Alec Toufexis

agt9@geneseo.edu

INTD-105-19

Cronan claims that “the tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, than the tree in an ancient forest…” While this is an accurate statement, I don’t believe Cronan would see this in practice with The Greek Tree. By focusing on respect from an environmental standpoint, Cronan overlooks the fact that the Geneseo community tends to The Greek Tree differently than they tend to the trees in their back yards or the trees in a nearby forest.

Although sororities and fraternities decorate the tree with an absurd amount of paint to assert Greek Life dominance, it doesn’t mean the tree isn’t respected or marveled at. I would predict that if there were plans to cut down the tree, the Geneseo community would be on edge. This indicates that there is a deep emotional connection between the campus and a seemingly “cultural invention”. In this way, Cronan’s idea of respect towards a non-sublime natural object is upheld. Also, those with “a clear heart and open mind” can view The Greek Tree as an object that is just as wild as “the tree in the ancient forest”.

Rachael Natoli                                                                                                   9/18/16

rln5@geneseo.edu                                                   Approximately 160 Words

INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

Bruno Latour commonly refers to the dichotomy between natural science and society in We Have Never Been Modern.  Latour states that “all of culture and all of nature gets churned up again everyday.” In other words, writing about natural sciences and writing about culture should not be kept separate as many issues in our world today must be thought about and dealt with in more ways than one.

If Latour were to look out from the gazebo and see the many acres of farmland that surrounds Geneseo he would agree that the topic of farming could be discussed in many aspects. On the natural science side one could talk about how many farmers use unsustainable farming techniques that corrode the soil and cause bodies of water to become polluted with pesticides. However, agriculture also has many political and social factors that are also part of the larger conversation such as, the legality of GMO labeling and food safety concerns.

Mike Emanuele

Cronon insight on object
Cronan perceives the wilderness to be a creation of mankind. He would argue that my object, the seuss spruce, is incorporated into the college’s center because it appeals to the core values he spoke about in his essay. “I celebrate with others who love wilderness the beauty and power of the things it contains. Each of us who has spent time there can conjure images and sensations that seem all the more hauntingly real for having engraved themselves so indelibly on our memories” (Cronan 84). In other words, we load wilderness with core values such as memories and give non human objects meaning. Students and professors alike relate to the tree in the sense of individuality, the tree is so unique because of it’s look and location. It serves as a symbol of how unique the college truly is. To add to Cronan’s argument, all the value we give the tree, does not mean anything. It is just another tree that functions like any other tree. It is just another piece of wilderness. It would not mean anything if it had never been discovered because it becomes nature the moment humans interact with it. Before the college started giving this ideality it was just untouched wilderness, now it has become sacred throughout Geneseo and an icon amongst college campuses. The college has determined that this piece of wilderness is worthy of staying in the college center, simply because it looks different. Now the tree is worthy of being preserved because it is some form of a token; representing coexistence with nature. Ultimately, once again debunking the false dualism between human culture and nature.

Justin D’Souza                                                                              About 210 Words   SUNY Geneseo                                                                                                             INTD 105 Science Writing

Response to William Cronon’s Argument

By Justin D’Souza

When humanity considers the “wilderness,” we tend to consider the beautiful forests as natural, while the trees that litter backyards and cities as unnatural. William Cronon attacks this idea, calling for us to “abandon the dualism that sees the tree in the garden as artificial…and the tree in the wilderness as natural.” He correctly asserts that if we stop seeing some nature as special, we can move to protect all wild things, not just certain areas that we see as godly. Here, Geneseo’s Arboretum corroborates Cronon’s theory. I would contend there exists nothing extraordinary about it, and therefore gives proof that positives can result from protecting even mundane areas.

Yet, the very same evidence that supports Cronon’s attack on our dualistic view of nature, I would argue subverts his strong feelings towards modern conservation ideology. Cronon passionately believes human only disturb nature when we try to save it. He also claims environmentalists only want to protect extravagant far off places. But the arboretum challenges that…it has not destroyed anything…nor does one view it as godly. While Cronon does wish for close to home efforts, he denies they exist…he fails to consider the good of small scale projects like this and instead chooses to critique a very generalized version of environmental protection.

Sarah Lambert                                                                                 about 200 words

sel15@geneseo.edu

Student, INTD 105-19: Scientific Writing

Latour’s Argument About The Sidewalk

By Sarah Lambert

      Throughout his argument, Latour insists that “translation,” or the “mixtures between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture,” is a type of interpretation necessary to consider oneself modern. Latour exemplifies this motif through his own term coined, “nature-culture,” which he defines implicitly as an overarching term that refers to aspects of society and their interactions. Latour’s argument is similar to my own in that we agree that not all things can be categorized, especially when it comes to man-made things we define as ‘artificial.’

While Latour sufficiently supports his claim that this “nature-culture” exists, I cannot also accept that it is most advantageous to see the world from a “pure” standpoint. Though I concede that it is helpful to separate ideas to clarify them, I do not believe that “all [ideas] have their privileged vantage point, provided that they remain separate.”

    Though he touches upon how the sciences and politics interact on issues like global warming, Latour fails to illustrate how some interactions of the universe are nearly impossible to “purify” and “categorize.” Creation, for example, is a direct interaction between one being and the next. This specifically shows how these two things cannot ever be entirely separate because if it were not for the first, there would be no second.

Erik Buckingham                                                         approximately 200 words

ekb7@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Science Writing

William Cronan and Seuss Spruce Graff & Berkenstein Arguments

By: Erik Buckingham

Most people will tell you that a waterfall in the woods is wilderness, but the grass and trees behind their house is lesser. I wholeheartedly endorse William Cronan’s claim that if wilderness, “can start being just as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world” (Cronan, 109). The Seuss Spruce’s imperfection is the core of its beauty. Its curved trunk symbolizes the positive neglect of a grounds crew after a harsh storm.

Adding to Cronan’s argument, I would point out that we can neglect nature while coexisting with it. After the storm, Geneseo laid gravel pathways and set up metal benches in the Seuss Spruce’s surrounding area. Cronan’s theory that a person with empathy and an innovative mind can experience wilderness anywhere (Cronan, 108) sheds light on the difficult problem of whether or not the college should trim the Seuss Spruce. If we have successfully built a quad around the tree, why can’t we learn and live with the Seuss Spruce growing freely? When we stop struggling to live rightly, we learn to coexist with the unconventional.

Erik Buckingham                                                         approximately 200 words

ekb7@geneseo.edu

INTD 105-19: Science Writing

William Cronan and Seuss Spruce Graff & Berkenstein Arguments

By: Erik Buckingham

            Most people will tell you that a waterfall in the woods is wilderness, but the grass and trees behind their house is lesser. I wholeheartedly endorse William Cronan’s claim that if wilderness, “can start being just as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world” (Cronan, 109). The Seuss Spruce’s imperfection is the core of its beauty. Its curved trunk symbolizes the positive neglect of a grounds crew after a harsh storm.

Adding to Cronan’s argument, I would point out that we can neglect nature while coexisting with it. After the storm, Geneseo laid gravel pathways and set up metal benches in the Seuss Spruce’s surrounding area. Cronan’s theory that a person with empathy and an innovative mind can experience wilderness anywhere (Cronan, 108) sheds light on the difficult problem of whether or not the college should trim the Seuss Spruce. If we have successfully built a quad around the tree, why can’t we learn and live with the Seuss Spruce growing freely? When we stop struggling to live rightly, we learn to coexist with the unconventional.

Hunter Cowles                                                                               About 150 words

INTD: Science Writing

In Bruno Latour’s paper, “We Have Never Been Modern,” he breaks down the various domains that together, complete our society. By viewing each of these categories as independent subjects, and by not letting your beliefs in one cross over into another, one can draw conclusions in a “pure” and unbiased manner. Latour uses the hole in the ozone layer as an example. He states ” Companies are modifying their assembly lines in order to replace the innocent chlorofluorocarbons, accused of crimes against the ecosphere… I discover that the meteorologists don’t agree with the chemists; they’re talking about cyclical fluctuations unrelated to human activity.”  This excerpt reveals that two groups (chemists and meteorologists) have contradictory theories on what is causing our environmental crisis.

Latour also correlates secularization to modern beliefs and why our society can operate the way it does successfully. Religious bias interferes with science, law, and other departments. If we find a way to overcome our personal convictions aside, we will be able to give our undivided attention to the issues at hand.

Logan Steffens                                                                             Approx. 150 words

lts6@geneseo.edu

In “ We Have Never been Modern by Bruno Latour, he describes a world in which man and nature are two entirely separate things while in reality we are one in the same. Similar to a newspaper with its many articles about similar topics us humans are one topic in the large umbrella that is all of nature. Latour suggests that we have two goals as a society, purification that is keeping humans separate from nature and translation, which is creating labels for everything around us. The rock outside of Suffolk hall can be viewed as part of nature or as part of human civilization when in reality it is both. However, few people think this way because we are so modern and do not understand that humans are part of nature similar to everything around us.

Emma Cooke                                                                 Approximately 150 words

erc8@geneseo.edu

INTD 105 Science Writing

“We Have Never Been Modern”

Bruno Latour’s essay “We Have Never Been Modern” focuses on the way in which knowledge is shared in our modern world. “By all means, they seem to say, let us not mix up knowledge, interest, justice and power lead us not mix up having an earth, the global stage and the local scene, the human and the nonhuman” (Latour 3). According to Latour there are three distinct approaches to discussing our world: “naturalization, socialization and deconstruction”. Throughout he speaks of modernity and how the way in which certain groups of people think change how they choose to compartmentalize information. His hypothesis surrounds this idea, that there are those who practice “translation” and mix beings, creating hybrids and those who practice “purification” creating zones of human and nonhuman which are distinctly different.

This can be connected to Sturges Hall in the way that people look at it differently. Some view the hall as a hybrid between human and nonhuman, with its ivy covered walls, while others view it as a human construct, and see the careful grooming of the ivy around the windows as another separation between human and nonhuman.