Unless you’ve lived Ted Kaczynski style this past year, nobody in their right mind would say it’s been a harmonious one – politically, socially, or economically. I guess you can say a lot of people are pissed off. They’re pissed at heathcare reform, they’re pissed at the economy, and they’re pissed at a gazillion other little things like the I-Pad. Let’s face it, in America righteous indignation is in.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

If  Sen. Gary Nadler ever runs for a statewide office there’s a good chance I won’t vote for him.

I don’t know much about his voting record and I don’t care about his politics. I just don’t think I could vote for someone who has repeatedly helped to kill proposals that would allow laptops on the floor of the Missouri State Senate. While I respect his “love of tradition” and his concern that technology can distract people from important business… he has disregarded a few important things:

• Instant access to information could improve debate and discussion.
• The only reason a laptops  haven’t been on the floor of the Senate floor… is because they are relatively new.
• Senators are not in High School. A computer might distract them from time to time but they’re adults. They can focus just fine.
• Opposing the use of laptops or similar equipment makes him come across as a Luddite.

I know that technology has it’s share of problems but barring it from an important institution is not realistic.

I usually avoid politics here at Library Without Walls but Adam Potthast, a Professor at Missouri S&T, has posted an excellent read on Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the simmilar crew of conservative “talk media” politicos. Essentially, he argues that years of railing aginst government and political correctness have brought Republicans to where they are today; Glen Beck and rowdy town halls. It’s not a treatise on the topic, but it helps provide a starting point for a discussion on today’s “populism.” Read the full post here.

Part 1 | Part 2

- The Story of Stuff

I’ve always been surrounded by people who are mindful of human impacts on the environment. So, when I packed up and went to college I payed close attention to an up-and-coming form of environmentalism; sustainability. I can’t say exactly how it caught my attention, but the differences between sustainability and previous environmental approaches are notable.

Traditional environmentalism advocates conservation and preservation. Think of Jane Goodall fighting to save gorilla habitat or the government creating a national park. The other. Well, the other – if it’s not carefully heeded – means that humans need to drastically change the way they live. Proponents of sustainable living practices note that we only have a finite number of resources on Earth and that it’s our duty to change present consumption habits from linear to sustainable ones.

Unfortunately, this is not only a tall order but it’s complex to boot. Complex enough in fact that it requires every portion of the materials economy (including you) to do it’s share! Previous identification of environmental issues weren’t quite like this. Take, for example, halting global climate change… perhaps the largest issue identified by environmentalists to date. Scientists point out that they think Earth’s recent warming trend is being caused by Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and that it comes from tangible sources. Human sources! The United States yearly transportation accounts for 529 million metric tons of CO2 released a year while Industrial, Commercial, and Residential sources produce 447, 340, and 296 million tons respectively.

So, without taking too much time to go into Global Warming, an important point needs to be made: previous environmental protection measures have identified specific problems and sought to reduce or resolve their severity to protect the environment. In cutting CO2 emissions humans can take drastic measures that change their lifestyle, but that’s where the impact stops – the problem being fixed. Sustainability, instead focuses on making  an entire  society sustainable. It follows that human influences are treated differently. Sustainability is an orientation toward the world around us… not an attempt to resolve or avoid singular problems that constitute the whole. And, because it doesn’t limit itself it requires help to make feasible. A lot of help. Humans can try and act as stewards and protect the environment on a case-by-case basis, but unless we try to do so in a sustainable manner (across the breadth of the materials economy) a long-term risk is run; we can run out of a given resource. We can damage local ecosystems and the planet beyond repair too.

This is where I intrude.

I think that, properly used, digital libraries can help librarians do their part to “go green.”

Certainly, the concept of sustainability is controversial to some, and Cornucopians argue that humans can always find ways around or through our problems. Transforming the global economy to a sustainable footing may also turn out to come at a very high social, humanitarian, or economic cost!

Not being willing to ignore these objections I personally believe that it never hurts to prepare for the future. That in mind, I am willing to argue that digital libraries can offset a number of environmental and ecological problems. Plus, since libraries are moving toward a dependence on digital material anyway it seems harmless to entertain the benefits of such a model. If it helps the environment then great! If it can be run on a realistic sustainable model even better still.