Epic Huggles

Sustainability Week Event

The Sustainability Week event that I attended was the VT Climate Action Commitment Workshop on Thursday, October 23, 2008.  At this workshop, the large group was given presentations on 5 topic areas concerning sustainability at Virginia Tech: LEED Building Certification, Renewable Energy (more specifically solar), Dining Hall Sustainability, Alternative Transportation, and the campus’s Tree Canopy Cover. Each topic talked about what is currently being done at VT and what opportunities Tech should use to become more eco-friendly, and also what obstacles Tech faces in these areas.

During each topic, certain facts stuck out to me: For the LEED presentation, it was pointed out that if one person wrote a $40,000 check, then a building can be built to meet LEED certifications.  In the grand scheme of things about how expensive buildings are, that seems like almost nothing.  I know not everyone can write a $40,000 check, but with the number of eco-conscious alumni that exist, that money could be easily raised.

During the Energy discussion, what stood out to me was that the

US

has the best solar resources in the world, yet we have done so little to embrace it.  The Dining Services department has been doing the most to take strides to educate students about sustainability. Since it is one of the largest energy consumers on campus, they are trying to establish ways to reduce the waste.

The alternative transportation presentation focused on three main goals that they are trying to implement here at VT: incentives for carpooling, a bike share program, and trying to increase the BT ridership.  The Tree Canopy cover presentation discussed how it used CITYGreen, which is an ArcGIS program that helps calculate canopy cover and costs/savings.  With more trees planted, the school could save upwards of $1 million.

After the presentations, there was a brainstorming period, where the group threw out ideas about topics and/or issues they’d like VT to address.  The ideas ranged from green roofs, more bike racks (pedestrian/biker safety), sustainability education, energy usage (possibly a cap and trade program between departments), water conservation, and even eliminating coal usage by 2015.  Once a main list was created, the large group was divided into smaller breakout groups to discuss what we felt was the most important. My group discussed creating a Sustainability Office in order to coordinate and overlook all the sustainability efforts that go on on campus. It would also help in finding/applying for grants that are difficult for small groups to get.  We also discussed fueling issues and ridership issues of the BT. I actually had a BT employee in my group, and was shocked to find out that the buses only get 4 mpg and the hybrids only get 6 mpg. We discussed the problems and advantages of increasing the bio-diesel usage and what type should be used, and how to get it.  After all the groups presented, we each got a green and blue dot that we placed on our first and second choices for what we felt was the most important of those topics.  While there was no final decision made there, from what I saw, the most dots were on creating a Sustainability Office and including sustainability education during freshman orientation.

I consider myself an environmentally conscious person, but I am definitely not as “into it” as a lot of people are (not saying that’s bad). So going to this, I knew a lot of what was being talked about, but not necessarily into the detail, so it was a great learning experience for me.  I don’t know much about bio-diesel, so to have someone in my breakout group be able to explain it to me was great.  Also, just seeing the energy from the people who are really passionate about sustainability was great. I know a lot of times, people get labeled as “radicals, hippies, etc” but these people didn’t give me that “impression,” they were just truly concerned about the environment and their passion showed through by the extremely thought-out ideas that they had. They also recognized that not everything could be done at once, that small steps needed to be made first, so it definitely wasn’t a “radical” type situation.  This was important for me personally because we find ourselves so often slipping into the easy “let the stereotype stand” lifestyle that it’s easier to believe that people have some crazy, unachievable ideas, but when you sit down and listen to people, it can change your perspective (like the Kettering article talked about).  While it didn’t necessarily motivate me to take part in the effort to persuade the school to change, it was a good reminder to keep doing what I’m already doing, and upping the anty a bit more, because there are so many little things that I can do that really add up. Also, I will strongly support ideas put forward to the school, just not necessarily actively participate in the proposal.

I think the workshop was extremely well organized.  I would say, however that it would have been nice to have more time in our breakout groups, so my only recommendation would be to maybe shorter the presentations to 4, not 5, because those extra few minutes makes a difference. The organizers were extremely professional and well organized.  While they needed no help getting people to talk, they kept quiet most of the time, allowing people to speak, but also adding their opinions and ideas in as well.  I think it was overall a great workshop, leaving people feeling like they accomplished something and that some good changes may be coming to Virginia Tech.

10/22 Reflection

This past Wednesday's class showcased a wide variety of topics.  The two presentations on new social media's kind of "creeped" me out. I have a claustrophobic issue with large groups to begin with, so the idea of flash mobs kind of freaked me out, then the Second Life stuff is just weird for me--like people losing touch with reality. I posted a link to a story yesterday about someone who really lost it on a forum like that.  Then we switched over to a new topic, of public forums.  The video was extremely interesting and informative. I think it will really help me in the future in getting citizen opinion, and taking charge in a developmental issue.  I felt like the cardstorming idea was a bit awkward in that we had a lot of similar ideas between groups, but it is still an effective way to think about a topic and find connections.

Virtual Murder

Since we’ve just been talking about computer “second lives,” this story caught my attention:

Angry Online Divorcee “kills” virtual ex-hubby

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27337812/?GT1=43001

Apparently, the wife was so angry at her “ex-husband,” she killed his avatar character.

10/22 Reflections

This weeks class external projects were very interesting, I had never heard of flash mob or second life until this week. Both sound very interesting to me, definitely worth taking a look at even though the one at getting a second life is pretty far fetched. The card storming exercise on the gm food products was good since we all watched it online; each group had pretty much the same attributes though such as nutrition and economics. Then we watched a movie on collaboration and it was based on development issues. Their was two examples in the movie, the first one which didn’t get built because there wasn’t enough collaboration and involvement from the community seeking follow ups on the project. The second example was the same thing except it was done correctly and had enough collaboration from the community and involvement that this example could be a success in the future.

Reflection- Oct 22

Today in class we listed to two presentations about social network sites. The first was on flash mobs which was a pretty goofy thing, but seems sort of fun/weird. The second was on a site called second life, which really seemed to creep everybody out.

After that we did a card storming with the pros and cons of GMO’s that were mentioned in the video we were assigned to watch for this week. All three blog groups came up with essentially the same groupings as their final product (economic, health, ethical, etc) which was pretty interesting because didn’t last time we did a card storm, wasn’t every groups final product really different? (am I remembering that correctly?)

After that we watched a movie called “growing together” about the collaborative process and consensus building. It used two case studies, the first in Scarborough, Maine. The developer started out trying to involve the community and thought the plan they came up with was a definite go, but didn’t follow through, and suddenly the citizens didn’t want it anymore so the project didn’t get built. The second case study was in Georgetown Connecticut. Citizens were also involved in this, but the collaboration process was executed correctly so the project is entering the building process and looks like it is going to be a success. These two examples revealed the delicate and deliberate process of collaboration. 

My Event- Building Greet at VT (Sustainability Week)

Today (October 22, 2008) I went to the Building Green at VT event for Sustainability Week. Green building and green design is something that I am very interested in and hope to do after I graduate, so I found this event very informative and interesting. I had class until 11, so I missed some of the first speaker, John Lawson, from Perkins & Will. What I did catch on the tail end of his presentation was a bit about the LEEDS program, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It’s a nationally accepted rating system for buildings. Since I just caught the last fifteen minutes or so of his presentation, I’ll discuss LEEDs further in the following sections since each of the following presentations also discussed it fairly extensively (except for Mama Earth, but that’s another story…).

The next presentation was by Lance Lipponscott (?) who is working on VT Center for the Arts that will be built in the Shultz vicinity over the next few years. This building is going to be built to obtain a LEEDs silver certification (subordinate to gold and platinum) which will require getting 33 points by incorporating sustainable design/technology/materials/standards into the building in six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality and innovation and design process. He then went on to discuss in what ways the performing arts center building would incorporate features to obtain those 33 points.

It gets points in the sustainable site category because it is not in a 100 year floodplain, it is not farmland, its near alternate transportation etc. Furthermore, once it is completed, it will have bike storage and changing rooms, give preferred parking to low emission vehicles, maximize open space, minimize impervious surfaces, have storm water management, a green roof, etc. In the water efficiency category, it gets points by landscaping with native, drought tolerant species, will use rainwater for irrigation, low flush toilets, etc.

This building will also have no CFC refrigeration and optimize performance and will get points in the Energy and Atmosphere category for doing those things. The building could get more points in the material and resource category; however, he does not think much of the materials in Shultz will be able to be reused. Furthermore, because of Blacksburg’s “semi-remote” location, there isn’t as large of a market for recycled construction materials as there would be in a larger metropolitan area, so that makes getting points in this category hard as well. However, they will try to reuse 50% of their construction waste, incorporate as much recycled steel and concrete as possible, use regionally made goods, and use rapidly renewable materials like bamboo and cork etc. to get points in this category.

Another challenging category to get points is the indoor environmental quality because of the nature of a theater (it’s a huge box of slowly moving air) so ventilation becomes an issue. They’ll try to combat this problem by (and also get points for) using airflow monitoring equipment, flushing building with outdoor air for ten days before occupancy and having all entries capture dirt and particles. Because of a time schedule, he could not elaborate on many more points. This presentation did give me hope that green building is not that hard to do if you take a little time to think about making your building efficient and sustainable, it can easily be done!

The next presentation, well, show is a more appropriate term, was by a lady who called herself Mama Earth. She sung us songs that taught about the environment. For example, one songs chorus went “choose a little, use it a lot, only choose what you need”. So that was a fun little break from the seriousness of LEEDs and Green Building. It definitely got the audience laughing and participating.

The final presentation was by two gentlemen from an architecture firm based out of Denver (I believe). Their presentation was called “Beyond LEED: from code compliance to sustainable design and beyond”. They mainly discussed the Living Building Challenge (LBC), which is the next step in sustainable building after LEEDs. They discuss four levels of building, conventional, green, sustainable, and regenerative. They talked about how conventional building is “barley legal” since it is built to a standard that just complies with a minimal code. The second level they discussed is green. They defined this level as better than conventional in that is it “less bad” (so it’s not necessarily good yet…). This is where LEEDs is. The fact that LEEDs is almost becoming a standard within itself is a good sign that the market is ready to accept a move into more sustainable buildings. They define sustainable as having neutral or zero impact; so it is “100% less bad” Finally, regenerative is building in a way as to actually benefit the environment from human occupancy. An example they used was compost.

The Living building Challenge (LBC) aims to have each building operates as a flower (self sufficient and beautiful). Its categories are similar to LEED’s, but LBC takes “green” to “sustainable”. LBC says there should be limit to human growth, so the site should be a redevelopment, and we should have to work with what we already have. The building should also be energy neutral and should only use the energy that it can produce; reducing the amount of energy used is the biggest factor in doing this. They talked about a project in which they mounted wind turbines on the roof of the EPA building in Denver in order to supply the building with the energy it needed.

LEED’s has a red list of toxic materials that should be avoided. However, LEEDs only evaluates the toxicity of these materials when there are in the building and does not take into account the hazardousness of the production process. LBC looks at the entire process and aims to use only materials that are not toxic or hazardous at any stage. LBC also aims to have zero net water consumption, so to accomplish this you need to use storm water or recycle wastewater. LBC also sets standards for cleanliness of runoff water leaving site, which LEED’s does not monitor. In one of their buildings they actually put a “living machine” (an assortment of plant life that acts as a wetland to clean the water) in the lobby of an office building. In a LBC building there needs to be a connection to nature, views of the outdoors and daylight. Furthermore, it also requires that a building have beauty and inspiration, which LEED does not require. Furthermore, Living Building is operational and performance based while LEED is evaluated beforehand, procedurally.

The next step after LBC is to find a way to build and evaluate buildings that are regenerative.

I liked this event because I really like the topic discussed. I learned a lot about LEEDs and Living Building Challenge that I didn’t know before. I did already know about a lot of the green techniques they discussed but it was still interesting to hear. I guess I felt excited about getting involved with green building after listening to the presentations. More importantly though, and it made me feel hopeful, like there’s real potential in green building, and it’s catching on!

My procedural impression of the event was that is was middle of the road, nothing bad, nothing extraordinary. The event was pretty well organized, one person would come up and talk, there was a five minute break, then Mama Earth performed, then another break and another would speak. I don’t think it could have been improved. There was no real leader, except for the man who would introduce each of the speakers.

GM Food- Good/Bad for UK?- Oct 22

1.  One pro GM argument the participants make is the additional health/economic benefits GM foods will offer the UK. An anti GM Food argument that is made repeatedly is that there is a lack of knowledge.
   2. An argument that Pollan and the participants made was that in a sense we've been genetically modifying food for centuries. Pollan talks about the Incas and cross breeding potatoes to get all different kinds... One of the participants says something about how we could modify food genes the "natural way" which would take a few decades to complete, or we could do it much quicker in a lab, but in the end its the same thing....
   3. The facilitator did a good job because she set the ground rules by saying that the FSA can only regulate whether or not GM foods are SOLD in the UK, not GROWN, so to keep that in mind when discussing. Also, every once in a while, when arguments would start to go back and forth with the same things being said, she'd summarize and point the discussion in a new, more productive direction. Also, at the beginning of the video I watched, she had everybody write down their position of whether or not they thought gm foods should be sold in the UK, and have everybody explain why, so that automatically introduced the costs and benefits into the discussion right off the bat.

wicked problem- oct 22

The wicked problem I’ll discuss is what the us should do about the crisis in Darfur, there are advantages/disadvantages to everything you could decide and I think it fits the other qualities of a wicked problem too... clearly, I have no real involvement with this, but I did just have to write a paper on it for another class; and I really can't think of one that I’m involved in firsthand. Anyway, three advantages of addressing this problem through a deliberative forum would be 1) it allows for expression of more than just facts, but also values, (combining reason and emotion p 417) which would play probably the most important role in deciding in intervene on behalf of another or not...(it also would help get the facts out there because though most of us have probably heard there are problems over there, a lot of us don't really know what exactly is going on, by deliberating, we get more understanding of facts as well) 2) its the first step to involvement... so many of us are incredibly apathetic and 3) Kettering also says that it informs officials about what is politically possible; this sort of fits with number two in that it is the first step to possibly getting something done in that region; politicians will get a clearer picture of Americas priorities there.

Figuring out a whether or not America should take a new approach and what approach to take in Darfur would be a good issue to use deliberation for; however, thats really only the FIRST step to solving the problem (if thats what people decide America wants/need to do...)

Wicked Problems

The wicked problem that I will talk about today… is why not having a Boston area sports team in a championship is bad for sports. Just kidding (slamming head into desk). The REAL wicked problem I will discuss is global warming (raise your hand if you saw that coming). Global warming is a wicked problem for a number of reasons including 1) Solutions to global warming are good or bad 2) there really isn't an immediate test or ultimate test of a solution to the problem, because we won't see any solutions turn out well/horribly for years 3) nearly every proposed solution to global warming would have consequences of their own 4) global warming is a set of interlocking issues (loss of biodiversity, freshwater scarcity) 5) and the consequences of failure or immense (Good Bye Disney World! Hello Richmond beachfront property!).

Another reason global warming is considered a wicked problem is the number of stakeholders involved in developing solutions to this problem, and the conflicting nature of most of these solutions. In this context public deliberation would help address the issue effectively. Deliberation would allow people to do things they couldn't do as isolated individuals, and in this manner produce a socially constructed knowledge. This knowledge would express ideas only available when we engage each other - and never when we are alone. This could open up numerous routes to previously unknown solutions. Deliberation also makes public action possible by providing those involved with particular direction and purpose that will allow them to move forward in a constructive manner. Deliberation opens up avenues of consensus and compromise, and allows everyone with a certain outlook to see the other side of the issue. This can lead to more community involvement and civic responsibility, and eventually influence public officers and governments to work on these issues.

I personally see public deliberation as a great possibility to solve global warming, but I'm worried it’s not happening enough across the country and that we are missing out on a good portion of society. Solving global warming will require a MASSIVE shift in our worldviews and sooner rather than later. This is why I consider public deliberation as only a partial part of the solution. Yes it helps raise awareness and develop new solutions to global warming, but we need action now and deliberation doesn't really affect the political agenda quickly. We need governmental action to solve this problem. I don't see this shift toward alternative energy and sustainability as an entirely voluntary venture. Society will need the motivation and incentive to make this change, and our federal government will need to set the example in order to raise awareness to the issue once and for all.   

10/22 discussion question

The wicked problem I’m going to talk about is homeland Security and what the federal government does in case of disasters like hurricanes that occur every year on our homeland.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) meets requests from the state on, before, and after disaster areas.  They provide support and rescue; provide food and water; process claims and provide disaster centers; and provide projects for clean up.  Theirs a lot of deliberation about disasters, such as; knowing what to do when a disaster occurs, how to solve the issue in a safe manner, and how quickly to react to the situation for the people in need.  Three possible advantages taken from the Kettering reading are first Combining reason and Emotion such as after a disaster swipes everything off the face of the earth owned by someone, their first reaction would be mad, angry, sad, but they will eventually come to terms within themselves and work through the crisis.  It’s a tradeoff; the disaster took everything from them but left them alive in the end.  Second would be how deliberation changes people by making them handle these types of situations better, disasters bring people together and a lot of deliberation will help solve problems in then end and begin to accomplish a lot of activities.  Third is the new knowledge gained from deliberation, only this knowledge can be developed through groups or the public not some statistic from the internet.  This can only occur through engagement with others on certain topics, not by individuals.  This disaster issue can definitely be solved through the deliberative forum because disasters affect everybody not just one person, so this brings discussion in a deliberative forum on what to do, which brings about agencies like the FEMA to help out.

Wicked Problems

My example of a wicked problem is poverty. I guess it is not a huge problem here in Blacksburg, VA. But I would not hesitate to say every country in the world has to deal with this problem. The percentage of the population who are below the poverty status might be different between developed and developing countries. For as long as humans have roamed the earth, there has been this poverty. I am not so sure if there has never been anyone who's actually able to pin point what the cause for poverty is. People have been trying to fix it for centuries and no success. It can only be classified as whether it has gotten better or worse. And solutions are only temporary and mainly in attempt to help it get better instead of solving it entirely.

The idea of deliberation as in the Kettering reading, in my opinion, is very effective in addressing wicked problems, specifically poverty. The lowest governmental units, towns, should hold town meetings to duscuss this problem. And these meetings should be opened to the public to give the people a chance to deliberate and express their concerns and contribute to the decision making process in that specific town. Poverty is manifested differently not just from town to town but community to community. Therefore, there can't be specific policies that are made centrally and then be applied accross country. There needs to be participation of small communities to address the problem. This way, everyone can be better equiped to deal with poverty whether it is going to happen to themselves or to help others in the community that might be dealing with it. Deliberation at local level can also allow actions to be taken spontaneously instead of taking a long time to be passed down the chain of officials.

I think deliberation is a good approach to poverty. There are plenty of other ways to go about this. But through deliberation, a lot of voices can be heard. And through deliberating, people who participate can also learn the skills to cope with financial cisis that might happen to them.

10/22 Class Discussion Questions

Ok guys, here's the quick and dirty discussion questions for tomorrow. These can obviously evolve and become completely different depending on how class goes! See you tomorrow!

-What type of forum or meeting should be held between citizens and companies about genetically altered food? Similar to the FSA videos we had to watch from the

UK

, or another type of format?

-What ways can be used to make public hearings/meetings different from the typical public meeting? Any new strategies or formats?

-Page 409- Do you wish there were more town meetings like there used to be versus today’s style? Do you think it is even possible today?

-What type of meeting do you think is the most effective?  Is there a give and take between what an agency can do and how much the citizens feel they are being included?

-Do you think that an increase in population could have an effect on the effectiveness of meetings/forums or even just how an agency tries to address a problem?

-We’ve been considered the “me” generation, and I have seen it in my own work experience, that people want you to develop what is suitable for their stage in life, not necessarily for the community’s benefit. Do you think that this could be one of our major problems in the future in trying to “satisfy” everyone?

10/22 Discussion Question

While I'm afraid that this blog will be like the network groups one, where I really kind of miss the mark, I'm going to give it a shot.

The "wicked problem" that I came up with, that I am involved in, is the issue of planning/developing for both the aging population and the younger population (teenagers, young adults, and young families).  In my home locality, this is becoming a major issue due to the increase in senior retirees, and the desire to retain a younger population. One of my co-workers said it perfectly--that people want you to plan and develop in accordance to where they are in life, what stage of life they are in.  If you build something for the younger crowd, the older citizens get cranky and complain about "all the noise, ruckus, etc and how it doesn't benefit them", while the same goes for building something for retirees, there is complaints about there being nothing for younger people to do.  This begs the question "how do you develop for both, and will you really be successful?" No matter what you attempt to do, no one seems to be happy or satisfied.

I think a way to help maybe solve some tension between the two age groups would be to use a public forum to discuss what could possibly be done to satisfy both groups. Some advantages of using a forum, according to the Kettering article, are:

1) "produce a kind of knowledge that isn't available from experts or polls" (pg. 15/419). This is more for the planners, but the citizens can also hear what the other side wants

2)Can potentially change the opinions of one group about the other group. They states in their abortion forum example that "the way deliberative forums help people learn to work together after realizing that, in addition to their differences, they have purposes that overlap" (pg. 22/426).  For example, maybe both groups want a place, such as a rec center, but for different reasons, so the planners could take this info to the Parks and Rec department and they can maybe set up a rec center with programs that focus on what both groups want.

3)can help facilitate a relationship between the citizens and the officeholders. If citizens don't feel like their opinions are being heard, then they can make it very hard for governments to be effective. So with a deliberative forum, citizens can feel as though their voices are being heard, they can physically meet with the officeholders, and establish some type of relationship with them that can and will benefit both sides.  Both the younger group and the older group need this relationship with the officeholders because it is so crucial to the "short term" (as horrible as that sounds) and the "long term" future of the community.

I think that a deliberative forum is the best option for this issue because both sides need to come together to try and find some sort of solution because the county can't afford to, and doesn't have enough space to build everything that people want. There is potential for there to be some agreement on what both groups want and/or will tolerate that can't be created if the groups never meet. So an approach that brings the two groups together is the most appropriate in my view.

Oct. 22, Wicked Problem: Sprawl

A "wicked problem" that has spurred many new planning initiatives is urban sprawl.  Although new initiatives have begun to evolve, sprawl is still a mainstream planning issue.  Sprawl can be defined as a form of planning with an emphasis on land-consumptive and auto-dependency; the result of sprawl is the  segregation of people and their community, in terms of involvement and interaction.  Residents of sprawling communities usually do not know of alternative forms of planning.  Therefore, addressing this issue in a deliberative forum would allow the people to come together and address their likes and dislikes within the area.

According to Kettering, a deliberative forum allows for a variety of stakeholders to come together and address their issues in a public setting, which allows all stakeholders (the people within the area) to reach a conclusion on the issue of sprawl, taking into consideration the publics opinion.  Allowing the people to come together and discuss sprawl would allow for a variety of opinions in terms of likes and dislikes, i.e. the people's opinion of what is good /bad in the area.   A  deliberative forum would also allow for the issue of sprawl to be framed on  a particular issue, which can then lead to a guided discussion, giving the opportunity for evaluating and moderating the forum.  For any deliberative forumc to be successful, a clear vision of what needs to be accomplished must be set; this allows for a smoother discussion setting, letting the moderator conduct the forum.  Finally, a deliberative forum, like any public meeting, allows the participants to look at the effectiveness of the forum through representation of the public (who shows up and the demographic he/she represents) and the relationship between the participants and urban sprawl.  Because a deliberative forum allows for a better flow of ideas, the participants are always engaged, allowing for a variety and broad range of concerns.

For the discussion of urban sprawl, I think a deliberative forum allows for the most participation.  Because a forum can be framed and moderated, it allows for more direct answers from a variety of stakeholders.  For urban sprawl, especially since the participants are so spread out, it is crucial that the forum is well organized so a large and varied group of participants attend, which can be achieved through a deliberative forum.   

October 22 Discussion Question

Many people have used large scale, well-known problems to demonstrate the aspects of a wicked problem.  For my example of a wicked problem that I see and have been involved with, I have chosen one that is inherently local but wide-spread across other communities as well.  It is the problem of the car and how to accommodate for it through roads and parking.  We are probably all familiar with the parking dilemmas faced by students, faculty and staff here on campus and most likely have of own opinion regarding how to address it.  Without giving it much thought, most people would simply agree to build more parking spaces to accommodate the increasing demand.  However, I think we can all agree that solving this problem is not that simple.  With so many interested parities, different points of view and diverse impacts to our campus, environment, and community, a solution to this problem is best resolved, not solved, through a traditional deliberation. 

When people gather to discuss their own ideas and opinions in a civil and composed fashion, they are more likely to listen and accept contrasting ideas to their own, according to the Kettering article.  I have no doubt that if we gathered a group of students and staff, almost like a citizen jury, to receive input from and ask to come to a consensus as how to resolve parking problems on campus, a wealth of ideas and opinions would be presented within the group.  Just allowing people the time for their opinions to be heard will be enough to make them more accepting of other other alternatives that exist.

Resolving parking issues through deliberation would also provide participants the opportunity to "work through" their differences.  Coming into a situation like a citizen jury created to recommend solutions to parking, we believe we have a firm understanding of the issue and our way to resolve it.  As we hear contrasting opinions, our immediate reaction will most likely be strong disagreement.  But as our initial reactions past, we are able to regain control and make sounds judgments about a feasible solution.  This clearer sense of mind will not only make us more accepting of viewpoints not of out own but allow us to sensibly talk through, not just about, differences in opinions.  This is key to coming to group consensus.

Another advantage to using traditional deliberation is that it, based off research, public participation and attitudes have been found to be extremely useful and beneficial to resolving an issue through policy or other means.  The public, contrary to popular belief, is generally consistent, rational and stable in his or her attitudes and have clear reasoning behind them.  This will go far in finding an acceptable solution to many problems, but particularly parking concerns.

I think I have made my case why I think a traditional form of deliberation would work well in resolving parking issues.  There is no cut and dry solution - building more spaces doesn't truly fix the problem and doing nothing simply ignores the writing on the wall.  Gathering a group of students, staff and other stakeholders to participate in a deliberation discussion focused around the idea dealing with on-campus parking would provide some very beneficial feedback to resolving this wicked problem.

Class Reflection on 10.15

I really enjoyed Wednesday's class, Matt's Xternal on the PBwiki was pretty interesting, to see the difference between the use of Wiki and everyday Blogging. The Click and Pledge presentation was pretty cool as well I really enjoyed how the presentation was delivered and able to keep my interest. I found it interesting when he talked about non-profit organizations having to function or be treated as a business in order for it to survive. I never really viewed it that way originally. I also enjoyed our blog group time discussing the changes in social interaction thru time and what our future generations may look like when it comes to having to interact with other people.

Class Reflection - Oct. 15

I thoroughly enjoyed last Wednesday's class.  I thought the Click & Pledge CEO was a dynamic speaker.  I enjoyed his presentation about his concern from a business standpoint.  He talked about how the world we live in today is a "me centric" society and how everyone wants things personalized in this day in age.  He also talked about how complaints and word of mouth can ruin a company or place of business.  He also talked about his fear of the customer of the future and how they like a variety of choices and that they also possess the ability to multi-task and accomplish a great deal in short periods of time.  For this reason customer service is extremely important to his overall business goal and among his top priorities.  He also discussed the future possibilities of a web 3.0, in which there is accountability and consciousness on the web.  In my opinion, with all the advances in technology this is not that far off.    

Reflecting on 10/15

Wow, what a class that was. I thought out speaker had a lot of really interesting things to say. However, I don't know about anyone else, but I was offended on more than one occasion. He kept generalizing and saying "you" guys are such a self-centered generation, your generation thinks they are never wrong etc. I was relieved that one time when Prof B said "my class is an exception". Not that we necessarily are (although I'd like to think so), but I just felt a little bit attacked during his talk. Am I the only one here? Also, I have actually learned a lot about OUR generation (termed "millenials" ) and overall we are not as bad as he made us out to be. Generations tend to go in cycles of 4 and our generation is supposed to be similar to the WWII generation that fought for our country and worked hard to provide good lives for their families after. That generation inspired Tom Brokaw's book "the greatest generation". As millenials we have grown up with lots of ups and downs, mostly starting with 9/11. Our generation actually does a lot of volunteering and lots of us have high hopes of making the world a better place. I hope this gives you a little hope after a bit of a depressing class.

However, the kinda tail end of "our"generation are the juniors and seniors in high school, so our speaker's friend's 15 year old daughter is really the very begining of the next generation which we really don't know alot about. I think it is fair to be worried for them growing up without much face-to-face interaction, but we shouldn't write them off. Social networking has great potential and many ways to use it constructively, but its going to take some time to tame the wild beast that is the internet.

Reflection on Oct. 15

I haven't really had a chance to calm down this week due to the fact that the sox finally decided to play baseball. However, I feel after last week's class I was a little one-sided in my argument, and didn't look at the positives of social networking. This form of technology does all us to communicate effeciently across the globe, helps us keep in contact with friends that live farther away, and blogs don't allow us to not only vent our opinions (ahem), but do increase the chance that our views on certain issues are heard.I also tend to agree that virtual seminars and meetings could eventually become the norms in certain situations, and grassroots organizations could even us social networking as base to work from. However, I'm still worried slightly about the direction this technology could be taking us as a society. With 51.3 million blogs worldwide and 75,000 created daily, it seems to me that our messages we are trying to convey to those in power are watered down in importance. With so many competing opinions, I see some credible ideas being lost in masses of poor ones. Reliance on this technology could also potentially degrad valuable social skills, cause us to lose our individuality, and eventually our identity.

10/15 Refelction

I think Kami is one of the most engaging speakers that I have heard so far. The stuff he talked about was very informative. It really captured my interest even though I am not at all usually that engaged in such topics. I came to a conclusion that he's a genius. I guess in this particular case, being engaged with computer technologies constantly does not really take away your ability to interact with the outside world. I think he has tons of people skills.

I enjoyed our discussion group very much too. Even though we are somewhat pessimistic about the future dependency of this world on technologies, we are still grateful that we have these conveniences in our life to help make our lives easier in many aspects. It is mind blowing to think of what a long way technologies have come over the past ten years of our lives that we could remember.