Module 3

Week 3

 

Happy Week 3 you all. I hope you’ve been finding ways to get clean air. 

 

Some of you are a bit behind already and I don’t want to get off to a bad start. Please let me know what I can do to help get you / keep you on track.

 

Last week, we explored some of the weaknesses to which democracy is vulnerable, looking both at the eminently wise words of some of the founding philosophers of Western civilization, and at the more recent critique presented in the comedy, Idiocracy. Like many things that seem obvious on first glance, however, there is nuance in these critiques. For example…

 

Who are the idiots? And really, looking around us today… who are the idiots?

 

We see examples all around us this campaign season of two opposing sides calling each other idiots. They may not use that exact term – but often they do. Let’s just dive right in and look at something that’s currently very challenging to write about given the historic fires we’re dealing with at the moment: forestry management. 

 

Who are the “idiots” in the forestry management debate? And how are our presidential candidates responding to this debate as a campaign issue? 

 

Your challenge for this week will be to analyze current problems, events and ideas relating to forestry management. Try to answer the questions above without demonizing one side or the other, regardless of your personal point of view… because on some level, one could argue that the real idiots are the ones who demonize each other so vociferously that the problem remains unsolved. 

 

Write an analysis that seeks to understand and describe current problems, events and ideas relating to forestry management. The first part of your analysis should be objective: simply identifying the factual range of the problem and the factual range of proposed solutions, while remaining neutral about whether the people who believe in these solutions are saviors or idiots. The second part of your analysis should propose a solution that you feel would actually help the situation. Post your analysis as your Module 3 blog entry.

 

Keep in mind: we have two very different points of view to analyze: One claims that the cause of our increasing fires is our lack of action on climate change mitigation initiatives. The other claims that the cause of our increasing fires is misguided environmental policy that prioritizes trees over people and hampers our ability to mitigate fire risk. Be sure to look at both sides of the argument and present both sides of the argument based on actual, documented sources. Include a bibliography at the end of your analysis.

 

Let me know if this description is not sufficiently clear and you need help moving forward with this week’s assignment.

 

Patti Andrews