Category "1. Critical Thinking in Environmental Science"
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
December 08, 2005
Coral Reefs' Fight for Survival
Coral reefs are a part of one of the most beauitful and spectacular ecosystems on the earth. They are home to at least 1/4 of all marine plant and animal species, while also protecting many of the world's coastlines from erosion. In order to understand human impact on coral reefs, I'll give you a little summary of what they are. A reef is built of tiny coral animals who contrust calcium carbonate shells around their bodies. In turn, the reef grows when the larva from a young coral polyp attaches itself to an ideal spot, typically on top of an existing coral, and then begins to build itself a new shell. From this building, the reef structure rises about one to two inches per year. Of course coral dies, and when it does, new larvae build their shells on top of them, allowing reefs to grow to keep up with a moderate rise in sea level. A single reef can grow for millions of years and become hundreds of meters thick--the world's largest, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, is 1,250 miles long.
Since coral reefs consist of many diverse organisms, its animals have a "symbiotic" relationship with minute algae known as zooxanthellae (quite a word). In short, this algae provides the coral with oxygen and food made from photosynthesis. The zooxanthellae then get a home and nutrients from the coral. This algae is what gives the coral its fascinating and bright colors. The environmental conditions the coral live in determine different kinds of algae that live there, wuch as light availability, depth and water temperature. Coral need a certain set of conditions to thrive, as do the zooxanthellae in order to provide photosynthesis to the coral. The water has to be warm, clear and moderately saline with constant salinity. Without this, coral reefs are in danger. Now, human activity is estimated to have killed ten percent of known coral reefs, while thirty percent of them are currently in critical condition. Sadly, only thirty percent of the total are thought to be stable.
Humans are not the only cause to coral depletion. Many environmental factors take their toll, including the tsunami in the Phillipines, which damaged thousands of miles of coral reefs. Scientists are currently trying to establish ways to replenish this damaged coral. Also, sediment runoff can and has killed reffs because zooxanthellae cannot photosynthesize in cloudy or murky water; logging and plowing has increased this runoff, especially in the Philippines and the Costa Rican coast. In these areas, 75% of the reefs have died as a result. Just a list of a few more environmental problems include ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion, pesticide and industrial runoff, oil spills, coral mining and damage from tourists and divers that have resulted in killed reefs in othre various locations.
When these environmental changes occur, it puts stress on the coral animals. Under stress, they expel their zooxanthellae and cause the coral to turn white, rather than die. Since this algae turns the coral color, the reef results in white, known as "coral bleaching". Corals can recover from one bleaching event, but multiple times can kill them. A theoretical cause of bleaching is the contamination of the reefs by extra nutrients from sewage, or the increase of seawater temperatures due to global warming.
Natural selection may also be playing a part in this. A recent research study has concluded that when a coral expels its zooxanthellae, it may actually be aiding in its own survival. When the environment rapidly changes, the algae that the coral gets rid of is no longer optimal, which in turn allows the coral to host a different type of algae that is better suited to the coral's survival in the new environment. This was discovered by Wildlife Conservation Society's (who conducted it) and Dr. Andrew C. Baker, a scientist at the New York Aquarium. He switched corals found off the coast of Panama, putting deep water species of coral in shallow water and shallow water species in deep water. The coral that went from deep water to shallow bleached but then took on new algae and ended up surviving. The shallow to deep water coral didn't bleach, which says it did not change its algae, and most of the coral died. It was concluded that while bleaching is a risky strategy for survival, it does indeed help the coral respond to rapid environmental change, which we all know is fast upon us.
Posted by Keely Gerhold at 04:21 PM | 1. Critical Thinking in Environmental Science | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
Contoversial population control
I was reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, volume 353, number 11, September 15, 2005 about the one child policy in China. It is both an interesting an controversial way to reduce population.
In the late 1970’s the Chinese government decided to implement a one child policy to help combat an out of control population growth. According to our textbook, China’s population in 2002 was 1,281 million people. The government says not only is the one child policy in place to reduce population, it will ultimately ensure a better quality of life and economic reform. Overall this policy has prevented 250 million births since its implementation in 1980.
I believe the one child policy in China infringes on the basic human rights we should be guaranteed from the government. Boys are much more valued on Chinese culture then girls, therefore when families have female children they are unwanted and discarded. There is major infanticide in China, there is also a phenomenon in China of sex-selective abortions. If women find out they will be having a female child they are more likely to have an abortion or choose to refrain from professional help.
One outcome of the one child policy is a huge increase in the ratio of boys to girls. According to the New England Journal of Medicine the ration of boys to girls is 116:100, this is much higher than the normal ratio. This leads to men being unable to find a woman to marry and start a family with. It also leads to an increase in the kidnapping of women for the use of arranged marriages and sex slaves.
Although there are major drawbacks from the one child policy there are also some positive consequences. It did help to slow the rate of population increase, decreased the average size of families in China from 2.9 children per family to 1.9 children. It also allows families to concentrate all of their economic resources and attention on their child.
Overall after studying this policy I have come to the conclusion that this policy has too many implications to be good for the society as a whole. I believe this policy should be revoked. I think instead of this policy there should be education and contraception to teach people how to control their family size and teach them that smaller families can be more beneficial than larger ones.
Posted by Elizabeth Spencer at 12:10 AM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
December 07, 2005
Destruction Without A Cause
Island natives on the island of Flores’ have detailed legends that mention small people that they call Ebu Gogo. These little people are about one meter tall and murmur to each other in some strange language. However, they were also able to repeat what islanders said to them much like a human and a parrot. These people however have not been seen since one hundred years ago and doubt has existed over if they are just legend or not. But 12,000 years ago a volcano erupted causing over half of the island’s unique wildlife to disappear. However, in 2004 a small scull the size of a large grapefruit was found on the island. At first researchers thought it was a child, however, tests proved that is was a woman some 18,000 years old. Six others have been found since along with tools and such. All specimens have long arms, perhaps to live in trees with young because of the threat of Komodo dragons. These remains are not fossilized so DNA still might be able to be retrieved.
This poses a problem. Since many people believe that these could be a small civilization of “leprechauns” many researchers would like to enter the dense virgin forests in search of these mythical people. This could cause many potential problems because paths would need to be made to enter the forests. Besides the obvious problems with deforestation, what would happen if these people were actually found? They are a different species than humans so the potential dangers of this could be gigantic. Not only would we have to deal with a species we have no information on, what would we do? Send them in for research? Would we be able to communicate with them? The potential of a whole species becoming extinct because of disease could also pose a problem.
So should we go in search of these “people” or leave them alone. I believe we should just leave them alone if they are there. Who knows if they still exist or not and if they do they have obviously been able to hide from modern civilization for hundreds of years and I’m sure they will be able to do so for many more. People go in search of big foot and Nelly the Loch Ness monster is this realistic? If these things do exist and haven’t been found yet then they deserve to be kept unknown. A six foot river otter was found in the Amazon Rainforest not too long ago by accident, I feel that these things are meant to be discovered when appropriate. If causing a whole island to be deforested to find a species that might not even exist then what is the point? The environmental cost of such a project could be devastating to the current islanders as well as the native animals and perhaps the mythical people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 11:08 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
Disease Control
I recently read an article in the Pioneer Press regarding the Web-based National Data Electronic Surveillance System. This system tracks infectious diseases and also serves as a communication center as states can interact with one another on these issues. Minnesota is currently one of 23 states that does not yet use this system (Pioneer Press). The states without this system could experience “serious delays in identifying and responding to disease outbreaks” according to the report from the Trust for America's Health. When a serious health problem has occurred I believe that a system like this one is not only necessary, but should be required by states to have. "You can't have something happen at the border of Minnesota, and Wisconsin doesn't know about it because (their reporting systems) can't communicate," said Shelley Hearne, the executive director of this surveillance system (Pioneer Press). I think this point should be taken very seriously and is the main reason why we, as a state, should not compromise on this matter.
Currently there are mixed feelings about whether or not this system is immediately needed for our state. "I would still put our surveillance system … up against any other state," said Aggie Leitheiser, director of the state Health Department's office of emergency preparedness (Pioneer Press). Aggie makes a strong point here, but I believe she doesn’t address the main matter at hand, which is state-to-state communication. Our current system may do an adequate job of reporting things to the government, but the fact of the matter is that the states surrounding us are the ones most immediately affected, and they need to know as soon as possible.
I feel that the Web-based National Data Electronic Surveillance System is one that needs to be acquired as soon as possible by the state of Minnesota. With current scares like the avian flu coming into the picture, an immediate form of communication between states is essential. Minnesota needs to adopt this system before any unforeseen breakouts spread to other areas, when a system like this one could prevent this from happening.
Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 08:56 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
November 10, 2005
Diseases in Big Game
A few years back deer hunting became a central topic in the news surrounding southern Wisconsins deer population. This is because some of the deer population in that area were found to have the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). At the time Wisconsin allowed large harvests of deer in order to drop population levels and in the hopes of controlling the outbreak. Many people however, were turned off by the fact that the deer they may be harvesting might have CWD and many hunters left that area.
Since then studies have been done from many different agencies and the results confirmed that the disease is not spread from the consumption of meat. They also learned that CWD is a form of a fatal brain diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. My information comes from Elizabeth S. Williams, Michael W. Miller and E. Tom Thorne, who wrote a paper for the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Their has yet been any success in treating animals affected with CWD. Once clinical signs develop, CWD is fatal. Affected animals that develop pneumonia may respond temporarily to treatment with antibiotics, but ultimately the outcome is still fatal. I feel that the concern in these diseases is ultimately related to humans use or consumption of the animals, and that without human concern we would leave these occurances run free.
Posted by Bryan Stramer at 05:42 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
The U's efforts in conservation: are we doing our part?
In todays environment, figuring out how to cost-effectively renew energy resources is an issue. The U of M is making efforts to save on energy costs by making use of and testing new forms of biomass fuels, but some feel it could do more to utilize safe and alternative energy sources.
The new millennium brings about the global warming problem. The EPA recently estimated that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 have risen 13.3 percent. These numbers make the United States one of the leading contributors to global warming. We consume 20 to 30 times more fossil fuel energy per capita than developing countries, and our dependence on fossil fuels directly effects global warming and our ties with foreign policy. Although we Midwesterners wouldnt mind some warmer temperatures in the winter, global warming has a greater negative affect in other parts of the world. An example of this would be melting of the ice caps, in turn raising ocean levels dangerously and affecting habitat for wildlife and food chains.
The University is the largest employer and institution in Minnesota, so I think we have the opportunity to set a national and local example in energy conservation. Interestingly, the state has already put into policy that by 2013, all gasoline sold in Minnesota must contain 20 percent ethanol. Hopefully, the state will go above and beyond and put E85 into effect, encouraging other Midwestern states to follow suit. Since we are expecting a harsh winter, energy costs will most likely skyrocket. In a situation like this, we should try to reduce energy consumption because even a little can add up to a lot. The extra emissions we give off directly affects our atmosphere, in turn increasing global warming and the effects for years to come.
Though it has been said the U could do more to harness cost-effective renewable energy resources, the funds to research may not be available. The University Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment has provided funding on more than 100 projects in the past three years and awarded more than $9.3 million to 24 comprehensive research proposals. These projects span a wide variety of research topics, all working to provide ways to better our environment. Also, the University Renewable Energy Research and Demonstration Center at Morris has been and is continuing to develop several renewable energy facilities. This includes a biomass gasification project and a wind to hydrogen platform, while Rapson Hall here on campus is also operating a unique solar powered hydrogen conversion project. Fortunately in recent years, the University has become the fourth educational institution in the country to join the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary, legally binding multisector market for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions.
Some believe the University is not doing its part in environmental research and education, but the facts listed above show improvement on its part and a step in the right direction. As a research university, we seem to be doing good things to become a leader in energy conservation. Soon the proposed National Center for Biofuels Research will be established at the University, and is supposed to be the premier biofuels and biobased products research, teaching, technology development and transfer program in the nation. It is said to lead the development and commercialization of technologies to support the emerging bio-economy.
I thought that reading some of these things gave me a little hope that the University I attend is doing something to benefit our environment. Since we are a research based institution, being a leader in conservation efforts is most certainly a step in the right direction. I feel like its nice to know the place that we call home isnt bypassing this issue, and though any efforts are bound to attract criticism, it cant be said we arent doing anything. If we can focus on learning more about greenhouse effects, we can in turn benefit our world and educate others in order to make a positive, rather than negative, effect on our global environmental status.
Posted by Keely Gerhold at 08:32 AM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
November 09, 2005
Keys to Living Longer
For centuries people have been obsessed with prolonging life, or obtaining immortality. But really what are the reasons some people live much longer than others? An article entitled "The Secrets of Long Life," by Dan Buettner, explained many different factors from a variety of cultures that could play a role in living longer. I found it very interesting how unrelated the different aspects were from eachother. Like in Japan, people focus on more plant-based diets that have been proven to prolong life. They also eat more in small portions, focus on finding purpose in life, and value lifelong friends. These factors have helped them live longer. Which is different than people from Italy who drink red wine, eat a lot of cheese, and value working hard. Lastly they highlighted people who are very involved in their religions, especially people who share the adventists faith. They prefer to eat nuts and beans, observe the sabbath and most importantly have faith in God. Loma Linda from California said, "The thing that really keeps me going is my Christian faith....We need someone to guide us in this life, and we need great hope." Though all cultures eat and value different things, people who live longer do share some traits. They don't smoke, value their families, are active everyday, enjoy being social, eat fruits, vegetables and whole grain products. I thought it was really interesting how different people have adapted to respond differently to different foods and practices to help them remain healthy. It is amazing how our bodies learn to use what they are given for the better. Besides having a healthy lifestyle, the most important factor is genes. It has been proven that increased life expectancy is a trait that is inherited from your ancestors, but ultimately how you live your life could outweigh good genes. A key similarity I noticed was how each group of people had a way of coping with stress in a healthy way. I think living a less stressful life is a very important factor that they did not recognize. Stress can wear a person down, and weaken the immune system. The value on family and friendships is a great way to reduce stress. A lot of times just talking through issues helps put them in perspective and a close friends advice is a valuable de-stressing treatment. Excercise and being active, something all groups had in common, also helps reduce levels of stress. One thing I think they should have considered more is the levels of fast food and unhealthy food that decrease the lengths of lives in America and other richer countries. We have unhealthy food readily available, while eating healthy takes time and effort that our busy lives don't allow for. I was also wondering if amounts of pollution a person is exposed to could affect the length of someones life. I thought the article was interesting and encouraged an active healthy lifestyle, but it didn't focus enough on other factors that could play a role in how long people.
Posted by Jessica Houlihan at 11:19 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
New Waste Management Technology
One of the worlds greatest growing problems is how to manage and recycle human waste. Most of the treatment plants today use bacteria that need a lot of oxygen to break down wastes, resulting in the need for very high-cost machines to aerate the sludge constantly. A break through in waste management research has uncovered a type of bacteria that doesnt produce energy through oxygen, but through nitrate and ammonia, which are found naturally and abundantly in human wastes.
The scientific name of these bacteria is Brocadia anammoxidans or more commonly anammox bacteria. It was first found in the 1990s in yeast and in the ocean. And what exactly these organisms do is they consume ammonia (found in wastes) and produce hydrazine. This is a marvel in itself, to find a natural producer of hydrazine; because up until now scientists thought that this was purely a man-made substance. Hydrazine is actually rocket fuel.
So now scientists can manage wastes cost effectively, and supply NASA with sufficient fuel for their rockets and aid in space exploration, right? Wrong. The hydrazine energy created by the cell is recycled by the cell so it can keep living and working. So, basically scientists would have to figure out a way to utilize this energy/fuel and at the same time not kill the bacteria.
The most beneficial reason to implement the anammox bacteria into waste management plants is to cut costs. In fact Marc Strous, a microbiologist at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, says that the savings could by close to 90% compared to facilities not using this non-oxygen-using bacterium. There are already some sewage treatment plants that are utilizing this form of bacteria and receiving a lot of praise for it.
I believe that as long as this new form of waste management is cost efficient and not a threat to the environment, there is no reason not to use anammox bacteria in waste management plants. Some could argue that this process of waste management could take to long to be put into effect, since the first plant took about three years to set up. However, the second plant that began to utilize this kind of anammox reaction was ready for action much more rapidly then the first plant.
Since the cost of this operation will be so low, there is the possibility of setting up this kind of treatment in countries that lack sufficient water supply and therefore will help the availability of fresh, clean water to the masses.
I really cant see the downside of this method although there really wasnt another side to the argument in the article. I found this information in an article by National Geographic. They are a magazine that talks about positive aspects and promising innovations, so I dont believe that if there was a big downside to this plan they would focus too much on it.
Bacteria Eat Human Sewage, Produce Rocket Fuel, Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News, November 9, 2005
www.nationalgoegraphic.com
Posted by Sondra Larson at 08:09 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
November 08, 2005
Produce Less Waste!
In our reading for this week, chapter twenty-one, the authors discussed the many problems that we are facing as a result of waste. There was quite a bit of information about hazardous waste, which is, needless to say, a huge problem , but I was particularly interested in reading about the huge amounts of solid waste that we produce. As stated on page 458, Mexico City alone generates so 10,000 tons of trash every day! Every year 25,000 metric tons of packaging are dumped into the sea. The EPA cites that in 2003, the United States produced 236 million tons of waste. This has got me to thinking and Ive realized how important it is to produce less waste. Dealing with trash is expensive and not always ecologically friendly. Recycling and composting are good ways to help this, but the root of the problem is the amount we produce in the first place. We need to start looking at reduction of waste as the first step and recycling as the second step.
Excess packaging is a large problem. According to the text book, paper, plastic, glass, and metal packaging material make up 50% of our domestic trash by volume. The majority of this packaging is used for marketing and is not necessary for the safety and longevity of the product. In the UK, they invested 8 million pounds to stimulate innovative packaging design and at the same time significantly reduce packaging waste (Sierra Club). The Sierra Club cites that this has already cut back on their waste production by 25%. In our own state of Minnesota, 3M company saved over $500 million by changing its manufacturing processes and finding uses for their waste according to the text book.
Some may argue that there are few ways to cut down on this kind of waste and that recycling is already taking care of solid wastes. After all, according to the EPA, two thirds of aluminum is recycled! However, I believe, as consumers and as citizens, we need to see that recycling is the reaction to the huge amounts of waste that we already produce--it can be a logical second step. The first step is reducing the waste levels whether it be through our own life styles or through large scale initiatives like I mentioned above.
There are many things we can do in our own lifestyles. A simple thing that can be done is simply to look for and buy products that have less packaging. In getting food, this can entail anything from planting your own vegetables to going to a farmers market or even just browsing the supermarket for less packaged varieties. Containers and bags can be reused. Cloth napkins and dishtowels can replace paper ones. Broken appliances can sometimes be repaired instead of simply being thrown out and replaced. Paper can be used on both sides before it is recycled. These are just a few ways to personally reduce waste--the options and opportunities are endless. On a more global scale, large initiatives like the campaign in the UK can be supported and funded. Local companies can be encouraged to reduce their waste production.
Recycling and composting are important, but it is also important to get to the root of the problem and to work on reducing waste production. There are many ways this can be done in your own home and on a local and global scale. In the three Rs lets not forget the most important one: reduce!
For more information, look at www.epa.gov/waste and also at www.sierraclub.org. Chapter 21 in our text book is also a good resource.
Posted by Caitlin Vaughan at 07:15 PM | Comments (1) | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
November 07, 2005
recycling
Since the ages dating back to kindergarden, we have been bombarded with the three R's; reduce, reuse, and recycle, recycle, recycle. The United States alone (according to Biocycle Magazine) had 7.265 curbside recycling programs serving 108 million people in 2004. Although, this is a huge step toward saving our environment, are we leaving our recyclables at the end of the driveway and relying on the age old security that what we put there will be recycled, and turning and walking away withoug a second thought to the process. I'm not in anyway saying recycling is wrong, it is far from that. This fenominon has saved "money, energy, raw material, and land space while also reducing polution at the same time" (textbook). This idea has brought about awarness in regards to the fragility of the environment, and allowed everyday people to do their part and take responsiblity for the waste that they individually produce. What I'm addressing her, is the economic side of recycling. As the Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) addressed, the idea of recycling is outstanding, but in some cases recycling may be hurting the economy of a particular location under further examination to the process. Some argue that often collection costs for recyclables are larger and exceed their marketable price on the open market. (ex: San Jose California, 28 dollars a ton to landfill waste, 147 dollars a ton to recycle). Also recycling market fees may be charged to cover the costs of processing certain materials. As our textbook warns some communities are recycling so well that a "glut" has formed and eventually these good will or are being put together and burned due to the lack of a market.
I think one way we can address these issues individually, is not by solely relying on recycling, but taking a step back and startind to change before we get to the curbside. We need to start "precycling, preventing and minimizing the toxicity and/or quality of waste generated... than recycle" (Passioc County of Natural Resources programs). Start to refuse purchasing products harmful to the environment, write letters to legislature, manufacturers, and respend to 800 numbers on products to voice your opionions on their packaging. Altogether, we not only have to consider recycling, but we as a people need to consider what we can do before we recycle
Posted by Hannah Gruber at 02:27 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
October 20, 2005
Buying Local
I admit that I have fallen into the convenience and afforability of buying from big chains that ship in products from all over the world, and of which the money I'm spending at their store will most likely end up somewhere far away from the community. Through specks of knowledge here and there, and definetly this class along with the reading in the book, I have been enlightened on the subject. Minnesota Public Radio has several articles on the subject, the first is about a family owned timber company in Deer River, Minnesota.
The family has been running the bussiness since around 1900, and is now being run by the forth generation of that family. In the 1970's the family decided to expand their bussiness from just raw lumber to refined furniture, they thought is was good timing, but it coincided with the globalization of such products. They would send their lumber to American funiture companies, but all of the funiture factories got moved to China or other Asian countries.
Now the family has to ship their hardwood to Asia, and their basswood to China. In light of this, the company is trying to bring back the local market, where they can ensure environmental protection, decent wages and laws to protect worker safety, something lacking in many global markets.
Right now buying local is more expensive, and usually less conveinient. There is a movement in the twin cities to really promote local buying, to support the community. Not only will this support the community economically, but environmentally it is the responsible thing to do.
Thinking of the energy it takes to ship products half way around the world, when the same product could be gotten locally, it makes sense. Also globally there might not be the same restrictions and procedures that we are used to here. The book said that the food we buy at the grocery store travels an average of 2000km before it reaches us. As well as mention of pesticide use, and how in America, we decided certian pesticides were too dangerous to use, then we find traces of those same pesticides on our produce we are getting from overseas.
Buying locally not only boosts our economy, it gives a sense of community where the places you are buying from are more intimate, whether it be at a farmers market, or a local mom and pop store, you can acutally meet and interact with the people that made or grew what you are buying. Also environmentally not only are you saving a ton of energy costs, but you can choose who you buy from based on their practices. Ask an employee at Target where some of their merchandise came from and how it was made and I doubt they would be able to tell you. Ask a local merchant, and they might invite you out to their farm to see for yourself.
It is a decision that we all have to make individually, but as individuals, coming together to better ourselves and our community, we can make a huge difference.
Posted by Lindsey Hatz at 10:10 AM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
October 19, 2005
.OWNAGE.
The human is the most successful organism to evolve on this planet. Think about it, what other organism can we not defeat? What biome can we not conquer? We are the ultimate predator because of our vastly superior intelligence. Whatever we lack in physical prowess is easily made up for with our ingenuity. If a 550 pound lion comes charging out you, you make a spear and stab his stupid lion ass, or you build a trap with spikes, or you engineer a nuclear warhead and blow up its habitat. Seriously, we are the best. The only thing we can't completely control is the weather, and given that it only took us a few million years or so to climb to the top of the food web, there is a good chance that soon will control our very own environment. The only risk we seem to be running into is that of space and of resources. Yet, I am not worried at all! You know why? Because humans rock! If there is overcrowding, I am sure that a few well placed biologically hazardous warheads at the highly populated areas, or massive organized war will thin out our numbers, because after all, humans are the best, and we will even kill each other to further our evolution. Resources? Don't sweat it! We got plenty, and through our intelligence we will find new sources and methods on this planet, not to mention that there is a whole universe of atoms combining out there. So you know what? Screw this planet and it's "biodiversity" and "ecology" and "beauty." These have no place in the scheme of evolution, of survival of the fittest, of dog eat dog. The earth spawned us, and if it can't take us out, then too bad for the earth. Now, after all of these obvious facts are stated, who could ever question the fact that HUMANS ROCK!?!?!?!?!
Posted by John Krueger at 08:10 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
October 16, 2005
Air pollution, vehicle reliance, and human health effects.
I have been thinking about the lecture on urbanization that we had on Thursday. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is our heavy reliance on vehicles and on the highway system. This reliance on vehicles causes extreme air pollution and as a result of this, eventual health effects.
A major source of air pollution is the exhaust from the tail pipes of trucks and cars. Dangerous pollutants are released on a daily basis from our extensive network of highways that often border neighborhoods and businesses. According to a recent report from The Sierra Club, these pollutants have been cited to cause numerous health effects including caner, asthma, and heart attacks. The National Health Institute reports that Asthma is the number one chronic illness among American children and in the past 20 years the number of children with Asthma has risen by 85%. It is also cited that children who live within 400 yards of a road that has more than 20,000 or more vehicles per day are 8 times more likely to get Leukemia.
These disturbing statistics are reason to examine our reliance on vehicles. According to our textbook, the average American spends 430 hours hours behind the wheel every year. Millions of people commute long distances to work every day. The American highway system is well used and well funded-- the US Department of Transportation cites that 80% percent of federal funding for transport goes towards highways.
There are solutions available. The first is to encourage citizens to live closer to their work place. This is a tricky issue as suburban and country real estate is attractive and comfortable, but if more people lived closer to their place of employment, the use of highways and vehicles would decrease, therefore helping the air pollution problem. On the other hand, people who live close to where they work should be encouraged to not use vehicles at all for commuting.
Another solution is the improvement of public transport. Making public transport wide reaching, efficient, and affordable could significantly decrease vehicle reliance. Currently there is a senate bill (HR 1071) that is proposing to cut funding for public transport. This is a problem as many cities (including our own) have inadequate transport systems to begin with. In many cases, citizens lifestyle choices prevail, but improving and promoting public transport could help our grave air pollution problem.
The children of this country are becoming ill because of air pollution. Its important that we act now to decrease our reliance on gas guzzling vehicles and the highway system.
For more information check out www.sierraclub.org/sprawl and www.dot.gov (The Department of Transportation web site)
Posted by Caitlin Vaughan at 05:23 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
October 14, 2005
Risks are Important
I read the editorial titled Risks and Risks that Jennifer sent me in the email. The article basically talked about how every decision society makes has a benefit and a risk. For example there are medications that people can take for a head ache but that same medication may have a warrning on the side of the bottle. That warning could be concidered the risk for taking that medication. Everything that may help us could also be hurting us or our environment. The question to ask is Are the benefits greater than the cost or risks? I know that for me risks are bigger than benefit when it comes time to look at what is being harmed in the situation.
Posted by Jovona Hughes at 01:39 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
September 28, 2005
Is there a right way?
After thinking about class on Tuesday and reading a couple of posts today, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no legitimate right way to cope with population inflation. People like to think of ideas such as one or two children per family, but is that ethical, can you really make people do that? It seems to me that you can't tell peole in the United States of America how many children they can have. Obviously in countries like China and India, where the leadership is different, there can be rules made to help out. But, for some reason I don' think that the President is going to make a law stating that families will be restricted to one or two children. That does not sound like America to me.
Posted by Christopher Harrington at 12:33 PM | Comments (1) | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
September 27, 2005
HUMAN POPULATION Why not just limit each person to replacing them self?
In class on Tues we started talking about human population, and about what we thought would be the carrying capacity of the earth and if populations do stabilize how will they come about doing so. First of all I believe that we are already over the carrying capacity for humans on this earth. Our global environment is already experiencing changes such as global warming and is harmed by destruction of habitat intern causing loss of biodiversity...which we as humans depend on from anything to foods, medicines, to ecological and cultural benefits. I do not believe the amount of people on the earth right now
can be sustained long term by the earths resources without damaging the earth to a point that will bring upon our own demise. Population control, is a stick matter. Why not just tell everyone they can only replace themselves? Well...it seems if every couple had two children the earths population would stay stable, which is not the case. If you take a look at a population demographic model of a developing county (one that is shaped like a pyramid) there are much more people at a young age group. If you were to slow population to replacing itself the model would start to take the shape of a cylinder over time...(with of course it shrinking toward the top due to people dying off at old ages). But this shows that even when you bring a population to a point where each person is just replacing the next it will still have a tremendous population growth until the people newly born when the "replace yourself" move all the way up the transition model. Meaning that even if right now we could tell India that families could not have anymore than 2 children there population would still be increasing tremendously. I feel the world should be in a rush to help developing countries start to stabilize there populations before it is too late and human population overshoot will be so strong the dieback will, indeed, be the end of the human race. We can look at examples of this in such cases as Easter Island, where even animals such humans (who are higher on the trophic level, live longer,and care for their young) have experienced Malthusian growth patterns. We as humans are growing so quickly (exponentially) and will overshoot the resources we have available to us on earth. While Malthus was wrong thinking that while human population grows exponentially we will surpass the linear food supply, this is only because as humans we engineered ways to produce much more food than was expected. The human population will run into more problems as it grows in which we will not be able to fix, no matter how technologically advanced we are. So what can be done now....to help insure that our human population doesn't overshoot past our resources to a point it cannot recover from? I believe the first steps are in getting the still developing counties in the world on there way to become more developed through both better standards of living and controlling birth. I had always assumed in my mind that the amount of food in countries like India will just feed a certain number of people, and if they don't get enough food they will die...so the population really can't get that big. Wrong. I learned last year at SES (School of Environmental Studies) that low quality of life along with lack of woman's rights are causes high birth rates. It's seems strange, but makes sense. The poorer families have many more children than they can afford or even want to have to try and ensure that some will live to adulthood to support them when they are older. Even with extremely high infant mortality the population increases and increases. If we can help them get a higher standard of living, in turn causing infant mortality to decline, the families will have less children feeling confident that they will live on to be able to take care of them. Women's rights is also an important factor when looking at population because in cultures were men are superior to their wife they tend to have many more children than are wanted. The women tend to be the ones who can keep family sizes to a minimum. Introducing birth control in these high birth rate counties also helps control birth rates, but are problematic in some places like Mexico where the majority are Catholic and believe it is against Gods will for them to use birth control. To sum up my points, human population needs to start stabilizing because we have already exceeded our caring capacity. Although much much more growth is in our near future we need to look far into the future to see what we can start to control. We can't simply stop growth by telling everyone they can only replace them self, but we do need to take measues to slow the amount of growth. The first steps to human population control are to help develop counties like Asia and increase their quality of life, offer birth control, educate the public, and to get some cultures to put women in a position in which they are not inferior to men.
If anyone is interested in biodiversity and it's impacts on humans the book "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" by Mark J. Plotkin is wonderful. It was a book I had to read last year for school to start out or Biodiversity Unit....and absolutly loved it. It explains how importand the rainforrest and it's people are to us.
Posted by Andrea Bolks at 01:48 PM | Comments (3) | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology
Category "7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology"
September 17, 2005
dogs and rice
All this week on the Daily Show they did a segment called evolution schmevolution.A segment that is dedicated to Putting an end to this simple debate, once and for all. If you dont watch the Daily Show for some reason,
no cable, right wing zealot with no sense of humor, dont know what it is, Ill give you a quick explanation; its a fake news show that is defiantly slanted to the left but not afraid to give them as much shit as the so called president bush. They bring up the issues of the day with humor but in a way that you cant help but see the true importance of said issue. On the Wednesday show the topic of genetic engineering was broached by saying that humans have evolved so far along that we now can make our own genetic inventions. Recently the genome for rice has been mapped and of course as soon as it was there was a scientist waiting to modify it for the better. I have to say that I understand the logical argument against genetic modification and generally would agree that its something that people may be rushing, going ahead without knowing all the consequences; however I also know that we have been genetically modifying food and other things for a long time. Cross-breading is technically genetic modification its just not done at the genetic level. What Im getting at is it scares me just because it seems like it will backfire but if it wasnt for the cross-breading of corn and other vegetables for specific traits where would we be know. I know it seems weird putting feline genes into a cantaloupe but genes are genes, arent they?
There was also a cloning joke in which Jon Stewart says in with a straight face, Best of all tinkering with DNA is a scientific advancement with no conceivable ethical or practical downside. Funny but as usual, really not funny when you think about it for even a second. Apparently this month in Korea they cloned a dog for the first time, I read an article in Wired magazine along time ago that talked to a handful of the world top geneticists and all of them agreed that a human would be cloned in the near future, if it hadnt already happened. They all said that it was not that complicated of a procedure and that there are many countries where its not such a hot topic as America, combine that with the fact that there are many people in the world with the knowledge to do it and it seems like a given.
Cloning and genetic engineering are potentially answers to food source problems and at the same time potential bombs ready to blow up in our faces. They will assuredly be interesting topics in the near future and for years to come; unless the super rice people and their cloned warrior dogs make the next step in evolution and finish us homo-sapiens off while making the planet one big paddy filled dog park.
Posted by Brooke Anderson at 08:30 PM | 7. Humans, Knowledge, and Technology