Handout from the Griswold lecture on Vengeful Anger

It was a pretty interesting presentation, here's the handout of quotes he passed out if anyone's interested.

Environmental Issues and Org's Around the Country

I’ve done some traveling for mock trial this semester, and because of that I’ve missed a lot of good class discussion. So I thought I’d try to make up for that by finding some environmental ethical issues in the places I’ve gone to and give some perspective on how these things are being dealt with around the country.

Los Angeles, CA
LA is pretty notorious for how smoggy the air is. I found this neat organization called TreePeople; they’ve planted a couple million trees around the LA area to try to reduce the effects of air pollution. Here are some links:
http://www.treepeople.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/tree-people-improving-los-angeles-environment_n_863850.html

Athens, GA
Athens is the most hippy town in Georgia, which may not be saying a lot, but it’s a pretty cool place. They expectedly have a lot of vegetarian and locavore options, but this one is notable because it’s a co-op: Daily Grocery Co-op. They have some great information about how grocery co-ops work and how to get more involved in finding out where your food comes from.
http://www.dailygroceries.org/

Murfreesboro, TN
Murfreesboro is home to Middle Tennessee State University, whose biology department houses the Center for Environmental Education. Beyond just coursework and projects, which can be expected from any school with an environmental studies curriculum, they put a lot of focus into educating as many people in the community as they can. They have programs as diverse as collecting donated microscopes and teaching schoolchildren that bats shouldn’t be scary. I think Rhodes could learn a thing or two from MTSU when it comes to promoting widespread environmental education.
http://www.mtsu.edu/mtsucee/about.shtml

Horsing around with Monkey Business

It's hard to get into trouble just for speaking your mind in America these days. Well, legal trouble at least. One of the ways you can still get locked up is for inciting what courts call "imminent lawless action" with your speech. You know, things like telling someone to go out and kill another person, or burn down the nearest Krystal, or put spikes in trees and blow up bulldozers. Dave Foreman and the people over at Earth First! know that, and they're toeing the line about as well as they possibly can. In "More on Earth First and The Monkey Wrench Gang" Foreman is obviously playing dumb and saying what he needs to say to keep his quasi-organization out of trouble. He expresses vague support for extreme pro-environmentalist action (thereby staying true to the tenets of what he believes in and inspiring others) while carefully abstaining from advocating and embracing it (thereby keeping the feds off his back). It seems absurd to assume that Foreman actually has the kind of lukewarm stance toward "monkeywrenching" he feigns in this short essay; "I do not advocate it nor do I not advocate it". In the essay we read earlier this week, he was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it from the establishment anymore. He was even throwing out the phrase "Neo-Luddite" as early as the first paragraph. Foreman rebuts the claim that the environmentalist movement has been successful and rattles off a laundry list of problems immediately after stressing how important action is in philosophy. The call to arms cry at the end is missing because it would very likely get him arrested. So props to Earth First! for toeing the line, and toeing it well. They may be radical, but they're sure as hell not stupid.

Environmentalism-Not Just Monkey Business

Earth First! and The Monkey Wrench Gang

Response by Edward Abbey (author of Monkey Wrench) to the editorial about his book. Abbey first clarifies that in no way is Earth First! “pledged to ecological sabotage”, but rather they are dedicated to saving the environment and therefore must engage in “acts of civil disobedience where useful”. He then explains that the book is a fictional work, not a manifesto, and not to be taken as such. He ensures that however the reader chooses to interpret his work is the readers business and that if anyone feels impelled to act out the exploits in the book, that is a matter of their own individual conscience and to be decided on their own.

He then draws the distinction between the term terrorism and sabotage. Terrorism, he writes, is an act of deadly violence carried out against people and/or living things and gives the examples such as the government committing terrorism against its own citizens (like the incident at Kent State) or corporate entities doing the same against land and all the creatures who depend on that land for their lives and livelihoods (like Exxon or Mobil Oil). He draws the distinction that a bulldozer that tears up a mountainside for the possibility of strip-mining coal is the true terrorism; damning a flowing river or cutting down trees—these are examples of terrorism. The people who stop these machines and save the environment, he argues, are practicing sabotage. Sabotage is merely the application of force against inanimate property (such as machinery) and that is never used to conjunction with any violence against living creatures of any kind.

In the story, the Monkey Wrench Gang uses sabotage to protect the land against the true terrorism: that of industrialism. They do so only when all else fails and they are morally justified to defend nature. My favorite point he makes is here: “not only justified but a moral obligation, as in the defense of one’s own life…family…home…one’s own nature, against violent assault” (Abbey 335). Most people, environmentalist or not agree that endangered species issues are worth raising awareness if not worth protection (I know not everyone, but much more seem to agree on this than other issues); why can’t people raise awareness about endangered climates? What about endangered habitats and endangered ecosystems?

In lieu of our class discussion on Wednesday, I think his writing is extremely important. Sometimes you have to revert to extremes to get the job done. I refer not to sabotage directly, but even the justification of the sabotage and the language used in doing so. I think Hargrove’s quotation on page 334 about how Earth First! seems to be more radical than any other environmentalist group from the past is entirely accurate and the very point of their organization!! He writes of how environmentalist movements from the 20^th century were effective; they were only effective in raising awareness of the issues. Nothing has truly worked thus far; just like in political campaigns, maybe it is time to resort to radical, extreme actions. If that works, then I see less harm in engaging in these ‘dangerous’ conversations than in NOT doing so. If I am not in class on Friday, don’t worry; I’ll be dancing on Rick Perry’s desk.

On Ecological Sabotage: Pranks or Terrorism?

Hargrove suggests that ecological sabotage will ultimately reserve the positive results of the environmental movement of the 1960's and 70's. He asks "what could be the justification for acts which could easily create a terrible backlash?" From the reading we did for Wednesdays there are many practical justifications for ecological sabotage. Sabotage is meant to be extreme and show just how moderate the moderates like the Sierra Club truly are in what they are asking. Foreman says that when they are inspired they act. Sitting around and waiting to be politically bullied got the environmental movement no where. So long as they are not physically injuring people, there is little harm to throwing a monkey wrench into the paving machines and logging equipment. Clearly large companies can economically recover from these acts, so even if they are financially harming a large company saboteurs who are not physically injuring people reside more in the prank than terror realm.
Hargrove uses Locke's statement that "a man who destroys property declares a state of war with society and in that state, society has the right to destroy the offender." As this relates to the environment this statement is rather problematic. Basically every issue that weve talked about this year about nature and how we should act toward it are brought into question. Hargrove means to use this as proof that sabotage will get you killed and its wrong, but does anyone really own the environment? Some argue yes because you can have a little slip of paper that you bought telling you you own but the collective good of keeping ecosystems intact gives all of us a little bit of ownership since we all feel the benefits and consequences of destroying nature.
Hargrove is convinced by Locke's logic that saboteurs who are not first killed by society will begin killing society to save the earth. Hargrove has a legitimate concern as professor Grady pointed out with the tree spikers. I agree that there is a tipping point that turns ecological sabotage from prank to terrorism, but I do not think that the environmental movement would premeditate how to kill the people who are clearing the forests. It seems more like pranks gone bad that have unfortunately turned into terrorism because people have died as a result. I dont know a lot about this tree spiking but I would hope that after realizing it killed the harmless blue collar worker it would end. When it doesnt is when it turns into sabotage.

Interesting Short Article About Lies' Effectiveness

Here is a link to a little blurb I found about how lies are more effective

In summary, the author thinks that truth is always better in theory but that we don't live like that. In our modern world, reality is based in practicality and often we must lie to get our point across/bring attention to our problem.

Seems to me that the massive number of lies in our reality are perfect products of an imperfect society; we use them as bad means towards a good end.

http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/07/08/how-to-use-lies-for-good-or-why-honesty-isn%E2%80%99t-the-best-policy/

Get sustainable or get out

Keller and Brummer bring up the production paradigm and how little it accounts for the ecological and aesthetic values of agriculture and the agroecosystem. As of now the only main concern is for the "greatest possible quantity of agricultural product." They call for a postmechanistic framework for a more sustainable agriculture. This method includes five principles, one of which describes the fact that we must begin to adopt a "plurality of methods,"rather than a single farming system. It is necessary to incorporate many systems, each adapted to its own region, to particular farmers and their regions as well. The point here is that postmechanism involves the non-economic values in land.

I'd like to call attention to another idea that Keller and Brummer bring up at the beginning, but perhaps leave out at the end. That is, the 'fact-value gap,' which explains that when we assert that a thing has "value," we are judging it based off of our own emotions, not of fact. We need to target this emotion factor (a very human factor) if we are to start using these "plurality of methods" in order to be more sustainable.

We live by emotions daily, why not use them more in the agroecosystem.

Patagonia

Patagonia - The Footprint Chronicles: Tracking the Environmental and Social Impact of Patagonia Clothing and Apparel

This link connects you to the "footprint chronicles" of patagonia.. they seem to understand Elkington and Hawken's points about a business not being completely sustainable until everyone around them is as well. Their statement on this website proves that.

Also (with a bit of love)

I meant to share this when we were talking about Grizzly Man and whatnot, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuxO-C2IzE

d'awwww!

Economics.... Ugh!

Hoho! Just joshing, I've got no problem with economics (...)

So, in "Making Capitalism Sustainable," Mr. Elkington lays out (in a very economic fashion) several of the factors that make sustainable developments within capitalism so very hairy. Once I got my brain into technical-reading-mode, I found that he's actually got some good points here. The most useful tool he puts forth is what he calls the "Triple Bottom Line."
Elkington defines a company's bottom line in economics as "the profit figure used as the earnings figure in the earnings-per-share statement", so I suppose a net profit. His point is that one bottom line just isn't enough, but that we need three criteria on which to judge a company's sustainability: economic, environmental, and social.

Elkington makes the valid and significant point that overall sustainability is not achieved merely when any single bottom line proves sustainable, but only when all three interact in an overall sustainable way. In other words, it should never be considered "profitable" to pour pollutants into rivers and rely on child sweat-shop labor in foreign countries, no matter how much money is being made. Any economic system in which such practices ARE considered profitable must be flawed. He compares the bottom line fluctuations to continental drift, all able to operate independently of one another, but all still part of the Earth's overall ~'sustainability geography'~.
I think it's very interesting to view sustainability through this lens. Environmental sustainability's meaning is fairly straightforward, but what about economic and social?
It seems that economically sustainable practices would be not only profitable, but continually and adaptively profitable. For instance, it's all well and good to design the iPhone, but once better technology is introduced it is only profitable to create new models so that the one people already have becomes obsolete. Cha-ching! Otherwise, your profit from the iPhone is just a flash in the pan. (Of course this isn't environmentally sustainable at all...)

The idea of social sustainability is also very interesting. This would require a level of comfort and engagement in the workingplace that kept employee minds sharp and able to contribute most bountifully to an institution's productivity, as well as business practices that did not participate in social injustice. Elkington cites instances of social uprising that have brought companies to their knees. If business-as-usual causes upset in the minds of and tension with workers and/or the public, it will eventually snowball and cause a collapse of some sort or another. Such practices are ultimately self-defeating for any company, and thus not sustainable.

Elkington's point is that accountants, when preparing account reports for a company, should include a much broader range of gains and losses. Even economic capital, which is usually the only capital considered, needs to be broadened, and to reflect actual cost of a resource or profit rather than the merely economic cost.
Social and environmental capital should also be included. If a business is regularly causing harm to people or the environment, those costs need to be included in "the bottom line" profit margin. Thus, costs/profits would be an accurate and holistic reflection of the ultimate economic viability (and sustainability) of a business.

Elkington seems, to me, to have his finger on some important holes in our capitalist system, and does a good job of entangling economic durability with social and ecological justice. When coupled with Hawken's "Declaration of Sustainability," we seem to have some very solid and practical arguments for the sustainability movement. Both of these essays do a great job of arguing in a way that will make sense even to someone who doesn't give a rat's backside about the environment or other people.

As depressing as it is, many people simply will not listen to an argument for eco-friendliness if it requires that they make any sacrifices, or take any initiatives, or turn of lightbulbs when they leave a room. That's why we need economic arguments like these that won't, aherm..... take away anyone's godamm rights as an American!

I honestly haven't any critique to offer "Making Capitalism Sustainable." Elkington understands the system he is writing abut much more than I do. Any economists in the house?
~~~

A Few Notes on Population Growth

"The collapse of the death rate was in fact followed by a collapse of the fertility rate. Around the time of the industrial revolution, women began bearing steadily fewer children. In America, for instance, the average white woman had 7.04 children in 1800. By 1944, that number had eased to 2.22. This gradual decline became an absolute collapse once the Baby Boom ended. Since 1970, the fertility rate has dropped by more than 50 percent in nearly every country in the world. In many countries the decline has been closer to 75 percent. In some countries fertility rates have reached “lowest-low”—which is to say, lower than has ever been seen in human history. Today, no first-world country has a fertility rate above the replacement level of 2.1. Most developing countries are still above that mark, but are falling, fast.

Which means that, while total population keeps increasing, the rate of increase has slowed dramatically. Seven billion people may seem like a lot, but what the U.N. isn’t advertising is that over the last few decades population growth has consistently lagged behind projections. The U.N.’s 1994 model, for instance, had us hitting the 7 billion mark nearly three years ago. The real story of the 7 billionth birth is that fertility rates have fallen so far that population has been growing much more slowly than anyone predicted. And, as a corollary, this sluggish growth is likely to disappear as global population peaks, and then begins contracting.

Indeed, nearly every population model in recent years has suggested that, between 2050 and 2075, world population will top out at 9 billion to 12 billion. And after that it will begin shrinking." - Jonathan V. Last, Weekly Standard, November 14.

Given that the vast majority of this shift in fertility rates occurred not through any conscious government policy but through social changes (i.e., individuals making private choices about their own families), one wonders whether the notion that population growth cannot possibly be left up to the Smithian invisible hand holds much water. I won't pretend my source is impartial, but I'd be interested to see if there are coherent factual rebuttals at hand.

Ultimate Sustainabiity

Paul Hawken's, A Declaration of Sustainability, clearly lays out an extensive plan to combat environmental degradation and promote environmental health which would work in a newly born society, however his plans need much editing to be applied to the current world.

He begins with the example of Ben and Jerry's ice cream company. Ben and Jerry's is a company I would assume the majority of us have taken pleasure in at one time. Their initiatives to "redefine their social and ethical responsibilities" are commendable compared to many other companies. However, I think Hawken does a great point of recognizing that their ultimate goal is still to advance, and grow, and using resources efficiently clearly helps them do this, as noted the company is now currently taking over competitor franchise Haagen-Dazs. In the U.S., Ben and Jerry's is a household name, however it is one recognized for their tasty sweet treats, not their attention to sustainability and the environment. Therefore, Ben and Jerry's attention to these matters is overall not one effective enough to produce social change or create sustainability. Nor is it one that challenges others to combat eventual environmental degradation and over-exploitation of resources. This comes to Hawken's argument that in order to have a truly sustainable society, "we cannot fully succeed until institutions surrounding commerce are redesigned," a company level simply effort will not produce the necessary results.

My favorite of his suggested strategies is number two, "Adjust price to reflect cost." Although, it would also take years to establish a system to do this, I think it would be the most effective and all encompassing. Companies would be forced to use more environmentally friendly products or their production costs would outweigh sales. Therefore growth and advancement would specifically correlate with environmental health. Companies like Ben and Jerry would grow specifically because of their policies of ethical responsibilities, not simply because of their tasty products, and this would promote a larger social change. People everywhere would make more environmentally friendly purchases, because they would be more affordable. And subsidies on corn and other agricultural products would be vanquished, because they allow people to produce products without taking responsibility for the environmental effects.

Ultimately though, there are many other strategies that could promote just as large of a positive effect on environmental issues. So, what is the key to achieving the ultimate sustainable lifestyle? Hawken's outlines a total of 12 strategies for sustainability, basically stating the necessity for a complete social and political reform. His 12 strategies, in theory, are a perfectly acceptable solution to creating a sustainable lifestyle. However, in reality, this large of a reform would be virtually impossible. If all of these strategies were in fact, implemented, it would take years and years to put them in place and see the comprehensive positive effects, especially strategy three, where Hawken claims the necessity "to throw out an replace the entire tax system." By the time a change such as this could occur and be agreed on, our resources could be already depleted to a level beyond repair. Although Hawken's points are valid, an outline of strategies this extensive can hold no true argument simply because it is unrealistic.

A defense of the Invisible hand

Today in class we talked about the global ramifications of continuing the global trends of over population and straining our finite supply of natural resources. We talked a lot about the global ramifications of continuing to squander our limited resources, but we did not focus on the consequences that apply only to us Americans.

One of the interesting points that I found in commoner that we didn’t get a chance to go over in class is the idea that at the current rate of population growth Americans will soon be overshadowed by the soon to be much larger populations of third world countries. This perspective interests me because when talking about overpopulation and the limitations of our earth sustainability, we normally do so from a global perspective. The argument made by some might be that because over population is a global problem that it affects everyone equally. This would be true if we were to limit ourselves to the lack of natural resources, and not also on massive over population in certain areas of the globe.

A nationalistic perspective on the issue of over population brings to mind a threat presented to the United States from third world countries. If third world countries continue to overpopulate, the United States and all other industrial countries around the globe are directly in danger of these populations, which the industrial world has exploited for so long. Therefore, even from a nationalistic perspective, it is in the best interest of individual nations, as well as the globe on the whole to control population growth.

This brings me back to another concept we discussed today in class: the invisible hand argument presented by Adam Smith in the wealth of nations. Smith argues that by a person acting in their own selfish interest, they inadvertently help the whole. We discussed today in class that the invisible hand model doesn’t work because of the problem of the tragedy of commons, or the idea that in a society where there is a limited amount of resources being used by an entire population, and that if one person in that population takes advantage of the supply of resources, the other people in that population will suffer.

My point is this, it is in the best interest of industrial nations to control the population growth of these third world countries so that they do not begin to outnumber those members of industrial countries and rebel against industrial nations. Thus it is in the best person interest of industrial nations to stagnate the population of third world countries, and at the same time by limiting the population of these countries industrialized nations would inadvertently help these countries achieve a higher standard of living and reduce the strain on the globes natural resources. This is how the invisible hand works and I contest that it applies just as well to this problem of overpopulation as it does in our nation, and Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

The Ecological Necessity of Confronting the Problem of Human Overpopulation

In his article “The Ecological Necessity of Confronting the Problem of Human Overpopulation” Garrett Hardin takes an essentially economic standpoint in assessing population. He critiques Jeremy Bentham’s idea of striving for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ yet retains utilitarianism conception of maximizing pleasures and minimizing pains. He uses this framework to explain how economic incentives can be used to assess situations of commonly owned property. The story of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ shows us that when property is not owned individually (or at least not privatized) each person using the land has an incentive to use too much of it because his costs are divided up between everyone who is using the land. He reaps all the benefits and yet suffers only a fraction of the losses.

Hardin then goes on to argue that the tragedy of the commons can inform the way we think about carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is “the maximum number of a species that can be supported indefinitely by a particular habitat, allowing for seasonal and random changes, without degradation of the environment and without diminishing carrying capacity in the future” (438). Hardin argues that how we treat the environment, animal populations, and ultimately human populations should be a function of the carrying capacity. He argues that through technology we can increase the world’s carrying capacity, but ultimately we, as a species, are going to have to take some serious steps to controlling our population.

While I agree that overpopulation is an extremely pertinent and difficult question, I believe that Hardin fundamentally is approaching the problem in the wrong way. He opts for an essentially technological solution to a technological problem. While he does include ‘knowledge’ as a part of his solution, the knowledge he advocates for is knowledge concerning contraceptives. Instead of knowledge, I would argue people need to better understand the problem. A well rounded education will do much more good than knowing how to use a condom. Perhaps at the heart of my critique of Hardin’s approach to the problem is that he sees human beings as things or objects instead of people. He says things like “the child who is saved today becomes a breeder tomorrow” and argues that dropping atomic bombs would be better than food: “for a few moments the misery would be acute, but it would soon come to an end for most of the people, leaving a very few survivors to suffer thereafter.” He denies the validity of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Hardin ends with this statement: “A country that gives food to other countries must also insist on evidence of responsible actions. Only by such insistence can the donor nation make sure that the next generation in the recipient nation has a chance at a decent life. Making these tough conditions is the kindest thing we can do for the needy peoples of the world. And ultimately for the whole world” (442). While I am all for oversight, this statement is naively patronizing at best, and violently hubristic at worst. It assumes that we ‘the rich’ know what is best for them ‘the poor’ and that we could and should make decisions for others because they are not are not capable of making them for themselves. Overall, I find that Hardin’s approach to be deeply troubling. In his attempt to secure a ‘better life’ he sacrifices the most important aspect of human society: the ability to be treated as a full and robust human being.

Only 1.3 kids per family, please

In “Impact of Population
Growth,” Ehrlich and Holdren offer their take on how recent human population
patterns are harming the local and global environment. Among the first
assumptions is that each human is ecologically harmful due to agricultural
dependence and resource use, a population’s total negative impact determined by
the size of the population as well as per capita consumption. However, it is
stressed that per capita harm is not independent of population size, the
following formula used to explain: I = P * F(P); I representing total
environmental impact, P representing population size, and F standing for per
capita input. Per capita increases due
to population growth are explained in terms of environmental thresholds; in
other words, once human demand is greater than natural availability,
exponential amounts of energy and resources tend to be consumed in order to
fulfill the extra demand. Among examples is water, as overuse required multiple
quality treatments, each increase costing more than the previous. Economies of
scale, therefore, are claimed to produce diminishing returns as opposed to
greater efficiency.
Attention is also called
towards the global scale, as increased pollution and overexploitation of
resources can lead to resource depletion, as seen in the fishing industry. In
addition, major consumer countries, such as the U.S., are mentioned as overdeveloped
due to the use of superior technological abilities in acquisitions of otherwise
depleted resources at the expense of developing nations.
Population density is
discussed as misleading in asserting population problems, as the Netherlands
may have 18x the density of the U.S. yet both countries suck up
disproportionate amounts of precious resources. Large scale environmental
problems from consumption were suggested to be independent of distribution and
it’s not like loading up a pattywagon with city dwellers for rural drop-off is
a feasible option, most people are there for a reason.
The fourth point
attempted to broaden the notion of “environment” in terms of overpopulation
with brief connections to prioritization of urban slums by the residents, the
tendency for people to get pissed off when in a crowd for too long, and the
viability of contagious diseases that could bring back the plague…
Lastly, the paper
criticizes modern technology for its inadequacy in practice, offering shifts of
environmental harm instead of solutions. The problem seems to be that
technology tends to cope with growing demands of swelling populations instead
of addressing the issues of their scarcity. Aside from population control,
redirection of technology from such goals and closed resource cycles are recommended.
Though I feel like the
point about the dangers of exponential population growth is valid, the general attitude
is a bit pessimistic. Perhaps it’s because the paper is from 1969, because
current clean energy movements and research such as hydroponic farming offer
hope for the future. Felt like the writers were hoping for another world war or
maybe the super-flu to take care of things and just not saying it. Still, its
2011, there’s more people than ever, and somehow we’re still living.

The Question Concerning Heidegger doesn't really make sense...

In the second half of his essay "The Question Concerning Technology", Heidegger argues that old-school technology was based in the four causes of Aristotle. This old technology was basically insturmental, yet it was still capable of being revealing. On the other hand, what Heidegger calls "modern technology" (I would hate to see what he would say about our current level of technology) is capable of challenging. By challenging, I think Heidegger means capable of forcing nature to supply energy which can be forced into a standing reserve. Thus, our view of nature is transformed into one where we see all of the natural world as merely resources to human control. This radical shift in our view of nature is one of the dangers Heidegger is most concerned with. However, he does argue at the end of the article that art can save us. Not really sure how that works though.. But in this modern technology with its ability to challenge nature, Heidegger argues that the entire world appears to be under human control. The problem with this is that eventually this can lead to humans being under the same control. The distorted world view that modern technology has created will inevitably end in humans also becoming part of the standing reserve. Our desperate need to control our world will lead to us enslaving ourselves. Interesting. The positive aspect that I did manage to pick our from this is that Heidegger must be some sort of a quasi-enviornmentalist. If he argues against the enslavement of nature and humans into the standing reserve, the most resonable alternative would be that Heidegger believes all natural things should be free from technology and control. In a sense, I think that is a hint of environmentalism.
But the big problem I have with Heidegger is his idea of "Ge-Stell". Heidegger's ambiguous, misleading, and completely unhelpful language did not give me an accurate understanding of what exactly this "ge-stell" was even by the end of the article. He says it is of non-human origin but yet is not technological.
What exactly does Heidegger mean when he says "Enframing is the gathering together which belongs to that setting-upon which challenges man and puts him in position to reveal the actual, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve"