1. If you think about the environment "objectively," you're just deceiving yourself and depriving the earth of the agency it used to be given. Semiotics and philosophy have made this seem like this is a viable way of going about environmental studies and storytelling, but Latour thinks that it is a dangerous act. 

2. Science has to be reimagined so that there is not a "natural world" that is separate from the world at large. The Earth can be reworked and reimagined through the establishment of a new social contract that distributes agency to among the natural and the social. Latour suggests that this can happen if we find a way to ground objects and subjects that are currently deanimated and overanimated.

1) The inseperability to humans and everything else, that there are many sources of agency from the metamorphic zone that meet in the trading zone

2) The animation and deanimation of previously thought "inanimate" objects, also keeping in mind the goal is not to "reconcile distinct domains" of nature and society

3) The lack of objectivity, acknowledging more than the shape of something

Why gaia? There are many other earth deities in many cultures and traditions. Is it to validate mythology and storytelling alongside and beside "objective" science? 

Joie Waxler   

12/2/15

Adrienne Rich Tells The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth And But Robby Wideman’s Truth is a Lie

Main points:

1) Cannot talk about climate change with just the numbers, need the human aspect too

2) Authors of the past can be applied to modern-day fiascos

3) Nature can destroy us and live without humans, we cannot live with out nature

Question:

Is Latour prompting us to act? If yes, is his argument strong enough to convince us?

Three ideas that Latour brings up in his essay, Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene, include the problem of anthropocentric language, the problem with objectivity and subjectivity ("all agents share the same shape-changing destiny...that cannot be... represented by using any of the older traits associated with subjectivity or objectivity" (15)), and the idea of the "metamorphic zone," which is the "common source of agency" (13). 
A question I have is to what extend do we stop talking about characters and only talk about their common source? 

Hey everyone!

So the BMC Engineers and Makers Club is holding a Cardboard Boat workshop this Saturday and Sunday. Basically you get into teams and each team makes a cardboard boat and the next day you get to race them in the pool! It is really fun and I am so excited for it. You can win an Amazon Gift Card! I have attached a flyer with the information about the workshop as well as my email address. If you wish to participate please email me! It's going to be awesome!

If you are unable to commit to the whole workshop you are welcome to come watch the races on Sunday, December 6, at 1:30pm at the pool.

We meet both days in room 100 in the Park Science Building.

 Hope to see you there!

These are quotes that summarize some points that I think Latour is trying to make:

1. "people are not equipped with the mental and emotional repertoire to deal with such a vast scale of events". I think that Latour is referring to the fact that even though we have the knowledge about climate change, we don't have the mental and emotional ability to comprehend how extreme our effects on the environment are. 

2. the Earth "is agitated through the highly complex workings of many enmeshed living organisms", meaning that not only are there external pressures that change the environment, but the organisms that are surviving off of this very environment are also 'agitating' it and changing its basic structure. 

Within Agency at the Time of Anthropocene, by Bruno Latour, I believe there are more than three main ideas presented. Three main ideas that did stand out to me, however, were: