Der Guardian hebt im Bericht zum Urteil des europäischen Menschenrechtsgerichtshof hervor, dass das Gericht festgestellt hat, dass die Schweizer Regierung die Menschenrechte der Klägerinnen tatsächlich verletzt hat, und dass das Urteil zukünftige Klagen gegen nationale Regierungen auch vor nationalen Gerichten erleichtert. Das Gericht stellt fest, dass die Einhaltung des 1,5°c ein Kernelement des Schutzes der Menschenrechte ist und dass ich die Schweizer Klimapolitik nicht an der Wissenschaft orientiert habe. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/09/human-rights-violated-inaction-climate-echr-rules-landmark-case

Eine Empfehlung des Zusammenschlusses nationaler Akademien der Wissenschaften und eine zusammenfassende Studie zum globalen Plastiksystem empfehlen die Reduktion des Verbrauchs um 50% und eine Reihe weiterer Schritte wie das fast vollständige Recycling von Plastik und die Produktion aus Biomaterialien. Anlass sind die Verhandlungen zum internationalen Plastikabkommen. Plastikproduktion und Verbrauch führen schon jetzt – abgesehen von zahlreichen anderen negativen Folgen – zu Emissionen von ca einer Gigatonne CO2 im Jahr. Ohne drastische Änderungen wird sich diese Menge vervielfachen. https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000205422/wissenschaft-fordert-radikale-abkehr-von-herkoemmlicher-plastikproduktion

Studie: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06939-z.epdf?sharing_token=-UPbgMcUGHbtK4Uscd0XZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MMo2Wo13ejTIFhNPD522LiogzEIVWxfHy01bK9MbFLdv59qFdQ73NDNguF2Bf0icTMUsLgWI2hE3OyG7VDGuf_3LODlHS0WEkABpLs5LAtVCiW0_JyVU7n_UL0EP7LiRS0q6s0fIpcIjaEfVFyDe4cez-4KdfAAphy-2weBUevmIZv9sURtFCEk7-LtaOTCmM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.derstandard.de

Etwa 50% der zu Klima und Biodiversität Forschenden oder ökologischen Aktiven mit intensiv genutzten Twitter-Accounts hat die Plattform seit der Übernahme durch Musk verlassen, wie eine neue Studie zeigt. Hauptgrund ist die Zunahme und größere Aggressivität von Klimaleugnenden. Hintergrundbericht mit Verweisen auf Studien und Überlegungen zur Fragmentierung der Social Media Szene im Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens.

Studie: https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(23)00189-1

https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/face-au-climat-haineux-chercheurs-et-defenseurs-de-lenvironnement-quittent-twitter-en-masse-20230816_256BW73I5FEJ3DDMBCYIW3I2AE/

The "strict conditions" and "every cent" sound a bit oppressive as called out here, though most funders would/should do this sort of thing.

Many people collect notes that they're not sure what to do with or even where to put them. Neuroscience student and researcher Charlotte Fraza keeps her version of these notes in a category of "things that inspire me, but I don't yet know exactly how to use. She feels that compared to the other categories of actionable specific use and sources, this inspiration category is the most interesting to her.

Title: The Economics of Immense Risk, Urgent Action and Radical Change: Towards New Approaches to the Economics of Climate Change

Stop Reset Go Annotation

Das ist vielleicht auch ein Ausdruck für die Arbeit von Charlotte Brives. Ich denke z.B. an ihren Aufsatz über die Isolation von Bakteriophagen in:

Brives, C., Rest, M., & Sariola, S. (Eds.). (2021). With Microbes. Mattering Press. https://doi.org/10.28938/9781912729180

Bakterien und Bakteriophagen lassen sich nicht voneinander trennen, sie befinden sich in einer Koevolution. Brives beschreibt ethnografisch, wie eine Technikerin in einem Labor Phagen isoliert. Die Phagen werden dann zur Therapie von Infektionen verwendet, die von Bakterien ausgelöst werden, die gegen Antibiotika resistent sind. Dabei spielt das Kühlen der isolierten Phagen eine große Rolle. Ohne die Laborkühlschränke wäre es nicht möglich, überhaupt von einem bestimmten Typ von Phagen zu sprechen. Das kontinuierliche evolutionäre Geschehen muss dazu unterbrochen werden.

This) is the Wikipedia page.

Omg, the implied homophone double-entendre/pun is SO GOOD

A major shift here similar to Charlotte’s change in opinion of Edward. Before, Charlotte was excited to talk to Lady Denham and found her agreeable. Now, she clearly states her opinion that she finds her “thoroughly mean.”

While Charlotte notes a very important difficulty her generation faces when finding a match, namely how to spend time together, her remarks also mock how complicated this courtship is and the ramifications that ensue.

Charlotte is surprised that Lady Denham's objections to having more people stay at her home are not based in her affection and duty toward Miss Clara, but because she doesn't want to pay her housemaids for doing the extra work involved.

Here, Charlotte displays similarities to Catherine of Northanger Abbey, who views the world through the lens of the novels she's read.

The Romantic literary movement was obsessed with cottages: see William Wordsworth's poem "The Ruined Cottage" as an example.

http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol28no1/hall.htm

It is strange that Charlotte is accompanying the Parkers when her own parents only just met them. This plot point is similar to the moment that Catherine Morland stays with the Tilneys, even though her family doesn't know them at all.

  This chapter establishes familiar character dynamics that might elucidate the trajectory of the personas Austen presents in this unfinished text. The chapter begins with the introduction of Miss Esther Denham and Sir Edward Denham, a scheming sibling pair reminiscent of Mansfield Park’s The Crawfords and Northanger Abbey’s The Thorpes. Austen explicitly establishes the bald aim of the two to obtain wealth and status from advantageous matrimony, a characteristic that similarly mirrors the Crawfords and Thorpes. Sir Edward, in particular, resembles Austen’s past villainous men; throughout the Austen canon, coxcomb-esque behaviors are the cardinal sins of bachelors. Indeed, Willoughby, Wickham, Henry Crawford, Mr. Elton, Thorpe, and Mr. Elliot all receive biting characterizations by Austen, and thus, given the fates of these men in their respective novels, we can predict that Sir Edward is not the male love interest of this story. 
 Sir Edward’s dynamic with, and apparent longing for the affection of, Clara Brereton, additionally reverberate into the Austen canon in a meaningful way. Other Austen works present relationships between gentried men and pseudo-adopted young women; notably, Emma features Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill’s secret engagement and Mansfield Park depict Henry Crawford’s arguably predatory pursuit of Fanny Price. These relationship both demonstrate wealth and class incongruities as interpersonal complications. Further, these dynamics are also characterized by the ignorance of other characters to the details of the relationship. Therefore, we cannot know from this unfinished account of Charlotte’s observations if Clara Brereton is a Fanny Price or a Jane Fairfax; we cannot fully know if the behaviors and dispassion Charlotte Heywood witnesses are evidence of a painful resistance to unwanted advances or red herrings to disguise an intimacy. Since speculation is the nature of this activity, however, it is notable that in both Mansfield Park and Emma, outside perceptions of the aforementioned relationships were incorrect. Therefore, paradoxically, Charlotte’s perception of Clara’s distaste for Sir Edward might in fact evince a returned affection and eventual marriage between the two. 

This suspicion is in reference to Lady Denham thinking Charlotte has a desire to pursue Sir Edward, or that Charlotte may be misinterpreting Sir Edward's behaviour towards her believing he is forming an attachment to her. Lady Denham clearly wants to convey the message that Sir Edward is not available.

Charlotte cannot enjoy Burn's poetry due to his known indiscretions.

Interesting insight. Austen's narration style becomes unnecessary, as Charlotte's language speaks for itself (pardon the pun)

Austin's use of diction to determine a major factor of Charlotte's decisions on marriage.

A weak aspect to this article is that Moe often makes unclear transitions in her argumentation. This is one of these cases.

Further, does this then mean that Austen has her own individual understanding of "modernity"? Then, perhaps, both Elizabeth and Charlotte are modern in their own respective ways.

Moe argues here that Elizabeth is the progressive one, yet it seemed to me earlier in the article that Charlotte's actions would be expressed as modern in their own way (at least that is what I gained from reading aspects of this article). Is Moe trying to prove both?

Interesting point. Is Charlotte's decision considered "individual agency," or a casualty of the patriarchy?

I appreciate that Moe points this out. I remember first disliking Charlotte and blaming her for the dissolution of her friendship with Elizabeth. But as Moe notes, it is Elizabeth that severs their emotional connection.

Wow! This is a great excerpt. Here, Moe not only identifies Elizabeth's misjudging of what a "modern" woman chooses, but she again also points out Elizabeth's flaw in putting words/thoughts in other peoples' mouths/minds. Charlotte is (assumedly) content in her role, but it is Elizabeth projecting her own fears onto Charlotte's decision that makes her, in the end, a poor friend to Charlotte. This, again, further the nearly impossible question: who is the more modern woman?

Something a reader should question, however, is the context of Darcy's comment. Does he say this because it's truly how he feels, or because he wants a wife in Elizabeth, as well? Also interesting how because Darcy makes opinion of Charlotte as a wife, it becomes assumed as "correct"

By comparing Pride and Prejudice's concerns of marriage to Emma and Mansfield Park, Moe improves her argument about Austen's comprehension of marriage by using relevant texts to apply to Charlotte and Elizabeth's respective situations.

One of Elizabeth's flaws, I believe, is that she often feels that everyone should think and react like her. She does not understand why Charlotte would marry Collins, but is not truly willing to try and empathize with her decisions.

More mention of narrative and strong example of Austin's FID. Charlotte's language changes when her subject manner changes. Does Austen choose to make Charlotte a complex, or flat character? I find it amazing that Austen's language (which, as a reader, is easy to overlook) provides so much detail and depth to her characters and their situations.

Moe's comparison of Elizabeth and Charlotte strengthens her arguments about the institution of marriage within this time frame. Though both women have different expectations of what mate they will end up with, they are both inherently and consciously seeking marriage. But how does this play into the concept of modernity? Does that make them both un-modern? Or does the method of how they both were marriage make their distinct in their different levels of modernity?

Moe seems to contradict herself at times. Is Charlotte "modern"? Within the same paragraph, she seems to promote Charlotte choice, while also diminishing it. Or is Moe trying to argue that despite an optimistic, "modern" thought process, women's happiness and success are still in the hands of the men they marry? It is unclear.

I would argue that this is a "modern" determination of marriage for the period.

I think this is a very interesting insight. However, I think Moe does herself a disservice by briefly mentioning this finding without further description. Since part of her argument relies on narrative/text, a further exploration of this idea and Charlotte's particular language would have enhanced her many points.

I appreciate how Moe is connecting her argument about Charlotte to the concept of "time" and progression, while not directly mentioning modernity. This is a clever method of implying her argument without outright saying it.

Moe's language is a bit ambiguous here; is she critiquing or promoting Charlotte's choice? "Self-discipline" is a positive quality and outcome of her marriage to Collins, but "repetitious . . . existence" is made to seem both dreary and wrongful. Of course, no one decision can be simplified to "good" or "bad," but I find her language in this point--which should be a strong closer to the paragraph--to be misleading.

Moe purposely poses the two characters against each other to express their severe difference in behaving "modernly." Yet, this succinct sentence is a disservice to the full reasoning for Charlotte's choices. It is easy to judge Charlotte as a contemporary reader, but her decision--though not remarkable--it still not something we should completely bash.

But couldn't this definition of marriage, then, apply to Charlotte and Mr. Collins? Before their marriage, Elizabeth thought quite highly of Charlotte. Couldn't Charlotte's strong qualities improve Mr. Collins'? And though he is not an exceedingly charming character, I am sure he has a few qualities that Charlotte could be improved from.

At first, this concept seems a bit unrelated to the article, as Moe begins to discuss Elizabeth Bennet's sensitivity and the impact of other characters' choices on her. However, this is Moe's method of bringing up narrative, again, as she describes Austen's methods of using narrative to expose this emotional, affected side to Elizabeth. She also bridges this back to the discussion of marriage and why Charlotte's marriage feels so personally offensive to Elizabeth.

Moe aptly presents her argument again, as she argues that Elizabeth's frustration with Charlotte, for example, has to do with her own issues managing her frustration with "social forms." Moe allows the reader to "fill in the blank" here, as the reader can use this piece of information to better understand Elizabeth's reaction to Charlotte--her frustration is in Charlotte's refusal to resist the social forms that inherently oppress women and impact the emotional aspect of marriage. By giving her reader room to make this judgement herself, Moe's argument consequently becomes more concrete.

Moe here argues that Austen manipulates Elizabeth's narrative to compare her own pain/conflict with Charlotte to that of Jane's with Bingley. Her analysis of Elizabeth's character strengthens her argument's credibility.

"Narrative about misjudgment and repentance" is essentially caused, in the case of Elizabeth and Charlotte, by conflicting modernities

The different theses Moe presents to her reader are all an original take on reading Charlotte and Elizabeth's argument, and Charlotte's individual views, especially considering the extensive description of the typical reading of these characters which Moe provides us with.

This introduction, though at times distracted from the main point through inclusion of so many outside theories and readings of Elizabeth/Charlotte/Austen, definitely engages the reader, provides grounding for Moe's argument, and makes this subject appear significant in understanding the conflict of modern viewpoints in Pride and Prejudice, as well as to better understand Charlotte as a character and her decisions.

MAIN POINT/THESIS part 3: Charlotte is a different kind of character, applies to several forms of "modernities" and should be critically examined.

THESIS part 2: the development of "modern subjectivity." This can sometimes draw attention from disagreements between women in Austen novels. Charlotte challenges the "social practices that do not appear germane to liberation." She does not follow a romantic plot.

Moe questions the problem with viewing Elizabeth as the sole modern, feminist character.

THESIS part 1: diverse methods of thinking/feeling about marriage and why this matters to Austen (through focusing on Charlotte)

Moe finally refocuses on Charlotte and the common reading of Charlotte.

OK, clearly Moe has done her research, as she has provided a great number of sources about Austen's writing, Austen's characters, Austen's personal/written setting, and so forth. The consistent inclusion of reputable sources strengthens Moe's argument (as it makes her assertions seem well based on research), but I am finding it also a bit distracting. She is jumping from topic to topic with inexplicit transitions, and providing so much outside detail, that it is taking away from her own contentions. More analysis, as I have highlighted here, is what would make this article even better.

Also, this notation makes sense, as it extends to Charlotte's marital decisions.

Again, Moe is using secondary sources to accentuate that Austen writes about women constrained by patriarchy. Here, however, she includes the concept of "Agency" (for both critic and character), which connects to her argument about Charlotte's actions.

Like Charlotte? Moe should make this connection more explicit. If Auerbach is not associating Charlotte to this label, Moe should.

Moe writes this article to combat the frequent reading of Charlotte Lucas' decision to marry Collins, focusing on a feminist literary critical lens.

One of the main purposes of the article. Moe sets out to oppose, or at least challenge, previous readings of the novel (and is thus her placement within a scholarly discourse), to reconsider how actions of "characterological depth and interiority" are formed within the courtship plot, and how it is impacted by cultural modernity. She does this through a reading of Charlotte Lucas.

It is important to relate the concept of cultural modernity and Charlotte's choices to narrative, as that is the main point of the argument (though Moe's thesis is not clearly stated just yet). Also fascinating to label all the minor characters are developmental aspects to Elizabeth; this is quite dehumanizing, but is quite arguable. Austen, therefore, purposefully has Charlotte marry Collins as part of further promoting Elizabeth's vehement feelings about marriage.

Moe is methodically challenging Austen readers who nearly worship Elizabeth Bennet and believe she can do no wrong by using quotations here, implying the idea that although Charlotte does not abide by the same ideology of marriage that Elizabeth does not mean that she is "wrong" for making these choices. This is a purposeful, and clever, way for Moe to extend Charlotte's likability.

"Cultural modernization" is terminology to consider throughout this entire piece. What does it mean to be "culturally modern"? Do the characters of this text (Charlotte, specifically) perform actions that are "culturally modern"? Moe states that Austen critics have labeled Charlotte/Elizabeth's conflicting ideas on marriage a result of "cultural modernization," but what does this really mean? Who is defining this? This concept, however, is part of the core of this article's purpose.

Moe points out that many Austen critics do not view Charlotte's decisions regarding marriage as "modern," yet as a victim of the 18th century patriarchy, Charlotte's actions make a lot of sense.

This is absolutely incredible and profound. As an old school wannabee journalist, I applaud these efforts. If only the Charlotte Observer would lower their prices to about $5 a month for digital, I would subscribe, even on my income.