April 19, 2007

Women and land

I would have to say that their is a connect with the way men treat women and land but also some women might like the that way of treatment. Also it is an over generalization of the relationship between men and women. It kind of seems like girls are more into the bad boy thing might treat you like crap thing instead of nice of a nice boy. So maybe some women bring it on themself because of what they look for in a guy when then first meet them. I would have to say that some men are only physical, but at the same time i know that there are some girls who are just the same way. I don't know if it was due to male influence or if as a society we are all become more relaxed about ourselves and actions are having less meaning. Maybe it's just that we are used to seeing certain things happen and so we believe that they are "natural" or "normal".

April 12, 2007

my abstract place

The trees and ground have a pure coat of snow already laid out. The snow is white, clean, and pure. A tree stands alone with a distint layer of life holding the fluffy water. A gentle breaze makes the snow dance. The random choas forms even layers. Any human or animal discoloration or compacting would destroy the perfection. We all know that inevatavle nothing perfect can last.

March 28, 2007

willingness to preserve nature

Each day i walk to almost all of my classes. Their is very few times in which i actually have a car. I'll usually take a bus on tuesdays and thursdays to my math class since it's on the west bank about 1 mile drive where i get dropped off at the front door and i take the bus home ago. I'm using public transit to go to and from school or else i use my legs so i feel like i'm contributing very little to air pollution that way. On the other hand i don't feel like i recycle enough of my stuff. I'm not sure why i don't. I guess part of it is i don't know what to do to recyle everything. I know that my pop can are aluminui but i'm not sure where i should take them to be recyled on campus. I also have a lot of plastice bottle that recyle because i dno't know where the plastice recycling bin is. I'm not willing to drive slower to reduce pollution becuase i feel like i'm just sitting and wasting time instead of doing something productive. I try and reuse my plastic bottle over again large water jugs so i don't have to go to the drinking fountain everything i'm thirsty and in the process i'm wasting less bottles. I feel like the advertising pillars that are full of paper adds where everyone trys to completely surround them should only have 1/3 of the paper added to them. I feel like there is a large amount of paper wasted on those things when the message could be put across with just a few sheets spaced out instead of over lapping eachother and being redundent by the 80 other sheets of the same thing. I have been kind of waste full of my notebooks. I've got about 7 of them in total but i'm getting better use out of them more and more. My problem last semester was i was unorganize on how i put notes into my notebook now i'm using 1 section for lecture notes, 1 section for my own notes from the book, last section for practice problems and i'm finding it's a lot more effecient when i'm trying to find stuff and review for the test. A lot of the changes i'm willing to make are the ones that will both benifit nature and save time for myself. It's sad to say that we are only willing to make changes when it benifits ourselfs.

March 21, 2007

respect nature?

I believe that we need to be more respectful of nature. It is clear that we do not at this point in time have a full understanding of nature. Althought each time we mess with it we are gaining some insite as to how nature might react to such changes. Our pass failures are giving us better understandings to us and our future kids. We should now know that a wide spread us of a chemical to remove a pests from a big area is dangrous to the ecosystem. I believe boyle should us best that the effects to the eco system are usually not full understood until each chain reaction is nearly completed. Who would have guessed that the use of pesticides to kill flys/mosquitoes would have cause a near plague appademic. Also the easiest solution (using DDT) might not be actually easy. It did set of a chain reaction of events in the story that each costed time, and money in order to treat. The treatment was actually to stop using the DDt because it only made things worst unless we are going to be constantly important cats from countries. Even after the cats die their bodies will still be full of the chemicles and i'm not possitive but could containate water, as well as kill anything feed off their dead carcus. Then the savengers will become sick and the cycle will continue until the DDt reaches safe leaves for large enough animals. I found it quite interesting that in the article they importated cats with one ear, no ears, broken tails, and some without half a tail instead of big musclular killing machine cats. I think it's suppose to show that we are cutting corners trying to save money to solve real problems but in reality we are wasting money for stuff the works but will leave other problems. Since we don't know what we are doing we should just try and leave no foot print on the world that way there is less chance of a negative change happening.

March 7, 2007

global warming?

I believe that the world is warming. From our readings it sounded like both of them believe at this point the world is warming or at least no cooling off. Global warming really isn't much of a debate in my opinion. I have researched studies which shows the world has warmed up about .5 a degree in the last century. What is really being debated is how drastic is this change going to be. lindzen suggests that with the increase in tempature today will cause an increase in the cloud cover around the earth in the future. The evaporated water (clouds) reflect much of the suns rays reducing the amount of heat the earth absorbes. He brings up a good point that without any of the green house gases the earth would be very cold about -17 degrees celcius i believe he said. Maybe the change will actually be positive and help plants and animal in general survive. If the global warming continues plants and animals might not be able to adapt to the their changing environments. Maybe after ths cycle of extra heat we will find ourself in a cooling period and nature will correct itself. Mr. Lindzens arguments are interesting and compelling. His job title shows that he should know what he is talking about and gives lots of examples. With the fact that their are a lot of negitive and positive feedback working simaltinously it's hard to predict weither green house gases like carbon dioxide are causing global warming. Also it would be interesting to not that at some point the addition of green house gases might cause a spiral of tempurature constantly rising, or the addition of green house gases like carbon dioxide will have absolutely no effect. Those are 2 extreme cases which I don't believe we will reach either one. I also believe that political pressure has been put on the scientists to find the results the people want to hear, "the world is going to end". Every chance you get you hear that it's going to be the end of the world. I already lived through the new years of 2000 when all the computers stopped, no body had electricity, no clean water or food to eat for weeks on end. I feel like humans in general are to often going around trying to fix problems and when their aren't any we think up our own to try and fix. That way at the end of the day we can all go home and snuggle up in our nice, comfy beds and feel good about ourselves.

February 28, 2007

grizzle man

I personally thought that the grizzle man was hallirious. This allows his message to be better taken serious that he is indeed someone who could fit into society and a good friend, but yet he chooses to go into with wilderness and live among bears and the rest of nature. I thought it was very unfortunate what happened to him. I think He did take teh bears seriously and was dealing with them very well, but nature does turn ruthless when it's at it's extremes. All animals have to feed to leave and unfortunately he go in the way of a bear who had not eat in a long time and was forced to eat something it might have saw as bad food, or a dangerous kill as a possed to salmon, rabbits or whatever else it might eat, which would be non leathal animals. I think the movie sends a slightly different message than what he wants it to send. That is that nature will do what ever it has to do in order for it to survive. As things become harder on nature nature will become harder and it's self and on humans. I think it's kind of funny how we as humans don't think any animal should have the right to kill us humans but yet we are able to freely kill any animal unless it is considered morally wrong. Morally wrong comes from two different source; religion, and society. Religion is self explainitory like a cow might be sacred or else it's bad to eat meat on good fridays. Society cosiderers it wrong when it's on the endangered list or depending on the area if it's a state/national animal symble like the bald eagle. I'm not so sure it's agood idea to kill violent animals is it will breed more animals that don't fight for their survival.

February 21, 2007

English paper idea

I feel like Parris and Craton have the wrong concept of what being an environmentalist is. Environmentalism is not a religion and it is not similar at as a religion works. They suggest that
that environmentalism is a like a religion because the individuals base their efforts on theories instead of evidence.
My definition of an Environmentalist is someone who is concerned for nature and that individual is willing to try and do something to improve the environment. While they seem to suggest all environmentalists are wrongly lead to the wrong conclusions about what is best for nature and humans. Another point is that not everything that will be best for nature will be best for humans and sometimes it’s better to put the nature above some human lives as it may actually save more lives in the long run.
I see nature as a member of our family. Each person is going to have a different view of who this member is. If you’re an environmentalist you picture this relative as your mother, father, brother or sister; nature is someone very close to you. On the other hand, if you a non environmentalist nature might be that cousin, uncle, aunt, or 2nd cousin who just doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the family. As I would expect the people who feel closest to nature would want to help their immediate family members with any problems that occur. Would you not help your own mother in any way possible if she was struggling for her life? Or would you just sit in the corner and not make any motion? While a non-environmentalist who doesn’t have that closeness would be less likely to either realize the danger, or else does care about their family member’s wiliness.
I also believe that enviromentalists should base their reasons on evidence, which they do. But the probable is that the other extreme is going to argue that their isn’t “concrete? evidence which shows their point. This causes a lot of problem for example if you have a plant that you water every day and take perfect care of it would look like a 10 out of 10 generally. But if a different person occasionally waters their plant it will look decent compared the first plant, but it 2nd person it would like how he believes it should. If a 3rd person rarely waters his plant it would look very droppy, generally a lighter color than it should be, and would be obvious to the other 2 people that I was in need of attention. Except the 3rd person believes that’s what it looks like and potentially it could die any die, but until that day he wouldn’t know there was anything wrong with it because it was still alive so it must be fine. What I’m saying is that the enviroment is complex and unless you have done some research to at least have an idea what it should look like both sides are probable wrong on environmental issues. But I think that an environmental enthusiast would have a better idea of what a normal health environment should be and would caring enough to try and help it.


February 14, 2007

A fist in the Eye of God

“A fist in the eye of god? was overall written very well. The only poorly written part was the intro because it start off very slow as it was talking about the women doing her dishes and watching the bird, and how it had evolved to do all of the things it can now do. Once she gets at her topic of the importance of teaching evolution, which allows the future adults to make educated decisions on important issues like gene altering and the importance of what reproduction does to move our society forward. I enjoyed looking through all of her examples of reason’s why not to alter genes. I also enjoy how she goes to show that religion and evolution aren’t at extremes. That things are changing slowly over time and it doesn’t matter how things began. I haven’t really thought about the whole necicarry need for genetic diversity. I would just like to know why it’s not possible to make a gene appear and then cross breed it with other plants with the gene. I’ve had some background in biology to know that it could either be a recessive (get covered up) dominate (cover up) or else combine for a mixture. Although it might not be that simple. I also understand that the companies that make these seeds to not reproduce otherwise after 1 year they wouldn’t be able to sell anyone seeds and would be out of jobs. Also another potential hazard is the plant escaping the crop areas when they are capable of reproduction. I suppose it is far better to have an area problem with a plant killing animals that eat or come into contact with the plant instead of a nation wide plant problem killing animals and endangering them. I think we should have restrictions on what we can do to genetically enhance. I think it should be weather something is harmful to anything then it can’t be genetically enhanced. But vitamins and minerals, water resistance, drought resistance and other similar characteristics would be fine. As far as I know, which isn’t very much none of those things would kill humans or animals, although maybe their ability to grow could cause other plants a lack of ability to grow or it might put them at a disadvantage in some areas and would cause the genes to be erased from the area in a matter of a few years to a decade. If the plants weren’t potentially dangerous to anything they should be then allowed to reproduce in the wild without nearly the fear of killing. The best thing possible is just to test things in a mini ecosystem that is controlled incase it does happen to be potentially dangerous. I think the biggest thing to fear is our own technology and this could potentially be a situation.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/heat_islands.htm an city enviromental problem i thought interesting

http://library.thinkquest.org/17109/environment.htm A quick link to some of the pro's and con's of gene altering

February 7, 2007

miss leading of the ecology of magic

David Abram spent some time in Asia, in rural villages which cause him to had lose sight of the truth of about the nature around us and the effects that nature has on us. For the villagers of the communities he visited it is easy to believe that schooling isn’t very good. The children probable learn basic math like adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, as well as how to read and write in their language. The intelligence of the villages would be of the very low and it is a lot easier for the villages just call natural since they can’t explain why a tree’s lives will actually move as the sun moves though the sky, or a sudden rush of wind before a wind other than it’s a spirt telling them a storm is coming, when it is due the differences in pressure. Our definition of supernatural is because it is something we can’t explain due to rarity. The villages believed he had magic powers because he had a some sleight of hand tricks even though we know it’s not magical but just a distraction to draw attention, and a flow to not notice any difference.
Every process in the human body can be explained. It is a machine that needs raw resources, and a cool down time, and every now and then a repair, but we also enjoy tune ups quite frequently. But we have to remember we are complex machines that can really do anything we would like to but the society of machines will not agree with us. When Abram came back to western civilization he realized how intelligence can explain the nature around him and he quickly lose the ability to feel nature since the nature around him wasn’t as mysterious as it use to be.
When Abram talks about the illness moving from person to person because the nature human relationship hasn’t been fixed it’s a load of crap. Colds will spread from person to person when they come into contact and it’s likely that it will spread to a near by individual.
It would make sense that by leaving food for the ants that the villages would be protected from the ants. They don’t really have a treaty where they don’t go into each villages. It’s just that the ants would be satisfied for food so they don’t need to send scavenger ants looking around the villages huts for food. Over time the ants will know to look there. Gold fish are suppose to have the memory span of 5 seconds but yet in experiments using colored holes some gold fish were able to recognize in a simply mouse maze the way to their food. Which shows that animals do know more than what we give credit for. And in this case would protect the villages food from being attacked by offering more food than the ants need to eat each day as well as by offering them food before a feast so the ants won’t be scavenging around the feast with there new found feast.
If you spend enough with people who have one opinion, like the members of the village, odds are you will pick up on their views easier than if you are given a choose between views. All of the villagers couldn’t explain the things that happened around them other than it’s the power of nature at work. When he was hanging around the shammans he picked up on their consciousness of nature. When I’m walking with my friends I notice a lot more of what people are doing or wearing as kind of “did you see that? type thing but while I’m walking alone I’m just focused on not slipping. While we are with different people, different attributes come out in each of us. While he was with the villages he noticed the villages appreciation to nature from their connectedness in society to nature and began to see in a different light, but all that did was allow him to notice the nature not interact any different then usual.


January 31, 2007

2

I think it’s pretty cool what Dillard did in her essay. I like the kill showing of the kill or be killed to nature through her examples of the things she sees, as well as the things she remembers seeing. I was surprised to find out that there actually is a bug called “giant water bug? but it kind of reminds me of a spider how they suck the juice out of their victims. It’s true that things in nature are happening all the time, mostly without anyone noticing it. Once my friends saw a three way among some squirrels which I thought was pretty funny to hear about. I enjoy her use of stream of thought to tell about past occurrences that deal with everything that is happening around her. Everything kind of reminds her of something else like it’s all connected. Dillard seems like a bright lady by putting some reasoning or facts after the frog incident about how most carnivorous eat their prey alive. She really likes to jump around from different ideas that she has; for example when she starts talking about how cruelty is a mystery, and three sentences later starts talking about the mocking bird that jumps off the roof and just pulls up right before he hits the ground. She really has an usual perception of the environment around her. When the clouds would block out the sun and she couldn’t see anything unless the sun was on it. Like it would appear out of no where. I’m not sure if she was trying to get the reader think of something more than just magician symbolism or if it was to try and get the reader to think of the importance of nature. I really don’t think she was going for the whole sun thing but, I know in Minnesota there aren’t nearly as many animals around once winter begins, all the animals abandon the area or else hibernate for the winter.

giant water bug link
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/kids/c-october.html

January 24, 2007

blog uno

There are many reason’s why Thoreau chooses the woods for his “experiment?. Thoreau states that he went to the wood to “live deliberately[,]? to suck out the “marrow of life?, and to be able reduce it to the it’s “lowest term? and then publish his findings to the world. I believe that he also went to the woods to be become removed from the common restraints of living in the village. In the woods, he has just his basic needs: food, shelter, warmth and possible one more need not yet known. While in the village, Thoreau has his responsibilities to the village, to his friends, and to his family. By leaving to the wood’s he has escaped his responsibilities tied with the village, but also took on the task of learning the meaning of life, then publishing it. I also believe that he left for the wood to peace to concentrate on deep, “classic? books and to fully understand them to allow himself to be able to analyze the life around himself to it’s fullest meaning. I think in the section Reading Thoreau is making a reference to the society of his time and even ours about how the works written in Greek and Latin during the middle ages and the people could speak but could not read it for it was in a different Greek and Latin. Last, I believe that he believes he was on the level of English professors, but there was no college in the village, therefore there was nobody for him to relate to.
I think the kind of world that Thoreau wanted to live in is one very limited technology, everyone sitting around a camp fire telling stories then analyzing the story. Thoreau said that people should wake up naturally, also he escaped from technology by going to the woods. During his time spent in the woods, he makes no reference to a technology. Thoreau said that he wants “noble villages? instead of noble men imply that he wants everyone to be literary. One problem he pointed out about being literary is that there is nobody to talk to about books. If Thoreau was alive right now, he would be even more disappointed than in his time.
I believe that Thoreau went into the woods to find out what life is, to live a simpler way, to catch up on reading, to get away from illiteracy, and to avoid technology.