Freud’s Oedipus and Electra complex does not effectively apply to Volver.
The text contradicts itself. They make the case earlier that the Oedipal complex is on display then go on to make claims about the Oedipal Complex impacting her relationship with her mother. To say it doesn't effectively apply undermines their previous statements.
She rejects the idea of her parents having anything other than a near-perfect marriage
Hard disagree- Rainmunda is upset because she's forced to confront what her father did without delving into it to keep up the façade of respectability and keep her daughters origin secret.
Raimunda’s sister got to live with their mother, while Raimunda went to live with their aunt.
The sequence of events seems off here-
Electra Complex
The entire film seems to attempt to buck the Oedipus Complex because we see the repeated violation of said norm. The father desires the daughter as a sexual object rather than the inverse, as Freud would seem to suggest.
Researchers traced the political economy of Am-azonian deforestation and found that internation-al consumers were implicated in this destruction(Leduc 1985)
Look at the market, working it's magic to provide goods and services, am I right? (I'm not right, this is 100% sarcasm). I feel like this raises the question, how do we address issues that are caused systemically, and are bound to reoccur? Should we address them on a case by case basis, or should we look at augmenting our systems to disincentivize this kind of behavior? The other tricky thing I have with this, and our kneejerk impulse to try to minimize deforestation is the way in which both systems and ideas function under neo-colonial assumptions. If we acknowledge that nations by virtue of their existence deserve sovereignty (via consent of the governed), we shouldn't be trying to change how they use their resources, though criticism is wholly valid. But capitalism has kind of taken the role of colonizer in it's own right, and if left to market forces, the land will still be subject to Western forces given we're the ever consuming jaw at the end of the global supply chain. I'm not sure what's best to do about this moral quagmire we find ourselves in. Is it better to impose sanctions on a nation like Brazil to cripple it's meat production? Is that ethical, or is it an extension of our "white mans burden" logic that permeates throughout our country?
Much ofthis forced removal from what would becomepublic and park land was made possible by theepidemics of disease amongst aboriginal popula-tions that followed contact with Europeans(Stevens 1997
I've listened to a few interviews with Canadian Indigenous Activists and one of the big policies they push for is "land back", which is exactly what it sounds like. We could initiate a land back program for parts of the country without expropriating any land from individuals, we could cut into some of that federal protected land and enable indigenous groups steward that land. I think there are a few caveats with this though, how do we go about giving them the land, and do we have a right to tell them how to use it? Do we do it based on tribal association and put the land in a land trust, then grant it whatever local governing body they have? My other big concern is that there's some potential for natives to engage potentially in extractive industries if the land is privately held by them, which could defeat the goal of granting them land to steward, though I'd still argue they should have claim to the land, it's sort of messy.
Given that approximately one quarter of the world’sthreatened species live outside protected areas, andthat the integrity of protected areas where theyexist is often threatened, we need to integrate conser-vation efforts with other human activities.
While I 100% agree, I'm not sure what market solutions are available to us to incentivize stewardship when there is more money in extraction or clearing. My biggest concern is that even if we found a relatively decent way to integrate conservation efforts, if it isn't lucrative or there could be more wealth in destroying the ecosystem, what would stop lobbyist groups from "convincing" our politicians?
Comparably large percen-tages of extinctions of mammals, reptiles, landsnails, andflowering plants have been on islandstoo
I'm in a class where we discuss Oceania and a lot of the species are facing extinction, especially on the Islands. The ecosystems are so fragile and by virtue of their isolation their populations are necessarily small. The Echidna being probably my favorite Oceanic animal just because of their oddities, they're a mammal that lays eggs, they can sense magnetic fields in the ground, and they produce milk in a pouch rather than through traditional mammalian means. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/the-creature-feature-10-fun-facts-about-the-echidna/
purification of airand water, detoxification and decompositionof wastes, generation and maintenance of soilfertility, and the pollination of crops andnatural vegetation (see Chapter 3).
This gonna sound super silly but I literally had no idea how important these services are. I'm in a permaculture class as well and the synergy between this class and that one is awesome! The thing that really shocks me is, as someone not particularly well versed in biology, how critical these ecosystems are and how they can be utilized in really profound ways to maximize output and minimize harm done to the planet. We leave so much productive capacity on the table by not understanding ecosystems and ineffective stewarding of the land.
Climate change presents a new level of complexityforfire management and biodiversity conservationbecause of abrupt changes infire risk due to climatechange and simultaneous stress on species.
I love how the metaphor "throwing gasoline on a fire" kind of applies perfectly here, and we're trying to balance a complex task with additional obstacles, it's like being told you have to ride a unicycle through a combat-zone, the unicycle is hard enough to master let alone the additional volatility of the combat. Is there an effective way to police/reduce the pervasiveness of invasive species that may exacerbate the problems we face?
ire cyclebecause thefire‐loving grasses thrive on thetemporary increase in the availability ofnutrients
This ties in incredibly well with the previous chapters about invasive species and their potential impact on environments. It also ties in to the idea of feedback loops we see commonly discussed in discourse around climate change. The last thing I think that's worth touching on in this little blurb is the way these invasive grasses can be considered desirable in certain conditions because they're effective for grazing animals, which further ties in to the idea of capitalism and the profit motive incentivizing detrimental behavior for the sake of maximizing output. Super silly question, but how does Australia do farm subsidies and could they provide incentives to not have practices like this?
From 60–70% of all European wetlandshave been destroyed outright
Kind of tracks given Europe was a bit quicker to industrialize and settled earlier than the US was. We had to go through the process of stealing the land THEN industrializing here. All nihilism aside, how did wars from 1870-1945 in Europe impact wetlands and the environment in general? How do wars impact the environment, aside from the massive amounts of pollution expended to manufacture arms?
Human population density in 1995
There's a lot of overlap between human population density and areas where at least 30% of the land is cultivated, it's not 1:1 but there's significant overlap in Europe, Southeastern Asia and India. Where there isn't overlap there's a close proximity of areas where people amass and areas where cultivation occurs, take for instance Southeastern Australia
Recent market-based approaches such as pay-ments for Costa Rican ecosystem services, wet-land mitigation banks, and the Chicago ClimateExchange have proven useful in the valuation ofecosystem services
YESSSSS! OMG YESS!! MARKETS! LETS THROW MORE MARKETS AT THE PROBLEM!!
In all seriousness, while this is better than nothing I feel as though creating a market to solve market externalities is kind of absurd. Also, who's paying Costa Rica? There's a market here so long as post-industrial nations want to allocate funds to these countries, though I do love that we're outsourcing environmentalism AND our pollution. That is a truly profound representation of the duality on man. It's also hilarious that emissions-trading is a thing, and it's even funnier the center of it on the US is Chicago. This is a really interesting way of doing environmental regulations, but... this seems silly. This is a knee-jerk reaction and I could be totally off base here, but wouldn't it be better to just set a strict cap, fine these corporations exorbitant amounts of money, tax them for their emissions as a baseline, and then use the money generated to fund ecological restoration, and maybe offer additional farm subsidies for "green" farms/small-scale local farmers? If I'm being a silly goose let me know, but this seems unhinged.
The global carboncycle has been disturbed by about 13% comparedto the pre-industrial era, as opposed to 100% ormore for nitrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur cycles(Falkowskiet al.2000)
What are the implications of nitrogen disruption on agriculture? And how does that end up impacting climate change? This kind of seems like agriculture is producing a feedback loop, since the nitrogen cycle is drastically disrupted, and it seems reasonable to say that the way we fertilize further disrupts it, and then we need to add more... seems like it's on track for a break down.
Whatever the detailed pattern of change in di-versity through time, most of the species thathave ever existed are extinct.
This is existentially terrifying, it's incredible life's persisted on Earth. We're so removed from the idea of survival we can dwell on what it means to be alive and what "death" means in an abstract sense, but it's likely the Anthropocene is just one more phase in the cycle.
Singapore represents a worst‐case scenario intropical deforestation.
The island has become an industrial powerhouse (given it's size) and is considered a highly developed economy. How can we manage conservation efforts and balance economic growth in smaller nations as they develop in the 21st century? The burden should primarily fall on us, given we have one of the largest historical carbon footprints, but I'm concerned their development and efforts to industrialize will be used as a cudgel to justify imperial efforts and keep them submissive to Western hegemony. (Also Singapore has a better healthcare system than the US).