a-turnin' and that perhaps the planet has just taken over (there's an intriguing article in a recent BBC Knowledge magazines about the Gaia hypothesis, but I'm not sure I buy it).
Guilt is a powerful thing.
However, I did not get the whole E^3 thing within the context of the CC blog comments. I still don't get it, even after the original commenter went in and explained (that it was in the context of the whole blog, not just the unschooling post).
- Rebecca
Su Penn
Sandra's post about what a terrible person she is for having that can of spray deodorant reminded me of something I may have to (or rather, choose to) deal with soon (being a terrible person myself):
My Quaker meeting has just build a new meetinghouse. For 40 years, we've rented space from churches, and used, for instance, their nurseries for baby and toddler care during worship, meaning an assortment of wooden and plastic toys. A few weeks ago, another mom in my meeting mentioned casually that she hopes we'll have a "no plastic toys" rule in the new meetinghouse.
I have a lot of reactions to this. Many Quaker parents I know are on the perfection-parenting kick: no sugar, no TV, no "violent" play. This particular mom has a huge playroom in her house that looks like a Montessori classroom, I kid you not. I find this irritating, but you know, I'm kind of irritable and I don't generally care to argue about it. They get to make choices about their kids just like I get to make choices about mine.
But if it does come up in business meeting and we get to talking about policies, I would like to express my discomfort with a no-plastic-toys-allowed policy. It's partly just that I think it's this parenting from fear, that plastic is so very bad that it will ruin our kids. Partly I think it's nostalgia for a false golden age when children had fewer toys and they were simpler and made of wood and thus they were free to truly use their imagination. Partly I think it's a kind of snobbery that sets up a barrier to some families feeling comfortable at our meeting. But I feel like I get tongue-tied trying to express these things. For Quakers, it's less about making arguments than about expressing our own experiences and ideas, but even so, I'd be glad to hear folks' thoughts about what might be productive ways to speak about wanting a more inclusive, rather than exclusive, toy policy.
Thanks.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
My Quaker meeting has just build a new meetinghouse. For 40 years, we've rented space from churches, and used, for instance, their nurseries for baby and toddler care during worship, meaning an assortment of wooden and plastic toys. A few weeks ago, another mom in my meeting mentioned casually that she hopes we'll have a "no plastic toys" rule in the new meetinghouse.
I have a lot of reactions to this. Many Quaker parents I know are on the perfection-parenting kick: no sugar, no TV, no "violent" play. This particular mom has a huge playroom in her house that looks like a Montessori classroom, I kid you not. I find this irritating, but you know, I'm kind of irritable and I don't generally care to argue about it. They get to make choices about their kids just like I get to make choices about mine.
But if it does come up in business meeting and we get to talking about policies, I would like to express my discomfort with a no-plastic-toys-allowed policy. It's partly just that I think it's this parenting from fear, that plastic is so very bad that it will ruin our kids. Partly I think it's nostalgia for a false golden age when children had fewer toys and they were simpler and made of wood and thus they were free to truly use their imagination. Partly I think it's a kind of snobbery that sets up a barrier to some families feeling comfortable at our meeting. But I feel like I get tongue-tied trying to express these things. For Quakers, it's less about making arguments than about expressing our own experiences and ideas, but even so, I'd be glad to hear folks' thoughts about what might be productive ways to speak about wanting a more inclusive, rather than exclusive, toy policy.
Thanks.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
Su Penn
On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Rebecca M. wrote:
FWIW, I do think some measure of global warming/climate change is caused by human activity. Even after doing a big reading project on it a couple of years ago (reading a whole bunch of books from a whole bunch of perspectives) I still don't know what to think in terms of how "bad" that is or what can be done about it. And I refuse to feel guilty, even though people not only seem to expect me to, but to assume I do. Someone in my Quaker meeting said a few months ago, "I know we all feel guilty about the resources we use as Americans..." and I wanted to jump in and say, "No, we don't." It's not to say I think these things don't matter, it's just that whenever I try to look more deeply into a current issue like global warming, I end up feeling _less_ sure about what I should think or what should be done.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
>I think that one way you can tell it borders on religion for some people is how they react to skeptics. A few years ago, I read The Skeptical Environmentalist, and I found it interesting and persuasive. I wasn't sure I knew enough, though, to know whether the author was being accurate, so I went looking for reasoned critiques. I couldn't find them. All I could find were diatribes, as if he were a heretic. (Sometimes when I say that, people will send me a link and say, "here's a reasoned critique of the book!" but it never is--it's another hysterical attack.)
>
> --- In [email protected], Robin Bentley <robin.bentley@...> wrote:
>
>> ** It seems to me that it's part of the oft-believed fallacy that we can
>> control everything and therefore, can change everything. And maybe, in
>> the absence of organized religion in many people's lives, a new, green
>> way to feel guilty and repent.**
>
> That's a great point, Robin. I was wondering about this after I read Sandra's post.
FWIW, I do think some measure of global warming/climate change is caused by human activity. Even after doing a big reading project on it a couple of years ago (reading a whole bunch of books from a whole bunch of perspectives) I still don't know what to think in terms of how "bad" that is or what can be done about it. And I refuse to feel guilty, even though people not only seem to expect me to, but to assume I do. Someone in my Quaker meeting said a few months ago, "I know we all feel guilty about the resources we use as Americans..." and I wanted to jump in and say, "No, we don't." It's not to say I think these things don't matter, it's just that whenever I try to look more deeply into a current issue like global warming, I end up feeling _less_ sure about what I should think or what should be done.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
Jenny Cyphers
***I wouldn't blame you guys if you never spoke to me again. I should be
ashamed of causing global warming. I still own one can of spray
deoderant. It would be worse to throw it away than to keep it, but it
sits in the bathroom reminding me of my sin.***
Chamille would call that "Carrie" thinking. She has read book and watched the movie, analyzed them both and relates many things to it, among them, the crazy irrational thinking that some people get into that is almost religious, but goes beyond a simple faith!
Last week, the neighbor girl was grounded for doing something that God didn't approve of. I don't know what that something was, but the mom grounded her for it. Chamille's response? "Wow, Carrie parenting!"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ashamed of causing global warming. I still own one can of spray
deoderant. It would be worse to throw it away than to keep it, but it
sits in the bathroom reminding me of my sin.***
Chamille would call that "Carrie" thinking. She has read book and watched the movie, analyzed them both and relates many things to it, among them, the crazy irrational thinking that some people get into that is almost religious, but goes beyond a simple faith!
Last week, the neighbor girl was grounded for doing something that God didn't approve of. I don't know what that something was, but the mom grounded her for it. Chamille's response? "Wow, Carrie parenting!"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>I like David Suzuki because he doesn't make me feel guilty, he just
> We do try to be conscious of our "butt-print" (as David Suzuki calls
> it, based on the amount of time folks spend on the road in their
> cars), but I am also aware that I (lil' ol' me) cannot control
> what's happening on the planet, even if I'd really like to save the
> polar bears.
makes me think. The same with Jane Goodall. They are people who have
worked in the field for many years and have much more realistic views
of our impact on the earth than eco-messiahs.
I don't think there's any harm in being aware of our actions. Perhaps
choosing sustainable materials is better for the people who produce
them or the villagers affected by a harvest. It's good to think
critically about our actions, no matter what they are. If someone is
making their family members miserable by their green-only actions,
that's where the first critical thinking should occur.
>I think people's opinions of everything, including unschooling, is
> However, I did not get the whole E^3 thing within the context of the
> CC blog comments. I still don't get it, even after the original
> commenter went in and explained (that it was in the context of the
> whole blog, not just the unschooling post).
colored by their worldview glasses. Someone whose life is invested in
E^3/peak aware cannot help but see education/learning/school or lack
of it through those specs.
That can be an expansive view or a narrow view.
Even unschoolers see life through unschooling glasses. A wider view
than most <g>.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***However, I did not get the whole E^3 thing within the context of the CC blog comments. I still don't get it, even after the original commenter went in and explained (that it was in the context of the whole blog, not just the unschooling post).***
I'm assuming that E^3 peak aware, is lingo for, I'm very environmentally aware, so much more than most people that I can use private lingo so that others that are as equally as environmentally aware can know how environmentally aware I am. Man, I like plain old English, thank you very much!
Since the blog is about environmental issues in general, and being a better environmentalist/aka "green" person, "green" person having a whole new meaning than the previously used meaning of being "new" at something, I can see that using private environmental lingo would elevate the status of the one using such lingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm assuming that E^3 peak aware, is lingo for, I'm very environmentally aware, so much more than most people that I can use private lingo so that others that are as equally as environmentally aware can know how environmentally aware I am. Man, I like plain old English, thank you very much!
Since the blog is about environmental issues in general, and being a better environmentalist/aka "green" person, "green" person having a whole new meaning than the previously used meaning of being "new" at something, I can see that using private environmental lingo would elevate the status of the one using such lingo.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***For Quakers, it's less about making arguments than about expressing our own experiences and ideas, but even so, I'd be glad to hear folks' thoughts about what might be productive ways to speak about wanting a more inclusive, rather than exclusive, toy policy.***
I suppose it is up to who funds the purchase of the toys and who actually gets put in charge of doing the purchasing. If this particular woman is funding and doing all the work of buying for and setting up the nursery, then she'll get the say of what goes in and what doesn't. If each person with children in the nursery brings a share of toys, then I'd think there would be a mix of things present and available. Sometimes the loudest person is the one who never actually helps.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I suppose it is up to who funds the purchase of the toys and who actually gets put in charge of doing the purchasing. If this particular woman is funding and doing all the work of buying for and setting up the nursery, then she'll get the say of what goes in and what doesn't. If each person with children in the nursery brings a share of toys, then I'd think there would be a mix of things present and available. Sometimes the loudest person is the one who never actually helps.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Emily S
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
My husband and I had a good laugh thinking about how much plastic they used for their canopy, table and banner. How much paper were they using for their fliers?! Did they drive there?
This was a family event, with lots of kids. Lots of fun, good food, celebration and joy. And here was this one bleak booth in the middle of it all- no celebration, no joy, just a black hole of doom and gloom. As we were walking about, my 4 year old asked about their booth (she was asking about all of them). I kind of dodged the question and moved on. What was I supposed to say? "Oh, honey, those people think that you never should have been born, because the trees are more important." Geez!
Now, I do believe in taking care of the Earth, but it is also here for us to use *wisely*. We should be good stewards of what we are given. I don't use any chemical cleaners or body care products, I try to eat as much organic, locally grown food as I can, and I'm starting my own organic garden this year. Honestly, that is mostly about taking care of our bodies, not the earth, but I am glad that doing one has the side effect of helping the other. I also recycle, use cloth bags, turn off lights and tv when they aren't in use, etc. But I won't put any of those things over relationships.
Emily
>I went to an Earth Day celebration, and there were lots of booth set up. One had a big banner that said "Thank You For Not Breeding." It was promoting "voluntary extinction" of humans to save the earth. Now, obviously, they weren't extincting *themselves,* they had just chosen not to have children for the sake of their cause and wanted to tell other people not to have kids either.
> Now THERE would be some REAL environmentalists. People are bad for
> the environment, so mankind should sacrifice itself so that endangered
> species can flourish once again. Way to serve mother earth in a
> direct way. We ALL drink the kool-aid!
>
My husband and I had a good laugh thinking about how much plastic they used for their canopy, table and banner. How much paper were they using for their fliers?! Did they drive there?
This was a family event, with lots of kids. Lots of fun, good food, celebration and joy. And here was this one bleak booth in the middle of it all- no celebration, no joy, just a black hole of doom and gloom. As we were walking about, my 4 year old asked about their booth (she was asking about all of them). I kind of dodged the question and moved on. What was I supposed to say? "Oh, honey, those people think that you never should have been born, because the trees are more important." Geez!
Now, I do believe in taking care of the Earth, but it is also here for us to use *wisely*. We should be good stewards of what we are given. I don't use any chemical cleaners or body care products, I try to eat as much organic, locally grown food as I can, and I'm starting my own organic garden this year. Honestly, that is mostly about taking care of our bodies, not the earth, but I am glad that doing one has the side effect of helping the other. I also recycle, use cloth bags, turn off lights and tv when they aren't in use, etc. But I won't put any of those things over relationships.
Emily
Sandra Dodd
-=- I find this irritating, but you know, I'm kind of irritable and I
don't generally care to argue about it. They get to make choices about
their kids just like I get to make choices about mine.-=-
She's talking about the toys the meeting will own, though, right?
So why not go with all wooden?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
don't generally care to argue about it. They get to make choices about
their kids just like I get to make choices about mine.-=-
She's talking about the toys the meeting will own, though, right?
So why not go with all wooden?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Since the blog is about environmental issues in general, and being
a better environmentalist/aka "green" person, "green" person having a
whole new meaning than the previously used meaning of being "new" at
something, I can see that using private environmental lingo would
elevate the status of the one using such lingo.-=-
Maybe it was a way to shake off those who had only come for the
unschooling discussion. Surely my own knowledge was tainted or
discredited because I asked the question. <bwg>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a better environmentalist/aka "green" person, "green" person having a
whole new meaning than the previously used meaning of being "new" at
something, I can see that using private environmental lingo would
elevate the status of the one using such lingo.-=-
Maybe it was a way to shake off those who had only come for the
unschooling discussion. Surely my own knowledge was tainted or
discredited because I asked the question. <bwg>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]