Category: Uncategorized

By Colin McDonald

My example of a human-environment interaction on campus is the stormwater infrastructure on campus, with the green roof on the north end of research hall serving as my specific example of green stormwater infrastructure.

The interaction taking place is humans building stormwater infrastructure to direct where stormwater goes and to avoid flooding of impermeable surfaces such as roads and concrete walkways. Stormwater is the resource unit and can move from its point of origin into much larger systems, such as waterways. Stormwater infrastructure was originally built to prevent urban flooding, however the stormwater can also pick up substances such as oil and dirt from the surfaces leading to pollution runoff. Some stormwater enters waterways which humans use in many ways, such as drinking water. This is why filtering pollutants out of stormwater runoff before it enters waterways that can eventually empty out into larger bodies of water is important. “To address these problems, decentralized methods that manage stormwater on-site using vegetation and soil and mimicking natural hydrology are now available and have begun to be applied. This approach is known as green infrastructure” (Dhakal & Chevalier, 2016, p. 1113). From the Fairfax campus stormwater drains into Pohick Creek and Popes Head Creek, eventually flowing into the Chesapeake Bay (Strike, 2021).

Stormwater management has multiple levels of governance. At the federal level: the EPA, at the state level: Virginia, at the local level: the city of Fairfax, and at the university level: “stormwater activities and functions are divided among several different departments and divisions, the Mason Land Development (Mason LD) has the primary responsibility for overall compliance with the permit requirements. MS4 permit compliance activities are coordinated with Environmental Health and Safety Office (EHS), Facility Management (FM), and other Mason units” (Strike, 2021, p. 1).

As the economy grows and development increases more stormwater management is needed, which also means more money must be spent on stormwater infrastructure. The recent infrastructure bill passed by congress contained billions of dollars of spending related to stormwater (National Municipal Stormwater Alliance, 2021).

George Mason has things such as rain gardens and green roofs as well as Mason Pond to address stormwater. One project funded by the Green Fund even built a robot to drive into storm drains and find storm drain blockages (Hellmich, 2018). To improve George Mason could continue to build green roofs and green stormwater infrastructure. Future additions to the campus could be built around green stormwater infrastructure, with planning of how it would be implemented being a very important first step (Lu & Wang, 2021).

Photos

References

Dhakal, K. P., & Chevalier, L. R. (2016). Urban Stormwater Governance: The Need for a Paradigm Shift. Environmental Management, 57(5), 1112-1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0667-5

Hellmich, N. (2018, May 23). Mechanical engineering team designs Thunder Rat robot to inspect campus storm drains. Volgenau School of Engineering. https://volgenau.gmu.edu/news/2018-05/mechanical-engineering-team-designs-thunderrat-robot-inspect-campus-storm-drains

Lu, G. & Wang, L. (2021). An Integrated Framework of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Planning—A Review. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(24), 13942–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413942

National Municipal Stormwater Alliance. (2021, November 11). What’s in the Infrastructure Bill for the Stormwater Sector? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whatsinfrastructure-bill-stormwater-sector-nmsa/

Strike, F. (2021). MS4 ANNUAL REPORT. George Mason University. http://facilities.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MS4-Report-2020-2021-Reportwith-Appendix.pdf

By Anonymous

The human-environment interaction on campus that I felt could use more sustainability efforts is waste reduction near on campus residential housing . My main focus for this assignment was to reduce and repurpose waste by starting a campus thrift store and donation center. The primary areas of textile and electronic waste on campus occurs in and around freshman residential buildings like presidents park and the commons. On specific days like moveout day, students produce a lot of waste that they would just rather not take back home that could be reused by other students. A campus thrift store could reduce a lot of annual campus waste, as well as produce an income for future sustainability efforts around campus.

With the introduction of a campus consignment and donation center, we could reduce the amount of textile and electronic waste not only GMU produces, but also help reduce luxury textile production waste as well. Annually, students produce around 640 pounds of waste each year and most of which happens around move out day at the end of the year (Flatgard,2017). With the large student body and always increasing freshman class, this accumulates tons of waste that could be repurposed and sold again to students in need. A campus thrift store and donation center could help towards the Sustainable Development Goals such as SDG 11 Sustainable cities and communities, SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production, and SDG 15 Life on land.

On the governing side of this interaction would be not only the consumers and producers, but also the mason governing body as well. To get this project started, there would need to be initial funding from GMU for things such as donation centers/bins, store location, and employees/volunteers. There are ways to get funding from the sustainability department such as the patriot green fund, but I believe it may have to go through mason directly for legality reasons. The office of sustainability does tackle our waste problems when it comes to food consumption, but little for reusable waste (Zero Waste,2022). Another user in this system would be the people donating their goods and unwanted items. This process would need to be more beneficial to them compared to just throwing away their belongings. I believe to achieve this, not only would we need to make the process easily accessible, but also maybe a sort or reward such as coupons to on campus food vendors/dining halls for a certain donation quantity to increase incentive.

Social, cultural, and economic factors play a certain role in mason thrift’s success on campus. With the increase of thrifting in younger demographics in comparison to earlier years, Mason campus would be able to get prime location and visibility to one of the thrift industries key demographics. In the United States there has been a cultural increase in society to buy second hand compared to designer luxury brands. Thrifting and consignment has been a growing industry in recent years with second hand apparel sales in thrift alone reaching around $12 billion annually (Yurchisin,2014). Lastly, economically a thrift store would be a perfect fit for college students wanting to remain fashionable but don’t want to break the bank. College is expensive with paying for tuition, room and board, as well as a meal plan that can get up to tens of thousands of dollars a year. A thrift store on campus would be able to meet the needs of a struggling college student as well as reduce annual waste, and better the environment around our community.

With the introduction of a campus thrift store and donation center, George Mason would be able to reduce the amount of textile and electronic waste entering our landfills each year (James,2018). Not only will we reduce landfill waste, but mason would also drastically reduce its ecological impact on the local environment on land and in the waters around mason. By reducing our ecological impact on the environment, not only will mason clean up our community but it could also potentially increase freshman recruitment. For mason to succeed in this plan, donation centers would need to be readily available and maintained to ensure quality for things such as electronics. A simple action could drastically reduce annual waste on campus, increase quality of life on campus, as well a potentially increase new student retention. Currently, I do not believe mason is doing anything relative to combat the annual student waste problem on campus.

Photos

References

Flatgard, J., Lynn, K., Phelps, A., Thompson, M., & Torres, R. (2017). A campus waste reduction program. USD RED. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://red.library.usd.edu/sustainability-projects/3/

 James, A. (2018, April 20). Campus thrift store: A small step towards big change. UR Scholarship Repository. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://scholarship.richmond.edu/environmentalstudies-seniorseminar/26/

Yurchisin (University of North Carolina at Greensboro), J., Woo (University of North Carolina at Greensboro), H., & Watchravesringkan (University of North Carolina and Greensboro), K. (2014, January 1). An investigation of socially responsible consumers’ behavior in Thrift Stores. International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/itaa/article/id/2819/

 Hall, S., & Chester, A.-B. (2021, April 29). Thrifting: Sustainable or just a trend? Proceedings of Student Research and Creative Inquiry Day. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://publish.tntech.edu/index.php/PSRCI/article/view/854

Zero waste. Office of Sustainability. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://green.gmu.edu/campus-sustainability/zero-waste/

By Samantha Dawkins

The human-environment interaction that I have decided to write about on Mason’s campus is the innovation food forest. This is a relatively small gardening space located next to the Innovation Building on campus. The food forest has allowed for growth in biodiversity, education purposes, and has served as a resource for food insecure or even food curious Mason students.

This food forest not only serves as a resource for those on campus, but it also allows for the reduction of water run off in that area. Majority of Mason’s campuses are covered by nonpermeable surfaces that are unable to absorb or negate water run off, so having smaller portions of campus that are strategically placed allows for the food forest to absorb this excess water. Additionally, I believe it is rare for Donnie and the other sustainability volunteers to use fertilizers within the food forest, reducing the likelihood of chemical pollutants entering local waterways.

The food forest is owned and managed by Mason’s Office of Sustainability and was created by Elizabeth Torrens after being inspired by a ‘Permaculture Design Certification Course’ (Green, 2022). Alongside the food forest, there is also a compositing site, which is convenient for those living on campus (Youtube, 2019). Composting prevents food from being discarded of into landfills, where they are unable to naturally biodegrade and eventually release harmful gases into the atmosphere. By providing a compost pile, the Office of Sustainability is working to reduce food waste on campus and revert any food waste back into a usable fertile soil to mix into the food forest and other gardens on campus.

Though I do not believe there are many outside factors impacting this area, I do believe that the university does have incentives to up-keep this area of campus. Firstly, George Mason as an institution has ‘social responsibilities’ that students, staff, and locals recognize—one of them being the management of green spaces on campus. Another incentive would be the desire for greater funding for green spaces or urban food development on campus, which assist the university’s perceptions by outsiders as well as those on campus. Additionally, these green spaces on campus lower GMU’s overall carbon emissions as a percentage of these emissions are absorbed by the food forest and Mason’s arboretum (United Nations, 2022).

We can best assist the food forest in assisting our campuses health by volunteering to maintain the plants and general location as well as taking advantage of the composting location nearby. Additionally, using the food forest to educate your peers on the necessity of permeable surfaces in urban areas, the increased need for urban food development, and the importance of biodiversity, native plant life, and permaculture used in the food forest. Mason currently hires individuals from the Office of Sustainability to maintain and educate individuals on the food forest.

Photos

Sources

Green, G. M. U. (2022). Innovation Food Forest. Office of Sustainability. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://green.gmu.edu/campus-sustainability/campus-gardens/ff-home/#:~:text=The%20Innovation%20Food%20Forest%20is%20an%20ecological%20model%20and%20an,hires%20staff%20to%20maintain%20it.

United Nations, F. and A. O. O. the. (2022). Fao.org. Sustainable Food and Agriculture (SFA) | Incentives for Ecosystem Services | Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.fao.org/in-action/incentives-for-ecosystem-services/policy/sutainable-food-and-agriculture/es/

YouTube. (2019). How to Compost at George Mason University’s Fairfax Campus by Roosevelt@Mason. YouTube. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhW1T8qw3g&ab_channel=greengmu.

By Luis E. Gamboa Robles

1) Interaction(s)—Describe the human-environment interaction(s) that are the topic of your map addition. (2 points)

The human-environment interaction is between Mason students and staff and the use of trash cans found collectively all over campus. More specifically the food waste generated by Mason students and staff on campus. This form of waste can have various impacts on the environment.

2) Resource characteristics—Describe the characteristics of the resource systems and/or units, e.g. the environmental side of the interaction. What aspect of the environment is involved? How? What are some of the critical ecological factors? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)

The human-environmental interaction between trash bins and people contain various resource systems that play a role in this interaction. The first main aspect of the environment that is involved is the Mason Campus where the main interaction takes place. In this environment people consume food and other products, which are then dumped into trash bins. There have been some cases where I have personally seen trash bins overflowing with waste and trash being blown away. The waste being blown away and scattered can negatively impact the animals living on campus. Later on these waste bins are emptied out and are taken to an incinerator. Other aspects of the environment that are affected by this waste is the atmosphere and water cycle. These aspects are largely affected because of the amount of greenhouse emissions that can be created by regular incinerators. In addition, critical ecological features that are affected include the pH levels of soil and temperature. Any food waste that ends up in these trash bins can collectively produce a large amount of methane, which is more powerful than CO2. (MoveForHunger, n.d.) Greenhouse gas emissions such as methane, are known strongly for increasing temperature.

3) Governance/user characteristics—Describe the characteristics of the governance systems and/or users, e.g. the human side of the interaction. Who is involved? What political institutions? How are they involved? What might be some of the drivers? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)

The human side of the interaction includes Mason students and staff, waste and recycling collectors, and perhaps the Environmental Protection Agency. The political institution that is involved is the president of George Mason and respective staff. They are involved as it is their role to make regulations and policies that affect the campus either through hiring specific staff members to make them or enforce them. One specific driver of this institution is to keep their campus clean and safe for all students and staff. The Environmental Protection Agency is another institution that is involved. Their goal as of 2015, is to reduce food loss and waste in half by the year 2030 in the United States, which can be one of their drivers. (Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.) Waste and recycling collectors are involved because they need to be hired by George Mason to collect waste, in order to earn a profit for their business.

4) Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems—Do any of the following play a role? [Social context] Cultural factors, economic development, demographic trends, political stability, resource policies, market incentives, media organization; [Related ecosystems] Climate patterns, pollution patterns, ecological flows in/out of the SES. (2 points)

Cultural factors and economic development play a role in the interaction between students and staff and trash bins. Cultural factors that may influence this interaction is the societal standard to keep everything as clean as possible. A messy, polluted campus is a horrible image in society’s eyes, which is a great motivator for universities to stay as clean as possible. Economic development influences the interaction as waste and recycling collectors are more inclined to reach out to universities and provide them their service, knowing that these campuses are a great source of waste and can make them profit.

5) What can we do?—What are the implications of this interaction on humans and the environment? How could we do differently at Mason to improve them? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)

The main implication of this interaction between humans and the environment is pollution, specifically air pollution. To improve these conditions I believe that Mason should emphasize a stronger importance on composting on campus and encourage students and staff to reduce their food waste as much as possible. Composting is able to provide various benefits such as reducing the waste stream, cutting back on methane emissions, conserving water, improving soil health, and lessening erosion. (Hu, 2020)

In order to do so, George Mason should increase the accessibility of compost bins found on campus, placing them nearby housing and offices all over campus. These bins of food waste would be taken to the composting site that Mason already currently works with, Veteran Compost. (Auger, 2018) There should also be information provided either on the bin or on a sign nearby, that provides more information on the importance of composting. If Mason takes this action, not only will the University be able to reduce the impact of food waste on the environment, but they will be able to educate and spread awareness about the importance of composting. In addition, this a great alternative to incinerating the waste and allows the waste to serve another eco-friendly purpose.

10) If relevant—Is the university acting on this issue? State any actions that are already underway or have been taken by the university. (1 point)

Yes, George Mason is taking a step towards acting on this issue. They are currently partnered with an organization focused on composting food waste from campus dining halls. In addition, George Mason sends their collected waste to a waste to energy incinerator in Lorton, Va. (Auger, 2018). The waste to energy incinerator that George Mason is partnered with, filters and cleans any dangerous gasses created from their site. (Covanta)

Photos

Citations

Auger, P. author

B. B. (2018). Who collects our trash and recycling, and where does it go? Office of Sustainability. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://green.gmu.edu/ufaqs/who-collects-our-trash-and-recycling-and-where-does-it-go/

Covanta. (n.d.). Covanta. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://www.covanta.com/where-we-are/our-facilities/fairfax

July 20, 2020 S. H. (2021, November 30). Composting 101. NRDC. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/composting-101

The environmental impact of Food Waste. Move For Hunger. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://moveforhunger.org/the-environmental-impact-of-food-waste

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal. EPA. Retrieved April 6, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/united-states-2030-food-loss-and-waste-reduction-goal#epa%20action

By Anonymous

An example of human interaction is the amount of trash piling in parking lot K. In, which directly impacts Mason pond’s wildlife and water life. As we cross the road to the parking lot, there is only one trash bin in the parking lot. If there had been more trash cans, the trash around the forest area would have been less.

There is a lot of human interaction in the parking lot area. As students go from campus to the parking lot, they carry a lot of plastic bottles, plastics, and much other trash. People don’t find a place to throw their waste, ending up in a small forest. In a small forest, birds have made their habitat. In addition, the forest is just behind the pond and in, where fish and ducks will get a negative effect by human interaction. According to “International Bird Rescue,” “In many areas of the globe, birds inadvertently feed on plastic floating on the water and land, mistaking it for food. This ingestion often leads to death and even death of their young.” Birds are innocent creatures, and they rely on what’s on the ground. The birds in that area of forest will have a similar impact. They will eat trash, thinking of food that causes death. This is only the birds; other creatures are well affected by litter.

The waste management inside the campus is somewhat involved as well. From my perspective, they are so keenly focused on keeping the campus clean that they may have forgotten what’s happening outside the campus and in parking lot areas. Also, Industries that make plastics and bottles are much more involved, leading to this situation. Plastic companies that want to stay in the modern-day market will produce many plastics. If you look closely, every individual is at fault, from sellers to buyers and distributors. The producers make a lethal product that may wipe the entire bird population. At the same time, they need to be in the market’s industry. As a buyer, they need to drink and throw as well. Litter is everyone’s responsibility. We can all play a part in ensuring that items such as cigarette stubs, chewing gum, and food don’t end up in the environment (Zero Waste Scotland).

There are many areas where it plays a vital role in littering. For example, cultural role plays a crucial role in almost every factor of life. The culture that you come from is the foremost important factor. In the states, people are taught not to litter from an early age. However, countries with a lousy waste management system do not show an example to the young generation. For instance, In my early years in Nepal, I was taught not to litter but not shown an example of not littering. I thought littering was good since everyone did it. But as soon as I came to the states, I had a sudden change of not littering. From a personal view, littering is primarily a cultural factor. If a child is not shown as an example of not littering and throwing the right things at the right bin, that child will not follow. That is a personal example, but in terms of real people being lazy. The website “home is where” says, “Laziness and carelessness have bred a culture of habitual littering. Carelessness has made people throw rubbish anywhere without thinking about the consequences of their actions”. Litters are a part of laziness.

In that small forest, there is no trash bin around the premises. A university can put a trash can that way, and it will reduce the plastics and bottles in that area. After placing a bin, waste management inside Mason can dispose of the remaining waste. Also, each individual can help the local surrounding just by being efficient. Unfortunately, just the presence of garbage bins does not stop people from littering; if Mason comes up with a rule to fine people who litter, that may prevent people from littering. Money is valuable to everyone, and if we put money in the trash, a solution can be found.

One idea that I’m impressed with Mason is the cleanliness inside the campus. Mason has excellent surroundings and lots of students. Despite that, keeping college neat almost every single time is impressive. If Mason uses the same idea outside the college, it will save lots of birds and animals in its surrounding.

Photos

Works Cited

“How Plastics Affect Birds.” International Bird Rescue, 8 Nov. 2021, https://www.birdrescue.org/our-work/research-and-innovation/how-plastics-affect-birds/.

“Who Is Responsible for Litter and Fly-Tipping?” Zero Waste Scotland, 9 June 2021, https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/litter-flytipping/who-is-responsible#:~:text=Owners%20of%20private%20land%20are,it%20to%20your%20local%20authority.

“Reasons, Consequences and Possible Solutions of Littering.” Caucasus Environmental Knowledge Portal, 28 Mar. 2018, http://environment.cenn.org/waste-management/publications/reasons-consequences-possible-solutions-littering/.

By Anonymous

George Mason University (GMU) prides itself on being an exceptionally sustainable campus. There are more conservation-minded individuals in the City of Fairfax than one may think. GMU boasts an array of pollinator gardens throughout its Fairfax campus. Pollinator gardens serve many important roles. The most obvious benefit of these gardens would be encouraging the protection of necessary pollinators in our area. These gardens fuel our pollinators, and in turn they play a role in providing food for humans and wildlife (Why is Pollination Important?, n.d.).

However, these gardens are not always available to the pollinators which they serve. In the past, the Fairfax community has noticed that Facilities Management will mow the pollinator gardens in an effort to maintain the aesthetics of the Fairfax campus. In a brief email interview with GMU’s Sustainability Program Director, Sarah D’Alexander, she explained that many people do not realize that the plants are in fact perennials that will return next year (personal communication, April 1, 2022). Many people only see the signage for these gardens, and mown down plants next to them which is not encouraging. Mowing pollinator gardens for aesthetics interferes with necessary environmental interactions and resources (Why is Pollination Important?, n.d.). However, the Office of Sustainability must also maintain its relationship with Facilities Maintenance and those who are contracted to mow on GMU’s campus (Lo, 2018). Without this partnership, the sustainability of GMU would likely suffer as well as those who rely on these careers with Facilities Maintenance.

There are many avenues that could be pursued to both satisfy the aesthetics of GMU’s campus while not compromising the integrity of its pollinator gardens. Dr. Kimberly A. Stoner of The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station writes of best management practices when it comes to maintaining pollinator gardens (Stoner, 2017). For example, it is recommended to refrain from mowing until after the first frost in the Fall. Another recommendation from Dr. Stoner is to mow the gardens on a rotational schedule, which would encourage visitors and help them to realize that GMU is not clear-cutting its pollinator gardens (Stoner, 2017). It may also be beneficial to rotate signage along with mowing. For example, when a plot is cut back for the Winter a sign could be placed by it explaining that the perennial plants will return. Another action that could be taken by the University would be to take the Campus Pollinator Pledge, founded by the National Wildlife Federation (Campus Pollinator Pledge, n.d.). This pledge promises to create, restore, and protect areas that support pollinators (Campus Pollinator Pledge, n.d.). GMU already does many of these things, so this would be a great way to continue to hold GMU accountable. Sarah D’Alexander also noted in her email that Facilities Maintenance has taken note of this issue and begun to enact change. The Office of Sustainability partnered with Landscaping to install a new, deliberate pollinator garden near Roberts House. They are also adding Persimmon trees to the space, which will further support native pollinators (personal communication, April 1, 2022). Protecting GMU’s pollinator gardens will positively impact both the community and the pollinators that rely on these spaces to benefit our environment.

Photos

References

Campus Pollinator Pledge. National Wildlife Federation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.nwf.org/EcoLeaders/Get-Involved/Campus-Pollinator-Pledge

Lo, M. B. M. (2018). Who manages the grounds and landscaping at Mason? Office of Sustainability. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://green.gmu.edu/ufaqs/who-manages-the-grounds-and-landscaping-at-mason/

Stoner, K. (2017). PROPER TIMING TO MOW NATIVE PLANT MEADOWS CAN PROTECT POLLINATOR HABITAT. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station . Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://clear.uconn.edu/tools/habitats/docs/ProperTimingtoMow.pdf

Why is Pollination Important? U.S. Forest Service. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/importance.shtml

By Anonymous

Interaction(s)

The human-environment interaction I chose to explore for this assignment is the ineffective mulch placement near the Nguyen Engineering Building. The Office of Sustainability recently replenished the mulching around various areas of campus, including the spot in question. The mulch for this area was placed primarily to serve as a pathway for students to maintain the aesthetic value of the area by preventing a desire path from forming. However, the hilly geography of the location makes the pathway susceptible to rainwater- causing the mulch to disperse and spread away from the path and towards the sidewalk and storm drains.

Resource characteristics

The characteristics in question consist of water runoff from rainstorms, the geographic features of the area, and the lack of vegetation within the mulched area. The mulch pathway contains a myriad of disadvantages for the area. The first is that it prevents other plants from germinating, which can result in a slight decrease in the number of plants and biodiversity in the area (All Around Soil and Stone, 2017). The second is the runoff mulch can impact the water quality of the area by getting into storm drains, adding pollutants, and further contributing to street runoff.

Governance/user characteristics

The primary governance system residing over this issue is the university itself- specifically the Office of Sustainability and various Mason Facilities (Lo, 2018). GMU is responsible for all landscaping efforts on campus, which includes mulching. However, on a federal level, the EPA is also involved. While there are no strict regulations regarding mulch specifically, the EPA does have recommendations for what mulch should consist of- namely recyclable products.

Political settings and/or related ecosystems

There are a few ecosystem systems that contribute to this issue, such as the water cycle and how it contributes to runoff. Looser sediment is easier for water to carry and displace, which can cause a myriad of issues such as property damage, pollutant spread, etc (Washington State University, 2015). Aesthetic variables can also contribute to this issue, as the desire for a pretty landscape means that actions against structures such as desire paths are more likely.

Solutions

While there aren’t many actions, we can take on an individual level to solve this issue, there are a few things the university can do. First, the university can implement a dry stream in the affected area to catch runoff, as they can greatly improve the drainage of a certain area. Because this dry stream would only run in the most affected zones, the pathway can continue to exist and would even become more stable in the process. The second thing the university can do is incorporate more plants in the pathway, as this can help keep the runoff in place. While doing this would make the mulch less effective as a pathway, it would prevent runoff and could also be used to increase the number of native plants located on campus. Furthermore, it can contribute to the aesthetic value of the campus. The third solution is to install netting underneath the mulch, as the netting could help catch the mulch and decrease the amount of runoff (Lisa, 2021).

Photos

Works Cited

All Around Soil & Stone. (2017, November 22). Positive and negative effects of mulch. All Around Soil & Stone. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://soilandstone.com/positive-negative-effects-mulch/

Lisa. (2021, June 7). 6 smart ways to keep mulch in place on a slope. The Practical Planter. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://thepracticalplanter.com/how-to-keep-mulch-in-place-on-slope/

Lo, M. B. M. (2018, January 18). Who manages the grounds and landscaping at Mason? Office of Sustainability. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://green.gmu.edu/ufaqs/who-manages-the-grounds-and-landscaping-at-mason/

Washington State University. (2015). Understanding the impacts of runoff: Shore stewards: Washington State University. Shore Stewards. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://shorestewards.cw.wsu.edu/faq/understanding-the-impacts-of-runoff/

By Drew Anderson

1. Introduction

Vending machines are ubiquitous, both generally and on Mason’s campus. So too, are bottled and canned beverages. Even more common is water—whether bottled, canned, or out of the tap. The actual human-environment interaction I am focusing on here is at first glance extremely simple: you swipe your card or put money in the vending machine, receive a bottle (or can) of water, and drink.

Though we hardly even notice them or give them much thought, vending machines are a significant point of intersection between humans, the environment, and human society generally. Though in the moment of purchasing a drink at a vending machine, we likely hardly think about the environment, this interaction raises a lot of interesting questions on environmental, consumer, individual, and governance levels. In what follows I will break down the different components of this experience, namely, buying, consuming, and disposing of a can of water on the Fairfax Campus.

The specific question I will be pursuing is whether Mason’s recent switch from bottled to canned water was a more sustainable choice.

Picture of canned water in an on-campus store.

I chose the Johnson Center as the site since the food court is where I’ve seen the most bottled water purchases.

2. Resource Characteristics

The first condition of this experience I want to focus on is that of resources. To buy a can of water, you need materials for a vending machine, materials for a can, and a source of water to fill that can. Environmentally, there’s quite a lot going on here.

A vending machine is basically a refrigerator with a glass or plastic front and with an onboard computer equipped to vend products and process money—that’s a lot of small and complex parts, which makes it very difficult for to perform a life cycle analysis on. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I had a difficult time finding any good academic literature on vending machines specifically, but refrigerators aren’t great for the environment.[i] Refrigerants traditionally use hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—indeed, they constitute the largest present demand of HFCs[ii]—which tend to be very harmful to the environment since they are about 1,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. Many other countries are switching to better refrigeration options, but the U.S. has largely not quite done so yet.[iii] In any case, as of this year, refrigerants are now regulated by the EPA, and it’s hard to say whether vending machines use alternative refrigerants or not.

The water, once bottled in Coca-Cola’s Detroit plant (now closed as of late 2021) is now bottled in their Grand Rapids plant. Dasani is tap water (yes, really)[iv]—former sources from the Detroit tap which itself comes from the Detroit River, but now most likely comes from the Grand Rapids tap, which comes from Lake Michigan.

2.1 Aluminum: dislodging the “eco-friendly” myth

Aluminum is more interesting. Aluminum as we recognize it (i.e., in pure form) doesn’t really exist in nature. Rather, it exists in Bauxite, a rock with high aluminum content. The long and short of it is that Bauxite is strip mined out of the ground and transported to a refinery, where it is refined to obtain alumina using the Bayer process. Bauxite is heavy and can’t be transported very far in raw form until it’s been refined into lighter-weight alumina. After being refined, the alumina is probably to somewhere further away (most refineries use imported alumina) and smelted into aluminum using an electrolysis process called the Hall-Heroult process. Electrolysis I believe is the standard for smelting many ores, such as copper. This whole process is visualized below (see below).

Notice the waste lake in the Bayer process image? Processing bauxite this way creates industrial waste called “red mud.”

“In spite of over a century of effort looking for uses, over 1200 patents and hundreds of technically successful trials, less than 4 million tons of the 150 million tons of bauxite residue produced annually is used in a productive way.”[v] Proper storage is usually the solution, but this is not without risk. In 2010, there was an accident at an alumina plant in Ajka Turkey where the dam wall of the waste lake collapsed, releasing 35 million cubic feet of sludge across 15 square miles of land, killing 10 people along with whatever wildlife was in its way.[vi]

Oh, and strip mining—which is how Bauxite is mined since it’s generally found close to the surface—isn’t great for the environment and the people who live nearby either.[vii] Strip mining requires all native wildlife, vegetation, habitats, and soil be removed and overturned. Very little of this happens in the United States nowadays.

Setting aside local pollution, the main reason I highlight the actual production processes is to point out that they are very energy intensive. “Energy intensive” is a rather nebulous term, so we need something to compare it to; here, writing about beverages, we’re concerned with whether aluminum cans are more sustainable than plastic. Thus, compared with plastic, aluminum has a significantly higher carbon footprint: It has a significantly higher carbon footprint than plastic: 11.09 tons of CO2 is emitted per ton of cans produced, while plastic produces 2.2 tons of CO2.[viii] I believe this statistic is referring to mostly virgin aluminum produced with fossil fuels. The 2016 EPA report has a lot of information about this.[ix]

Despite the higher up-front cost however, aluminum theoretically makes up for this by its recyclability. Aluminum is easily recyclable, and this process does not use as nearly as much power as creating new aluminum. The vast majority of the emissions generated in the creation of an aluminum can come from the creation of new aluminum. This is to say that recycling drops emissions down to what is likely a negligible amount—or at least on par with plastic.

The Carbon Trust, in a 2021 report,[x] perform a carbon analysis of a variety of beverage containers. Note the significant variability of aluminum compared to most other materials. This is for two reasons. First, because (as I’ve said) most of the emissions generated from aluminum are in its initial production. Thus, the impact of a can on the environment from an emissions perspective depends largely on whether it was produced with renewable energy or not (most European aluminum plants do use renewable energy). Indeed, from an economic perspective, the siting of an aluminum smelting plant largely has to do with whether there is cheap electricity available in the area. China used to subsidize quite a bit of this, but as they crack down more and more on their carbon footprint and emissions, who knows what will happen with this. Second, as you probably have guessed, has to do with recycling rates. Some graphs follow below showing how big of a difference recycling makes in emissions and energy use.

Also consider this, from the 2016 EPA report

My point here is that the “greenness” of aluminum largely has to do with how it is initially produced (difficult to determine from a consumer perspective) and how it is disposed of. As far as I can tell, if a beverage container is going to go into the landfill, plastic is the way to go since it is lightweight and not as energy intensive to produce. It’s worth mentioning that this was the reason plastic came to prominence in the first place—in a way that seems strange to us now, plastic in its advent was considered more environmentally friendly because it was inexpensive to produce compared to other materials like glass and paper. I’ll return to this idea later.

3. Governance/user characteristics

Aspects of governance here mostly involve regulation (state and federal) and internal GMU decisions.

George Mason has a very large contract with Coca-Cola which generates (according to GMU) over $800,000 in commissions and revenue.[xi] This profit (for those who don’t know) does not go to GMU, but rather towards student scholarships for athletes and those in the Honors program.

In regard to the water cans specifically, Mason’s sustainability office made the decision (sometime in late 2021—all I could find online was a Facebook post[xii] advertising the switch) to switch to cans. The Sustainability Office advertised this in terms of its aims for a “plastic free GMU,” and also in light of Governor Northam’s executive order 77, which bans single use and polystyrene from all state-related agencies.[xiii]

These cans were available in the first place because Coca-Cola—who, according to some, is perhaps the biggest polluter in the world on the consumer end of things—is probably trying to improve its optics as far as sustainability goes. Also, as consumers become more aware of climate change and environmental issues, they are starting to look for more sustainable options. This means real money-making opportunities for businesses who can appeal to those consumers first.

The government appears to be trying to put some kind of pressure on businesses to reduce emissions and pollution, but whether this translates into enforceable federal regulation is another matter. It seems that at the moment, most of the regulation happening to Coca-Cola’s products have to do with government efforts to regulate nutrition, i.e., heavily processed and sweetened foods.[xiv] Most of the biggest changes in regulation as far as environment and (for our purposes) canned water is concerned are happening at the state level like Northam’s state-institutional ban (EO77) on single use plastics.

4. Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems

Unfortunately, this aforementioned economic market for sustainable products can (and often does) lead to greenwashing, which is either “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company (firm-level greenwashing) or the environmental benefits of a product or service (product-level greenwashing).”[xv]

A great example of this is Coca-Cola’s own recent change in their plastic bottle labeling. I can’t seem to find a picture of it, but alongside their newly introduced 100% recycled plastic bottles, they also rebranded their regular 20 oz. bottles to say in very large and boastful font, “I’m 100% recyclable.” This could mislead uneducated consumers into thinking that because their bottle is theoretically 100% recyclable, putting it in the recycle bin means it will be 100% recycled. This is generally untrue for a number of reasons, the most concerning of which is the generally abysmal rate of plastic recycling. Thus, the “green” choice is in all likelihood very far from it.

In any case, it’s reasonably safe to say that consumers generally do want to make a more sustainable choice (all else being equal), if for no other reason than to make themselves feel better about their purchase. This trend will probably only continue, and it is both the government’s and corporations’ responsibility to not promote (in the first place) or at least prevent the promotion of misleading marketing and sustainability claims. Decisions like the one GMU made—namely, switching to cans—represent a good example of this sort of policymaking activity: ideally, making the scenario for consumers such that all they choices they have available to them are good ones. But is this true? Was switching to cans the right decision?

Setting marketing aside for now and focusing on somewhat ideal circumstances, the question I’m focusing on here is whether canned water is better choice than a plastic bottle—or, at least, whether Mason’s decision to switch to cans was a good idea from a policymaking standpoint.

As we saw in the aluminum section, the environmental impact of aluminum is largely dependent on its method of production (viz., fuel source) and its recyclability. A company as large as Coca-Cola likely uses a variety of aluminum suppliers, so it’s impossible for me to determine to what extent the Dasani cans on campus are made with fossil fuels or not. This leaves only the question of whether this aluminum is being recycled. The main problem here is that whether the used can actually ends up in the recycling bin or not (which, it should be mentioned, still does not necessarily mean it will actually make it to a recycling plant. However, that is largely beyond the individual consumers’ control); I call this a problem because changing consumer behavior can be very difficult, and from my own experience it seems to me that many people do not (or even do not want to) think very hard about their trash production. That’s not to say this can’t change, but it is certainly an obstacle.

5. What can we do?

It is tempting to suggest an outright ban on bottled water. This would theoretically eliminate the whole problem by forcing people to either bring a water bottle and use the many water bottle filling stations around campus, or to use a water fountain. In an ideal world this would be the solution. However, I do not recommend this (not yet at least) for two main reasons. First, other universities (like the University of Vermont) have tried to do this, and it generally has resulted in an increase in plastic bottle waste because it results in more bottled water being imported or brought onto campuses.[xvi] Second, if people are set on buying a drink from the vending machine, not having water will just result in people buying something other than water, which, given what it usually stocked in vending machines, will probably be something much unhealthier than water. Also, this would potentially cut into profits generated from vending, which as I’ve mentioned, go to scholarships for students.

Statistics regarding the aluminum can recycling rate on Mason’s campus don’t exist. They probably should—that’s my first suggestion. This is so because, as should be clear from my section on recycling and in the last section, aluminum cans are only superior to plastic if they are actually being recycled; if it’s going to end up in the landfill anyways, plastic is a better choice than aluminum from both an emissions and production (i.e., the local industrial pollution) perspective.[xvii] There may be no statistics, but from my firsthand observations of living on or right nearby campus for the last four years (and, as embarrassing as this might be to admit, spending a lot of time looking in trash and recycling bins to see what recycling is looking like), I can say that there is definitely a lot of room for improvement.

Therefore, to state it clearly, we can’t really know yet whether switching to cans was a good or bad idea because we don’t have enough data. We would need to know at the very least whether the can collection rate (assuming the average of 50% recycled material in the can) is high enough to beat out plastic. At this point, it could have been either a great idea and a huge success, or a terrible idea which has created more harm than good. Although we likely don’t have older statistics from the pre-can era to compare those hypothetical current statistics to, this isn’t an issue if we can demonstrate a high enough collection percentage. Connected to the recovery percentage is the overall purity of the cans/plastic/bottle waste stream.

The biggest issue I have noticed is that trash never gets sorted right—people put trash into recycle bins, and recycling into trash. This is disastrous, because when too much trash is put into a recycling bin, odds are the sanitation workers are just going to throw that recycling bag in the trash—as they rightfully should, because that bag is effectively not recycling, but trash with a few recyclable materials mixed in. The other issue I have noticed is that otherwise recyclable materials (PET bottles and cups for instance) are rendered unrecyclable because they have not been emptied and (if applicable) rinsed, or (if applicable) still have straws in them. Some also have difficult-to-remove food residue like a Frappuccino cups or yogurt.

My main and most important suggestion is to get the word out about what can be recycled, what can’t, and why. Most of the labelling on trash cans is minimal, and there could certainly be more detailed and eye-catching ones. I recommend a flyer (or multiple flyers which have different information on them, so people don’t visually tune them out. Maybe even a ‘trash spotlight’ flyer which focuses on just one piece of trash) or pamphlet (or both) which contains a sort of key, guide, or rubric to the most commonly disposed-of materials on campus and having those posted in relevant places and/or emailed out to people. Those materials could include: pizza boxes, to-go cups, bottles, cans, to-go containers, and soiled paper; also helpful could be general pieces of information like “when in doubt throw it out” etc.

Most important though is probably having some directly on/nearby trash cans. Most of the existing signs I see are small and easily ignorable; throwing an empty water can in the trash should, I argue, not be easy but in fact require willful ignorance of the large and clearly legible/decipherable notice/sign right around or in front of the trash receptacle which tells you not to do that. While some trash cans are labeled, this is just with text or vague pictures. I know that the minimalist font and graphics look nice, but when the minimalism gets in the way of effective recycling, it defeats the whole purpose of having recycling bins in the first place. I advocate for bigger, clearer pictures, since if a person is busy they probably will not take the time to read small font listed too far away from the trash can. The trash centers in Horizon (pictured below) are a good example of a lack of clear information.

To pick a single example here, “mixed paper” is pretty ambiguous, especially for someone who knows little about materials and recycling. I looked online and found a good (not perfect, but good enough) graphic made by the Landfill of North Iowa (below).

As you can see, there are both positive and negative examples. It’s fairly clear and does not require reading skills. We need something along these lines for every slot in the trash/recycling center. Again, I know it’s not as visually attractive, but it is certainly more effective.

A ream of paper is, at most, $10. Mason-focused flyers, brochures, pamphlets, etc. could easily be made in Microsoft publisher, word, or even PowerPoint in an hour. I made this rough mockup (below) in about 15 minutes using Word and Publisher. It doesn’t look that great (I’m studying philosophy and environmental policy, not digital design) but you should hopefully get the idea: this is easy to do, it won’t cost much, and it could make a serious difference in the quality of Mason’s recycling given the size of the campus and the amount of trash that goes through it.

I’m sure someone more creative than me can come up with a catchier and campaign centered around proper trash disposal. I’m sure you could even send someone out to talk in about classrooms before class starts. As I said, as long as it’s not too much work, I’m willing to bet most people want to do the right thing when it comes to throwing stuff away.

A few smaller suggestions follow.

1. Encouraging reusable water bottles is good. There are filling stations everywhere (also a good thing. Thanks to whoever did that). If that cuts into vending profits, maybe Mason could find a way to make a portion of other things (maybe Mason-branded reusable bottles?) go towards those scholarships.
2. Another suggestion (which I’m admittedly less sure about) is to use the resealable aluminum water cans Coca-Cola also came out with (pictured below). This could encourage those who are buying water (maybe because they forgot their reusable one or they can’t be bothered to lug one around and have to clean it) to maybe refill/reuse it a couple times. This suggestion should be indicated on a flyer which should be posted on or around the vending machine. On the other hand, if people like the resealable ones too much, maybe this could be an issue by encouraging more people to buy water cans. Then again, maybe this is only a serious issue if they’re not being recycled in the first place. Or, maybe, have both the sealable and ordinary style cans side by side (especially if one is more expensive) in the vending machine and see what works?
3. This is related to (2), but my third suggestion is that I know Coca-Cola also came out with a “package-less” vending machine which offers sparkling and flavored water (also pictured below). Assuming a vending machine-like pay system could be implemented, something like this could be the sweet spot between encouraging bringing your own container, premium beverage options, and still making money off sales.

This being said I do want to say nice things about the existing efforts. The switch to aluminum cans is a big one and I don’t think too many people have been bold enough to do this yet. Taking a look at some of the upcoming sustainability plans, I don’t doubt things will change. I’ve noticed less people using single use bottles, and increasingly more people using reusable bottles. The bottle filling stations are also always great. My main point here is that I think people—at least, on a college campus—can be surprisingly responsive if you present them with good, clear, reasonable information that is easily accessible. Changing the culture around waste and sustainability is a crucial step towards improving the situation.

Footnotes

---

[i] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11032021/climate-change-refrigerator-hfc-super-pollutant/

[ii] Blowers, Paul, and James M. Lownsbury. “Carbon Dioxide Emission Implications If Hydrofluorocarbons Are Regulated: A Refrigeration Case Study.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 5, 2010, pp. 1526–1529., https://doi.org/10.1021/es9023354.

[iii] https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/us-fridges-are-terrible-for-the-environment-but-that-could-change/

[iv] https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/how-coke-and-pepsi-make-millions-from-bottling-tap-water-as-residents-face-shutoffs/ (This is a great read. I highly recommend it)

[v] Evans, Ken. “The History, Challenges, and New Developments in the Management and Use of Bauxite Residue.” Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy, vol. 2, no. 4, 2016, pp. 316–331., https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-016-0060-x.

[vi] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39503888

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/8043969/Hungary-threatened-by-ecological-catastrophe-as-toxic-sludge-escapes-factory.html

[vii] https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/10/04/what-do-we-get-out-it/human-rights-impact-bauxite-mining-guinea

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35340528

[viii] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-plastic-aluminium-factbox/factbox-aluminum-cans-get-boost-from-anger-over-plastic-pollution-idUSKBN1WW0KC

[ix] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, “Containers, Packaging, and Non-Durable Good Materials Chapters,” Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM). February 2016 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/warm_v14_containers_packaging_non-durable_goods_materials.pdf

[x] Carbon Trust. Carbon footprint of soft drinks packaging: A comparative analysis. December 2021. https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/Carbon_footprint_of_soft_drinks_packaging_report.pdf

[xi] http://budget.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/20budexecsumm.pdf

[xii] https://www.facebook.com/greengmu/photos/pcb.10158575461731025/10158575456166025

[xiii] https://www.deq.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9664/637601348500700000

[xiv] Scrinis, Gyorgy. “CRFA – Big Food Corporations and the Nutritional Marketing and Regulation of Processed Foods.” Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des Études Sur L’alimentation, vol. 2, no. 2, 2015, pp. 136–145., https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i2.113.

[xv] Delmas, Magali A, and Vanessa Cuerel Burbano. “The Drivers of Greenwashing.” California Management Review, vol. 54, no. 1, 2011, https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/14016/cmr5401_04_printversion_delmasburbano.pdf.

[xvi] Choate, Beth, et al. “Campus Bottled Water Bans, Not Always the Solution.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 5, 2018, pp. 987–997., https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-06-2017-0089.

[xvii] This likely goes for a lot of other materials, too. For instance, paper grocery bags, if only used once and then disposed of, are probably not much better and are in fact probably much worse than plastic bags. The growth in paper bags is therefore, one possible unintended consequence with the new VA law taxing plastic shopping bags, or Northam’s EO77—ideally, paper bags should have been taxed something like 3 cents, to encourage reusables without incentivizing plastic.

Paper is very energy and water intensive since it requires growing pulp trees on a tree farm (which are a monoculture) and then a large paper mill to turn them into paper (lots of emissions). Also, when paper rots in the landfill it produces methane. Ideally those bags get recycled, but even then, that’s a lot of expense for a one-or-two use item. We need both reusables and recycling and composting to really make paper a better choice. Plastic is a serious problem, but simply switching to paper ignores the whole reason we stopped using paper and started using plastic in the first place.

Unification & Religion

by: Irene M. Slusher

Harari et al. (2015) in the book,  Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,  have written with focus on imagination in the building of  history.   It is not written with the idea of documenting every statement in parts of history that are mentioned.  It is written with the theory that certain events may have led to a certain human evolution or other events.   Also, the personal thoughts of the author(s) was included on what they noted in history and the human situation, while it also is noted it includes predictions as to where the human race will end up in the future. It is classified non-fiction but should be read with the idea that statements are not always verified and could be inaccurate to some degree.  In my opinion, it also includes group think, that could need more evaluation.  I say this because the species of humans that are written as extinct and on the evolutionary scale can be seen today in humanity, including babies born with smaller brains (ABC News, 2016), some with extra limbs or fewer limbs (DW,  2019), children born with “tails” (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2012), conjoined twins, humans who cannot walk erect due to medical conditions, etc. (CDC, 2020)  In fact, albinos are born to black humans even to this day, whereas, this means humans are really more unified than we even realize (ABCNews, 2017).

From my assigned reading of the fourth section of Sapiens, Unification, I was interested in the elements that created a religion and what might have been the reason(s) religion survived through human history in a very hostile earth.  An example of a human-environment interaction that is interesting is the diets of the hunter gatherers  before they actually became farmers.   In choosing this topic it is relevant because Harari et al (2015) reports that diet is critical in the survival of humanity and humanity has suffered since grains were farmed to support the increased population also concluding that disease has been a negative result of this farming. 

 Unification and Religion seems to occur during the same time period allocated to Homo Sapiens, or roughly 100,000 years ago, as the author (Harari et al., 2015) mentioned.  This leads the author to seem to discount existence of religion prior to this or simply does not choose to mention it.  This is applicable to the theme of “unification in the book  Sapiens.”  According to Harari, et al (2015) Homo Sapiens appeared only in the last 100,000 years and were preceded by organisms and or animals that had far less creativity, imagination, brain size and function. 

What occurs after Homo Sapiens appearance leads the authors to analyze the effects of a specific human appearance on the physical environment of the earth and or the living systems.  The effects of farming of grains, though it was theorized as disease producing, increased the population and potentially led to organized secure societies that were very religious.  What was not mentioned was the affect of this diet on birth defects or anomalies in the physical appearance of homo sapiens.   The author(s) did reflect on the power of Religion.  Religion on this larger scale was, according to the authors, a unifying force for humanity.  So this was the noted affect of this physical environment on humans.  

The changes in human-environment interactions could improve  nutrition but according to Harari et al (2015) due to shifts in either social or ecological systems presented by farming, humans became less healthy.  The author feels this unhealthiness promoted diseases, but this might have included over-population as more likely to harbor diseases, unsanitary conditions and over-eating in  these areas due to communities banding together into larger and larger communities to protect themselves.  Not really mentioned, but also critical evaluation of the farm community scenarios, is that pollution could cause birth defects and medical conditions that are perpetuated further by the foods eaten.  On top of all of this, radiation and disasters from natural events also caused physical changes to the humanity born during these times.  It will even occur today and in the future.

Resource characteristics can be described as the nutritional food, non-nutritional food,  farming food from grains (etc.), natural resource wealth units (stocks) in the  Loopy systems diagram.  

 Governance/user characteristics can be described as stocks in the framing, education, and also related wealth.

Social/economic/political settings or related ecosystems include the Secure Society which evolves from Religion noted by Harari et al (2015).   It is apparent that social context of Economic development, demographic trends, political stability, resource policies, & market incentives played a role in this system .  Climate patterns, pollution patterns, & ecological flows in/out of the SES are part of the Disasters that affected the system.  (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). As needed, they were entered into my systems diagram. 

  Interaction(s) are interesting to view in the Loopy presentation.  I can describe the human-environment interaction(s) as increasing negatively when negative events are at their height and the flows and the feedback show that Religion, as the topic of unification, shows strength despite the negativity of atheism., upon placement of  arrows between the different stocks in the system.  The outcomes are observed to be, from the beginning of Creation, following inadequate nutrition, disasters and radiation, as leading to birth defects.  However, when religion is involved in the secure society, farming, and education it presents more security and eventually leads to atheism.  When points are diminished it presents strength in religion, which lends to the theory that Religion is strong when disasters, birth defects, food shortages, etc are scarcer..  These are the outcomes of the interaction in the system when the model is run.  This is validated in the report, because Harari et al (2015) recognize the importance of religion as a unifying force but acknowledge humanity has the free will to choose to be part of religion or choose atheism. 

 Link to my Loopy systems model :    https://bit.ly/3H5tXsq

References

 ABC News. (2016, December 29). Kansas parents of 2 girls with microcephaly … – youtube. youTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHzr0G-qZgo. 

ABCNews. (2017, December 29). Tanzanian children lost limbs in brutal attacks for having albinism: Part 1. YouTube: Tanzanian children lost limbs in brutal attacks for having albinism: Part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PKWoW0ZzIk. 

CDC. (2020, October 26). Data & statistics on birth defects. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html.

DW, D. (2019, December 9). Thalidomide: Still with US half a century later – youtube. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc3nHrDEWs4.

Harari, Y. N., Harari, Y. N., Purcell, J., Watzman, H., Harari, Y. N., & Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind ; Homo Deus: A brief history of Tomorrow. Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.

 Mukhopadhyay, B., Shukla, R. M., Mukhopadhyay, M., Mandal, K. C., Haldar, P., & Benare, A. (2012). Spectrum of human tails: A report of six cases. Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, 17(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-9261.91082 

McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and

continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES06387-190230

Unification of Mankind: Cognitive Revolution

By: Sara Alemayehu

Time period: ~5000 BCE-1600s

Resource characteristics: boats, books, horses, currency (modes of transportation, means of passing knowledge, means of securing exchanges)

Governance/user characteristics: merchants, conquerors, prophets,

Social/economic/political settings: monarchies looking to extend their rule and their religion, merchants and tradespeople looking to secure a living and survive in a middle class life, societies developing new beliefs and philosophies

Interactions (human-environmental): greater understanding of outside climates, cultivation of land in producing products for trade, taming environment for transportation

Outcomes: conflict, cognitive dissonance, globalization, multiculturalism, unification

The cognitive revolution occurred from around the time of ancient empires to the Age of Exploration, with the time period of 5000 BCE to the 1600s constituting an era where civilizations formed and interacted with one another to form empires. According to Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, the first three actors to spur the Cognitive Revolution were merchants, conquerors, and prophets (Harari, 2011). This became the case as a result of monarchies looking to extend their rule and religion, of merchants and tradespeople looking to secure a living and survive with a middle-class life, and of societies developing new beliefs and philosophies. In order to support the spread of innovations, products, and ideas that came with the Cognitive Revolution, people had to forge means of transportation, means of passing knowledge, and means of securing exchanges. Consequently, old forms of transportation such as animal-drawn carts were utilized while new forms of transportation were developed, alongside currency for efficiency of trade and written texts for the transmission of ideas. Environmentally speaking, this era fostered a greater understanding of outside climates and environments, greater cultivation of land in producing products for trade, and greater domestication of land for developing travel routes.  The main outcomes of the Cognitive Revolution involved conflict due to clashes between cultures, cognitive dissonance as part of settling differences, and globalization as seen in the era of ancient empires and continue to see today.

Loopy URL:

https://ncase.me/loopy/v1.1/?data=[[[1,657,166,0.5,%22merchants%22,4],[2,652,328,0.5,%22conquerors%22,4],[3,654,500,0.5,%22prophets%22,4],[4,271,342,0.5,%22civilization%22,0],[5,820,307,0.5,%22understanding%2520of%2520outside%2520climates%22,3],[6,805,102,0.5,%22cultivation%2520of%2520land%22,3],[9,366,187,0.5,%22transportation%22,5],[10,498,262,0.5,%22currency%22,5],[11,274,93,0.5,%22taming%2520environment%2520for%2520transportation%22,3],[12,819,506,0.5,%22spread%2520of%2520religion%22,2],[13,951,148,0.5,%22increased%2520trade%2520with%2520other%2520nations%22,2],[14,1107,335,0.5,%22conflict%22,2],[15,1174,485,0.5,%22cognitive%2520dissonance%22,2],[16,1244,633,0.5,%22unification%22,2],[18,965,311,0.5,%22empires%22,2]],[[4,9,59,1,0],[4,10,-91,1,0],[9,11,-70,1,0],[11,9,-98,1,0],[10,1,63,1,0],[1,6,76,1,0],[1,5,56,1,0],[2,5,73,1,0],[6,13,85,1,0],[5,2,66,1,0],[3,12,62,1,0],[5,18,73,1,0],[12,18,-46,1,0],[13,18,47,1,0],[18,14,87,1,0],[14,18,117,-1,0],[14,16,118,-1,0],[16,14,149,-1,0],[14,15,52,1,0],[15,14,67,-1,0],[15,16,46,1,0],[16,15,77,1,0],[4,2,-71,1,0],[4,3,-67,1,0],[9,1,67,1,0],[12,3,83,1,0],[16,4,251,1,0]],[],22%5D

References

Yuval, H. N. (2015) Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind

Unification of Mankind

By: Artem Protsenko

Time Period: 2250 BC

Resource characteristics: As post agriculture revolution period takes place, human race starts forming a more complex society introducing artificial instincts and certain standards of behavior which allowed millions of strangers to cooperate effectively. Population is the key foundation resource of the mankind. Growing population is driving the demand for more material and non-material resources. This demand stimulates economy growth through production increase (agricultural and crafts), trade, transportation system, monetary system (Ancient, 2014). All these resources are interconnected and only synchronous development of them let the empire to demonstrate a sustainable growth.

Governance/user characteristics: The governance systems varied in both ancient empires and more modern ones. Rome empire went through the transformation from democracy in its early centuries to autocracy during its latest years (Brown, 2016). British empire on the other hand always existed as a mature democracy. The unification of all areas of people’s life was the main principle – from religion to trade rules (Britain’s, 2021). “It’s thanks to these two characteristics that empires have managed to unite diverse ethnic groups and ecological zones under a single political umbrella, thereby fusing together larger and larger  segments of the human species and of planet Earth.”

Social/economic/political settings or related ecosystems: All kinds of imperial governances followed the similar sets of ruling principles for their empires: establishing unified legislation, same monetary system for all territories, development of transportation system, establishing same trade regulations. All those measures had to stimulate economic development and growth of population of the empires. Being diverse by its nature, empires benefited from multi-culture population – different nations and groups of people exchanged elements of culture from each other and such exchange stimulated economy growth and bonded the empire population (Foley, 2011. An example can be when British empire brought tea to India in 19th century and made it popular. It changed Indian agriculture and as a result, India became one of the world’s largest producers of tea.

Interaction(s): “An empire is a political order with two important characteristics. First … you have to rule over a significant number of distinct peoples, each possessing a different cultural identity and a separate territory…. Second, empires are characterized by flexible borders and a potentially unlimited appetite. They can swallow and digest more and more nations and territories without altering their basic structure or identity”. Cultural diversity is fed by constant expansion of borders. It improves the quality of elite and governing class, though it may bring tension in the religious unity of the empire, causing religious conflicts (Repez, 2020). Growing population and development of new territories stimulate the production of goods and food, transportation system and trade. All those can’t be achieved without strong governance via adopting the same legislation, polices and rules for trading, monetary system (Foley, 2011). Accumulating and distributing resources from the whole empire, the government invests in culture, science and other non-material assets that can drive society development, enhance production.

Outcomes: Every empire has a life cycle. The presented diagram shows the phase of empire’s growth and becoming mature. With proper governance it may be a very stable form of state as it’s fully self-sufficient and sustainable. The risks for empires are usually associated with external invasions and degradation of governance system. Ecological disasters may be also a serious threat – scientists are still discussing the reasons of Maya civilization sunset, but natural disaster is considered as one of priority reasons.

Link to Loopy:

https://ncase.me/loopy/v1.1/?data=[[[4,864,94,0.5,%22Production%22,2],[5,1086,180,0.5,%22Trade%2520and%2520Commerce%22,2],[6,265,123,0.5,%22Science%2520and%2520Culture%22,2],[8,374,386,0.5,%22Religion%22,2],[9,528,567,0.5,%22Elite%22,0],[10,737,633,0.5,%22Governance%22,0],[12,1085,399,0.5,%22Monetary%2520System%22,2],[13,477,168,0.5,%22Population%22,2],[24,583,348,0.5,%22Cultural%2520Diversity%22,3],[25,807,345,0.5,%22Flexible%2520Borders%22,3]],[[13,4,45,1,0],[4,13,33,1,0],[6,13,-8,1,0],[8,6,13,-1,0],[8,10,-163,1,0],[10,8,203,1,0],[6,9,-170,1,0],[10,12,-69,1,0],[12,5,-13,1,0],[4,5,-51,1,0],[5,4,-25,1,0],[12,4,72,1,0],[6,4,92,1,0],[8,13,61,-1,0],[24,25,40,1,0],[25,24,39,1,0],[24,13,42,1,0],[10,24,23,1,0],[24,9,-17,1,0],[10,25,-25,1,0],[25,13,-16,1,0],[24,8,21,-1,0],[8,24,39,-1,0],[9,10,-13,1,0]],[],27%5D

References:

“Ancient economic thought.” New World Encyclopedia. 29 Aug 2014, 17:40 UTC. 8 Nov 2021. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Ancient_economic_thought&oldid=984035.

“Britain’s Road to Democracy: Slow and Not Always Steady.” HistoryExtra, 25 June 2021, https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/britains-road-to-democracy-slow-and-not-always-steady/.

Brown, Zachary S. “How Democratic Was The Roman Republic? The Theory and Practice of an Archetypal Democracy.” Inquiries Journal 8.11 (2016). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1492.

Foley, R A, and M Mirazón Lahr. “The evolution of the diversity of cultures.” Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences vol. 366,1567 (2011): 1080-9. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0370.

Repez, Filofteia. “THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS.” Bulletin of “Carol I” National Defense University, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, pp. 68-73. ProQuest, http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/importance-cultural-diversity-practice/docview/2387129336/se-2, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12753/2284-9378-20-10.

The Rise of Common Currency in Complex Economies

By: Jasmine Padgett

Time Period—The earliest known form of coinage as common currency, the Mesopotamian shekel emerged nearly 5,000 years ago around 650 – 600 BC.  As Harari states, money was created in countless places at countless times throughout history to place systematic value on commodities.

Resource characteristics— Following the Agricultural Revolution, people continued to live in small self-sufficient communities which served as isolated economic units. As smaller villages grew and transport infrastructure expanded, people became aware of outside villages which held reputations for higher quality products. Due to environmental advantages such as soil type, climate, as well as technical insight, specialization was made possible giving people a reason to travel outside of their home village for commodities, losing their set relative exchange rate. 

Governance/user characteristics— With the pool of producers and consumers expanding and cities forming networks of connections through improved transport infrastructure, a need for a common currency arose. Complex economies were formed as a direct result of product specialization and relative exchange rates. Because individuals could no longer find common value in differing commodities, common coinages were trusted to hold their value and be used as fair trading tokens. Through universal convertibility and universal trust, people give their governments and economic markets the power and responsibility of maintaining the value behind their currency on an inter-societal scale.

Social/economic/political settings or related ecosystems—As civilizations moved toward more unified, centrally led empires, complex economies developed to enable transactions across increasingly vast physical boundaries. Markets incentivized individuals to specialize in producing commodities in which they held competitive advantage. Those with access to environments conducive to wine production, focused on honing their technique and utilizing their surrounding resources to their fullest potential to motivate people from near and far to come buy their high-quality products. A common currency and coin-based economy aided these bargains since bartering exchange rates were not interchangeable or transferable.

Interactions—Humans began to shift their interactions with their environment due to changes in social systems. As the use of common currency and product specialization increased, individuals were less inclined to produce items fulfilling all of their needs independently. This put less stress on the immediate surrounding environment since more uniform means of production were employed.  

Outcomes—Through increased transport infrastructure, growing cities and kingdoms, and thus an influx of consumers and producers interacting, product specialization and relative exchange rates led to the widespread use of money across numerous civilizations. Through this phenomenon, complex economies were formed, leaving behind simple, isolated economies based on barter and trade and the assumption of reciprocity.

Link to Loopy systems model: https://bit.ly/3mPMa50

Citations

Harari, Y. N., Harari, Y. N., Purcell, J., Watzman, H., Harari, Y. N., & Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind ; Homo Deus: A brief history of Tomorrow. Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.

McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and

continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES06387-190230