Sustainability and Climate Change

In my neighborhood:

• Natural Commons: trees, grass, air, ocean, earth, people
• Human Created Commons: Roads, stop signs, lamp posts, playground, school, bus, apartments, crosswalks, talking, homes, gardens, electrical lines

It feels like so much of what's there is not "natural", because in some way we've modified nature and created something out of it.  Also, comparing my list to the given list, some of the things I'm missing are more hidden and not apparent on a stroll around the neighborhood.  I can't see the water flowing, sewers working or the internet cables. 

I think part of being human is this desire to modify the natural world, as opposed to just living in it.  The very act of making a tool is a human created commons.  We need the basic natural commons, but we must also modify them to make it work for our lives now.  The human created commons I found don't necessarily support the less tangible aspects of well-being, like love and friendship, but they support a better life overall, with education, electricity, food,and transportation all visible. 

What I found...

Natural Commons:

• air, sunlight, clouds, water (fog / mist), animals and plants (insects, birds, kelp), mountains, ocean, coast (rocks), soil

Human-created Commons:

• roads, cars, houses, streetlights, stop signs, schools, parks, recreational areas (tennis, basketball, soccer), fences, restaurants / shops, language, bicycles

I found it surprising that I had a difficult time sometimes deciphering between the natural and human-created commons as I was generating my lists. For example, when I was walking by houses, I was looking at grass and plants -- would they be there without the help of humans planting and taking care of them? Or is that there would have been natural plants and the human-created commons have therefore become invasive species / entities in the area? Same thing with the animals that I saw -- would squirrels have been here had we not changed the landscape? What different organisms might be here instead? 

This activity also brought me back to thinking about the question of "needs" and "wants" -- many of the human-created things seem to fall in the category of "wants" rather than necessities for survival.

However, thinking about well-being, I believe that there has to be a balance between human and natural Commons in order to support a fulfilling life. The Commons that are human-created will undoubtedly affect the natural Commons we have inherited from our planet, so we must do our best so as to not negatively harm what is given by nature. I think it is important to always keep in mind how interconnected everything is, and that every action has a reaction. And so, in order to maintain a balance in our world, we must envision all the possible consequences and repercussions that may arise from human activity. 

(I am trying to get in the perspective of a middle schooler doing this reflection/activity)

What examples of human-created and natural Commons did you find?

Trees, grass, cars, buildings, plants, playground, stores, birds, squirrels.

Social structures (grade levels, social routines)

 What was new or surprising?  

How many big-chain stores are there? Do they support a local economy as much as home-town based stores? 

How do the human and natural Commons work together to support well-being as you defined it earlier?

Without school, students would not learn how to socialize the same way that they do. Without stores, communities would not be able to function as they currently do.  These items provide a well-being because they allow us to operate as we normally do.  School provides kids a place to obtain knowledge and a place to learn what is socially acceptable.  Stores provide us easy access to food which allows us to not go hungry. Without these, we would not be happy and would have to work extra to get food or search for food.  To provide that much supply for the community though probably requires a lot of resources in another community. 

I really enjoyed what others have written, and I may not be able to add anything very different.

What I find interesting is that humans recreate the natural when we make parks that are often "improved" nature, or "restored" nature. Our parks today are different depending on our culture and what we find pleasurable in our return to "nature."

Parks are often used for sports and dangerous obstacles are removed. Pathways are made for safety and keeping people "off the grass." So I think we try to recreate what we feel should be natural and good. 

Parks are a social privilege, perhaps a way to keep humans from realizing that there is not much natural space left to enjoy.

While on a 12-minute walk around my neighborhood (from my home to work) I noticed the following:

Natural

• Trees
• Grass
• Fruit
• Animals (squirrels, deer)
• Scat
• Leaves

Human-Created

• Houses
• Roads
• Plastic pollution (as I walked closer to work, away from the neighborhood)
• Cars

The human and natural commons don't necessarily work together in the sense that there is a mutual benefit to the relationship. The human created items benefit from the natural commons in that it allows for an emotional connection to nature, "hey look, there's a deer in my yard" but the natural commons don't necessarily benefit from human impact. However, the human impact that has affected nature could benefit from habitat restoration, eradication of non-native or invasive species or in other words restoring habitats to their natural state. 

Natural commons: Trees and plants, sky, soil

Social commons: buses, power lines, roads, traffic lights, stop signs, urban park land, tennis and basketball courts, baseball diamond, school.

• I especially like the previous comments about the balance (or lack of it) between the natural and social commons. Most of the time, I think humans have approached development in a way to remake the environment. There’s been so much disregard for what’s natural. Even the example of how humans build parks, which in some cities is the closest thing to the natural environment you can get (thinking Manhattan here). We don’t even have much old growth forest left. The whole debate about natural areas and invasive species points to how extremely humans have remade the environment for its own benefit to the exclusion of everything else. It’s pretty much impossible to define what’s natural and what’s invasive.
• I’m also not sure I’d characterize much of our use of the natural commons as being for social commons. Companies exploiting natural resources do so for profit. I also wouldn’t put stores in the commons. Stores, to me, represent the elimination of the commons for meeting our needs, since access to healthy food is not considered a human right in this country. I also agree about our abundance perhaps being at another community’s expense—thinking about what I’ve read about how Mexico is struggling to feed its population as it grows more food (even the organic kind) for the United States.

What was new or surprising?

The mile loop I walked is one I often do with my dog.  While she may be interested in the new smells in our neighborhood, I am always surprised at the tenacity of the life we see in the commons on our short walks.  Today, on a very hot afternoon in October, I saw a patch of seedlings beginning to grow. These seedlings give no mind to the fact it may not be the best time of year to sprout, they just sprout. Life has been responding this way to its environment for a very long time, and we take it for granted.  Our commons give us a lens into the subtle and amazing qualities of life.

How do the human and natural commons work together to support well-being as you defined it earlier?

The qualities of well-being I selected in the previous activities are all items that are present in my community.  I feel very lucky to live in a place that allows me to appreciate the beautiful commons around me.  The Monterey Bay is a 10 minute walk from my front door.  There is a wonderful perspective of the commons when you watch the sunset on the bay.  To appreciate our sky, our ocean, and the man made structures and communities along the bay (Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, Monterey) that allow us to live here.

As I evaluated List A: Natural Commons and both biotic and abiotic elements: "sunlight, rivers, oxygen, insects, hills, etc." My Natural Commons included air and water, food sources (plants and animals), park lands, and the Web-of-Life in general. List B: Social Commons, on the other hand, was about communication, whether "history, cultural celebrations, language, dialects, songs, poems, etc." My Social Commons included government agencies, knowledge base, utilities, safety, faith-based systems, and freedoms in general. Governments and their agencies contribute to a community's well-being by creating protectionist legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, our knowledge base contributes technological advancements that allow us to communicate such as the Internet, utilities and transportation industries contribute to the delivery of electricity, water, gas and transportation industry builds infrastructure such as highways, rail systems, waterways, and identifies airspace for safe travel.

While I didn't find anything surprising, I had not considered faith-based systems or freedoms as possible social commons. I guess I would say the abstract world of thought and ideas are a social commons.

Natural Commons are the resources from which the Social (Human) Commons is built or developed. Our natural environment is rich in resources that we have utilized, capitalized on, and exploited. Without our natural environment, we wouldn't be here and civilizations could not have developed as we have.