"Save the Redwoods"

I loved the way Muir described the trees akin to Christ-like figures—mostly the one tree that was over three hundred feet tall and “skinned alive.” That description seemed very biblical, especially with the quote “Forgive them; they know not what they do.” The entire article was very poetic without losing its focus, and I could definitely see the Romantic-era views infused with what he was saying. But luckily his article was not overly poetic; at no point did I lose focus on his mission to save the Redwoods. It made me wonder when the article was written (versus being published posthumously in 1920).

Muir response

The excerpt from John Muir's writing was as comforting as it was disturbing. On one side, it was encouraging to see that as far back as the early 20th century, people had not only noticed and appreciated their surroundings, but taken an active stance in protecting them. On the other hand, it is troubling that such action needed to be taken, and that it bears such a resemblance to activity today. One might hope that we have since progressed considerably in our means of dealing with our environment and that new legislation is no longer needed for the protection of every species, but this is clearly not the case. Muir's consideration of the sequoias as potentially sentient--but mute--beings, with as much right to the land as ourselves, is powerful and striking. I imagine its impact would have been greater at the time of this item's publication, as now it seems a bit too romantically anthropomorphic to be taken seriously. Its intention, however, is well-founded and offers a helpful alternative means of considering trees or any other part of nature that we destroy for our convenience.

John Muir

John Muir thinks that trees play a vital role in life. He sees trees as being our source of life which us humans wouldn’t live without. The reading to me is more of a wakeup call to us humans to appreciate our environment we live in and don’t abuse it. Nature to many cultures are treated with respect naturally, but other civilizations most have to look into laws and ethics.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/st_bernard_parish_gets_200000.html

St. Bernard Parish gets $200,000 federal grant to update coastal plan

By Bob Warren, The Times-Picayune

February 19, 2010, 9:56AM

David Grunfeld / The Times-PicayuneSt. Bernard Parish's coastal areas have been battered by storms and saltwater intrusion over the years.St. Bernard Parish has received a federal grant that will help the parish update its coastal management plan.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service has awarded the parish a $199,999 grant, the parish government said in a news release this morning. The money will allow St. Bernard to formulate a conceptual framework for coastal restoration, the parish said.

The parish's coastal management plan is a project included in the state's Coastal Impact Assistance Program Plan.

The plan will put in writing the vision and goals of the St. Bernard Coastal Zone Advisory Committee.

The parish's coastal zone plan was originally approved in the 1970s. Since then, there have been several updates to the document. The grant will pay for it to be updated to be in accordance with the state's master plan, the parish said.

Additional information about the state's Coastal Impact Assistance Program can be found at http://www.mms.gov/offshore/CIAPmain.htm.

The redwood forest conservation effort appears to me as one of the greatest examples as an argument for aesthetic conscience. The red woods are incredible. Words serve these trees little justice. Their majesty is simply breath taking. They speak to us as elders, beings that have been on this earth longer than any of us humans could comprehend. They tell stories of perseverance, even now constantly striving further upward into the heavens. That the effort to save some of these trees would be cashed in to loggers by the government is indicative of a larger problem. It's so easy to destroy something without realizing the full value of it. The value of these trees, by far, is more than any economy could provide.

John Muir is a man with a mission. He needs the world to understand that trees are not just pretty LIVING things that root themselves and never move. They are in fact life itself. Trees provide habitat and fresh air so why would we not treat them sacredly. If all of sudden every tree was gone do you think we would survive for long? Hell No! This reading reminded me of an adult version of The Lorax. This reading is a warning sign, a reality check. The image of sacred trees is a very goddess/ god like image that should very well be taken into account. If after you read John Muir and still feel nothing toward the enviornment and wanting to protect then you have no soul!

Saved the Redwoods

Muir's heartfelt description of these majestic trees certainly does inspire a sense of awe in the reader, but thankfully enough, nowadays it seems like he's preaching to the choir. I don't mean that just because we're a class of environmentalists, but it also seems that Muir's message took hold of the population in general. Now the trees have become icons of our heritage, testaments to our country's natural beauty. People travel from all over the country to see them, children grow up hearing about them, and it's almost unimaginable that anyone would want to cut one down. I know from the reading that the government played a large part in making that happen, but I wonder what else played a role. It must have taken years of interdisciplinary participation to raise them to the icon status they hold today, why can't we do the same for other threatened species? Maybe someday people will think of cypress trees as a piece of living history, not something to mulch their lawns with.

Save the Redwoods

John Muir’s view on trees as being sacred is a very effective activist motivator, but also a very old idea. For many years different culture have look at nature as something very sacred that should be respected. The Native Americans set a perfect example for us, but why have we lost touch with this connection with nature that so many human societies have had before us? The answer to this question is very complex and there are many reasons. One major reason is that we are so focused on being an industrial nation and boosting our economy. We don’t stop to think that just because we have developed the technology to do something doesn’t me that we ethically should do it or that we even have the right to do it. If we can wake up from our industrial way of thinking and reconnect to spirituality and nature the answers to our ecological problems may become clearer.

In modern environmental writing, I rarely see authors utilize the Divine Command Theory, the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God, to advocate the ethical treatment of nature. Rather, I usually see secular, ethical arguments under the rubric of utilitarianism or social contract theory. With utilitarianism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. For example, since trees contribute to their environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, ameliorating climate, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife—human beings should not cut down such an important plant species, for the consequences would be unfavorable to everyone. But it seems as though this ethical argument only appeals to a certain, perhaps, elitist audience. This doesn’t have to be the case. Throughout many world religions and cultures, trees are significant and symbolic entities, e.g., the Tree of Knowledge in Judaism and Christianity, the Banyan and the Peepal trees in Hinduism, the Christmas tree in Germanic mythology, and the Bodhi tree in Buddhism—even in literature, e.g., Tolkien’s Two Trees of Valinor or ents as well as Yeats's “holy tree” in his poem “The Two Trees.” In my view, Muir’s religious arguments for preserving redwoods could definitely bring in more religious people into the environmental movement.

John Muir: Save the Redwoods

I was amazed as to how Muir was able to see the path our civilization was heading when it came to the preservation of our greens. The irresponsibility and ignorance of the consequences of every single action that has been done throughout these past hundred years has led to serious consequences. I am not blaming our past generations for what we are suffering, because we have also neglected the responsibility of taking care of our surroundings. I don’t want to blame anyone because we all our guilty, but when Muir refers to the trees as Christ-figures he has certain truth to this claim. In ancient times, the religious practice was to worship nature spirits, whether it was the rain god, the earth, fire… we were connected to interrelated with nature. As we began to develop the separation between nature and society grew. We have diverted our attention that was originally to nature spirits, to a divine yet “human” figure. Trees then became forgiving: "Forgive them; they know not what they do." It’s like he have lost ourselves in this world of greed, capitalism, that we have turned our backs to those who nurtured and fed us in the beginning. It’s like he was saying “they’ll come around.” But when will that time be? How long will they have to suffer for us to realize we have to stop this lifestyle?

Represent, Represent.

After three hundred thousand years of battling against "drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand storms," [Muir, 189] the Calaveras King Sequoias are being destroyed by sawmills; manmade machines that have no role in the natural ecological process. Unfortunately, these Sequoias -- referred to as Christ-like figures -- have been cut down for superfluous reasons, such as to build a dance floor or worse: to simply "show how fine and big [the] Calveras tree [can be]." [Muir, 188] The U.S. government, however, did not seem to mind these foolish acts, for on March 3rd, 1905 (?), the "House passed a bill providing for the Government acquisition of the Calaveras giants." [Muir, 189] If someone were to want to build a national park preserving these trees then they would have to purchase the land because, sadly, the "government has sold every section of the entire redwood belt from the Oregon boundary to below Santa Cruz." [Muir, 190] It is mind-blowing to discover the destruction of such majestic organisms. Although irrational, I believe that since humans have certain inalienable rights, the land -- and all that it is composed of -- should as well. It would be difficult to determine what resources, regions, etc are considered part of the land and how they would represent/defend themselves against industrialization, but at this point it is necessary. A worldwide organization, that protects the rights of the land should be created, in an effort to prevent unnecessary logging and exploitation of resources. If not, the natural world will continue to be destroyed at an exponential rate.

Save the Redwoods

For more than three thousand years, “…God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand storms; but he cannot save them from sawmills and fools.”
John Muir states that God, an omnipowerful and omniscient being, is able to prevent the destruction of these magnificent redwoods from a wide array of causes, but when it comes to humans and their technology He is helpless. By making such a claim, Muir hopes to demonstrate the enormous power and influence humanity holds over nature. Is it really true that humans are more powerful than drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand storms? Although these combined factors are devastating to the redwood community, nature has defenses against such events to prevent mass destruction. On the other hand, nature has no way of protecting itself against the destructive influences of humans; there is no evolutionary mechanism that allows the redwood to adapt to the damaging effects of the sawblade.
The question then becomes ‘What should be done about it?’ Although Muir states that God cannot save them from sawmills and fools, he later says “…this is left to the American people.” It is our responsibility to save these awe-striking and beautiful forests that have existed for thousands of years. We are responsible for putting the blade to the tree, therefore we should be responsible for taking measurements to preserve such wonders. We must start by first changing our values from merely anthropocentric values—mostly economic value—to more ecocentric values. In addition, we must take responsibility by creating preservations and natural parks that secure this magnificent species of tree. “The wrongs done to trees, wrongs of every sort, are done in the darkness of ignorance or unbelief.” We are no longer able to blame our actions on ignorance because we have seen the truth; we have seen the effects our actions cause nature and because of this we must take action and revert our ways.

Trees: A Concerned Rant

It is quite striking the tone that Muir sets in regarding these majestic Redwood forests in such high esteem. His personification of them really draws the reader in with a strong emotional appeal. For example, when he compares the utilization of the luxurious wood from Calaveras trees to the gourmet preparation of our beloved George Washington's carcass. Muir's bold comparison is insightful and necessary in order to strike a chord in a dominantly anthropocentric society. So many people consider plants to be "dead." That is such a moronic and mindless thought. Plants are by no means dead, in fact they are crucial in bringing life to every other living thing on this planet; to the planet itself even. The industrial, expansionist, utilitarian, John Locke-ian notions of raping the land based on the reasoning of "we can, so we should" is gross. John Locke has actually been quoted as saying such things as, "the negation of nature is the path toward happiness," and "land that is left to nature is waste." Does a tree's greatness need to be proven by the showmanship of gentlemanly qualities, the acquisition of riches, or the dominion over lowly subjects? No. It is common sense to see how these trees are sacred, beautiful, strong, and worthy of the respect of "rational" humans. They have stood the test of time, some being over 3,000 years old, have been home to countless species, provided the oxygen that pumps through our bodies, prevented the erosion of our prized American frontier, and been the source of great awe and inspiration for millions of people who have laid their eyes on these magnificent forests. All of this without breaking them down for raw materials. It is the reconsideration of concepts like these that is helping to shape the environmental revolution. People are starting to realize the idiocy of people like John Locke and take on the compassion of people like John Muir.

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant. I know that not everyone shows such moronic disregard and lack of insightfulness about the environment. This reading I suppose hit me as a sort of rallying cry. Muir's passion and respect towards these trees, as simple as they may seem, is a beautifully poetic cry for help that touches upon a larger issue of general environmental consideration.

planet jesus

I find John Muirs theology more and more to be the only kind i can tolerate. as religious institutions have largely failed to evolve, their tenets have atrophied in anachronism, they have left the masses with inadecuate tools for spiritual search and understanding, and have resulted in the many wayward definitions of christiandom that the 20th century created. the concepts behind the original teachings of jesus are not made contemporary, the process of worship remains the same out of tradition, which in the end only further separates religion from our social reality. the only interpretation that i see fit in a modern concept is a socialist one, i think that jesus would not aprove of capitalism, i think that something in the glory and integrity of redwoods as well as the underclass would lead jesus to protect them.

something in humans audacity, to think that they may do and undo wherever they next happen to lay down property lines over "gods creation" and yet i feel that so rarely is there ever an emphasis on these two points. i would never discredit the philanthropic work that churhes continue to do, its laudable, but the main focus has yet to turn away from trappings of form and turn to the urgency of function, which both a forest and a cathedral should provide, to remind me of the interconnected nature of my existance and to strive for a more harmonious, and ultimately equitable, fair, humble, and simple (efficient in the way a tree is efficient, not a plow)way of exisisting and of allowing other things to exist. this is a true christian mans concern, not the petty cultural hoo ha which encompases so much of regilious policy and action. Muirs save the red woods frames jesus' body in the trees, he uses this simple modern comparison to help us even understand why we need a jesus, a savior, because the tree needs one to, and only in killing the first redwood, in understanding its uniqueness and beauty and permanence and place, did we understand the crime commited against nature and god in its untimely destruction, and how it can come back to dam us in the end as well.

Save The Trees!!! :D

John Muir makes really good points about how stupid people can be when it comes to trees and saving forests. I absolutely agree with him and think that the trees should be looked at as Christ-figures. They take care of us and nurture the planet, trees like the Calaveras King Sequoias and other giant red woods should be respected even more because of their massive size and rarity. Although, in the people's defense who stripped one hundred and sixteen feet of bark from a Calaveras to bring back to England, they just wanted to evoke wonder and awe in people. Times were much more innocent back in the twenties and they probably didn't know how scarce and vital trees would become at a time like this. Now is not the time to be cutting down trees for useless things like that or the other example of using a stump for a dance floor. These trees need to be protected, and a percentage is. No printer paper/toilet paper is worth cutting down one of those magnificent trees. I have been to a red wood preserve near the Coast of California and I will always remember my time spent there.

"Save the Redwoods" - a pretty modern appeal

"A reservation or national park of the only other species (...) should be quickly secured" - John Muir's appeal is notably up to date, and yet it is published almost 100 years ago. We still deal with problems that were partly detected a certain time ago. And, being confronted with Muir's plea, I have the feeling that we did not make so much progress in the last century. There are some changes and a rising awareness of the environment and the importance and responsibility to save "it" - and thus our existence, too (this sounds dramatically, but in some sense it is). But we are still at the very beginning of this progress.
Muir speaks about deeds done out of ignorance and unbelief. From a 21-century-perspective, I cannot fully agree. A lot of things were indeed unknown (e.g. the importance of the rainforest for the hydrological circle or the amount of CO2) but others were not. There is a difference between ignorance/nescience and willful ignorance, when knowledge is denied. And I feel that a lot of (not only) today's actions have been/are done out of willful ignorance. We (Western educated civilization) know, for example, that cheap prices for groceries must have a catch. But a lot of us (I know, this is a generalization) keep on buying groceries at Walmart.
Contrary, there is also real ignorance. And Muir's observation/ appraisal should encourage us to diminish environmental ignorance. However, I have a real issue with his thought that the trees are Christ-figures who merciful forgive the poor sinners: "Forgive them; they know not what they do." The trees are shown as martyrs, patiently enduring human behavior. Does Muir want to show us that nature is patient, will forgive men's deeds, and that we get a second chance? My problem is not that the trees are presented as forgiving, but that men are shown as almost innocent beings who cannot be called to account. And I do not think that this is the case. I cannot really explain where exactly my unease comes from, it is more a vague feeling. But it is there. I'll try to figure this out.
A last point: It is interesting how ambiguously Muir presents the trees. They are almost godlike, mighty, "standing in perfect strength and beauty." However, their strength is relative because "any fool can destroy trees" as the trees cannot protect themselves. So they are weak, too. But it is exactly this combination of conflicting attributes which reminds me of our (men's in general) special position in the environment. We have the power to destroy so we have the duty to deal with this destructive force, limit it and ourselves in order not to take advantage of other's weakness and thus destroy everyone and everything around us.

tu fu style

A thin moon smiles, light recedes beyond its post;
the sun is dead, pink and yellow runs its blood:
the breeze cools, the wet ground freezing;
mud and grass lounge in puddles and prairies.
Cats eat trash, indifferently.
Night- it loves no one but the moon.
Sleep- yawns weakly like the stars;
dreaming, dreaming, but rest will not come.
It is dark outside but the cats are awake.


P.S: no idea that it was due at 2, i was stuck on 5, change is evil. not that it matters

Abstract:languages

The topic that I choose to study is how many languages have become extinct due to many changes in civilization. I intend to study how these languages have been affected by the changes of governments, education, economic integration, and relocation of most civilizations. I would also look at the languages that are endangered of being extinct. Another view is how most people may live in areas where two languages are spoken. Gradually one becomes the language of choice while the other dies off. I would also incorporate how many reasons are due to natural disasters and genocides. This research would be more from an anthropogenic viewpoint than biogenic. The pedagogical purpose of this research is to see how we can revive these languages if it’s not too late.

haiku

marsh

reflections that stare

moss that can hang so gently

mud that never stops

winter

crisp, clear, cold, winter wind

dried up grass covers the ground

brown branches, no leaves

Haiku

Puerto Escondido

The water bombing
The surfer waffling
Sound of free coasting


Stardust Casino

The dimmed lights
The handle pulls the reels
Sound of content

Basho-style

Slow-bubbling water
Forces resuscitation
In Nature's orphan.

Above the dark pool,
Two cranes quabble for a perch:
Light in the darkness.

Roses in a vase,
Once alive and bright in bloom,
Now in stale water.

A tree was cut down
Sacrificed in the sweet name
Of Christmas morning.

Haikus

The last woodpecker
Red tear on the cypress sky
Cry of abandon

A leaf, a kidney
Curling to the red of rot
Seep solstice yellow

Plastic bags, whisking of the tips of grass blades;

the wind trapped and cluttered:

washing off its grime and clutter in a near by pond;

the ducks emerge covered in stench and film.

Terrain-how can one be separated from the other?

Humanity-we cannot limit our influence to only ourselves.

Can we put the trash back in a can?

Environment can be shared by all once again.

Haikus

The Old, Silent Woods

The old, silent woods,
Desperately weep to us
Longing to remain.


Majestic Oceans

Majestic oceans,
Dark and deep, yet still vibrant
Keep your peace and glory.

Haikus

As the rivers running strong

The beach sands bake

For the sun rays reach everywhere

As the birds whistle to each other

The noise is inescapable

The sounds of nature know no boundaries

Natura abhorret a vacua

The Swamp
A squalid wetland—
An unlovely, brackish scene
Necessary and pure.


The Mississippi River Delta
A withering Leviathan's
Precious daughter who should be
Nurtured like your own.

Two Haikus

Summer Time

Pretty Summer Day!
Kicking it at the seaside,
Enjoying summer now!


A Hard Mountain Day

Snow on mountain top.
Hard summit ahead of me,
Do I see a bear!

Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food | Video on TED.com

Jamie Oliver's TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food | Video on TED.com

Big business leaves big forest footprints

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8516931.stm

2 Haikus

Haiku #1
Quietly we sit
Pondering the unknown world
taking it all in

Haiku #2
The Earth tells its tales
Through the wind and by the sea
Dancing breathlessly

Haiku

FEELING WINTER

Brown feathers cover

their own delicate bodies.

Like a thick sweater.

LAND ETHIC

Value the gardens,

Cooperate with their tasks.

Become one of them

Haikus: Ivory-billed woodpecker and Deforestation

I wrote a poem only once before in my life, so please don't judge too hard ;-)
I'm pretty sure that I did not follow all the complicated japanese rules concerning haikus... but at least I tried to.

Seen once for a trice?

Seen once for a trice?
Ivory-billed woodpecker –
A symbol for hope.


Old oak, green, mighty.

Old oak, green, mighty.
Will you be there next summer,
Survive the logging?