Put a fork in it!

It's been a long semester, but its finally come to an end.  Honestly its been pretty fun, L learned a lot, did some stuff I didn't think I would ever do, taught some kids about vegetables, ate vegetables, and visited Greenpoint, BK. But hey, its all part of being in the Food Justice League.

scope it and take yourself a souvenir

How bad could the pink slime be?

In his book, Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere (2nd Edition), Robert Cox writes that "the appeal to 'sound science' in environmental policy reflected a keen awareness of the cultural norm that policy should be as free as possible of political bias and grounded in reliable and valid knowledge" (303).  However, he is pretty knowledgeable of the real world, and acknowledges that this appeal is idealistic by stating, "agency budgets, pressures from political constituents, ideology, and other factors limit the extent to which policy decisions flow directly from scientific findings"(303). 

He goes on to describe how industries challenge scientific findings about chemical contamination or atmospheric contamination, or any other environmental damage, by funding their own scientific research, then releasing a favorable report to mass media outlets as source information, which in turn  creates multiple public results and results in "the public's questioning of the legitimacy of scientific claims and scientific consensus about environmental problems" (311).  According to cox, "feeling uncertain about an issue, the advice goes, the public will be less motivated to demand action" (310).  

I have a theory for thought- that through out the recent history of mankind, the past 2000 years, society has been driven, by religion, science, and economics.  In that order too, but not exclusively so...Think about the major movements in history.  Generally speaking and simplifying things, back in the day, when the Egyptians were building pyramids, to when Moses parted the Red Sea,  to when the Pope was waging war campaigns in the Middle East,everything was done in the name of God, in other cultures it was some other deity.  Then in the 14th century, the Renaissance happened and it was followed by the Age of Enlightenment.  During the Enlightenment; people started investigating and making sense of the natural world and scientific thought was prominent in society, rational discussion about social issues and ideas in the public sphere was seen as necessary, alchemy evolved into modern chemistry.  Society was driven by the interest in scientific discovery.  Then after we entered the Industrial and now Informational Age, society has become driven almost strictly by economic gain, the need for another dollar. 

All three of these things play and may have always existed in society, at the same time, however usually one is more leading than the other.  And it seems to me that in our society, science and religion have been pitted against each other, such that they are irreconcilable, and that way economics wins by default.  Religious charity works and organizations can really positively impact a community or group of people.  Science can really positively impact the lives of many people too. There is no reason that a religious person who believes that God created life and Earth can't work together with a scientist who sees climate change as a threat to life in order to come up with a solution for a common cause, that is to take care of Earth and the life on it.  Yet for some reason in culture religion and science cannot seem to come together, and in turn economic monetary gains is the determining factor for policy and dominates ideology. 

Question: What do you get when you combine science and religion?....Magic.  

Pictures of hurricanes

courtesy of NASA Images

Cool blog bro

In his book, Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere, Robert Cox does a pretty good job at explaining the adapting role and benefits of social media for gathering information about environmental issues in the twenty-first century. It is important to know about the relevancy of social media because whether it is individual advocacy or a more organized advocacy campaign, “in drawing attention to, criticizing, or mobilizing around a specific environmental problem, activist today rarely rely on one social media tool” (Cox, 192).

Because of social media, the means of environmental communication and advocacy have broadened and become more accessible.  Social media and social networks have allowed for a more lubricated means of spreading environmental information from news and journalistic site and creating buzz around trending issues.  Because of the easy of creating, uploading, and disseminating information online, there is much more citizen reporting and documenting, which means more ethical accountability for public and private institutions. 

Moreover, social networking has allowed for the forming of online communities and targeted special interest groups.  These groups may stay online, but they might also mobilize in person and take their advocacy to the streets; “today, environmental, climate, and social justice activists are using the full suite of social media in their organizing efforts” (Cox, 189).

I found it interesting when Cox discusses the ironic challenge of “efficient” media, that is “social media is clearly an efficient tool for targeting key groups by my be constrained by this very advantage” (Cox, 198).  What happens when communicating to a small committed group of people is that, only the people that care, care to search, learn, mobilize, or act.  “The challenge of social media, therefore, is that it may require a wider strategic repertoire of media, enabling activists to communicate beyond the choir when necessary” (Cox, 198).  

I think that differentiation, a steady flow of new content, and promotion of utility is necessary for a social media effort to attain the interests of the masses.  In a culture influenced by a capitalistic ideology, a source’s reinvention and/or innovation are perceived as desirable, or at least interesting, traits to consumers, think about how many of your “socially-conscious” friends bought the iPhone 4gs because it had a slight, hardly noticeably, difference to the identical looking 4g.  The marketing techniques used for the iPhone, can be translated to the services of a blog, or any online site.  It has to appear different from other competitors in the market a balance of both aesthetics and function; it has to keep providing updated material, that is to stay relevant and keep people interested; and it needs to be marketed to a perceptive lifestyle, that is it "may" improve one's lifestyle. 

Or if you want your blog to be successful, for a lot of people to read it, "take it seriously", and be spread around via social networking, all you have to do is work within the Google search ranking system, that is the more hits you get, the more hits you will get.  Generally only the top ten search results, the first page after entering in your search, is all that people pay attention too.  If you don’t feel like doing the footwork of shameless wallplugs on your friends’ facebook pages, twitter blasts, and spamming forums and youtube comments, then you can always just pay for key-word search rankings with Google Adwords.  With Adwords, you can pay a fee so that when people search for “benefits of guano as fertilizer” your site will seem legit with it when it pops up number one.