The End (Entry #5)

Finally, we reach the conclusion of the University Colloquium course at Florida Gulf Coast University. The assignment for this entry asked me to talk about the course both from an academic, and a personal perspective. Well, from the academic side of things, I fail to see what point this course has for students who do not have a major that relates to environmental activism. The entirety of the course seemed to be the debate of various issues regarding the environment and the climate of Earth. While I enjoy debating contemporary issues of almost any sort, I find it hard to debate when one side of the argument's strategy is to stomp their feet and yell about how the science is settled. This also relates to my personal perspective of the class, which is that it felt like a waste of time and money. Therefore, I feel that this class will have very little, if any, impact on my either my political science major, or management minor, nor on my personality.

Regarding what I did or didn't enjoy about the course, I did not enjoy how the course refused to show the perspective of anyone other than people who made predictions of climate doom and gloom, that it presumed that there was no such thing as a "climate skeptic". I also did not care for how the course seemed to be nothing more than showing up to class, being shown videos, having discussion about said videos, and then calling it a day. Lastly, I disliked when an issue besides the environment was discussed (the housing bubble collapse), the video shown was not anything of substance, but an HBO movie, which as far as I'm concerned, is like Steven Spielberg trying to make an action movie about a kid falling off his bike and breaking an arm. No matter how you edit it or how many cool visual effects you cram in there, it's still a kid falling off their bike and breaking their arm.

All that being said, I did enjoy some aspects of the class. It was nice to see the natural beauty of Southwest Florida at areas such as the Ding Darling preserve, and Big Cypress. It was also nice to see the various techniques on display at ECHO that were being taught to people in need all over the world. The experience of visiting the city of Fort Myers was something very different for me, since I grew up in a fairly rural, suburban setting, and the last time I was in an actual city was when my family took a trip to Rome. Lastly, I enjoyed meeting the people in the class.

Collapse (Entry #4)

I'm sure that in distant years to come, when our grandchildren are playing and having fun, historians will look back at the financial crisis of 2008 with a bit more clarity. Right now though, regardless of the fact that the problems which caused the meltdown are obvious, certain individuals would rather spin the truth for short-term gain, rather than try to learn from mistakes made. Despite what some may say, the reasons behind the collapse are not as complicated as you'd think. In short, people loaned money to debtors who wouldn't be able to pay it back. To be more specific, we have to go back in time, to the era of Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations.

So where do we begin? Under Reaganomics, there were large reductions in tax rates, along with a significant drop in federal spending and a decrease in business regulation. Unlike the tax, spend and regulate policies of previous administrations, revenues for the government soared, as did growth in the economy. This continued through the administration of President Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, and later under President Clinton after the Republican-controlled Congress passed a set of laws entitled the "Contract with America." Though the growth had slowed slightly, when George W. Bush took office in 2001, he wished to see it come roaring back, as did the American people. So with that sentiment in mind, President Bush signed some of the largest tax cuts of our nation's existence into law. However, September 11th changed perspectives. Federal spending took off like a shot in order to fund the War on Terror. Furthermore, in 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (a bill that pumped a massive amount of money into the federal Department of Education) and Medicare Part D (a bill that pumped another massive amount of money to pay for prescription drugs), which made more demands for money to fund the federal government, along with its various responsibilities. The economy, however, was not in the same boat. It was growing, particularly in the real estate business. The "American Dream" was redefined from being able to pursue one's own happiness, to owning your own house. The problems really began when bankers, being pressured by individuals in Congress and the White House, and being out of customers with good credit to loan money to, lowered their standards and began loaning money to people with bad credit. We've seen the ads on TV, on billboards, cries of loan approval regardless of your circumstances, or your ability to pay back the money to be loaned. Furthermore, the structure of loans in general was changed. Originally, when you went to the bank for a home loan, the bank was the one giving you the money, leading them to be careful about just who they lent money to. Now, the bank is not the originator of the lending money. The money comes from investment banks, whose money comes from private investors. The money lent, along with debts from items such as credit card debt and car loans, is consolidated into something called a CDO (Collateralized  Debt Obligation). These CDOs are then graded by credit rating agencies, and investors back them based on their rating. When banks gave loans to debtors who would likely not pay back their loans, ratings agencies would often still rate these "subprime" mortgages as AAA, the highest possible rating, since that was how the ratings agencies got paid. Because of this, when they eventually defaulted on the loans, the banks wouldn't be on the hook, it'd be the investors.

These conditions produced a bubble of increasing prices in the real estate business, along with a boom of building new houses. When 2008 came around, the bubble finally came crashing down. Subprime mortgage holders defaulted in droves, making worthless millions of dollars of investor's dollars. This caused the investment banks who had organized the investing to topple. This, coupled with a loss of confidence in the banking system and stock market, caused the current recession. President Barack Obama's solution, which was followed by the Democrat-controlled Congress, was to pump billions of dollars into bailing out the larger investment banks, along with a few private companies who were hit hardest by their failing.

In my humble opinion, this course of action was incorrect. In our current financial state, where we are borrowing more money that we're earning from our economy, it would possibly be better to let firms which made bad financial decisions to fail, rather than reward them for their mistakes by borrowing more money that we don't have.

Fort Myers From the POV of a Tampa Native (Entry #3)

When I decided on going to Florida Gulf Coast University a couple years back, I never did look into the history of Fort Myers. Going in, I assumed it was a bit of a sleepy town that was just getting larger amounts of traffic due to the university and all the construction and development that goes with that. My initial impressions seemed to support this, as the only major areas of interest to me were the Gulf Coast Town Center mall and the various beaches around Fort Myers. After watching the Untold Stories of Fort Myers video, I feel enlightened about the hidden history of Fort Myers which I had previously left untouched.

To start with, I was surprised with the money and time that both Thomas Edison and Henry Ford invested into Fort Myers. Edison, in particular, built a sprawling winter home here, which is now a major tourist attraction. I visited Edison's estate myself when I was younger, and was amazed at the collection of oddities from Edison's life, along with the serenity of the whole home. Untold Stories also related Fort Myer's beginning, in which the town wasn't named Fort Myers at all. It was originally a small outpost called Fort Harvey which was an outpost during the Seminole wars. Later, the outpost became a Union base during the Civil War. It was around this time that Fort Harvey became Fort Myers, and a sleepy town of 350 people broke off from Monroe County to form Lee County, named after the Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The town continued to grow, with the downtown area being the main hub of growth. Then, like the rest of the nation, the Great Depression stopped all of that cold. But the second World War helped Fort Myers back onto its feet, giving it a concrete airport and bringing an influx of young servicemen and women who returned to Fort Myers after the war. The town was also one of the last in Florida to integrate the schools. Speaking of schools, Fort Myers was a bit of an educational desert until the founding of Edison Community College in the 1960's. It was not until 1991, when Florida Gulf Coast University was established, that Fort Myers residents could get a four-year baccalaureate or graduate degree without leaving the area.

Overall, the history of Fort Myers wasn't at all what I expected, and having learned about it, I'm excited for the trip to the downtown Fort Myers area tomorrow with the rest of the class.

A Kid's Favorite Part of School (Entry #2)

When I was in elementary school, every kid had a favorite part of the day. Some of the kids loved playing with toys at the end of the day. Others loved being read to. But the vast majority of kids, myself included, loved hearing that siren call for recess. Both of the elementary schools I attended were blessed with large playgrounds and abundant ways to play. Of course, this was back in the 90's. When I went to a local elementary school near Fort Myers as part of an assignment for another class, I saw what passes for recess in the 21st century. The kid in me was not impressed. The kids had not even half the space I did, despite my schools being much smaller and less-endowed in terms of money. A good part of that space was taken up by blacktop and fencing. The kids were restricted to a small area, and only allowed to play in certain situations under direct supervision. It made no sense to me. And this position is mirrored by Richard Louv in his article "Nature-Deficit Disorder and the Restorative Environment." He too notes how recess has been reduced down to a quick run from the class to a fence and back, and how some schools have actually done away with recess entirely. He argues that while test scores are important, the lack of recess, and nature in general, has caused an increase in symptoms associated with ADHD, or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

According to Louv, the increase in ADHD is due to a deficit in exposure to nature in children. He backs this up by detailing a number of accounts of children who have been diagnosed with ADHD, who showed inattentiveness, had trouble listening to directions, and had anti-social tendencies, being exposed to natural settings and having an easier time of overcoming their disability. He offers having ADHD kids taken to parks, beaches, and generally being encouraged to go outside as an alternative to drugs. I think that his suggestion makes sense. The kids at the local elementary that I mentioned earlier? They didn't look half as lively in class until they went outside and played for a bit. For me, one of the worst experiences in school was when my 2nd grade teacher refused to let my class go to recess because a kid was causing some shenanigans in class. If I were in a position to do so, I would advocate that schools should, instead of trying to increase test scores by placing kids in classrooms buried deep in the center of the school, with no windows or natural sights, that they instead allow kids the time outside that they need in order to succeed.

The second article that I was assigned was a chapter from Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers. The chapter was called "2050: The Great Stumpy Reef?" The chapter described how certain industrial processes were destroying the coral reefs which, besides being natural beauties in their own right, were also the main suppliers of food for millions of people. In particular, he talks about industry putting iron into the air, which caused massive blooms of plankton that fed on the iron, while killing the reefs at the same time. And while I'm not disputing that, I would also like to note that you could get the same problem from a volcanic eruption in certain areas of the world. A volcanic eruption would probably cause more damage and throw up more ash and harmful particles than industry would, especially here in the US where we take precautions in order to drastically reduce harmful emissions.

Our Little Blue Ball (Entry #1)

Whether you believe that Earth was created in six days, or over the course of many millions, even billions of years, I don't think it's arguable that we have a very pretty blue ball of a planet. That being said, I don't think we are getting another one for Christmas any time soon. So it should be a priority for us to make sure this one lasts, not just for us, but for our children and their's. That being said, I feel that a great number of the people who claim to want to help our planet the most do not have a firm grasp on defining how to "save the planet",  instead possessing a firm grasp on "how to guilt-trip the other guy." And this was how I found myself reacting when I read Vandana Shiva's article entitled: "What is Biodiversity and Why is it So Important?" Her tone throughout is that of someone speaking from a kind of high ground of ecological superiority, as if to say "Look at me everyone, I am better than you because I emit less carbon-dioxide!" Sadly, this attitude is true of most environmentalists, whose sole purpose appears to be either yelling about the supposed consensus regarding climate change, or complaining about something, somewhere, being threatened by some evil industrialist or other kind of businessperson. Her article does state some legitimate problems that are happening in the world today, but most of it focuses on an apparent lack of diversity in animals and plants used for food. It appears to me, that Ms. Shiva has not reflected on the possibility that maybe certain species of animals and plants died out for a reason other than human influence. One statistic she brings up is how, in the UK, "three varieties of potatoes make up 68% of the crop; one variety makes up the remaining 32%." The statistic brings up some questions, however. For example, how many kinds of potatoes were there before she got her information, and is that number relevant? If there are only four kinds of potatoes being used today, why is that? What caused the other kinds of potatoes to go unused for farming? Additionally, is it possible that those other kinds of potatoes were bred into the current varieties as a way to give the current kinds certain properties or even flavors that the other potatoes had? Shiva instead jumps to the conclusion that it is simply due to human arrogance that people in UK grocery stores don't have dozens of potato types to choose from. She constantly brings up how this lack of biodiversity carries a grave threat to the world, and describes numerous happenings that are supposedly the fault of this lack of biodiversity. Despite these multiple warnings of doom and gloom, her article is very short on possible solutions, indeed there are no solutions stated in this article about how to repopulate the UK with more than four kinds of potatoes. In this age of genetic engineering, I would suggest looking into the current varieties genomes in order to discern the properties of older potatoes, and possibly even reconstitute the genetic code of these missing spuds. Just a thought.

Moving on to the next article, I was quite honestly expecting more of the same. But Jane Goodall showed a number of scenarios in her article "Hope Animals and Their World" where the solutions were not only present, but were often incredibly feasible. One of my favorites describes how a young boy, the son of a copper miner in Utah, told his dad, upon seeing the dead mountainside of the Oquirrh Mountains, that he would, one day, go up those mountains and put the trees back. It was considered an impossible task and a childish vision. The area had been damaged seemingly beyond repair by intensive logging, sheep grazing, and the industrial processes from the copper mine. Twenty years after he made his pledge, the boy, Paul Rokich, started his task as a man. Every evening, every weekend, for many years, Paul would carry buckets of grass seed up the mountain, driving as far as he could, and then walking the remainder of the way to sow the seeds. For fifteen years, he would do this, usually with just his own money, and the occasional support from friends and family. His perseverance paid off, and today, after receiving help from the mining company, the Oquirrh Mountains are now covered in the trees and plants that were hand-seeded by Paul Rokich those many years ago. I'm happy to say that the rest of Goodall's article was filled with similar tales, though most were not given as much detail as Rokich's. This is the thing that most of the leading environmentalists do not seem to understand. They want to sit and yell about how the world is going down the tubes and it's all the fault of the rich/industrialists/1%/humans in general, while offering no solutions beyond "Down with the rich guy!" If you ask me, if you're going to be yelling at everyone, telling them how horrible they are for not living like a caveman, then either you should be living like a caveman too, or you should be doing your best to find a solution that will solve both problems. As the old saying goes, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.