In the first week's lecture, readings and tutorial I was introduced some new
terms such as "society collapse", "sustainability" and "uncertainty" . The
lecture has introduced us a former collapsed society Rapa Nui and it is very
helpful me in understanding what "society collapse" is and why such a collapse
happens. At the end of the lecture I already had an initial comprehension of "
society collapse" and at the tutorial after discussion with the tutor and other
tutorial members I was able to define "society collapse" by my own words, my
definition of "society collapse" is a society that cannot maintain itself. I
also obtained other tutorial members' opinions about definition of
"collapse", such as big changes, disappearance of culture, decline of something,
they are quite helpful in knowing more about "collapse"
The readings,in the video of Diamond,I discovered some reasons that can
cause collapse. Jared Diamond's speech is highly connected with the content in
the lecture as the factors lead to society collapse Diamond lists are all
adaptable to the story of Rapa Nui. The factors are human impacts; climate
change; relationship between hostile and neigbouring societies; the cultural,
social, economic and political factors. Each factor has contributed for the
collapse of Rapa Nui society. And also,I think these factors can be applied for
most collapsed societies or the societies which are about to collapse. If one
day, our society has collapsed, we also need to focus on these factors to
analyse why our society collapsed.
The other knowledge I learned in the lecture is "uncertainty", in simple
words, it means "things we don't know" and in the following tutorial I also
learned how we could face and deal with it. I understood that "uncertainty" is
not a sheering bad or good thing. If we can be flexible, use technology to
predict these outliers, get rid of paradigm and be interdisciplinary,
"uncertainty" cannot shock us or make troubles for us.
Summary: after week 1 study, I understood that the collapsed society Rapa
Nui is not just a myth or something irrelevant to our modern world as we are now
doing the same thing as those Rapa Nui people, taking natural resources to
satisfy human needs —— our daily life and other sorts of consumptions and
dealing business with other societies. So if we don't take lectures from Rapa
Nui's story, collapse may befall to our society and the aftermath can be very
miserable, "collapse" and "sustainability" do be the serious issues we need to
think about. Also, we need to consider the factors leading to collapse, such as
what Jared Diamond has pointed out: human impacts, climate change, relationship
between our neigbouring, friendly and hostile societies. After considering these
factors, we need to find some methods to avoid collapse and to help our society
to have better sustainability.
My expectation of this subject is to discover more about how human beings
reshape the environment to meet their requirements and what ways of reshaping
are advisable and what ways are not, and also I want this subject to tell me
how to take personal actions to avoid collapse and how to create a better future
of our society and environment


In the 2nd week of study in Reshaping Environment we kept exploring more about
Rapa Nui and concentrated on the term "sustainability", also we studied about
"critical thinking" .
During the lecture we were introduced an important academic skills called
critical thinking, reading and writing. After the lecture and the tutorial's
reinforce I understood that while reading
an article we should not only
accept the author's arguments. The right thing we ought to do is to question
the article, read and think in depth, such as: why does this author have such a
concept or argument;do we
believe his argument, why or why not; and so on. By critical thinking, we can
learn much more than just read and think about nothing. Critical thinking is a
necessary skill for tertiary
students as we already formed the ability of mature thinking, it's time to
apply them, how to apply? By using "critical thinking". It is quite important
that we can grasp this skill as it can
boarden our views, help to shape our own arguments and opinions, and make our
arguments more persuasive. Also, my point of view, be flexible, while we are
reading an article using the
skill of "critical thinking". Do not force ourselves to question every single
word, just be natural, focus on the arguments related to our topic and what we
are interested in. Then raise our
doubts. And other point, :critical does not mean we have to criticise,don't
find faults.... At last, such a skill is an important tool which help us study
the issues of "collapse" and
"sustainability" since these two terms are strongly argued recently, there
are too many different points of view about them raised by the authors having
different backgrounds and
understandings of "sustainability". If we cannot apply the skill of "critical
thinking". It is hard to find our own stance or be clear while reading their
articles. Generally, in other word,
If we do not think critically, we can only "recognise" sustainability, not
know about or understand it.
Another important thing we learnt this week is the definition of
"sustainability" . In the lecture we were introduced many different definitions
of "sustainability" by different people or
organizations. I understood that the reasons why they have different
definitions after the tutorial. One is because they define "sustainability" in
different angles, some of them try to define
from the angle of society, others may think more about environment or
economy. So, by using "critical thinking" ,especially "comparing and
contrasting", we should be able to define
"sustainability" in our own words based on these different definitions made
by others and our own thoughts about "sustainability" derived from these
definitions. Also, there was a
question left for us at the end of lecture. Is Easter Island sustainable?
Before week 2, we may simply answer "no as Rapa Nui people had destroyed the
environment". But now, we
need to think about this question more carefully and in more details because
the answer may vary in terms of different definitions of "sustainabilty". And
what's more, through
the reading of
this week we understand that the factors leading to the fall of Rapa Nui
society are not simple or single but complicated. So these factors should also
be considered when we are
answering this question.
In summary, this week I have understood a lot about "sustainability" and
"collapse", also I have known that how we should study this subject, it is
"critical thinking, reading and
writing" . I become much clearer about how Reshaping Environment is taught
and what we are supposed to learn in this subject now.
I am looking forward to the classes next week and hope I can learn more
about "sustainability", "collapse" and "nature". And more important, hope I can
be more practiced at the
academic skill "critical thinking"

This is the 3rd week of my uni study of subject "re-shaping environment". In
this week's lecture we concentrated on the meaning of nature and how is our
relationship with nature is like and what did this relationship influence
sustainability after the lecture I understood that the term "nature" was not as
simple as our common sense: animals and vegetation...... like "sustainability",
the definitions of nature can vary, in terms of people's different
understandings and the most arguable point about nature is that if human beings
are part of nature or seperate from nature. And this point is also the main
reason why people have their points of view about nature differed. Majority of
us believe that we are part of nature such as Sternberg's point:Humans are part
of nature:Evidence from studies of health benefits of access to nature. Based on
some experts' understandings and my own, I think nature is the cycle of
the process of regular birth, regular growth, regular death and regular
decomposition. Any actions that can destroy such a process can be regarded as
"unnatural" such as cutting down a tree, it is a "irregular death" and it is
unnatural according to my perspectives of nature. But not all "unnatural
actions" are bad for nature, some are actually neccesary to maintain the nature
and pulse nauture to develop. If living things all do not kill others and eat,
all of them are staving.... and so the nature definitely can not be maintained
or developed. So by my understandings of nature, human beings are the part of
nature as we also follow such a process and take "unnatural actions" to help
develping and maintaining the nature and our society. This is my compherension
about nature after the lecture.
In the lecture we were introduced a place called Eynesbury which is
quite natural according to our common sense about nature, the question left was
that " Is Eynesbury really sustainable?" By my analysis my answer is "no" as
according to our common figure of sustainability raised by WCED in 1987, human
needs are not met presently as our needs are not only wandering in a
green avenue or playing golf, we need economy, we need trade, we need school to
get education, we need hospitals, we need transportation.... all of these need
can not be fully satisfied in Eynesbury so it is not sustainable. In the
tutorial we discussed this question furtherly and the content in the discussion
inspired me to come up with other reasons why Eynesbury is not sustainable. In
terms of Diesendorf ' s concept about "ecologically sustainable development", no
much social and economic developments and the factors can
pulse such developments such as comtemperary technologies, are not presented in
Eynesbury, so it is not sustainable. Now I conclude, it is OK to have Eynesbury
as part of a society but Eynesbury absolutely can not be a single and
independent society. If Eynesbury become a society, the aftermath is that such a
society will fail in sustainability and maintaining itself.
The human-nature relationship was a new term introduced to us in this
week and by this week's study I understood that different views seeing this
relationship will lead to different actions taken on nature and influence
sustainability differently, and also, our different points of view on
human-nuture relationship can make us have different comprehensions on the terms
"nature" and "sustainablity". It was a pity that we did not discuss human-nature
relationship a lot in the tutorial, I found a little bit
about this relationship in the reading 2. It was about Ulrich' s test on how
nature helped patients in healing, and what he had discovered about human-nature
relationship was that nature can benefits us in healing as nature can quicken
the speed of healing and reduce the pain patients suffer by making them have
good and positive emotions. So according to Ulrich's discovery we can see that
one of the relationships between human and nature can be "helper and
beneficiary". I hope in the next week's tutorial and readings we will be able to
discover more about nature and our relationship with nature.
Look back to what we have learnt in week 1 and week 2 I noticed that
the term "sustainability", "collapse", "nature" and "human-nature relationship"
are really far more complex than my expectation before and also, their are
complicatedly associated together, a change occur in anyone of them may incur
another three to change, so to have a deeper and more matural
understandings of their meanings and to avoid misunderstandings I need do
more research and read more articles by the experts in this area to amplify my
knowledge about sustainability and nature and
most important, use the strategy "critical thinking" while I am studying
these terms

The definition of sustainability has been intensely debated for a few decades and within the process of our striving for discovering what it truly means to us, more and more people have understood the importance of sustainability on our society and future and the its complexity has emerged, it is clear that sustainability is far more complex than our former expectations as it is not only merely about environmental maintenance, it involves many other factors which are supposed to be considered if we are seeking the meaning of "sustainability". One definition of sustainability is our growth in matters and energy should not be beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities(Goodland and Daly 1996), this definition is mainly from the angle of environmental regenerative ability, shows us the basic requirements to make our society sustainable and to success in "sustainability". Also, sustainability and sustainable development are highly associated with and depends on a range of factors in different areas, like social development, economic development, sustaining the natural environment, promotion of social equity and more importantly, a balance must arise between these developments and sustainings based on our understandings of sustainability for achieving success in making our society sustainable, in other words, only all the factors above(social development etc) must be presented simultaneously within a society, an ecologically sustainable development will happen(Diesendorf 1997). Another complexity of sustainability is that its meaning may vary due to different scales or areas of focusing while people are trying to define it, thus the term sustainability is not easy to be defined integratedly, such as that according to our common figure, sustainability includes a sort of human beings' benefits: meeting human needs and the continuity of such benefits should be guaranteed, this sort of benefits must last to our future and next generation without any impairments otherwise a failure of sustaining the society may incur(WCED 1987). This definition mainly focuses on meeting human needs and emphases the importance of continuity of meeting human needs on "sustainability" but misses out clarifying what human needs really are and how "satisfying human needs" relates to ecological, economic, social developments nature and environment, which can influence "sustainability".

The world, since the astonishing event "Industrial Revolution", has changed a lot, and the emergence like technological development, urbanization, population expansion and so on have led to a dramatically increasing of human needs, the emergence of these factors, especially technological development also changed our lifestyle, basically, to a better extent. But there is one fact that we have to attach importance to, nature does not seem to be a beneficiary by these changes, furthermore, an increasing of human needs has brought huge pressure to nature and many environmental issues have emerged like global-warming and water contamination. Thus one terms: Sustainability has come into our sight, as it is the key to solve these issues and ensure Earth can still be our homeland in the future.
The definition of sustainability has been intensely debated for a few decades and within the process of our striving for discovering what it truly means to us, more and more people have understood the importance of sustainability on our society and future and the its complexity has emerged, it is clear that sustainability is far more complex than our former expectations as it is not only merely about environmental maintenance, it involves many other factors which should be considered if we are seeking the meaning of "sustainability". One definition of sustainability is our growth in matters and energy should not be beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities(Goodland and Daly 1996), this definition is mainly from the angle of environmental regenerative ability, shows us the basic requirements to make our society sustainable and to success in "sustainability". Also, sustainability and sustainable development are highly associated with and depends on a range of factors in different areas, like social development, economic development, sustaining the natural environment, promotion of social equity and more importantly, a balance must arise between these developments and sustainings based on our understandings of sustainability for achieving success in making our society sustainable, in other words, all the factors above(social development etc) must be presented simultaneously, wholly and normally within a society, an ecologically sustainable development will happen(Diesendorf 1997). Another complexity of sustainability is that its meaning may vary due to different scales or areas of focusing while people are trying to define it, thus the term sustainability is not easy to be defined integratedly, such as that according to our common figure, sustainability includes a sort of human beings' benefits: meeting human needs and the continuity of such benefits should be guaranteed, this sort of benefits must last to our future and next generation without any impairments otherwise a failure of sustaining the society may incur(WCED 1987). This definition mainly focuses on meeting human needs and emphases the importance of continuity of meeting human needs on "sustainability" but misses out clarifying what human needs really are and how "satisfying human needs" relates to ecological, economic, social developments, nature and environment, which can influence "sustainability". In summary, human beings still have a long way to go on "seeking the true meaning of sustainability" ,people need to have a mature comprehension on characteristics of sustainability , and also avoid any misunderstandings of sustainability, finally, find out what sustainability really means to us.


A factor that leads to the intensely contest of definition of "sustainability" is nature, as "what nature is" and "how humans are associated with nature" are always something people need to carefully consider when thinking about "sustainability", and also, natural sustainability is the major content of "sustainability" we are discussing today. Different views due to different background and discipline on nature sometimes will lead to different perspectives or understandings of sustainability. Some people regard "nature" as a concrete and obvious thing which is measurable, like vegetation, water, wood and so on, and also any impacts or presence on nature is able to be seen directly(Sternberg 2009). Such a view on nature is commonly and easily accepted by many individuals and groups that do not dabble deeply at the field of environmental study due to its simplicity. But this perspectives ignores the complexity of nature which need to be considered when we are seeking what human-nature relationship is like and the definition of sustainability. Thus it may make some people have a misunderstanding of sustainability, they may think sustainability is not complex, it is as simple as the nature Sternberg explains. In contrast, some other people see nature as a much more complex and abstract thing, (Sternberg 2009), by pointing out that nature has many different meanings, presence of nature depends on these meanings so cannot be simply measured and meanings of nature can change over time(Cronon 1995). Cronon's view on nature has emphasized that we must admit nature is a very flexible, it is not a fixed thing like Sternberg's perspective on nature(Sternberg 2009). However, though Cronon has shown the understanding of complexity of nature, his perspective does not tell us what nature really is, it also fails to tell us what are involved in nature. Anyway, nature sometimes is really a complicated term so we cannot say whose perspectives on nature are absolutely right or wrong.
So after understanding nature we now need to think what relationship humans have with nature? With the history, human-nature relationship varied period by period, one perspective is human-nature relationship has experienced 3 periods. Current human-nature relationship we have is in the third period. At the first period human were "under the control of nature", human feared nature a lot(Diakopoulou 2007) . Then with a slight development of human skills, human came to the second period, human found themselves co-exist with nature and became equal to nature(Diakopoulou 2007). This period lasted long but was thrown away immediately when human embraced "Industrial Revolution" and rapid technological development. We entered the third period, human-nature relationship become "human is above nature and starts changing nature"(Diakopoulou 2007). The reason why human-nature relationship becomes like this is because our technology and abilities allow us to change nature and our increasing human needs due to the factors like urbanization and population expansion pulse us to do so.


Now we have known how human-nature relationship is like, based on this we can now explore the how human-nature important for leading towards sustainability. To find an answer, we must be clear current human-nature relationship is "human change nature". The rapid population expansion quickens the speed of urbanization and increases human needs, so due to the current human-nature relationship, we change nature, and take more and more resources from nature to satisfy our increasing human needs, but a fact is that amount of resources can be provided by nature is finite, the more we take today, the less our next generation can take in the future to satisfy their needs, so if we currently keep taking the natural resources unbridledly and finally one day we used up all the resources, our future generation cannot satisfy their needs anymore, we failed making our society sustainable according to one definition of sustainability "development that meets the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own"( WCED 1987). Also, the metabolism of cities has become faster and larger nowadays, which means human has consumed more resources and disposed more rubbish than before(Cuddihy and Engel-Yan 2007). This phenomenon lead to the concerns that a failure in environmental sustainability may occur in terms of its definition "sustainable development is the development without growth in throughput of matter and energy beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities"(Goodland and Daly 1996).If we let such a metabolism become even larger in the future, the "growth of matter and energy" is probably going to beyond the regenerative and absorptive capacities of nature, leads to the result we failed to make our environment sustainable. So final we can draw the conclusion: human-nature relationship we currently have plays a critical role in the goal of sustainability as now that we can change nature, we do have the ability to do something to reduce the amount of natural resources we take for satisfying human needs to a suitable extent. Otherwise like what has been argued above, a failure in achieving sustainable future will happen. Also, if we are able to change nature, we really can do something to increase the regenerative and absorptive capacities of nature to adapt the larger and larger metabolism of human or cities. In general, because human-nature relationship is "human change nature", it is our rights to change the current nature into a "sustainable nature" in the future by taking some actions, or only concentrate on satisfying human needs, take natural resources unlimitedly, then change the nature into unstainable nature, or even totally destroy it.
While human are enjoying the comfort brought by changes like technological development in last few centuries, it is important that we should never forget that nature is a indispensable factor to ensure we can enjoy this kind of comfort. Also, to ensure such comfort can last to future, we have to make nature sustainable, based on our understanding of sustainability, nature, human-nature relationship and their association.