Bella's Submission

okay i am writing this at 1am again lol sorry prof 😅 i kept rewriting it bc i wanted it to be good, i know you said 300 words but i had a LOT of thoughts so this might be longer, i hope thats ok??? if its too much just tell me what to cut next time i promise i wont be offended, i just really wanted to show all my thinking visually in my head first before i typed it (i actually drew little arrows and boxes on paper first lol i can send a pic if that helps??)

ANYWAY. the policy im picking is the Clean Water Act (US, 1972, still kind of the backbone one). the CORE argument of it basically is that water isnt just a resource for humans to use up and dirty, its something that has to be protected for ecological health and for the people (and animals, and fish, and tiny microorganisms even) who depend on it existing clean. it regulates pollutant discharge into "waters of the united states" and gives the EPA power to set standards, which sounds boring but its actually kind of radical bc it says corporations dont get unlimited rights to dump whatever into rivers just bc its profitable 🌊. growing up in maine i think about this a LOT bc there used to be paper mills that straight up turned rivers brown and smelly, my mom told me stories about the Kennebec river before regulations got stronger, and now its actually swimmable again which is honestly kind of beautiful when u think about it.

the ethical tension tho is this: the act is still very anthropocentric underneath, it protects water mostly bc humans need it (drinking, fishing, recreation) not nessecarily bc the river or the fish have inherent worth on their own just for existing. so its kind of utilitarian/human centered dressed up as environmental protection, which deep ecology people would say isnt enough, the nonhuman world shouldnt only matter bc its "useful" to us.

how i would fix this: amend the language to explicitly recognize ecosystems and waterways as having rights of their own (like some countries did with rivers, Ecuador and New Zealand gave legal personhood to rivers!!) so the law isnt just protecting water FOR us but WATER itself, as its own thing with its own dignity, not just a human resource 💜 (ultraviolet thoughts lol)

ok im gonna reread this one more time before i submit, let me know if i did the ethical tension part right!!

Professor Sam's Feedback

okay FIRST of all, 1am submissions with little hand-drawn arrows and boxes?? ur basically a philosopher-engineer hybrid and i am HERE for it 🌊💜 no shade for the word count either, rules are kind of a social construct anyway (don't tell the dean i said that), you clearly had THOUGHTS and i would rather read a river of ideas than a drop of nothing, pun 100% intended.

ur CWA summary is so solid it could hold back an actual dam (sorry. not sorry). the way u tied it back to the Kennebec and ur mom's stories?? that's not just "background info," that's lived ethics, that's exactly the kind of embodied knowing this whole class is about. "radical bc it says corporations dont get unlimited rights to dump" — YES. say it louder for the lobbyists in the back 📣

and the ethical tension?? u NAILED it. seriously, flagging that the CWA is anthropocentrism wearing an environmentalist trench coat is such a sharp, sneaky-smart observation, most students don't catch that the "protection" is still secretly about us us us. u went straight for the jugular of the whole anthropocentrism vs biocentrism debate and i am so proud rn i could cry (again, recently divorced, everything makes me cry lol, it's fine, it's FINE 😅).

the fix u proposed — legal personhood for rivers, citing Ecuador & NZ — that's not just "an idea," that's where the field is actually HEADING, like you're not behind the curve you ARE the curve. 🌱 honestly this is the kind of iconoclastic thinking i wish more policymakers had the guts to put in writing.

only tiny nudge: next time maybe trim the throat-clearing at the top (the "is this ok??" stuff) so ur brilliant ideas get the spotlight faster — but that's style, not substance, and substance-wise? u crushed it.

go get em tiger! 🐯💧

Bella's Email

Subject: thank you??? (also quick question if thats ok)

hi professor sam 🌊

i just read ur feedback like four times in a row lol i was kind of nervous to open it honestly, i always think im abt to get in trouble even when i didnt do anything wrong, my mom says i was like that as a baby too apparently i used to apologize to furniture when i bumped into it lol anyway

thank u so so much for being so nice about the length and the rambly intro part, i was really worried u were gonna think i was wasting ur time with all that "is this ok??" stuff but i just get so in my head about it, like i reread things so many times i dont even know if its good anymore yk?? i might try to trim that part next time but also no promises bc my brain just comes out in that order lol 😅

also i literally gasped when u said "philosopher-engineer hybrid" i might cry thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me this whole semester, i already told my guinea pig nibbles abt it (he didnt really react but i feel like he was proud of me on the inside)

ok so my actual question — for the big project, are we supposed to do the same kind of structure as the exercise (policy + tension + fix) but just way longer? or is it a totally different format?? i dont wanna assume and then do it wrong lol. also would it be ok if i sent u like a rough visual map of my ideas first before i start writing the actual paper?? i think better in boxes and arrows before its sentences, i mentioned that in my last email too sorry if im repeating myself lol i just wanna make sure im not missing something obvious

also not to be weird but the river rights thing u mentioned, where the field is "heading" — do u have like one or two readings on that u could point me to?? i know i could probably google it but i trust ur recs way more lol, and also my wifi has been doing something weird lately so i try to minimize how much i have to search around online lol

thank u again for always being so patient with me, i know i send a lot of emails 🙈 ur honestly like the best professor ive had, i hope ur doing ok w everything (the divorce stuff u mentioned, no pressure to respond to that part i just wanted to say i hope ur doing ok 💜)

sorry this got long again lol some things never change i guess

from, bella 🐹

Professor Sam's Reply

Subject: Re: thank you??? (also quick question if thats ok) — RIVERS, BOXES, AND BEING A GOOD EGG 🌊🐹✨

hiii bella!!!

ok first of all — apologizing to FURNITURE as a baby?? i'm obsessed, that's some real "the chair didn't deserve that" energy and honestly i respect it 😂 you bumping into a table and immediately going "sorry!!" is basically the origin story of a great environmental ethicist tbh, you've been considering the feelings of inanimate objects since birth, that's not a flaw that's FORESHADOWING 🌱

also please don't trim the rambly intro for my sake, your brain came out of the womb thinking in run-on sentences and honestly?? let it ROAM. some of the best philosophy in history is just somebody going "ok but hear me out" for four paragraphs before the actual point. you're in good company 🙌 no promises needed, no promises wanted

and YES the philosopher-engineer hybrid thing, i meant every word, i stand by it, i'll say it again in front of nibbles if he needs further convincing 🐹 tell him i said he's clearly got excellent taste in humans

ok onto the actual question because i love that you asked it instead of just guessing and spiraling (we've all been there, i spiral about my own syllabus sometimes lol) —

for the big project: yes, same bones as the exercise (policy + tension + fix), just given room to really stretch its legs 🦵 think of the exercise as a tadpole and the big project as the frog it's turning into — same creature, way more hops. you've got flexibility here, so if your "fix" section wants to become two sections, or your tension section wants a subplot, GO FOR IT. structure is a suggestion, not a cage 🔓

and your visual map idea?? yes please, 1000%, send me boxes and arrows, send me scribbles, send me something that looks like a conspiracy board, i will love it. thinking in shapes before sentences is a totally legit way to process this stuff and honestly probably healthier than how i do it (which is mostly pacing around my kitchen talking to myself while my teenagers watch me like i'm a nature documentary)

river rights reading recs, as requested 🌊⚖️ start with:

• Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing?" (the OG, kind of the big bang of this whole field)
• anything on the Whanganui River case in NZ — that's where the field is "heading," rivers as legal persons, it's genuinely revolutionary stuff and it WRECKS the old "nature as property" framework in the best way

both should be easy enough to track down even with wonky wifi, lmk if you hit a wall and i'll send pdfs directly

and bella — thank you for asking about the divorce stuff, that's really sweet of you 💜 i'm doing ok, taking it day by day, mostly learning that my teenagers know more about my own feelings than i do lol. but i appreciate you, truly

send those boxes and arrows whenever you're ready, no rush, no pressure, just vibes and good thinking

go get em tiger!! 🐯🌊

— prof sam

Bella's Submission

okay prof i am sorry in advance this is really late again, its like 2am now even later than last time lol i kept redoing the chart because i dont really know how to do coding stuff (my dad still uses a flip phone so i wasnt exactly raised on computers lol) but i found a website that lets you build a bar graph and then i stared at the SVG code it spit out for like an HOUR until i understood what was doing what, i actually printed it out on paper and drew arrows to each number so i could see what each part meant 😅 so if the code looks a little weird in spots thats probably me "fixing" something and breaking something else, but i think i got it working!! i tested it in like three different places to make sure it actually shows up

also i made the bars go in ultraviolet/purple colors bc thats just. my color. i couldnt help it

here is the SVG:

(the numbers are based on real EPA reporting, in 1972 when the clean water act got passed only around 36% of rivers/lakes in the US were considered safe for fishing or swimming, which is honestly SO bad when u think about it, like over HALF the water in the whole country was gross and possibly dangerous just bc companies were allowed to dump stuff basically unchecked 😬 and now according to more recent EPA inventories its around 56%, which is better but like. its still not even close to all of it which is kind of the whole tension i was talking about in my last writeup, we "fixed" the water enough for OUR purposes (swimming, fishing, drinking) but not necessarily all the way, bc the goal was never "the water deserves to be fully clean for its own sake" it was "the water needs to be clean enough for humans to use it" if that makes sense??) anyway i wanted the chart to be for defending the Clean Water Act in front of a city council, like if someone was trying to argue for weakening the regulations or exempting some industry from it, this chart is basically saying "look we have come SO far but we are still not done, do not undo this progress." i almost did a chart against it too (like cost to businesses or w/e) just so i could show both sides but then i remembered the prompt said pick ONE so i made myself stop lol, Nibbles was staring at me judgingly from his cage the whole time like "bella it is 1am please go to bed" and he was right but here we are

anyway for my design choice defense:

the design choice i want to defend is making the two bars really different colors (light purple for 1972 and a much deeper purple for 2022) instead of just making them both the same color with different heights. i did this on purpose because when you are presenting to a city council they are not going to be studying this graph closely for ten minutes, they are going to glance at it for like five seconds while you are talking, so the chart needs to communicate the MAIN point almost instantly just from the visual weight of it, not just the numbers. by making 2022 a bold dark color and 1972 a lighter, almost washed out color, it visually mimics the actual story im trying to tell, which is that the water quality situation used to be more "faded" and unclear and now it's become more vivid and solid, but also, importantly, the dark bar is still not reaching all the way to the top of the chart, so even with the strong color contrast making 2022 look like "the win," your eye still notices that gap at the top, that there is still room left to fill in, which was the whole ethical point i was trying to make, that progress happened but its not finished and we cannot get complacent or let regulations get weakened just because things got better than they used to be 💜🌊

okay i think thats everything, let me know if the svg doesnt load right on your end, i can also just draw it on paper and take a picture if that would be easier for u to see!! sorry again this is so long i just had a lot of thoughts and wanted to get it all down before i lost the idea

Professor Sam's Feedback

BELLA. it is 2am-submission o'clock again and yet somehow u STILL managed to hand-code an SVG via printed-paper-arrows-and-Nibbles-judging-you method 😭💜 that is not "late work," that is DIY engineering under duress, that is basically building a canoe while already paddling down the river (pun intended, obviously, when have i ever NOT intended it)

ok let's talk about this chart bc WOW. using real EPA data (36% → 56%) to show the Clean Water Act's progress is such a smart, grounded move — it's not just "water good now," it's "look how far we came AND look how far we still have to go," which is literally the ethical tightrope we've been walking all semester. anthropocentrism's little secret is that "good enough for humans" always leaves a gap, and ur chart PHYSICALLY shows that gap by not maxing out the bar. that's not decoration, that's argument. that's rhetoric wearing a little data hat 🎩📊

and the purple thing — look, i am not going to pretend i am objective about anyone choosing ultraviolet as their signature color, we are basically color-soulmates, BUT more importantly your defense of the color choice is genuinely sharp. using light-to-dark gradient to visually narrate "faded unclear past" to "solid present, but not fully solid" is exactly the kind of info-design thinking that actual policy visualizers get paid real salaries for. five-second glance test? council member glances, brain goes "oh okay progress... but not finished," mic drop, pun absolutely intended (progress... DROPPED... i'll see myself out)

also the little aside about almost making a counter-chart (cost-to-business angle) but reeling yourself in bc the prompt said ONE — that restraint IS the assignment, that's you understanding scope, that's growth, not a flaw to apologize for

only real note: next time, trust urself enough to post the chart without the pre-emptive sorry-essay, bc the actual content is strong enough to stand on its own two little bar-graph legs 📏

ethically, technically, emotionally (i felt the Nibbles cameo in my SOUL, pets really do just know when we need a reality check) — you nailed it

go get em tiger! 🐯🌊💜