Loading

The Luce Anthropocene Working Group: Newts and Air-Conditioning

The Luce Anthropocene working group is a gathering of scholars from diverse fields meeting annually during the Facing the Anthropocene grant.  They discuss the need for individual academic disciplines and the university as a whole to address climate change.

Thinking about humanity’s place in and effect on the world is difficult, because it can feel like thinking about everything at once. The stakes are so high, the causes so many, the people, animals and plants affected too numerous to count. One way to address this expanse is to tell stories, to put into human terms that which feels too massive and chaotic, which is just what the Luce working group members did when they met on June 3rd-6th. They told stories from their research and from their lives, and by so doing tried to put words to where we are, how we got here, and what hope for the future might look like.

Douglas Kysar told a story of the time he and his daughter happened on a newly hatched batch of red spotted newts in Vermont. He remembers his own childhood as being full of animals, but this encounter, the pond full of tiny red creatures, feels like an event. His four year old daughter is enchanted. Usually boisterous and rowdy, she gently cups a newt in her hands. Holding the filmy alien, she becomes completely calm and whispers “She must think I am a giant.” Then, after a pause, “I hope she knows I am a gentle giant.”

Radhika Khosla told a very different story. India is currently going through the largest urbanization event in history. Between 2020 and 2030, India will build a new Chicago each year, and 100 million people will enter the workforce annually. The largest growth in energy demand is going to come from India, and much of the demand will take the form of air conditioners. It is projected that the AC energy will triple in the coming decade. The electricity required to cover this is equal to the current energy usage of US, Europe, and Japan combined.

It might seem like these stories have little to do with each other. One the one hand, a child cupping a newt, on the other, charts about projected energy usage and CO2 emissions. The first story is about a child realizing that a nonhuman other is a subject, with its own perspective, but also that there is a gap between her and the newt. She can’t know exactly what the newt knows. She understands that to the newt, she has awful power and yet she imbues this relationship with an ethics that exceeds power. The second story is about the trade offs between development, the quest for a certain quality of life, and the preservation of the earth. It is an effort to think through built environments as sites of intervention, in a context of rapidly changing patterns of human dwelling and consumption.

In different ways, Kysar and Khosla are trying to diagnose both what has gone wrong, why we are in the middle of an environmental crisis, and also how we might get out of it. Set side by side, their stories illustrate the many-faceted nature of climate change. It is both an issue of how we understand the world, how we think of our relationships to newts, trees, rivers, and daisies, and also how we use the world, the stuff we consume in our day-to-day lives. Together with the rest of the Luce Anthropocene working group, they are exploring how bringing together scholars from different academic fields sheds new light on environmental degradation and environmental hope. They are asking what the academy has to offer, but also how the academy might have to change in order to be adequate to the challenges of the Anthropocene. Newts and ACs: thinking about everything, a little bit at a time.  Kenan Senior Fellow Norman Wirzba sums up this problem by saying, “The exercise of certain forms of freedom in the present has resulted in such mastery over nature that the future freedom of many is threatened.” 

Facing the Anthropocene will be holding a public conference/festival in March of 2020 – open to public and Duke community.


Supported by the Henry Luce Foundation, Facing the Anthropocene includes a multidisciplinary working group in which scholars engage in conversations surrounding the human impact on the planet. The group studies how political, legal, and economic orders have shaped landscapes and ecologies through global patterns of human habitation and use.

Unintended Thrills

Kenan Insider - Unintended ThrillsI love blue candy. I don’t mean I love whatever flavor blue is supposed to signify, I mean I love candy that is blue. Because it is blue. I love blue candy the way gardeners love the Himalayan Blue Poppy, a poppy so blue it looks unreal. Something in my brain giggles and fizzes when I bite into blue gummy dinosaurs, acidic-blue frogs, blue M&Ms.

This color preference is the result of a combination of international travel, national regulation, and risk perception. When I was growing up in Norway, blue candy was not allowed. The compound that makes candy blue is carcinogenic in high doses, and this was considered a significant enough risk that the dye could not be added to food sold in Norway.

The regulation of food dyes was different in the US, where blue candy was plentiful. If you were lucky enough to have a relative that lived in the US, commonly known as an “America uncle”, or a parent who travelled for work and was willing to buy you treats, you could have blue candy. I did not have an America uncle or a parent who bought me candy in the US, but I had friends. Friends with blue candy. I remember licking lollipops that turned my tongue azure, feeling both excited and a little worried. The experience combined sugar with the thrill of doing something rash. Irresistible.

Blue candy is not a major topic in ethics and blue candy is now allowed in Norway. It turns out you have to eat ridiculous amounts of blue dye for it to do you any damage. The sugar will kill you before the dye does. My sense that blue candy is both delicious and dangerous depends on my age, my geographic location, and my parents’ determination to limit my intake of high fructose corn syrup.

That said, blue candy is an illustration of the words on Kenan’s website, “Ethics matters everywhere.” Risk management is about ethics, and so is regulation of what goes into our food. Many people now feel that our food is not sufficiently regulated, that the antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones in our meats and plants are damaging to human health and the environment. Similar concerns about food dyes determined what hues of candy my childhood self could buy at the store. The purpose was of course to protect the health and safety of Norway’s population. The actual result: a grown woman who can’t resist blue candy.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

Dear Future GenerationsDear Future Generations: Sorry
 
Sometimes scientific names, their dependence on Greek and Latin in particular, can feel confusing and opaque, jargon intended only for the specialist. At other times, they make things painfully clear. Take for example the terms heterotrophs and autotrophs.
 
Humans are heterotrophs. Hetero = other, trophos = feeder: we must be fed by others in order to survive. Plants are autothrops, self-feeders. They make their own food by turning sunlight, air, and water into sugars. Implicit in these names is a connection between humans and plants. Autotrophs feed heterotrophs. We need sunlight and CO2 to take the forms of sugars, fats, and proteins in order to eat them, and plants are the crucial first step in this transformation. If I stand outside with my feet in the dirt and my face towards the sun, all I’m likely to get is a sunburn. Plants, in the same situation, get busy turning carbon and light into tasty treats.
 
I thought about this as I watched Prince Ea’s piece “Dear Future Generations: Sorry.” Prince Ea is standing in a desert landscape, and he is apologizing to future generations for the damage we’ve inflicted on the earth. “The Amazon desert,” he explains, used to be called the Amazon forest, and then he realizes that he needs to explain trees to his audience, because they have no experience of trees.
 
This part of his piece strikes me as absurd, and that, I think, is his intention. Though apocalyptic movies may suggest otherwise (think of the sandy setting for Mad Max, for example), we humans will not make it without plants. Prince Ea lists what trees do for us: they purify our air, store carbon, filter water, provide us with food and medicine. Long before the earth is denuded of its last tree, humans will be gone. Trees make their own food, and we need them to make ours. If plants go extinct, not only will we realize we can’t eat money, we will also realize we can’t eat sunlight. And Prince Ea knows this. “To betray nature is to betray us. To save nature is to save us. If we don’t all work together, we will be equally extinct,” he says at the end of his piece.
 
This week has been a week of climate protests and speeches. In Brazil, Indigenous people and allies are protesting the destruction of the rainforest. In the UK, Swedish Greta Thunberg addressed MPs at Westminster, and thousands of Extinction Rebels gathered in London, disrupting traffic, staging die-ins, getting arrested. A group of young activists took over a roundabout outside Heathrow, holding signs with the question “Are we the last generation?” It sounds a bit melodramatic, but it is a question more in touch with reality than the idea that we can do without the Amazon forest.
 
We are heterotrophs, we are fed by others. If we do not act so that those who feed us can live, we will have nothing to eat, nothing to breath, and nothing to drink. There will be no future generation unaccustomed to trees, not because this exaggerates the scale of our destructive behavior, but because we are utterly dependent on trees. We need them so much more than they need us.

Citizenship Kimmerer

citizeship kimmererThis year, Team Kenan and Project Citizenship have been considering the meanings and purposes of citizenship. Thinking beyond voting and electoral politics, students have asked questions about health care, immigration, race, political formation, civil disobedience, food production, etc. They have investigated how citizenship is expressed through music, advertisement, and language.

As an immigrant, citizenship is both central and marginal to my day-to-day experience. I spend more time than average worrying about and applying for papers – visas, travel permissions, residence cards – and more time than average getting through customs whenever I enter the country (the automatic passport reader always marks my slip with a giant X, meaning “you need to see a real human.”) But I can’t vote in the country of my residence; since I gained the right to vote, I have only lived and worked in the country of my citizenship for about 6 months.

Even though I am now eligible to apply for US citizenship, I have not seriously considered it. In part, this is for practical reasons: Norway, the country of my citizenship, does not allow dual citizenships. If I were to become a US citizen, I would have had to renounce my Norwegian citizenship. (This is about to change; the relevant law has been passed but has not yet come into effect.)

The other reason is emotional, personal. In order to become a citizen of the US, I would have to speak the citizenship oath:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

The oath contains much I am not sure about. Would I take up arms to defend the US? Do I renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to foreign sovereignties? Do I bear “true faith and allegiance” to the United States of America?

The oath also fails to contain much of which I am sure. That I love my friends here, that I would defend the river by which I walk most weeks against harm, that each spring I wait for the dog woods and red buds to flower, trees I have not known before.

In her essay “Maple Nation: A Citizenship Guide,” Robin Wall Kimmerer thinks about the form national allegiance takes, and how it stacks up against her other allegiances. The US, like Norway, looks askance at dual citizenships – they want you to choose one. Kimmerer says that if she were forced to do so, she “would choose Maple Nation,” maples being the most common tree of her rural home in New York State:

“If citizenship is a matter of shared beliefs, then I believe in the democracy of species. If citizenship means an oath of loyalty to a leader, then I choose the leader of the trees. If good citizens agree to uphold the law of the nation, then I choose natural law, the law of reciprocity, of regeneration, of mutual flourishing” (Braiding Sweetgrass, 173). 

In the contemporary world, citizenship is so much the prevailing way of managing the connection between populations and territories that it is hard to remember that we could choose to structure and rank our allegiances differently. Citizenship oaths could ask us to protect and participate in the biodiversity of a country, to commit to become familiar with its species and landscapes, to swear to preserve its beauty and bounty for generations to come. Or we could commit first to our local communities, to cities and towns, rather than to nation states. We could commit to a group of people, to be an active member in its daily doings, rather than to sovereignties and armies. I wonder how our lives would be different, if these were the kinds of allegiances we prioritized, if our citizenship oaths highlighted the kinds of relationships Kimmerer speaks of. I wonder what parts of life would change the most – what topics would Team Kenan still consider relevant to citizenship, and which would no longer seem important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Choice and a Child

choice and childThirty-nine weeks pregnant, I have entered a gestational stage that mostly consists of waiting. Starting new projects seem foolish, committing to being anywhere in the near future optimistic, and though I have mostly felt free from pregnancy brain, I am now dropping balls all over the place. My compromise between work and a reluctant body: I read. Books won’t mind if I put them down for a few months, and my research bibliography is long. A productivity suitable to this time.

On my bibliography is Maggie Nelson’s Argonauts, a book about themes as diverse as queer family-making, sexuality, death, motherhood, happiness, and the adequacy of language. Professionally, my interest in the book is its form, its mixture of memoire, philosophy, and poetry. Personally, it is my favorite book about pregnancy and parenting.

I have been thinking about the following paragraph:

“Never in my life have I felt more prochoice than when I was pregnant. And never in my life have I understood more thoroughly, and been more excited about, a life that began at conception. Feminists may never make a bumper sticker that says IT’S A CHOICE AND A CHILD, but of course that’s what it is, and we know it…We’re not idiots; we understand the stakes. Sometimes we choose death.” 

It is the AND of Nelson’s paragraph that catches me. The American abortion conflict pits choice against life: either you are in favor of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, or you believe zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are alive. But what if you believe both? I am sure that the baby I carry is alive and that it has been some form of alive since conception. I am also sure that I want for myself and for other women the freedom to determine whether to submit to the nine-month ordeal that is pregnancy, not to mention the child or children that follow.

I wonder if the heart of the abortion conflict has little to do with disagreements about when a fertilized egg goes from being a clump of cells to a baby, and more about who we trust to make ethical decisions. Ethical dilemmas involve trade-offs and are resistant to definite answers. Abortion requires us to weigh the claims of women against the claims of fetuses. It is genuinely difficult, and no solution will do in every case.

The reason I am prochoice is not because I believe fetuses are insufficiently alive to matter, but because I am convinced that the person most competent to make normative decisions about a particular baby is the woman carrying it. The snag about this conviction is that to live it out, we have to trust people that as a society we are not good at trusting. Teenage girls, women who prioritize career over family, college students engaged in casual sex, homeless women, low-income women, immigrants. Women who have little formal education, and women who some consider as having too much. Or just women, period. Instead of looking to white-haired men in government, law, and academy to tell us what to do, we have to hand the reigns to women. We have to trust that women are capable of the complex thinking and feeling that goes into knowing whether this baby, at this time, should be carried to term or not.

Perhaps it seems perverse to think about abortion while waiting for a baby. One of the strangest parts of pregnancy, for me, has been the experience of being both an “I” and a “we.” Pregnancy throws into confusion the common ethical quandary of how to balance the welfare of the individual against the welfare of the collective, because pregnant women are both – individual and collective. Attempts to determine viability, the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb, are attempts to fix the point at which the “I-we” of the pregnant woman becomes two solid persons, with distinct rights. In my experience, that point has yet to come, and I suspect I won’t feel like it has arrived until well after the baby is born.

Thinking about abortion while pregnant is for me not about distancing myself intellectually from what I experience in my body, but about being present in this murky zone. It is an attempt to be accountable and truthful to a situation that is too common to be marginal to ethical thought: how do we make ethical decisions, and who gets to make them, when we are faced not with discrete, bounded individuals, but with persons who are more than one, and yet not quite two?

Children and Risk

I have been thinking about children and risk lately, and the level of risk we tolerate for different children.

In Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in Forty Questions, Valeria Luiselli describes the intake questionnaire administered to unaccompanied child migrants. To question six, “How did you travel here?,” most children answer “I came on La Bestia.” La Bestia, the beast, refers to freight trains that cross Mexico. To reach the US, children travel on the roof of these trains. Needless to say, this is dangerous.

Question seven: “Did anything happen to your trip to the U.S. that scared you or hurt you?” The numbers are heart-breaking. “Eighty percent of women and girls who cross Mexico to get to the U.S. border are raped on the way.” Between April and September 2010, 11,333 migrants were abducted in Mexico. Since 2016, “around 120,000 migrants have disappeared in their transit through Mexico.”

Luiselli’s book put me in mind of two other pieces. The first, “Motherhood in the Age of Fear,” is an opinion piece in the New York Times by Kim Brooks, who was charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” for leaving her four-year old son in the car for five minutes. The second is Eula Biss’ book On Immunity: An Inoculation.

Both pieces are about children and risk. The first piece explores the consequence for women of the fact that “we now live in a country where it is seen as abnormal, or even criminal, to allow children to be away from direct adult supervision, even for a second.” The other is a reflection on vaccination, which Biss approaches by the way of the risk assessments parents make when deciding whether or not to inoculate their children against Hep B, chicken pox. Diphtheria, rotavirus, etc.

These three pieces have stuck in my mind because of the extreme difference in the scale of the risk faced in each situation. For example, a pediatrician responds to Brooks’ article by warning that in her practice, “we had a young child wrap a seatbelt strap so tightly around his neck that it had to be cut off with scissors to prevent strangulation.” The implication is that leaving a child unattended in a car might be deadly. While it is possible for a four-year old to entangle himself in a seatbelt, it is not likely. The recommended vigilance (something along the line of “never leave your child unattended around long pieces of cloth”) seems out of proportion to the danger. The same goes for vaccinations. Even if anti-vaccinators are correct that some children have suffered adverse effects from vaccines, the vast majority of children are healthier because of them. Almost 90,000 children die of measles every year, and yet thanks to vaccination, I have never worried about any child I know being harmed by measles. But travelling on La Bestia: this will certainly, even in best of best case scenarios, hurt children who makes the journey.

One could argue that we in the US is not to blame for the fact that children travel on trains to reach the border (the question of responsibility is complicated, given the long history of US involvement in South America.) But the US is responsible for what happens to children once they enter the country. The Ice Box, the detention centers in which children are placed after being apprehended by Border Control, the recent policy of family separations, troops currently being sent to arm the border, the many hostilities of the immigration and asylum system – we tolerate these risks for migrant children, risks we would never tolerate for our own.

The parents of migrant children, like the parents in Biss’ book, the parents Brooks interviews, want their children to be safe. They too weigh risk against risk, trying to discern which course of action is most likely to keep their children healthy and happy, what choices they must make to keep their children alive.

In that calculus, they choose La Bestia, ICE, and border vigilantes over the conditions of their homes. It is hard for me to imagine a daily life that feels more dangerous than those factors combined. I feel certain, however, that no parent would put their child on the roof of a freight train if they had other options.

A few weeks ago, the Team Kenan couch team spoke to Duke community members about immigration and empathy. Part of being empathetic towards migrants includes, I think, a willingness to consider the risks they take on a similar scale to the one we use for our own families. News coverage that compare the migrant caravan currently heading towards the border to terrorists, hordes, and armies fail to do that; it assumes that migrants are different kinds of people, whose vulnerability to harm stands in little relation to our own. But the children Luiselli meets are not greedy, violent, or deceptive. They are not even chasing the American Dream. All they want, she says, is to “wake up from the nightmare into which they are born.”

 

As part of the series “Ethics of Now” and “Roots and Routes,” Adriane Lentz-Smith will hold a public conversation with Valeria Luiselli on January 18th, at the Durham Arts Council. The lecture is open to the public.