Worthwhile Endeavors

Often, we hear people say to each other, “It’s not worth it.” This phrase is used in many contexts:

·         “Yo, bro, she’s not worth it,” might be translated to:

o   “It’s not worth putting forth the social and emotional effort to make a connection with this woman because she will not give you the results you desire.”

·         “He’s not worth it,” might mean:

o   “It’s better not to get emotionally involved with him because his lifestyle habits are sure to break your heart in the long run.”

o   “It’s not worth putting your heart and soul into someone who cannot reciprocate your feelings.”

·         “Lol it’s not worth it,” could mean:

o   “It isn’t worth attempting to explain your point of view to this person because they will not listen.”

o   “It’s not worth taking time and effort out of my day to provide you with information you could easily find yourself when I know you won’t appreciate it.”

o   “It isn’t worth deliberating political ideologies/religious beliefs because you cannot see past misinformation and falsehoods to accept empirical data and facts.”

·         Other uses include:

o   “It’s not worth looking for food in that part of the forest because the only thing that grows there is poison oak.”

o   “It’s not worth looking for psychedelic mushrooms in the woods because the best ones grow on the edges of open fields.”

In all of these cases, you will notice that there is specificity. What is the thing someone wants to and why is it not worth doing? I think today’s society has begun to drop the specificity from this phrase, using it vaguely to avoid confrontation, discourse, and engagement with other people socially.

I recently commented on a friend’s status on Facebook. She’s going through a difficult time; her baby daddy is an alcoholic and she recently ended the relationship with him, she’s pregnant with their second baby and the dad is still living with her as a roommate because she works herself to the bone to provide for the house but doesn’t make enough money to support herself and her babies alone… There’s a lot going on in her life and I find myself doing everything in my power, in my own busy life, to support her and offer my sympathy, empathy, advice, and past experiences for her to think about.

I will not deny that I have a specific set of life experiences that my friends do not and, in some ways, this gives me an advantage in perspective. I strive to use this to others’ advantages, as well, by providing insight and information where I see opportunity. My hopes are that when I am incorrect on any topic, someone will correct me with the same level of respect I provide.

In the status upon which I recently commented, someone else commented, “I’ll pray for you.” I’ve seen this many times as well and have come to realize that it is a highly unhelpful thing to say to someone who is going through a hard time, especially when they have expressed specifics of their hardship and left open ways in which others can actually offer assistance. So, I clicked reply and said, “Curious: How is that helpful?” I was prepared to be ignored or even to have a response come from the commenter along the lines of, “Mind your own business,” or, “It’s how I show support.” I would have accepted a multitude of different answers or even no answer at all, but the response I received was from relatives of the person I’d asked, none of whom saw fit to actually answer the question and all of whom thought it better to use sarcasm and intolerance when conversing with me. The exception was the person to whom I’d asked the question; she remained calm and detached throughout, ignoring my question entirely while chiming in a couple of times with a witty remark.

Thus ensued a long thread of comments in response to my question, wherein one particular “sister” of the original commenter took quite a bit of time and energy to engage with me and even send me a private message. Her message was one of clear projection wherein she said that my cheery disposition didn’t “fool” her and that I should remain silent any time someone says they’re going to pray. Naturally, she mentioned something about knowing my place…

I responded, so naturally, she had to have the last word, and her last message to me was sent directly prior to her adding me to her blocked list. That was a bummer because I had a pretty good response to her. I’ll include it at the end of this entry.

When I realized she had blocked me and my message wouldn’t go through, I checked my notifications again to see a response to the thread that had blown up due to my question. I clicked the notification and read the response, giving it some thought before typing my own reply. Unfortunately, that didn’t go through either, as the original comment upon which we were all replying had been deleted from the status. The last reply read, “it’s not worth it,” thus, the subject of this entry. My response to such a claim was to ask what, exactly, was not worth what.

I think, in times like these, those who say, “It’s not worth it,” think they are saying, “It’s not worth talking to this person because they won’t understand you,” but are actually saying, “It’s not worth putting time and energy into a discussion if it could change your mind about a subject; conversations are only worthwhile when those engaging in it are already in agreement.” This is a rather abhorrent thought, as it is the kind of thinking I believe perpetuates stupidity and resistance to change and progress.

What perplexes me about her response, in this case, was the fact that I had made a point of commending the person with whom I disagreed. I pointed out the admirability of her ability to stay up for long hours late at night in order to provide support to our mutual friend. That is, after all, no small feat. Naturally, though, as is the case with many discussions begun with pseudo-religious hard-headed zealots, my kindness was ignored in favor of cherry-picking as much as they could find to prove how much of an asshole I am.

As promised, her last message is included here; it told me that my question was completely impolite—at this point, I think we could agree to disagree—and that I’m one of those people who thinks my opinions are all superior to everyone else’s. She then told me that she doesn’t “have time for this childish behavior,” and told me to have a good day while she went off to click “block” on me. My response, which failed to go through due to the block, was as follows:

It's cute that you took so much time already to engage in so much discourse with me when you don't have time for it and you think it's childish. "Curious: How is that helpful?" is an open-ended question that can be answered very simply or ignored. If you're so offended, great, be offended. I am responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. You are responsible for your own feelings. If I offended you, good; you probably needed it. People need to stop being so easily offended. Have a good day, yourself.
P.S., it's good that you know how to use the block feature on Facebook. Enjoy the hole in the sand you use to shield your head.

Rethinking Overpopulation

My studies have taken me on many trains of thought as I’ve read about sustainability, architecture, agriculture, and more. One of my major assignments, due soon, is a presentation based on a book. The book I’ve chosen is Biomimicry. It has given me more ideas than any other book up to it that I’ve read for class. This blog entry is about using biomimicry, including the Cradle to Cradle design, something I’ve just learned about today that is a holistic, biomimetic approach to human life, to put it simply.

            I have often told my friends that humans are overpopulating the Earth. I have touted sources, pointed at population numbers, indicated pollution levels and natural decimation by human hands and I have advocated the use of eugenics to help fix the human problem. Today, however, I found myself digesting the words of a piece of text titled “Life Upcycles.” I don’t know where it’s from or who the author is; it was passed out in class for everyone to read. I’m glad for it because it has brought up some highly interesting points.

            Frequently, I think to compare humans to other animals on Earth. I compare us to octopi, who demonstrate great amounts of intelligence yet die before passing it on to the next generation. I compare us to cattle, who live lazily in comparison to the hustle and bustle of humanity. In all of this comparison, however, I never thought to look at such creatures as ants or even sheep in order to learn from them. My comparisons were always aimed at persuading my listener that humans are a shitty species and we have to do something to change it. I’ve never had suggestions for how to change it, as I have hoped to come across someone with ideas of their own. Finally, I have found the kind of ideas I have sought for so long and it seems kind of fitting that the answer was in text rather than in a social interaction.

            Ants are a highly organized species. Every single last ant that exists on Earth has a job, a purpose, including their “children”. What surprised me to learn was that ants actually have a higher collective biomass than humans—the equivalent of about 35 billion people. What Life Upcycles thinks about this is that humans can easily live happily and sustainably on Earth, using Cradle to Cradle, with a population of 10 billion.

            The point brought up by my text that has me rethinking my entire argument on overpopulation is this: Instead of telling us that we need to have “zero emissions,” or we have to “stop” doing things, it would be better for us to create objects and buildings that work with the environment rather than separately from it. It seems like a rather complex statement to me because it is a new idea for which I have little understanding. We, as people and including myself, have a habit of telling each other all of the ways in which we need to be “less bad,” but not of telling each other how we can do “more good.” So, how can we do more good?

            The first steps have already been taken. We are doing less bad. Companies and businesses everywhere tout the ways in which they are reducing costs, reducing waste, reducing badness. In addition, we now have things in place such as LEED and the Living Building Challenge, meaning that architecture is moving forward in a way that may allow us as humans to live and work on this planet in a more symbiotic way.

            When we rethink overpopulation, it is important to note that carbon is not inherently bad. We have come to think of “carbon” and “emissions” as four-letter words: bad things that must be eradicated in order for our species to avoid auto-annihilation. When we see companies advertising goals for “zero emissions,” we think, “Great! Yes! Good!” But is it, really? After all, take a look at the advertising images: Often, companies bragging about “zero emissions” use images like trees to indicate how “green” they want to be. The thing is, though, trees are not emission-free.

            Trees emit oxygen. Oxygen is an emission of trees and the more trees there are, the taller and older they get, the more oxygen they emit. So, rather than saying we should strive for “zero emissions,” we should look at what we are emitting. Trees essentially eat carbon dioxide, which we exhale. As Life Upcycles puts it, “emissions are breathing.” So, how can we create an environment—a habitat for humanity—that breathes, rather than exuding toxins? That is my question as we move forward.

            No longer will I so ignorantly claim that humans are in overpopulation. No longer will I so ignorantly advocate the use of eugenics as a solution when other opportunities abound. Finding the opportunities is the trick.

Sustainability: Architecture and Words

My blog is overdue for a new post, and what better topic than sustainability?

            As I’ve mentioned, the program I’m currently taking at The Evergreen State College is called Sustainability: Reimagining the Built Environment and the Written Word. I’ve missed a lot of class and a couple of assignments but I don’t think I’m failing and I don’t think I’ll fail, I just think I’ve been pretty overwhelmed by the wealth of knowledge available on this topic and all the ideas that come to mind every time I read new text related to what we do in class.

            I have a huge project coming up. I get to design a building or group of buildings, essentially, that meets LEED requirements and may even qualify for the Living Building Challenge. This means I have to do this project with practicality in mind and suggest using absolutely NO new materials. Everything must be recycled and reused.

            I suppose now is a good time to cover a couple of things. First: LEED. What is LEED? I certainly didn’t know what it was before taking this program so I wouldn’t expect you to know it by sight. “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” is a “certification program focused primarily on new, commercial-building projects and based upon a points system.” Source.

            Second: The Living Building Challenge. Details, naturally, can be found at their official website. Put simply, the Living Building Challenge seeks to create “regenerative spaces that connect occupants to light, air, food, nature, and community.” When my class took a field trip to Seattle to tour the Bullitt Building, we learned some basics of the Living Building Challenge. To us, it was explained that the building has sensors that detect the amount of air flow through the building and the amount of sunlight filtering through the windows. The Bullitt Building, specifically, has outdoor shades that lower and raise depending on the level of sunlight coming through windows on the building. The sun on the east may cause eastern window shades to lower, while western window shades stay up high to allow the shaded side of the building to get more natural light. Solar panels on the roof provide the majority of energy to the building—in the case of the Bullitt Building, I believe they actually became energy positive many times and thus sold energy to Puget Sound Energy, making money rather than spending it on electricity. Ventilation of the building and plumbing all revolve around sustainability and reuse.

            The Living Building Challenge is far more interesting to me than LEED. While I think that both are great and necessary in today’s world, moving forward, I think the Living Building Challenge is one that all new designs should strive for. It has seven “Petals,” or performance areas, each of which has its own requirements, also known as imperatives. The petals are Place, Water, Energy, Health & Happiness, Materials, Equity, and Beauty. In order for a building to meet the requirements of the Living Building Challenge, they must meet all imperatives of at least 4 Petals.

            This design assignment, reusing materials and applying adaptive reuse to the spaces they want to use for this project, has me thinking of the “Mistake on the Lake,” or the Capitol Center Building, a blight on the landscape standing nine stories high in concrete, steel, and glass. Straight lines, a flat roof, and an earthquake-proof foundation despite sitting on fill in a flood zone. The architecture of the gutted, long-deserted building in the midst of many of Olympia’s public services is ugly not by design, but rather neglect and disrepair and I think that most, if not all of its materials can be taken and used for the new spaces this project seeks to create for artists in Olympia.

            There are many sites with articles covering what locals call the Mistake on the Lake. All of these articles explore a couple of ideas for adaptive reuse of the building, which has been grandfathered into the area that today has a developmental height limit of 35 feet. The Capitol Center Building cannot be added to or expanded due to new architectural codes in the area and many, if not most of the residents in Olympia would rather see the eyesore taken down rather than renovated. The steel and glass standing nine stories high could be taken and used for the artists’ spaces we have been assigned to design.

            New ideas come to my mind every time I read something new about sustainable architecture. Even if I’m reading about old buildings that do not meet new LEED certifications or Living Building requirements, I find ideas coming to mind of how we can use old aesthetics and new methods of design to create beautiful, sustainable architecture that brings people together and makes a place “pop”. I find myself incapable of articulating these ideas to my faculty and often, I even find difficulty transcribing my ideas to my journal. I hope that this blog entry clears up a little space in my head, files away a couple of thoughts that clutter my mind, and allows me to clearly formulate and articulate the ideas I have for this major assignment.