Professor Sachs’ discussion on the role of comedy in the environmental movement was both fun and thought-provoking. Sachs observes that some of the best American comedy has arisen as “gallows comedy” in the face of difficult circumstances. The environmental crisis surely seems like a difficult circumstance and the question is why there isn’t more humor about it. Another key observation is that in many cases our minds are more receptive to changing our views through effective comedy versus through a serious discussion of potential tragedies. This is partly because comedy makes abstract things more concrete for us, and also because our minds have a tendency of forgetting tragic events and stories. And yet, this aspect is also not being seized upon by environmentalists. It’s not that there are no comedies about environmentalists. For example, we watched a Richard Pryor clip where he portrays the Sierra Club’s charter to save mountain sites so middle class white people could go hiking there on weekends. Or a dark-comedy clip (by The Onion) that discusses making the Iraq war more eco-friendly, ignoring the atrocities of war and focusing on killing humans in an eco-friendly way. Nevertheless, comedy by environmentalists about environmental issues remains quite rare.
I certainly believe that more comedy can play an important role in raising awareness about environmental issues. After all, we are a nation where the most serious news topics are consumed through late-night comedy programs. Given the high value we (unfortunately) give to entertainment over substantive discourse, it seems quite plausible that delivering the message on complex topics such as global warming is best done through entertainment and comedy. However, I do believe there is an important aspect of environmental issues that makes it more difficult for us to grasp, regardless of whether it is conveyed through comedy or serious discourse. As part of the way we have evolved, we are good at perceiving things that happen in the timescale of seconds to several years. And in an analogous manner, we have great difficulty comprehending the impact of slow changes that take a much longer period of time (this includes imagining slow evolutionary or geological processes that lead to huge changes after millions of years). This issue about perception of slow changes is likely one of the key reasons environmental issues have not been as top-of-mind for us as say race issues (which has a whole host of gallows comedy associated with it). The only somewhat tragic silver lining is that environmental change is speeding up and the timescale at which we can see drastic and catastrophic change is getting to be much more near-term and hence perceivable. So that will likely be what will end up making the issues much less abstract for all of us. And whether it is through comedy or serious discourse, we will be much more likely to change our behavior as a result.

Last week’s Rose Cafe was pretty different from previous ones. Professor Aaron Sachs talked about humor, satire, and environmentalism. I wasn’t sure how these topics would come together prior to attending the talk, but Prof. Sachs managed to link them together in a natural and coherent way. He showed us various clips from the Onion that poked fun at environmentalists – my favorite one was “New Prius Helps Environment By Killing Its Owner.” We also watched a clip from West Wing that featured clueless environmentalists who want to build a trail specifically for wolves to use.

But why do these jokes exist? What makes it so easy to poke fun at environmentalists? Prof. Sachs (an environmentalist himself) suggests that environmentalists are easy targets because they are so earnest and serious about their work. Perhaps they could advance their goals and causes by laughing at themselves once in a while.

He ended up with a Modern Family clip featuring Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Mitchell’s crazy environmentalist neighbor in one episode of the show. I thought this was a good example of stereotyping environmentalists, who are often portrayed as passive-aggressive and unnecessarily abrasive.

Professor Aaron Sachs discussed a topic that I was unfamiliar with at last week’s Rose cafe. As a history professor, he seemed well-versed and quite interested in the role humor has in society, but most specifically regarding the environment and its advocates. Being an environmentalist himself, or at least labeling himself as one, the unique topic of his discussion was well articulated through his particular perspective.

Although I’ve definitely been exposed to such environmental humor as in the specific examples of media he presented (videos from The Onion), I had never experienced the realization that this genre of humor could potentially have an ulterior motive other than to simply poke fun. According to Professor Sachs, environmentalists are notorious for not being able to take jokes about their work/concerns. Although one could argue that the issue of the health of the environment is a serious, ubiquitous problem that should not be made light of, this mindset is what Professor Sachs stated environmental humor targets. He said that making use of humor would help environmentalists further advance their agenda, in that their message/intentions could seem more appealing and relatable. Although the discussion was specifically about environmental humor, Professor Sachs’ argument for embracing humor applies to nearly all issues.

Last week I attended the rose café on the environment given by Aaron Sachs. The goal of this talk was to shine a light on environment issues in the best way possible. With jokes and facts put together, Aaron Sachs was able to make this engaging and informing at the same time.
One part of the talk that I really enjoyed was the clip he showed of three environmentalists talking to someone outside of the realm. In this scene, the environmentalists were trying to convince the woman to create a highway just for wolves. While the woman found this amusing and tried to make jokes about the situation, the environmentalists did not pick up or care about that. They were all business for the sake of the wolves. I think that this scene was interesting. It shows the tension that can be created between environmentalists and others that they are trying to work with. This could make it difficult for people to work together cohesively, which in turn would create more problems in the end.
While I understand the environmental issues are a serious topic, I also see where people could have a hard time dealing with the seriousness all the time. this talk by Aaron Sachs helped me to think about some of the issues and how they could be better dealt with.

Aaron Sach’s talk on environmentalist humor brought out the underlying issues relating to how people view environmentalist propaganda. I have always considered myself a very “green” person. I always choose walking/biking over driving. I always turn off the lights, recycle every day, and try to reduce my consumption of meat as much as I can. Although, it’s very obvious that I’m not an active “environmentalist”, I still care about the environment and and want to protect it. So why am I afraid of considering myself as an environmentalist? I feel as if I am not as dedicated enough to the cause. Sachs pointed out that environmentalists pride themselves in taking their work very seriously and don’t allow humor to get in the way of their cause. Therefore, if you’re an environmentalist you can’t really laugh at yourself or at the jokes being made on your work. I know that I can’t take the environmentalist cause as seriously as real environmentalists; however, I believe that I can still be part of the community.

Sach’s talk delineated the fact that environmentalists are often viewed as silly activists due to their hardcore approach to work and unwavering belief that their cause surpasses every other in the world. Although environmentalism is not the only cause affecting the world today, it is certainly one of the biggest. Environmentalism encompasses a broad range of issues ranging from climate change to animal rights to resource conservation. Being involved with one of these issues automatically pushes you to be a part of all of them. Everyone can and should get involved in protecting the planet in any which way that they can. After all, the footprint that we leave behind for the future generations has a big impact on their way of living. If the planet’s resources and climate continue to degenerate at the same rate, the survivability quotient will slowly become non-existent in the near future. However, if everyone contributes in their own way to reduce their carbon footprint, the change will be inevitable.

Last Wednesday I went to the Rose-Becker café lead by Aaron Sachs on Environmentalism and Humor. Sachs said that unlike other activists, environmentalists are unable to incorporate humor into their work, which they take too seriously. This would make it harder for people to find activists relatable and look upon the movement favorably. Sachs showed a series of clips that demonstrated how the general public views the environmentalist movement as serious and pretentious.

In my opinion, the lack of humor within the movement is not what discourages people. The environmentalist movement is not accessible to many people and activists tend to be middle-to-upper class white people. Despite the fact that communities of color experience the effects of climate change the most, this is not the focus of mainstream dialogue. The movement focuses mostly on the fate of the environment and the future effects we will have to live through but does not focus on the immediate issues, which largely affect people of color. One example would be the rise in asthma and heart disease in communities of color due to pollution from coal plants (which are often located in near proximity to communities of color). Beyond the lack of dialogue about the intersection of race and environmentalism, there is also the fact that for people to truly care about an issue, they need to see how it affects their day-to-day lives in the present not how it may affect them in the future. If environmentalists made the aspects of climate change that can be felt today the focus of their message then it would be a more widely accepted movement.

Last week, Professor Sachs discussed environmentalist humor, or the lack thereof. Environmentalism, at least within the United States, has a reputation of being humorless and dour. A West Wing clip presented by Professor Sachs demonstrates this view. In it, a trio of environmentalists propose a highly expensive highway for migrating wolves, demonizing ranchers and deflecting all humor during their presentation. Professor Sachs proposes that environmentalists might be able to improve their image by employing self-deprecating and gallows humor to prove that they are not a hoard of pessimistic malcontents who would rather hug trees than human beings. He compares his proposed paradigm with Jewish humor, which is also prone to finding the funny in the grim.

However, there still exists a problem, one that Professor Sachs himself pointed out: environmental catastrophe isn’t psychologically close. Global warming is a rather gradual phenomenon that will not reach its critical peak for a few more generations. The upheaval it is predicted to produce is alien and temporally distant. While one could crack a joke about how we will all drown or burn or melt in acid rain unless the climate comes around, the possibility of any of those occurring within the lifetime of the listener is infinitesimal. I do believe that humor can make a political position more approachable, but I wonder whether environmentalism can effectively transmogrify some of its points into jokes due to this time gap.

This past week, a point Sachs made that really struck me was that upper to middle class whites were generally the people most concerned about climate change but the lower class minority communities were the ones who most suffered the effects of pollution. I’ve seen firsthand how much minority communities can struggle to find jobs and work an absurd number of hours with little pay to keep their families afloat. It makes sense to make why minority communities may not prioritize climate change when they don’t really have time to spare to care about it, or the source of pollution is also the source of their job, i.e. coal plants or factories.

Overall, inserting humor to such a serious matter takes delicate balance, which I felt was well executed. It’s been easy to pass off climate change and honestly, we’ve appreciate having a warmer winter but we should be concerned. The fact that we cannot find snow unless we went to the upper tips of the globe is very concerning and the data does not lie. Politicians denying climate change does not make the matter any better. Hence combining dark humor with climate change matters is really important to get the point across.

This past weeks Rose Café was by far the least formal lecture I’ve attended. With swears and religious jokes flying, it definitely did not feel like a typical discussion on the environment.

Aaron Sachs started the talk with an anecdote about his Jewish Rabbi grandfather who would spend time thinking of the “hereafter”. As he fondly remembers it, his grandfather would go into the kitchen at night for a snack, and forget why he went there, what he was “here after”. That joke was pretty much the attitude of the day.

It was strange to hear an environmentalist speak critically about other environmentalists, but as Sachs claims, environmentalists have no sense of humor, and it might be hurting the cause to be so uptight. He thinks that between tragedy and comedy, people are more likely to not be offended by comedy. Therefore, to get the message through about climate change, environmentalists should make people laugh about it to get them thinking. If one just brings up how climate change is “the worst thing to ever happen in the world”, they are more likely to get a negative reaction than if they make fun of a big hummer driving down the road.

I had never thought that comedy was a way to get an issue across, but now that I think of it, this tactic is used all over to grab attention. In political campaigns, it is not unlikely to see candidates on SNL or Late Night talk shows, poking fun at themselves or their competition. It is a harmless way to get people to listen up and reach the youth specifically. Now that I’ve notice these similarities, I can’t help but agree with Sachs’ view on how to actually tackle climate change.

We watched many comedic parodies about the environment or standup acts that addressed the facts. Regardless of what outlet it is, SNL or Sachs possible comedic environmental book project, as long as the message gets across, I’ll count it as a win.

For last week’s Becker/Rose Café, Professor Aaron Sachs of Cornell’s Department of History gave an entertaining and satirical talk about environmental humor. Before this event, I didn’t really notice that such a category existed. I often think of a line of separation between the scientists who understand and research about the environment, while the other side sports individuals who have less knowledge about their surroundings. And it’s precisely since environmentalists are often ignored that they are seen as individuals who have no sense of humor at all.

However, during the talk, Professor Sachs provided several video clips, courtesy of ‘The Onion’. The videos, while appearing to be very serious in nature, were comedy skits that mocked the current situation of the planet with regards to the environment. It was mentioned that this form of communication to people presents a more relatable moment compared to emphasizing the negative truths to an extreme. Presenting this information where everyone laughs about it is at the same time, educating people about the current trending topics about the environment.

But while those videos are hilarious, I feel that it’s also important for people to be actively wanting to change the situations instead of just laughing about them.

Last week’s Rose Café event was centered on environmental humor and although I laughed a lot, I didn’t feel like it was an interesting presentation. I liked the topic and it was something that I never even knew existed but I feel like I just watched funny videos about environmental humor for an hour and didn’t get as much information on the topic as I would’ve liked.  It can definitely be argued that the best way to show what environmental humor is all about is through examples such as videos of commercials with environmental humor. One thing that came to my mind as I laughed was that maybe the humor of the videos takes away the severity of the issues at hand. With that said, I did have a favorite video and it was this one about a brand new ecological friendly car that kills its passenger in the hopes of reducing gas emissions. The video also showed that a lot of people were ecstatic about the new car and were already pre-ordering it and I thought that was another funny part of the video.

Why does the climate want privacy?
It is changing.

It is a very serious matter though when people think of climate change, they disregard it or overlook it. Yet this “winter” has been quite unpredictable and definitely an eye-opener for anyone who thinks global warming isn’t a thing, I guess you were a bit wrong. The talk by Aaron Sachs, Associate Professor, Department of History, and House Fellow at Flora Rose House was great in that it shared how some of the best comedy in American history has arisen as “gallows humor,” as he calls it, in the face of these difficult circumstances. It was nice to see that even in pressing times, America finds a way to laugh. 

It was nice to hear that these environmentalists are also people in that they too have humor. I liked the idea of having comedy included as we discuss these important issues, because let’s face it, everything is delivered better when we can laugh about it. I can’t help but think of another example in which comedy is used to illustrate dark and deep topics; the Madea series. Anyone who knows anything about Madea is that she is one funny woman. She is easily entertaining to watch however when you actually watch an entire Madea film, the main storyline is often one people typically deem as a tough subject matter such as domestic abuse, racism and familial problems. Tough Madea acts as comedic relief, the audience gets the main message. If done effectively, I think that using comedy in the trying to get the message across will be beneficial and engage even younger audiences that can grow up and be environmental leaders of tomorrow.

During last week’s Becker/Rose Cafe, Prof Aaron Sachs came to talk to us about environmental humor, which at first seemed like an odd topic. Who would have thought that environmental comedy is a real thing? It was one of the more entertaining Cafe talks, as the tone and the topic of the talk itself was dark, satirical, and what Sachs deemed as “gallows humor.” I thought it was extremely interesting when Sachs pointed out how comedy is actually more effective than tragedy, as it helps make the situations feel more relatable. It’s interesting because many environmentalists like to warn people about the endangerment of the world and often this just alienates, scares, and paralyzes the people instead of encouraging them to take action. Using humor instead, it creates a more light-hearted atmosphere which is better than inducing guilt in an audience. Then Sachs proceeded to show us various clips as an example of this type of comedy. Rather dark jokes were made about overpopulation, as well as a proposal to build a safe highway for wolves. It’s difficult to strike a delicate balance when trying to inject humor to a serious topic. On one hand, it helps make the topic more palpable for larger audiences, but on the other, you don’t want to undermine the seriousness of the topic if the humor is not communicated correctly. Regardless, I really enjoyed Sachs’ talk and I appreciate the new perspective when approaching these issues.

I found Aaron Sachs’ talk to be quite entertaining, albeit dark and satirical, but that is why he called it “gallows humor”.  It seems from the examples provided that the most common form of environmental comedy is to poke fun of the environmentalists’ extremely serious attitude and privileged status.  This was illustrated in story about a woman who, while listening to environmentalists discuss building a highway for wolves, interjected by making population jokes.  I understand the difficulty of making a very serious topic funny especially if the comedy is supposed to promote environmental awareness and strengthen support for environmental sustainability.  “No Impact Man” and “Modern Family” did a pretty good job of making environmental comedy with a nice balance between seriousness and lighter entertainment, yet still had that satirical and extreme take on environmental comedy.  Overall, I enjoyed the ironic and dark humor, but wonder if there will be any chance for future environmental comedy to expand into other types of comedy.

There is a part of me that has always cared about the environment so I was interested in attending the Rose Scholars event on February 24. Professor Aaron Sachs gave a unique talk about the environment. I say unique because the talk focused on the one thing that media does not portray about environmentalists, humor. Prof. Sachs talked about how media in general has portrayed environmentalists as very serious people who sometimes don’t understand why certain things could be more important than the environment to other people. It has diminished the importance of taking care of the environment. Prof.Sachs proposed introducing comedy when talking about the environment as a solution to making more people understand the importance of the environment.

At first thought, it seems almost paradoxical to think that people would take you more seriously if you made fun of yourself, but I could see the merit of Prof. Sachs’ idea. In our current situation, environmentalists are often seen as too far away from society to really understand how radically different our lives would be if we cared more about the environment. We saw a great video about a group of environmentalists proposing an idea for a wolf highway across the Canadian border. They were proposing the idea to a government official. In the environmentalists mind, the main idea was to build a safe path for wolves in order to increase the population. On the other hand, the government official’s main objective is to understand how this idea might affect the people in the region. The government official brings up a great point about how the farmers in the region see the wolves as a threat and would not be welcoming of this idea. The environmentalists in the video don’t seem to consider the situation of other people when they proposed the idea. The video just emphasizes the point that environmentalists are seen as people who don’t understand other people’s situation. In order to remedy this situation, environmentalists can use humor to make them more relatable which would strengthen people’s support of their cause. Humor allows us to come together and if used wisely, it could be used to strengthen support for taking care of our environment.

Prior to Dr. Sachs’s talk last Wednesday, I had never thought using humor to help disseminate a environmentalist message (or concern.) But, growing up in a highly liberal and educated area, I was often exposed to many of the stereotypes that Sachs’s citations poked fun at– the judgmental neighbor from Modern Family, the misguided and emotional activists from West Wing, etc. Growing up and caring about the environment myself, I always found the pretentiousness of many other environmentalists off-putting. Much of the jargon surrounding the environmental movement implies an air of exclusivity and superiority: Solar panels (quite expensive), Prius, Tesla (flashy Prius), LEED Platinum renovation, Toms shoes, Whole Foods, etc. Point being: in our society, it is quite difficult to separate pure environmentalism and conservation from environmentally-focused consumption, which is for the most part prohibitively expensive. The deep irony exists that at face value, environmentalism cares about all, yet in practicality, as it stands today in the US, environmentalism caters only to a few.

Dr. Sachs argued that comedy can be a useful measure to improve environmentalism’s standing in public discourse. While I believe this could be true, I do not think Dr. Sachs went far enough: more than just comedy, some serious self-awareness is necessary. In my mind, this is lacking most from the environmentalist message, and if environmentalists wish to be successful in their outreach, they need to find ways to become more mainstream politically, culturally, and above all else, socio-economically.

Professor Aaron Sachs led an interesting discussion about the possibility of infusing humor into information and warning imparted by environmentalists. His perspective that environmentalists take themselves very seriously and essentially always harp, so to speak, on people to change their ways to save the environment is actually quite insightful. There is nothing wrong with speaking the truth and warning people of the dangers that will come about if current human behavior and activity don’t change. It is important that people are educated about such information. However, people typically don’t take well to urgent warnings that don’t really affect them in the short term and this adds to the general apathy and teasing and satirizing of environmentalists. Many environmentalists would probably be fine if they are the butt of jokes to a certain extent if the message is getting across to the people and resulting in actual change. However, that is not what is happening.

Sachs proposes environmentalists to use humor and comedy to convey important information to the people and it is a logical option. Information in the guise of humor, à la Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, is quite effective and will appeal to a broad audience. Additionally, since humor makes people laugh and associate it with positive emotion, they are more likely to consider it on a later basis. It offers a different perspective and it may be easier to accept that the worst case scenario may actually happen in the frame of a joke. Sachs does acknowledge the cons of such an approach because environmentalists invest a major part of their time and effort into their work and it may seem that we are trivializing their accomplishments and discoveries. However, humor is still a viable option in dealing with the more complicated topics that nobody would be able to impart the general public without getting bogged down in technical jargon. There is a balance to be struck because humor is the best tool for connecting and communicating to the layperson. Nobody is stopping environmentalists from continuing their normal, serious approach but perhaps a mixture of humor and seriousness will be essential in presenting the topic to the people and then continuing their interest in said topic in a factual and a more professional manner.

During the talk given by Aaron Sachs, I found it interesting to see how serious environmentalists can be which makes them subject to multiple jokes. It is human nature to take a situation and  make it into something humorous, so that instead of having someone laugh at us, we are laughing at our own predicament. As Aaron explained, using humor can appeal to a broader audience and encompass even more than a serious announcement. I think that the clips he showed proved that humor is something that we can all relate to and that is why it is the perfect medium through which messages can be portrayed. Another point that I picked up from this talk is that environmentalists are so caught up in their research that they forget that most of us want information in easy to digest pieces. This is why humor can help. I thought it was great how Aaron was able to take his own experiences and turn them into something humorous.

I think that the issue with environmentalism today is that we find people who take issues too seriously to be fake or exaggerating. I think using humor is a really great and powerful way to get more people involved in the issues that we face today.

For some peculiar reasons, environmentalists seem to like stating facts and pointing to statistics , trying their bests to explain the environmental problem our world is encountering, They are so busy to get their ideas across, and that may lead to their always sincere character. Unfortunately, others may not take them as seriously as they are. Comedians, for example, like to make fun of the stern stance that environmentalists always pertain. To illustrate, we watched a short clip of a discussion between the environmentalists and the politician. During the discussion, the environmentalists deploy a very earnest and virtuous position. The politician, on the other hand, tries to be more humorous during the discussion but resonance did not seem to successfully built up between the two parties. In the clip, the environmentalist see the world to only have two types of people: wolf-lover and non-wolf-lover. The environmentalists, although, are right about the fact that we should take precautions to save the wolf packs, they did not show enough understandings of how being environmentally aware could also impact other people’s lives negatively. The clip demonstrates how the public generally perceive environmentalists to have a more stand-off position and have simply interest in the environment but nothing else. However, if environmentalists have been seen this way, why cannot environmentalists try to use a more humorous approach to make their ideas more easily accepted by the public? Maybe more environmentalists should learn how to present their ideas in a more likable way such that they can be appear less environmentally focused but a little bit more humanity focused.

We were fortunate in the Rose Cafe to have Professor Aaron Sachs lead a discussion on the lack of comedy that is associated with environmentalists and climate scientists. Through various video clips that satirized the approach of environmentalists when it comes to spreading their message, the professor attempted to convey that this current uptight approach isn’t working in regards to getting the message across. This perhaps suggests that a slightly less solemn method would be more effective. Indeed, comedy allows a subject to be more relatable on some level than it would have been through only a listing of facts. At the same time, comedy can cause a subject like global warming or climate change, which at its core is arguably the greatest challenge that mankind faces going forward, to lose the gravity that it may need for significant action to be invested into preventing it. As the professor stated, it is quite easy to watch a funny video or read a humorous article and focus more heavily on the comedy rather than the core subject or message itself. I guess it truly is an extremely tricky situation, but it is certainly feasible that if executed properly, it can lead to enormously positive results as many more individuals will be able to recognize the magnitude of an issue through comedic presentation.

Last Wednesday night, Mr. Aaron Sachs discussed and highlighted the ways in which comedy and humor intersect environmental issues, such as climate change, fossil fuel combustion, and global overpopulation. In my opinion, the use of comedy can indeed make things more understandable and easy to digest, especially if it’s relatable to the audience. When thinking about the pros and cons of this approach, I can see and understand both angles. The first angle is Mr. Sachs’ that encouraged comedy and humor to showcase and make light of environmental issues as well as other generally taboo topics. The second angle is the idea that there are some topics that should be off limits to comedy, such as murder, rape, abuse, death, etc. I personally prefer comedy that’s in the middle of both angles. To me, this type of comedy finds humor in those taboo topics but is written and told in such a way that the gravity/seriousness of the topics remains and is acknowledged. Comedy that essentially respects those that have suffered, are suffering, or will suffer from these topics.

I also find it interesting how people find some jokes with taboo topics funny and the same people find other jokes with taboo topics not funny. If I were to speculate, I would think that this is probably due to personal experiences. For example, a victim of rape might not find humor in a joke about it and instead find humor in death. I think it’s important to recognize that some people in your audience have dealt with difficult topics like these and might not think jokes about them are funny. I also think that if you’re truly a good comedian you would be able to correctly judge the audience and create a safe and comfortable atmosphere, especially while joking about serious topics. While I definitely believe and promote the right of free speech, I do think its power should be used in a respectful and considerate way.

This weeks guest lecturer was Dr. Aaron Sachs. He spoke about the lack of humor in environmental issues. The way a problem is portrayed affects how people perceive the situation. Humor has been used to relieve stressful situation, and to put people at ease. While making people feel more at ease, humor can still effectively get the right information to an audience. If humor was introduced to environmental conservation maybe this would help people see it in a different way. Making a bad situation funny can sometimes help people realize the severity of the problem. It might cause people to act instead of taking a passive approach to the problem. Many times if a problem does not impact someone immediately they are not concerned with it for the time being. I think that is how many people view environmental conservation, as if it can be dealt with at a latter date. However, this problem needs immediate attention before it is too late to do anything. I think humor may help people realize just how serious the current situation is.

I enjoyed Dr. Aaron Sachs talk on environmental humor, or lack thereof.  His talk was interlaced with funny anecdotes as well as videos.  But looking deeper into the emotion reveals that humor is one of the most difficult human emotions to comprehend.  It is very circumstantial: it can mitigate the stress of a terrible situation, be used to put people at ease, or even attack and mock an opponent.  Regardless of its variety of uses, the absence of humor in the discussion of climate change and environmental conservation is curious.

Upon reflection, I believe that climate change proponents may find the situation too grave to mock. If climate change is as serious as some scientists make it out to be, then we are marching headfirst into our own extinction.  Personally, I would have trouble making light of a situation and downplay it with humor, especially when diminishing the danger of climate change can exacerbate the problem.  By mocking climate change or making light of the situation, the opinion of the populous can change from a veritable threat to a minor inconvenience. When the opinion of the general population changes, the rhetoric and focus of the politicians we elect also transforms.  As such, when we make light of climate change, and continue to treat it as an offhand threat – as we have been doing for the past 50 years – we may be paving the way for our extinction by refusing to act.  I believe that humor is vital to our society, and when there is no other option, it can add a silver lining to a bad situation.  However, as long as it is not too late to change, as long as we can reverse our destruction of earth’s environments and climate, I will respect and neither make light of nor downplay the possibility that climate change will be the cause of human extinction.

Aaron Sachs, a professor in the Department of History, gave a talk about environmental humor, or more accurately, the lack thereof. His entire talk focused on the idea that many movements have gained traction with the use of humor to draw people in, but unlike other serious issues, environmental problems are seldom joked about. Not only is it difficult to make a climate change-related joke, but the activists themselves have a reputation for being so humorless that they become the subject of others’ jokes, which has undesirable consequences for the movement. Being such a pressing issue for all of humanity, Sachs argues that people are likely to be polarized, either enthusiastically and self-righteously committing themselves to the cause, or more likely, becoming dejected and indifferent in the belief that change can’t be made. However, if humor were injected more often into the tone of environmental rhetoric, perhaps people would take a less extreme stance and be more willing to take part in an issue they suddenly feel they can relate to.

To illustrate some examples of environmental humor, Sachs played a few short clips and comedic recordings. The one that stuck out to me was one in which a group of environmentalists are pitching an idea for a highway system that would enable wolves to migrate safely. Their audience, a politician who is empathetic to the cause but sees major flaws in the proposal, makes witty remarks that the presenters completely misunderstand due to their blind devotion. Although this is portrayed as an extreme example, it does accurately point out the way that environmentalists might tend to alienate those they need help from.

Not knowing what to expect from this talk, I was pleasantly surprised by the novelty of the ideas that were being presented in a rather unconventional context. The problem of having too little humor, though it seems insignificant, may actually have a powerful impact in bridging the gap between environmentalists and the public if environmentalists could only learn to occasionally laugh at themselves.

Professor Aaron Sachs on Why So Serious? How Environmental Humor Became an Oxymoron provided an engaging (an problematic) discussion on comedy and its effects on environmentalism. He outlined some sharp contrasts between comedy and tragedy: comedy as a sense of unsettling, fatalistic, offensive wonder, open-endedness, and mystery that serves as a coping mechanism, while tragedy is open-and-shut, effective at grabbing our attention but not keeping it. Though his opening punchline about his grandfather’s Semitic humor was a means to invite and ease the audience into a relaxed and entertained state, I had trouble following the bridge between Jewish and environmentalist humor; it was an interesting, but slightly forced parallel.

For the first five minutes of this week’s Rose Cafe I was very confused. This was a talk about humor and the environment, right? Why then, was the professor opening with a long, sombre story about his grandfather? Turns out that was just the beginning of a joke, which I admittedly did not catch at the time, but in thinking about it afterward it was actually a pretty good one.

Environmentalists are famous for being very serious, which makes sense because they are constantly dealing with an extremely serious topic. The fate of our planet isn’t really something that should be treated lightly, at least that’s what I used to think. Professor Sachs’ talk helped me see how using humor can help your cause, and how being able to laugh at yourself can actually help you gain support. Humor is a tool used to connect with other people, and it could be invaluable in a cause like global warming. This talk really demonstrated that serious discussions aren’t always the best way to achieve something, and that sometimes comedic relief is necessary. This cafe was very illuminating, and also very entertaining, because we got to watch lots of funny clips.

Western view of ‘what the environment is’ is quite limited to a white, christian, middle-class, and male view of what the environment looks like. America believes the environment is limited to the Amazonia Rainforest, the vacation spots they shared a few summers with their families, and the gated parks that usually cost money to go around. American environmentalists don’t look at environment as a heavily social issue.

Professor Sachs shared sentiments about how African-Americans, women, and other identity groups are able to make fun of themselves and their social identities through stand-up comedy, cartoons, and other humorous skits, why is there a lack of environmentalist voices?, he asks. And that’s probably because of his (and many others definition of the environment).

Coming from a culture that considers oneself heavily embedded in their natural surround, I never really understood the dichotomy between civilization and nature. The two are deeply embedded in each other. The problem too with comparing oppressed groups using humor and environmentalist using humor is just that – oppression. One way many people who deal with oppression cope with their social dynamics is through humor. Environmental humor rarely exists because it is typically (or as media portrays) a group of privileged people trying to make the rest of the world (very unfairly) compromise their own living conditions because of what environmentalist think is right. White American environmental activists also lack the personal investment in the fight. African-Americans make jokes to appeal to a black audience. People who are not black and watch black comedy run the risk of trivializing the experiences that the black comedians are portraying. Because privileged white men (in particular) can indulge in comedy without society infrastructures working to diminish their humanity, they have always found comedians of other social groups hilarious, simply because the comedy usually appeals to the stereotypes that surround said social groups. For environmentalist to poke fun at themselves means a painful process of realizing privilege and (I say this quite frankly) stupidity. Real environmentalists (people fighting for clean water and saving their communities from over population and deforestation) rarely have the privilege of media and if they did they’ll do what black and women comedians have been doing this entire time – talk about their environments. Women poke fun at the fact that legislation for reproductive rights is often delegated to white men – this is an environmental issue that can revolutionize the population of the world. African-Americans often talk about the inequities that follow their communities because of a lack of resources (food, clean water, safe housing, etc). These are also environmental issues.

So environmentalist have been making fun of themselves, we just didn’t consider them environmentalist because we have this idea that if you are a person of color, a woman, or poor, you somehow don’t fit into the stereotypes of what an environmentalist looks like.

I am a person who doesn’t like to pick fights, and I avoid controversial topics like the plague. A 360 feedback analysis revealed that my biggest weakness is avoiding conflict instead of actively trying to resolve them. Thus, after listening to Professor Sach’s talk, I thought that addressing conflict and controversy from a humorous point of view was a very unique and creative way of taking an active stand for what you believe is right. 

Out of the examples that Professor Sachs showed us of how humor can be used to address environmentalism, “No Impact Man” made the biggest impact on me. I thought that the video was able to effectively communicate a message, and create a lingering consciousness within the audience that makes us pay more attention to our carbon footprint. This serious message was mixed with a humorous tone to entertain the audience. 

However, I feel like certain videos, such as the coal video and the Onion’s Prius video, lacked in seriousness and can easily be watched for a laugh but did not really create a lasting impression or a lingering thought in me. That makes me wonder if too much humor can take away from the main point that the producers want to get across. 

Addressing conflict with the right kind of humor can help both sides take a stand and communicate their point of view in a way that does not put the opposing party instantly on the defensive. 

Last Wednesday at Rose Café, Aaron Sachs, Associate Professor in the Department of History, raised a point that had never occurred to me. Virtually every group of people, religion, political party, etc. has a plethora of jokes and comedic skits targeting them – except environmentalism.

Why?

During the Rose Café, it seemed to me like comedic material to use was scarce. Professor Sachs had to search deep into the bowels of The Onion’s website or pull up a clip from Modern Family to find videos that put environmentalism in a humorous light.

After the official session was over, a few students stayed behind with Professor Sachs to discuss this ‘Why?’. And a consensus wasn’t made.

I have spent a considerable amount of downtime trying to figure out the reasoning for the lack of humorous material when it comes to environmental humor. There is some opposition to the belief that humans are ruining the earth, just like there is opposition to any political party. There are opinions on how seriously we should take responsibility and act, just like there are opinions on religion. There are stereotypes are extreme environmentalism, just like there are stereotypes of the French. The degradation of the planet is horrific, like events such as the Holocaust, yet war and genocide have more jabs than environmentalism.

I don’t know. Do you?

This week, Rose Scholars Cafe invited Associate Professor in the Department of History, and House Fellow at Flora Rose House Aaron Sachs to speak about the humor that has come from different circumstances, many of which are fairly serious. He begun his talk by mentioning stories about his deceased Jewish grandfather and how he inspired him through humility and jokes. After, he mentioned that as humans, we categorize information into concrete versus abstract ideas. For instance it is clear in our minds that Sach’s grandfather passed away, but as to weather he was Jewish, humble, and funny are all open to questioning. This was followed by watching various video clips of parodies about issues that our country faces economically, politically, and socially.

I had personally never realized how some of the funniest propaganda articles and tv commercials get my attention because the topics being exaggerated are true, to a certain extent. Issues such as discrimination, separation of church and state, and new political policies are occurrences that should not be taken lightly. However, it is not really until producers in the media make fun of these issues that they get the publics attention and cause people to consider the importance of the situation. Also, it is surprising how of the many “gallows humor” that  has gained popularity as of late, there are no references to climate change in particular. In terms of fracking, global warming,  deforestation, and many other issues affecting our environment, there really aren’t any sources that have taken the time to joke about this topic. Is leads to questioning if perhaps the public does not take matters of climate change seriously because the degree to which they could affect the world had not been exaggerated enough to grab the publics attention.

As a communications major, this discussion related a lot to the topics covered in my class and how media plays such a large role in the spreading information fast and vastly. With all of the new avenues of social media, it will be interesting to see how communicating serious matters that affect our environment will soon begin to change in terms of the amount of new information that is available to everyone and the processes of getting the message across.

House Fellow and Associate Professor of history Aaron Sachs introduced a number of viewpoints on environmentalism, humor, and the major disconnect between the two. He used popular internet video clips to illustrate the public’s perception of environmentalism, and the divide became very clear. The reason why hardcore environmentalists are often the butt of jokes stems from their seriousness about the subject and inability to take jokes, let alone make them. The solution that Prof. Sachs proposed was centered around the possibility that humor could be an essential medium for reaching a broader audience, and environmentalism has yet to successfully tap into it. He showed an example of a trailer for a documentary about a family attempting to live for a year with zero environmental impact. It seemed to pull off some humorous and relatable moments while ultimately delivering a positive message about the possibilities of living with zero impact. Overall, Prof. Sachs made a compelling argument that humor could be the key to successfully increasing awareness and active participation.

However, Prof. Sachs conveyed the problematic disconnect through examples from the history of environmentalism, seemingly criticizing the way that it developed over the years without humor. I think that this is somewhat of an unfair critique due to the nature of environmentalism itself. First of all, Prof. Sachs continually referred to “Jewish humor” as a similar example to potential environmental humor and called it a sort of “doom humor”. In the face of imminent death or disparity, this humor arose. While I agree that this would apply to Jewish humor among other types, I think that environmental humor is unique in that the “doom” it refers to is not relatively imminent. It afflicts children or grandchildren, but not the self. I think that this intangible nature of environmental doom greatly dulls the potential humor behind it. Secondly, it follows that a natural comedic incompatibility with the subject would cause environmentalists to rely on seriousness alone, which results in the dynamic we see and learned about from Prof. Sachs. So it seems to me that any consideration of an alternative route of developing environmentalism is like wrestling with the inevitable. Nevertheless, I believe that humor has a place in the future of environmentalism, and it was very insightful to have Prof. Sachs give us a preview of what that may look like.

Last Wednesday at Rose Cafe, Aaron Sachs, Associate Professor in the Department of History, came to lead a talk about humor surrounding climate change. Climate change is pretty depressing- which is exactly why we need a a few jokes once in a while. I enjoyed the way he led the discussion, showing clips reflecting popular perception of environmentalists, engaging everybody with humor and laughs.

Humor surrounding climate change is especially useful because environmentalists have been criticized as being out of touch, especially with issues pertinent to humans. TV shows and satire commonly portray environmentalists as so into their goal that nothing else matters. There currently isn’t a lot of comedic writing in climate change. In addition, environmentalists avoid humor because they do not feel that it is appropriate. However, this lack of comedy is leading others to make fun of them. But it doesn’t have to be this way- and humor can change the game. Humor can provide a mode of communication for serious issues such as these, and encourage the continued crucial dialogue we need.

Last night I had the pleasure of listening to a talk by Professor Aaron Sachs about environmental humor, or the lack of it. I really enjoyed how he presented the information, by using videos to demonstrate his points.

He discussed the differences between tragedy and comedy. Professor Sachs said that tragedy was good at grabbing our attention but not good at keeping it. He posed the question, Why aren’t environmentalists using comedy?

Here are some beneficial reasons to include humor in your work:

To address uncomfortable or confrontational subjects. Humor is often the only vehicle to address such topics. Professor Sachs made the point that along with tragedy comes judgement and you are less likely to reach common ground. With comedy this common ground can be reached.

Keeps people engaged. Humor keeps you engaged, instead of just briefly catching people’s attention.

Makes your work memorable. Environmentalists are concerned that if they use humor then their work will not be taken seriously. Currently, environmentalists are the center of other’s jokes because they lack humor. They are not laughing at themselves, so others are doing it for them.

You have to remember that there is a balance and that comedy has become risky. Current day comedians have to walk a fine line between making a joke and offending people. But in the case of environmental humor, that extra risk could definitely be worth it.

During Professor Aaron Sachs’ seminar on environmental humor, he gave a wide introduction to his unique field of research. During that introduction, he touched on Jewish humor, a distinctive style of humor that Jews have used to cope with constantly being repressed, and he compared and contrasted that with the lack of humor portrayed by global warming advocates.

His references reminded me of a fantastic documentary that really captures the essence of American Jewish humor in the 20^th century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCNw8gNCtng

The film explores the famous comedy in the Catskill Mountains, Jewish culture in America, and asks whether Jewish humor is dyeing out as Judaism is becoming mainstream, or at least accepted, in American culture.

One of my main take-aways from Professor Sachs’ talk was one that he probably didn’t intend. I know that there has been a large discussion about trigger warnings going on at college campuses across the nation. But Professor Sachs’ talk was the first time I actively witnessed its effects. Professor Sachs spent quite a while warning us from the outset that the content of the video clips he was presenting may be offensive and he came back to this topic several times during the talk. Personally, I felt that this detracted from the humor itself as it is difficult to find things funny after being informed how offensive they might be to some people. I’m not sure about my position on the trigger warnings debate overall but this experience certainly got me to start thinking about it.

This week’s rose café was one of the more enjoyable lectures of this series. Of course, it always helps to show some clips from The Onion to add some comedic relief. The part of the lecture that was most interesting to me was how risky comedy has become. Sachs discussed how current day comedians have to walk a fine line between making a joke and offending people. This past summer I watched Colin Quinn perform a stand-up routine called The New York Story where he recalled his upbringing in Brooklyn, NY and how New York has changed. Quinn talked about how different ethnicities were known for their different unique personalities when he was growing up, but now just by acknowledging a difference raises a red flag. I thought the show was funny, as being from Long Island and attending school last year in the city, I had the opportunity of experiencing some of the things he commented on. As for Sachs, comedy regarding environmentalists is tough because if you make a joke about them, they’ll probably say that “the earth is dying is that a joke to you” or something along those lines. It will be interesting to see if any comedians try to work environmental issues into their performances or if it will remain untouched.

At the Rose Café this evening, Professor Aaron Sachs brought up an interesting tactic for getting people to listen to what you say – laugh at yourself.  Environmentalists are usually the serious type, using tragedy as a mechanism to convince people to take action against climate change.  However, according to Prof. Sachs, tragedy can often just lead to despair and no action.  Comedy, on the other hand, could potentially help garner support for environmental movements without leaving people too depressed about the future of the planet.

Lots of environmental comedy already exists, but for the most part, it is making fun of environmentalists, not the people ignoring climate change, like coal companies.  We watched an clip from a Modern Family episode, a fake Prius add, an a clip from a West Wing episode, all of which portrayed environmentalists as a group that doesn’t care about people and will do whatever it takes to save the planet, even if that means killing off all the people.  Prof. Sachs suggests flipping this around and using comedy as a way to engage people in supporting environmental causes.

I thought it was a very interesting approach to bring comedy to environmental efforts. The most surprising thing that Prof. Sachs said was that if environmentalists started laughing at themselves more, they could get more people on their side.  This seems very counterintuitive.  Wouldn’t laughing at yourself bring more attention to your faults?  But Prof. Sachs says that laughing at yourself can be a powerful tool and perhaps it could help get rid of the negative image of environmentalists as serious people who value environmental issues above all else and are unwilling to negotiate.  It seems quite challenging to come up with jokes about the environment but if done well, this strategy could reach a large audience.

Professor Aaron Sachs’ lecture about humor and environmentalism presented me with new ideas that I had not previously considered. He argued that environmentalists are so un-humorous that they may be hurting their cause. In my personal experience, I have never met a funny environmentalist, but I can understand why environmentalists would not want to use humor when discussing issues that are so sobering.

I did think of one notable exception to the humorless environmentalists: Jon Stewart. I do not know if Jon Stewart technically qualifies as an environmentalist, but he clearly shares similar views on climate change with many environmentalists. When he was still on the air, I found his humor very effective at persuading viewers. Unfortunately, Jon Stewart is no longer on T.V. Perhaps this is the reason he was not discussed by Professor Sachs.

One memorable example of Jon Stewart using humor to advance his environmental views happened after a Senator brought a snowball into the Senate Chamber in order to disprove climate change. Maybe this was the type of humor that Professor Sachs was envisioning. I do think Jon Stewart’s satire would be more effective at convincing the general public than a dry lecture by an environmentalist.

I also enjoyed the clip that Professor Sachs showed from The West Wing. It showed a group of environmentalists making a presentation to a member of The White House Staff. The staffer was not convinced by the presentation and made some jokes about it. Even though the jokes were somewhat funny the environmentalists did not find any humor in them. Maybe if the environmentalists had joked with the staffer they would have had more success persuading her to support their proposal.

Tonight I had the opportunity to listen to a talk by Professor Aaron Sachs about environmental humor (or the lack thereof) in today’s society. Before tonight, the lack of environmental humor was something I had never really thought about. I always assumed that there was plenty out of it there, just like there are plenty of jokes about politics, religion, celebrities, and other such categories. However, Professor Sachs pointed out that environmentalists are often unable to laugh at themselves and can come across as too serious. After hearing this and watching some of the parody videos he showed, I began thinking about my encounters with environmental documentaries, articles, and books, and realizing that many of them are, in fact, too serious and preach-y. Lots of environmental documentaries aim to show, it seems, how every little thing that people do will kill polar bears, raise the global temperature, release toxins into the air, and doom our grandchildren. While climate change is certainly an important issue, there are probably better ways to go about encouraging people to make a difference than simply making them feel bad about themselves. Telling somebody that everything about their lifestyle is wrong is not going to make them jump up and suddenly want to change.

Humor, on the other hand, is a much more gentle way of getting people to see a point. And just because it is lighthearted does not mean it is any less effective. I have seen lots of very effective humorous/parody videos that make important points about issues like rape, gender equality, and minority rights. Professor Sachs pointed out that laughing at yourself can be fairly difficult and complicated; however, I think in the case of environmental humor, that extra effort can definitely be well worth it.

Today House Fellow Aaron Sachs joined us at Rose Cafe to talk about humor, or lack thereof, in talks about the environment. We watched numerous funny clips related to different facets of the problems facing planet Earth – from over-population, to man’s carbon footprint, and more. Some of the videos we watched, such as a news report about a new Toyota Prius that kills its driver thereby reducing his carbon footprint to zero, seem quite controversial and evocative. This sort of dark humor highlights the idea that environmentalists can sometimes loose sight of issues that are important to people, such as life, death, and war. I think we can certainly learn from humor as well as enjoy it, and one takeaway from the aforementioned video is that we should be careful not to take any one idea to the extreme. Humans seem to have contributed to the problems that are facing our planet right now, but we are also capable of creating solutions.

Therefore, mixing environmentalism and comedy seems like a good idea for a few reasons. Firstly, as Professor Sachs argues, comedy provides a morale boost and has the potential to inspire people to take action, more than tragedy can. Comedy has the potential to grab our attention and keep it. Moreover, if environmentalist try a new approach (humor directed at themselves and at climate change), they can inspire new conversations, new debates, and a renewed interest in saving our planet, something that is very important to all of us!

Similar to last week’s Rose Cafe, we discussed the similarities and differences of two words.  For this talk, it was comedy and tragedy.  Interestingly he chose to define comedy as walking the fine line between acceptable and upsetting.  He also told stories of his grandfather, which opened the talk in a light way and also made the talk feel more like a conversation than a lecture.

I was most interested in the fact that the topic of the talk was “environmental humor” and he talked about his upbringing, religion, and the definition of comedy.  It all seemed to come together when he started showing the clips.  He incorporated a clip that contained jokes about the apocalypse with jokes about religion that showed the pragmatic humor the Jewish people held in relation to Christians.  He was able to incorporate his book idea with the idea that while tragedy brings people together their tends to be more judgement.  He was able to incorporate so many ideas into an engaging and entertaining talk.  I was surprised to hear him talk about laughing at oneself and say that environmentalists did not laugh at themselves as it was interesting to think that perhaps certain ideas lead to more laughing at yourself than others.  This was then transitioned into a humorous clip about environmentalists’ self interest.  Environmentalists get made fun of most because they are not working for a group of people and do not make fun of themselves.  As a animal science major, and huge animal lover, I totally get where this is coming from.  I will make fun of other human issues but never an animal or animal issues.  I prefer animals to people so I, to a certain extent, feel the same way that the people in the clip about wolves felt.