Category Archives: Uncategorized

Sirenomelia

Posted on by
2

When watching Sirenomelia, the visuals and sound effects in this were quite interesting. I was intrigued by the interaction with the glaciers and human-made disk. I feel this represents the relationship between the Ocean and humans, and how we interact with it does affect it. Just because we only see the surface doesn’t mean the deep isn’t important, or doesn’t have its own history. The underwater shots the camera got, versus the above ground shots of the glaciers were really interesting to me. I felt that they paralleled each other and the underground shots felt more intimate and scary. When we saw under the Ocean it felt more sort of ominous and alive, then the top of the Ocean where we see the glaciers. I believe this is represents our own relationship with the humans, and how it might be easier to disregard something when you can only see the surface. I think this video was trying to show this parallel, between the surface of the Ocean and the depth of it. I think it is showing that the Ocean has history, and us humans usually disregard it because OUR history is not in the depths of the Ocean. Yes we have history with exploring the surface of the Oceans and using it as transportation, but our own history does not include the Ocean. I thought it was interesting to think about this aspect when watching that video.

Not only this, but the underwater shots from the water, looking up at human made balcony or bridge, is also showing the effect humans have on the Ocean and the water. The relationship between the two in important, which is what this video/artwork is trying to show. We might not notice it because we are not underwater or looking up: We only see the surface. I also believe that this video , when underwater is in the perspective of the Sirens, as we see snippets of them swimming underwater. The curiosity they have of us humans, and the surface. This shot towards the end not only reminded me of the relationships between humans and the Ocean, but also humans and the unknown. I thought this depiction of Sirens and their perspective of looking through the surface of the water was very interesting to see shown, changing the narrative of only seeing the surface- as us humans do.

The Ocean as an Unconquerable Place

Posted on by
1

In this weeks readings, one of the things we read was the introduction chapter of the book “The Ocean Reader” by Eric Paul Roorda. This introductory chapter aimed to introduce people to the idea that despite the ocean being something people may consider an obstacle people must cross to reach new lands, the ocean is still a place with a lot of personality and history. I found this reading to be extremely interesting because, while it may be shameful to admit, I don’t know a lot about the ocean at all. As I follow this class, I think about how society acts towards the ocean and its qualities, but I am realizing that I am part of the problem simply by not thinking about or researching the ocean. While people may not drive to the ocean to dump their trash, a lot of people are not conscious about how even littering can pollute the ocean. The ocean takes up around 70% of the world, and polluting and ruining it will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world. By keeping people uninformed, we are letting ourselves not only disrespect the ocean and its history, but we are allowing the ocean to be polluted.

Roorda makes his point clear that although we have named several different oceans, ultimately, “There is one ocean… they all connect into one ocean” (2). Naming different oceans as if they are countries is the most humanity is willing to do in order to navigate the oceans better, but when it comes to treatment and care, humanity refuses to do anything because different countries feel they have no gain. While it is important to look out for yourself, looking out for the environment directly correlates to looking out for not only yourself, but your species. One thing I want to comment on that might not be directly relevant is how fascinating it is that I am now wondering why people are so ignorant about this, but until I took this class, I was mostly ignorant about this.

Week 10: The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
1

The introduction of “The Ocean Reader” had me thinking a lot about how we really don’t practically anything about the ocean nor do we care about the problems going on inside of it. I took Oceanography last semester and it was covered one of my GE requirements which is so interesting because how can you consider learning about the ocean general education when we really know nothing about it? It seems like we’re just scratching the surface of what is really going on. I wish we knew more about the oceans as there is so many unknowns as to what is truly in the depths. I think that’s why so many myths and legends about sea monsters and mythical creatures are stemmed from the ocean. They originate from our innate curiosity and even fear of the unknown depths. These not only reflect our fascination with the ocean but also serve as a reminder of the impact it has on our collective consciousness. And I hope as we continue to explore the possibilities of the oceans, more species will be discovered and phenomena that may inspire more myths and legends in the future.

It is also perplexing to me that the ocean covers more than half of our planet and it hasn’t been a priority to explore it. I think we often just overlook what goes on in the ocean because we can’t see what’s happening so we pretend it’s not in trouble. I like how in the text the author made the decision to capitalise Ocean as it gives it more of an emphasis and significance. I think it’s crucial for people to understand how much of an impact our ocean has on our lives.I also like how convincing this introduction is written as it draws you in to want to read more about how crucial the seas are to our survival.

The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
Reply
When completing this week’s reading, I really liked the descriptions used in The Ocean Reader Theory. Not only did it outline the separation between Humans and the Ocean, but how the Ocean is seen as deep, dark, and scary to most people. The separation between the ocean and the land, for humans, is solely because the ocean is harder to “conquer” or develop than land is. It explains this aspect in the text when it says “It has always been difficult for humans to think of the ocean as a place. Those who have considered the watery majority of the planet on its own terms have often seen it as a changeless space, one without a history. Because the ocean can’t be plowed , paved, or shaped in ways the eye is able to discern, it has seemed to be a constant, while the land changed drastically over centuries.” (page 1) I liked how this paper outlined the separation between the ocean and the land, because of how humans view it as not having a history. Although the fish and marine population have history in the ocean, and the ocean is just as changeable as the land even if us humans cannot see it. I thought this was a very interesting description of how the ocean and the land are different and the same all at once. Now that I am thinking about it I have never really thought much about the history of the oceans, we are taught about Geology, earthquakes, land change, etc in school but I have never learned much about the history of the oceans. There are more opportunities and options now to learn about the Ocean, but it is just not as important to humans as land history is. Just because we are not living in the Ocean doesn’t mean its protection and history isn’t just as important as the lands. This makes me think about how not only do we claim to have explored the Ocean (only about 5 percent), but also how humans disregarded the importance of other things if it does not affect them. We see this with social justice issues, gender, race, and etc all the time. If you do not fall into a category it isn’t important.” I thought it was interesting how this idea applies to the ocean, land, humans, and more. Moving to other parts of The Ocean Reader, I thought the term “Terracentratism ” was quite interesting, a term that is referring to people’s tendency of considering the world’s activity only taking place on land, excluding the Ocean. This is the whole theme of this paper, which I find to be super interesting to read about. Overall, I focused on this paper out of the readings because of how I feel it strongly applies to today, and how we are terrestrial focused and how the Oceans history is commonly bypassed.

week ten: the ocean…

Posted on by
1

so we had two readings that touched upon the same issue- focusing on the ocean instead of focusing on the land itself. The article the Ocean Reader brought up a very fair point about how the ocean as a whole was (and still is) something we used in many different ways

“It serves as an introduction to the multifaceted Ocean, which is an enormous and very complicated system. Humans interact with that system in many ways. They relentlessly hunt
sea creatures, taking 90 million tons of fish from it annually. They use it as a highway, with 100,000 ships at sea right now. They study it, find inspiration in it, play on it, and fight over it.” (3)

Now personally, when someone puts it like that, it really kind of shows the impact the ocean has. We were afraid of it for a very long time (our overconsumption and our use of the ocean today is pretty modern) before recently. Even now, we take it for granted, because all we see out of it is something to exploit, to use and to discard. We take the life from it and then pretend like it didn’t have life in it. It’s as the other article says at the very beginning- “Without conscious choice, writers have embedded a terrestrial bias… Dry land is presumed the norm.” (7 Vast Oceans)

We need the ocean more than it needs us, really- and we need to treat it way better. Without the ocean, would things be as advanced as they would? A better appreciation of the ocean would definitely change things, but I think that can only really happen when we shift our focus towards it. Granted, we need to care more about the planet in general, but that also includes the ocean.

The Ocean as a Place

Posted on by
Reply

Before modern scientific exploration, the Ocean was seen as an expanse devoid of life. This was a belief that prevailed until the 19th century. This was mainly due to the Ocean being vastly unknown, there was a lot of space left up to humans to create and imagine many things. Because of this perspective, there were also many superstitions and fears when it came to the ocean’s depths. Eventually, scientists experienced modern technology and were able to explore the Ocean and the diversity of life within. When reading Eric Paul Roorda’s text, many things stood out. Still, on exploring the theme of the Ocean being seen as devoid of life, Roorda mentions how the Ocean was seen as inexhaustible which is one of the reasons for our climate crisis. However, this was not why it stood out, it stands out mainly because of the contrast in views. “The fish and marine mammal populations of the Ocean have also seemed unchangeable, inexhaustible, and impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters. But such is not the case.” (p.1) The Ocean has been overexploited for many years since people began to fish and attempt to conquer the Ocean, which led me to the question: If the Ocean was viewed as devoid of life, why was it also seen as unchangeable and inexhaustible? For me at least, they are two very different states. Something inexhaustible to me is everchanging and abundant, so, if people had seen it almost as lifeless, why did they believe it was an everlasting resource for them?

Reading post: Week 9

Posted on by
2
When reading the Emergence of the environmental humanities, it was very interesting to hear more about the effects we humans have on the environment. As the first section we read discusses the human effects on the earth and environment, and how the way we are living is not sustainable for the earth to thrive. I like how this article points out the fact that researchers and scientists can help identify the problems of o overconsumption and human affects on the earth, but they alone can not change it. This is a very important point a lot of people miss, because a small group of the population cannot solve this crisis, the article states “Solutions will require political and cultural expertise as well” (pg. 1). Not only do political and cultural changes need to be made, but other people need to make this effort to change and adapt as well. When trying to make these solutions in our cities and homes, the public, scientists, and excerpts need to be consulted before big cooperations try to be “eco-friendly.” This is a point that is talked about numerous times in this article, as efficient change cannot be made without efficient resources and consults, in order to do the job right. It states in the article “That brings us to a final strongly held position across the environmental humanities: that humanists use offer constructive knowledge as well as criticism” (pg. 2). This is the point of the article, they are not saying they have the solutions but they are saying that if more people consult humanists for solutions and criticism, progress could be made. I really liked the display of knowledge in this article, after every statement or argument the authors made we’re backed up with facts. Not only was this beneficial to their claim, but also to help me better understand the humanists too. The evolution of ecologists, scientists, and humanist’s is how we have gotten to where we are today, and society needs to turn to them for assistance. This goes through the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and etc, which helps paint a picture on the evolution of their knowledge. The environmental humanities was shaped postcolonial and feminist studies, shaping the ideas that have evolved today. These new ideas challenged some of the older ones, about the environment and such, shaping the way people think today. I found this evolution and aspect very interesting the read about. and see how it has effected new ideas today.

Humanity is Nature’s Greatest Parasite

Posted on by
2

In this weeks reading of “The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities” by David Nye, I found the breakdown of humanities treatment of nature to be extremely interesting. I had never considered how much information about societal constructs could be told from analyzing humanities poor treatment of nature. From the very beginning, we are coerced into realizing that environmental humanities is a relatively new thing, which I had never considered. Its creation shows a lot about how people are realizing their mistakes with their treatment of nature. Society has unintentionally made the poor treatment of nature the standard for nations to thrive since the Industrial Revolution. While there are now people trying to fight back against this unsustainable way of survival, many nations and industries will not dare to accept a change because it could mess with profits or disrupt the flow of a lot of populations.

What interested me the most is idea of ecoracism. Ecoracism is the concept that wealthy nations will “outsource their pollution” (p18) to poor countries in order to maintain a clean and healthy country. While one nation will benefit, the other country will see the build up of an unsustainable ecosystem. For a superpower to create an unhealthy environment for a less fortunate country shows that we are blatantly allowing modern day imperialism. This is a huge problem in itself because it paints the average person as either ignorant, an enabler, or too lazy to do something about the issue. The lack of unity against the issue matters because solving the environment crisis is not an attainable goal without unity. Even if people choose to ignore the issue, eventually everybody is going to feel the effects. Nature does not know any borders. Natural resources are being depleted from the planet that is shared by all of humanity. Eventually, superpower nations will not be able to throw their pollution in other countries.

It is incredibly alarming that people have access to this information and do nothing about the impending issues that will be impossible to ignore. Humanity is derived by nature, and I personally believe humanity could thrive with the natural resources we have access to if greed and comfortability were not an issue. While there are some true efforts to fix the environment, if people are not unified it will not be able to be fixed.

Reflection on “The Blue Humanities” by John R. Gillis

Posted on by
3

The article discusses many aspects of humans’ understanding about the ocean. It begins by stating that humans know more about the moon than the depth of the ocean, which is amusing considering we live alongside it. Because of it being unknown, the article explains the ocean was feared before the 19th century. It was perceived as “dangerous and repellant, ugly and unfit for literary or artistic representation” (Gillis). However, in the 19th century it was through literary and artistic representation that humans began to connect with the ocean and use it to reflect their own lives. I thought this was fascinating because it became a sort of trend for people and even those who didn’t associate with the ocean, still represented traces of it in their daily lives, the article quotes, “the ocean entered the minds, homes, dreams, and conversation of ordinary people.” It was in the 19th and 20th century that the sea was finally associated with life rather than death as a “three-dimensional living thing with a history, geography, and a life of its own.” In relation, Writers and painters turned their attention to the ocean when nations turned away and allowed for the ocean to be a place for metaphors. Another big part of this cultural shift is archeology and anthropology because it brought us more knowledge about the history of the ocean through scientific studies. The ocean began to shift from a lifeless place to a place filled with life. Today, we are able to explore the history of the ocean and its characteristics, “ocean currents, tides, and waves.” Overall, blue humanities, as mentioned in the article, “recognizes the close relationship between modern western culture and the sea” which highlights the cultural shift humans have had and continue to have with the sea.

Week 9: Humanities

Posted on by
1

so this time it was a reading and not quite from the penguin book or the other one which is an interesting change of pace. It talks about how environmental humanities have been in the works for awhile, which I believe: we’ve been aware of climate change since the 60s at the earliest (if I recall correctly). But reading it really reaffirmed a theme that we touch upon in class which is that of humanity’s role within nature.

”human beings are not merely observers they are an active part of nature”. (Page 8) We have shaped nature all throughout history physically and figuratively (through stuff like folklore and mythology). Even today we’re still trying to understand nature more and more (especially since we have a profound effect on it)In a way, it makes sense why environmental humanities became more and more relevant (with understanding comes widespread knowledge, and more awareness). At the same time, though, I hope we aren’t too late with it. Maybe being so divorced from nature has made us care less? Not to say that the developed world is horrible and we should revert back to a simpler life, but the more we move forward, the less we seem concerned with our planet

I had to type this on my iPhone. .