One comment

  1. It seems we are approaching an ethical/environmental problem, as mentioned, that reveals a profound human struggle: the knowledge of the possibility that nothing might be done to prevent the run-away problem of climate change (if we are in fact beyond the 'tipping point') and the avid and totally hopeful, faithful belief that something /must/ be able to be done. The solution of approaching the problem from a standpoint of changing people's experience through arch. and thus changing beliefs and then behavior, in all honesty, seems too weak to do much of anything. Perhaps it is a avoidant method. On the other hand, approaching climate change through mass (regional, even global) landscape architecture changes and additions seems like the only thing designers /can/ do in spite of the bipartisan and disagreed political climate, which bars progress in prevention measures.

    So, what do we do? Allow ourselves blind hope and continue striving for some solution — in a sense, do what we can — and at the same time react to our deeply seated fears of death (see: Becker, Denial of Death)? Or, do we focus all our attentions on the actions that could actually save our species and forget all the rest of it? What are our individual duties?

    – Glad to hear a variety of perspectives.
    University of Arizona Psychology Undergrad

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *